Post by: judojudd on February 14, 2013, 11:10:52 AM
I've lived in Washington state my whole life (born on the westside, residing currently on the eastside). I began putting in for a blue mountain big bull hunt draw while in college (8 years ago) and am now thoroughly frustrated by what lies in the years ahead of me. I began bowhunting elk on the westside 4 years ago and have been forced to put in for points each year since because I'm not that interested in hunting spikes and cows for 20 years so I can hunt a big bull for one.
Am I alone in my total frustration? This system seems asinine to me. Is there a logic guiding WDFW in punishing hunters who put in for draws on one side of the state while wanting to hunt the other for the regular season?
When my anger subsides I can think of 3 likely explanations for this absurdity:
1) WDFW believes that this option forces some amount of hunter distribution. Perhaps they believe that allowing a hunter to put in for an eastside special draw and hunting the westside after they are not drawn would push hunters to do that. Thus, massively overpopulating the westside where there are already a lot of hunters. This seems most logical and least devious.
2) WDFW believes that elk herds cannot tolerate greater hunting pressure that could possibly be caused by what I am proposing (below).
3) WDFW is run by a bunch of hippy, hairy-armpitted, tree-hugging women who loathe hunters and want to make their lives as miserable as possible. (I apologize, that was fun but a little offsides)
Perhaps my rant is the result of misinformation and I'm just another angry ignorant guy in the chorus of angry ignorant guys. If you have some helpful info to share, I'd be glad to hear it.
SO.....
Here's what seems like a helpful and reasonable solution to this problem that really could be beneficial for hunters and lawmakers alike.
1) Elk hunters are allowed to put in for whatever unit they wish for their special draw. If not drawn for your unit, you then have the option of hunting eastside or westside like everyone who doesn't put in for special draws.
2) This is a concession that I hate but feel like would be necessary in order to sell it to lawmakers: institute a drawing fee. So if you want to put in for a special draw, you pay a $50 fee (50 is an arbitrary number but knowing the government, it would probably be more). I'm sure the WDFW would love to increase their revenue. Perhaps they would view this as a logical option. And I for one would rather pay the extra fee to be put in for my dream hunt AND get to hunt my regular season haunts.
I know that this option (essentially) punishes those who enjoy hunting the eastside even with the antler limitations but I'm hard pressed to actually dig up someone who actually fits that profile. If that is you and you hate what I'm suggesting here, fire away. I realize I'm not drafting legislation here so your opinion is more than welcome.
I hunt the eastside for deer with my rifle because I like the wide open spaces. I hunt the westside for elk because it gives me a chance to kill a branch-antlered bull. My ideal would be to hunt branched bulls on the eastside (ahem...the draws I can't put in for anymore).
Am I alone here in my frustration? Is this a stupid proposal? What's your take?
Post by: jackelope on February 14, 2013, 11:19:02 AM
I predict this thread goes for days.
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 11:19:37 AM
Distribution would be a fair way to describe why they do it. If you think the draw odds are bad now, could you imagine if all the westside folks applied as well. I am sure the folks living in Dayton and such places would have a nice take on it.
You really want to sacrifice and help draw odds, make it so you can either put in for OIL or deer and elk, NOT BOTH like Idaho does.
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 11:20:45 AM
Someone had to post the annual "I hate Washington special permit system" thread. That's a good start.
I predict this thread goes for days.
Its early too. Its usually after folks drop the dime for all the permit apps. :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on February 14, 2013, 11:23:03 AM
You really want to sacrifice and help draw odds, make it so you can either put in for OIL or deer and elk, NOT BOTH like Idaho does.
X infinity
Post by: washelkhunter on February 14, 2013, 11:25:32 AM
Post by: jackelope on February 14, 2013, 11:29:54 AM
I saw in Idaho someone is lobbying to institute a bonus point system there.Someone had to post the annual "I hate Washington special permit system" thread. That's a good start.
I predict this thread goes for days.
Its early too. Its usually after folks drop the dime for all the permit apps. :chuckle:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F13%2F02%2F15%2Feme9ysyn.jpg&hash=145323f5523e12abf91687e3ef207a505bc5e6af)
Here you go
Post by: judojudd on February 14, 2013, 11:30:17 AM
Post by: snowpack on February 14, 2013, 11:30:32 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2013, 11:31:14 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 11:32:28 AM
Post by: fair-chase on February 14, 2013, 11:33:22 AM
I saw in Idaho someone is lobbying to institute a bonus point system there.
:bash:
Why does someone always want to go and screw up a good thing. I don't understand it.
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 11:34:23 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2013, 11:34:39 AM
This is what I would prefer. No more general season for elk, period.
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2013, 11:35:25 AM
Bonus and preference point systems are the WORST thing that ever came to a draw system
I agree, but we're stuck with it now.
Post by: jackelope on February 14, 2013, 11:43:28 AM
Want to really increase your odds, change OIL back to fronting your app. $2500 a pop. They hold onto it until June and issue a refund, all but $50 fee. They get interest off of all of it. Be serious or need not apply. This letting everyone have a shot at 7 bucks a pop, you will be LUCKY if its OIL.I don't disagree with fronting, but I do disagree with fronting $2500. Front the money it costs to buy the tag. People who don't have that kind of expendable cash should not be penalized and not be able to apply. I know I wouldn't have that money to tie up.
Post by: judojudd on February 14, 2013, 11:44:30 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 11:45:20 AM
Post by: jackelope on February 14, 2013, 11:46:52 AM
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 11:50:57 AM
If it meant I might have a chance to draw a goat or sheep tag though, I'd make an effort for $2500
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 14, 2013, 11:59:45 AM
Could go out and look for poachers, and start racking up the points. I heard about a guy that caught three elk poachers on the eastside over a few years and got 30 points toward quality bull.
I bet he got a sheriff badge sticker to wear for his efforts
Post by: jackelope on February 14, 2013, 12:05:50 PM
Nope...he got 30 bonus points.Could go out and look for poachers, and start racking up the points. I heard about a guy that caught three elk poachers on the eastside over a few years and got 30 points toward quality bull.
I bet he got a sheriff badge sticker to wear for his efforts
Post by: Bob33 on February 14, 2013, 12:08:21 PM
Post by: npaull on February 14, 2013, 12:11:57 PM
Post by: BnB on February 14, 2013, 12:12:49 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 12:27:50 PM
I think I also could go for that. Made you think when you bought your tag, thats for sure
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2013, 01:12:48 PM
I pray they don't change their system. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 01:17:05 PM
Post by: JPhelps on February 14, 2013, 01:20:52 PM
Idaho has the best draw odds in the country, if you want good odds, copy their system. :tup:
I pray they don't change their system. :twocents:
Word is that it died this morning :tup:
Post by: SI Eagle on February 14, 2013, 01:21:49 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 01:22:56 PM
Post by: huntingfool7 on February 14, 2013, 01:23:35 PM
Don't have to be stuck with them. WDFW could easily S-can the point system and go to a straight draw.Bonus and preference point systems are the WORST thing that ever came to a draw system
I agree, but we're stuck with it now.
I am high on elk/OIL points, low on deer and bear points. I think the point system is the worst thing for new hunters and should be bagged on that alone.
Also, I would be OK with fronting $ for OIL tags.
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 01:25:35 PM
Quote
Washington easily has the worst system
I disagree TENFOLD
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2013, 01:29:03 PM
I like the Oregon system. Why not give 90% of the tags w/ the guys with the most points? You know going in if you have a realistic chance of drawing and you can plan accordingly. If it takes to many points (years) to draw then you put in for a easier tag. There should be no complaints if you know it is going to take 17 years (I have 17 points) to draw if you know that when you put in. I don't like the fact that I have been putting in for that many years (for all species) and every year I get a Dear John letter. Just doesn't seem to be fair when you wait that long and someone has drawn the same permit 2 or 3 times. Washington easily has the worst system.
The difference between WA and OR, is that if you don't draw in Oregon, you can't hunt. They don't have a general rifle season for elk on the east side of the state, and same thing for mule deer. Therefore they have a lot more permits available to draw. For instance a unit in Oregon may have 5,000 permits, whereas a similar unit in Washington may have only 50. That is why a preference system like they use would not work here.
UNLESS, you want to eliminate our general seasons and our over the counter tags for everybody.
Post by: JPhelps on February 14, 2013, 01:30:31 PM
I like the Oregon system. Why not give 90% of the tags w/ the guys with the most points? You know going in if you have a realistic chance of drawing and you can plan accordingly. If it takes to many points (years) to draw then you put in for a easier tag. There should be no complaints if you know it is going to take 17 years (I have 17 points) to draw if you know that when you put in. I don't like the fact that I have been putting in for that many years (for all species) and every year I get a Dear John letter. Just doesn't seem to be fair when you wait that long and someone has drawn the same permit 2 or 3 times. Washington easily has the worst system.
What if you would have drawn a tag early on? Would you think differently?
I feel that our system (modified Nevada system) is about as fair of a system as you can get. Everyone has a chance and the highest point holders have an exponentially better chance. You could technically apply in Idaho and never draw a tag as well. I like that there are many different systems in place across the west, so I can choose to gamble or use my money how I see fit.
I can only assume some of the big point holders apply for premium units and stack the odds against themselves.
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 01:32:51 PM
Post by: Woodchuck on February 14, 2013, 01:34:31 PM
I could not agree more Mr. Phelps :tup:I like the Oregon system. Why not give 90% of the tags w/ the guys with the most points? You know going in if you have a realistic chance of drawing and you can plan accordingly. If it takes to many points (years) to draw then you put in for a easier tag. There should be no complaints if you know it is going to take 17 years (I have 17 points) to draw if you know that when you put in. I don't like the fact that I have been putting in for that many years (for all species) and every year I get a Dear John letter. Just doesn't seem to be fair when you wait that long and someone has drawn the same permit 2 or 3 times. Washington easily has the worst system.
What if you would have drawn a tag early on? Would you think differently?
I feel that our system (modified Nevada system) is about as fair of a system as you can get. Everyone has a chance and the highest point holders have an exponentially better chance. You could technically apply in Idaho and never draw a tag as well. I like that there are many different systems in place across the west, so I can choose to gamble or use my money how I see fit.
I can only assume some of the big point holders apply for premium units and stack the odds against themselves.
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2013, 01:35:00 PM
I like the Oregon system. Why not give 90% of the tags w/ the guys with the most points? You know going in if you have a realistic chance of drawing and you can plan accordingly. If it takes to many points (years) to draw then you put in for a easier tag. There should be no complaints if you know it is going to take 17 years (I have 17 points) to draw. I don't like the fact that I have been putting in for that many years (for all species) and every year I get a Dear John letter. Just doesn't seem to be fair when you wait that long and someone has drawn the same permit 2 or 3 times. Washington easily has the worst system.
I would say the WA system is in the middle. In my opinion Colorado has the worst system, I'm pretty sure 100% of OIL tags go to the applicants with the most points. New applicants have no chance of drawing for at least 10 to 20 years.
If we must have points, I think the Utah system is the most fair, 50% tags to applicants with most post points, 50% are random draw.
I will say it again, Idaho (no point system) has the best draw odds in the US for moose, sheep, and probably goat too.
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 01:36:56 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2013, 01:41:40 PM
Eliminate spike tags, that's just a meat hunt, you can put in for a cow tag and get just as much of a trophy. If you eliminate spike tags we could double or triple any bull tags after 1 or 2 years. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2013, 01:44:41 PM
Simple Way To Improve Elk Draw Odds
Eliminate spike tags, that's just a meat hunt, you can put in for a cow tag and get just as much of a trophy. If you eliminate spike tags we could double or triple any bull tags after 1 or 2 years. :twocents:
:yeah:
Basically what I said (eliminate general seasons)
Post by: arees on February 14, 2013, 01:53:37 PM
Washington has a system that lets everybody who wants to get out and hunt an elk. You don't need much money to have a chance (though a slim one) to draw a special tag. People who have been applying for a long time have a better chance (though still a fairly slim one) to draw a special tag.
No matter how you slice it, most people aren't going to get to shoot branch antler bulls.
I'm just going to win the lottery and buy out of state land owner tags for the rest of my life. I have slightly better odds of that than drawing the tag I want in Washington with the number of points I have now.
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 02:08:13 PM
Simple Way To Improve Elk Draw Odds
Eliminate spike tags, that's just a meat hunt, you can put in for a cow tag and get just as much of a trophy. If you eliminate spike tags we could double or triple any bull tags after 1 or 2 years. :twocents:
:yeah:
Basically what I said (eliminate general seasons)
I am not there for deer yet, but would support it with elk for just this reason alone. I have;t hunted elk for the last couple years as I didn't need the meat or want to shoot a spike, and have better things to do at this time, but have to buy the tag in order to put in for big bull.
Post by: jackelope on February 14, 2013, 02:19:16 PM
Post by: adamR on February 14, 2013, 02:28:20 PM
Youre second idea is rediculous in my opinion! Hunting costs in this state are already outrageous! There already is a drawing fee and doubling it last year already put a huge finacial hurt on most hunters. You want to increase it from $13 to $50 how is that fair to the middle class hunter who is already barely able to afford permits?
If you have max points and still aren't being drawn for hunts APPLY FOR SOMETHING ELSE, stop crying about it and apply for another hunt. I don't understand where people get the misconception that they absolutely have to hunt the blues or colockum. There are huge bulls all over the state, work a little harder they are there.
I for one enjoy hunting eastside for spike. I do not want to hunt the westside and if that means I have to settle for a spike in between getting drawn, oh well.
I LOVE OUR PERMIT SYSTEM!!! I don't put in for the best hunts because I actually want to be drawn and I get drawn pretty often and am pretty sucessful.
Finally, why are we as hunters so willling to pay so much more money for something we already contribute over 50% to conserving? How is increasing the cost of something so less people apply going to make drawing a once in a lifetime tag fair? Frankly I don't give a darn if you have applied for the last 20 years and have not and will not ever get drawn for an OIL tag. Just because you have more money to waste than I do means that you should have a better chance of getting drawn? I'm willing to pay $13 a year for the rest of my life per animal even if I never get drawn because I understand why there are so few tags and the draw is fair. If I'm not luck enough to get drawn, oh well that's life.
I just don't understand how people can complain about draw odds at all, it's a very fair system and you aren't lucky.
Post by: ellensburgpo on February 14, 2013, 03:05:08 PM
Post by: B.G.hunter on February 14, 2013, 03:13:59 PM
NE tag fell under the Clock I believe. Twisp area did I know.I think the Clock and the yakima were together and the northeast was on it own. I would also like it if they would go back to the five area system. There was the two on the west side, the Yakima, the Northeast, and the blue mountains.
I think I also could go for that. Made you think when you bought your tag, thats for sure
Post by: ing on February 14, 2013, 03:30:41 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2013, 03:40:55 PM
If its a distribution issue then why not just drop the whole eastside/westside elk tags? Just make it an elk tag good for the whole state like deer is. Then run the general elk seasons on both sides of the state at the same time. People that hunt the west side will still hunt the west side and people that hunt the east side will still hunt the east side. Then you can put in for whatever special elk tag you want to and still be able to hunt your regular areas.
So how about this:
Statewide General Elk Tag (hunt any general season, apply for your choice of LE areas statewide)
Eliminate Spike Elk Tags
Increase Permits in 2nd year and afterward for Any Bull in Limited-Entry Areas
Continue Cow Tags as WDFW determines necessary
Post by: Woodchuck on February 14, 2013, 03:45:50 PM
Post by: snowpack on February 14, 2013, 03:58:37 PM
If its a distribution issue then why not just drop the whole eastside/westside elk tags? Just make it an elk tag good for the whole state like deer is. Then run the general elk seasons on both sides of the state at the same time. People that hunt the west side will still hunt the west side and people that hunt the east side will still hunt the east side. Then you can put in for whatever special elk tag you want to and still be able to hunt your regular areas.In this proposal would E side be 3 pt or better, or the westside allow spike? My guess would be that if the E side was still spike then majority of the state would put Blues or Colockum as one of their Quality Bull wishes and then when not drawn would all head to the W side to look for bulls. Not all, but I suspect a majority would.
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 14, 2013, 04:14:34 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 14, 2013, 04:18:51 PM
and hence why we have the system that we doIf its a distribution issue then why not just drop the whole eastside/westside elk tags? Just make it an elk tag good for the whole state like deer is. Then run the general elk seasons on both sides of the state at the same time. People that hunt the west side will still hunt the west side and people that hunt the east side will still hunt the east side. Then you can put in for whatever special elk tag you want to and still be able to hunt your regular areas.In this proposal would E side be 3 pt or better, or the westside allow spike? My guess would be that if the E side was still spike then majority of the state would put Blues or Colockum as one of their Quality Bull wishes and then when not drawn would all head to the W side to look for bulls. Not all, but I suspect a majority would.
Post by: coachcw on February 14, 2013, 04:35:07 PM
Post by: bullcrazy on February 14, 2013, 05:00:54 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2013, 05:04:45 PM
IMHO, that would be all but the end of the east side herds. :twocents:
Not sure how you figure, with spike elk eliminated bull elk would multiply, then down the road bull tags could be increased. General season would only apply to areas that have a general any bull season currently.
Post by: Woodchuck on February 14, 2013, 05:21:38 PM
I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about "open season" on branch bulls in units that are spike only now.IMHO, that would be all but the end of the east side herds. :twocents:
Not sure how you figure, with spike elk eliminated bull elk would multiply, then down the road bull tags could be increased. General season would only apply to areas that have a general any bull season currently.
Post by: steeleywhopper on February 14, 2013, 05:33:50 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on February 14, 2013, 05:45:59 PM
..... and have been forced to put in for points each year since because I'm not that interested in hunting spikes and cows ...
Interesting dichotomy.
So did WDFW hold a gun to your head or is it a self imposed limitation?
Post by: trophyhunt on February 14, 2013, 05:59:48 PM
I like the Oregon system. Why not give 90% of the tags w/ the guys with the most points? You know going in if you have a realistic chance of drawing and you can plan accordingly. If it takes to many points (years) to draw then you put in for a easier tag. There should be no complaints if you know it is going to take 17 years (I have 17 points) to draw. I don't like the fact that I have been putting in for that many years (for all species) and every year I get a Dear John letter. Just doesn't seem to be fair when you wait that long and someone has drawn the same permit 2 or 3 times. Washington easily has the worst system.:yeah:I can't wait to draw so my hunting life doesn't evolve around this f up'd system. Once I do draw, the only time I will put in for the best hunts are when I draw the multi elk tag. I am talking about elk on the east side.
Post by: judojudd on February 14, 2013, 06:18:30 PM
..... and have been forced to put in for points each year since because I'm not that interested in hunting spikes and cows ...
Interesting dichotomy.
So did WDFW hold a gun to your head or is it a self imposed limitation?
Well said, Bean Counter. Clearly what I meant.
Post by: judojudd on February 14, 2013, 07:09:13 PM
We are all in agreement that there is no perfect system. I think Washington's system could be improved. I'd love the east/west division to go the way of the buffalo.
I'm digging this thread, btw. No shortage of opinions out there. Helps pass the time in the offseason at least. :IBCOOL:
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2013, 07:15:28 PM
Post by: mtman on February 14, 2013, 07:16:24 PM
Post by: judojudd on February 14, 2013, 07:25:55 PM
Like I said, you really can't compare Oregon's system with ours, because they have no general elk season. Would you be willing to give up hunting elk every year in order to increase your odds of drawing a "trophy" permit?
I'm going with what I know of my favorite units in the blues in oregon (Wenaha/Walla Walla). Yes, there is no general elk season for those units. But you are not necessarily screwed if you don't draw your trophy hunt. For instance, say you want to hunt the walla walla with a rifle, you can put in for the branched bull tag as your first choice and spikes as your second choice. You've got great odds of drawing the spike tag (woohoo!) and almost no chance of drawing the bull tag until you've accrued a boatload of points. Yes, it would suck to not get drawn for either, but I love the certainty of your chances once you've waited your turn.
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2013, 07:31:50 PM
With our system, you at least have a chance to draw every year.
Post by: judojudd on February 14, 2013, 07:35:53 PM
As for the comments about my fee proposal being too hard on the working class hunter, is that really too steep? I guess I'm comparing this to what most states charge for out of state licenses and tags. I can't afford to put in for other states.
Phelps, you are in a place where you put in for multiple tags in multiple states. Would you feel differently if your finances didn't allow you the option of putting in for multiple states? Just curious.
Post by: mtman on February 14, 2013, 07:36:14 PM
Post by: Curly on February 14, 2013, 07:39:43 PM
Post by: coachcw on February 14, 2013, 07:43:48 PM
Post by: ShaneTyTrey on February 14, 2013, 07:54:52 PM
If WA only did #3 our OIL draw odds would go up a ton.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: JLS on February 14, 2013, 08:08:00 PM
Dale keeps talking about OIL draw odds in Idaho. I think the percentages have less to do with no point system and more to do with 3 important factors that Idaho is the only state that has all 3 in place...1) a lot of oil permits (especially compared to WA). 2) Require hunters to pay the full tag up front and 3) most important in my mind is that each individual can only apply for one each year.
If WA only did #3 our OIL draw odds would go up a ton.
Just my :twocents:
When WDFW split all of the special permit categories out, and then told folks their points would automatically carry over to ALL new categories, and you can put in for the moon at $5 a shot, who honestly didn't think the odds would go to hades in a handbasket.
Post by: Todd_ID on February 14, 2013, 08:13:01 PM
Even if we stopped spike hunting in the Blues we could only take 20-30 bulls a year in each unit before the trophy potential started hurting badly and we lose all that we've gained since spike-only started. These units are small, and there aren't that many elk out there to support any increases in hunting. For instance, the popular 175 Lick Creek Unit had 37 elk taken in the last available count from 2011. 24 of those were bulls: 20 were spikes. I don't know many who would give up their annual time out of the house for a family camp for a chance at drawing 15-20 tags instead of 7 because the state did away with the general season.
We'd lose the foundation of hunting if we lose the tradition of the annual hunting camp, and we've already given up enough by going spike-only. If we want more tags available, then we need to work on habitat increases and predator decreases.
Post by: ing on February 14, 2013, 08:43:21 PM
I'm saying leave the point restrictions the same just dont make us choose what side of the state we want to hunt. Personally I dont ever plan on hunting elk on the west side and I know a lot of people that dont either. There is lots of hunters here on the east side that have been hunting the same areas for 40+ years and they dont plan on heading west anytime soon. I guessing its the same for a lot of west side hunters. So, if someone from the east side wants to put in for a west side bull tag and still be able to accumulate points, why not let him? Same for west side hunters.If its a distribution issue then why not just drop the whole eastside/westside elk tags? Just make it an elk tag good for the whole state like deer is. Then run the general elk seasons on both sides of the state at the same time. People that hunt the west side will still hunt the west side and people that hunt the east side will still hunt the east side. Then you can put in for whatever special elk tag you want to and still be able to hunt your regular areas.In this proposal would E side be 3 pt or better, or the westside allow spike? My guess would be that if the E side was still spike then majority of the state would put Blues or Colockum as one of their Quality Bull wishes and then when not drawn would all head to the W side to look for bulls. Not all, but I suspect a majority would.
Post by: ing on February 14, 2013, 08:49:41 PM
Yeah, I could probably go for that but it still forces us to choose an area. Like I said before, I dont ever plan on hunting the west side,but I'd like to be able to have the option too for whatever reason.If its a distribution issue then why not just drop the whole eastside/westside elk tags? Just make it an elk tag good for the whole state like deer is. Then run the general elk seasons on both sides of the state at the same time. People that hunt the west side will still hunt the west side and people that hunt the east side will still hunt the east side. Then you can put in for whatever special elk tag you want to and still be able to hunt your regular areas.
So how about this:
Statewide General Elk Tag (hunt any general season, apply for your choice of LE areas statewide)
Eliminate Spike Elk Tags
Increase Permits in 2nd year and afterward for Any Bull in Limited-Entry Areas
Continue Cow Tags as WDFW determines necessary
Post by: huntingfool7 on February 14, 2013, 08:50:59 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2013, 09:11:33 PM
Yeah, I could probably go for that but it still forces us to choose an area. Like I said before, I dont ever plan on hunting the west side,but I'd like to be able to have the option too for whatever reason.If its a distribution issue then why not just drop the whole eastside/westside elk tags? Just make it an elk tag good for the whole state like deer is. Then run the general elk seasons on both sides of the state at the same time. People that hunt the west side will still hunt the west side and people that hunt the east side will still hunt the east side. Then you can put in for whatever special elk tag you want to and still be able to hunt your regular areas.
So how about this:
Statewide General Elk Tag (hunt any general season, apply for your choice of LE areas statewide)
Eliminate Spike Elk Tags
Increase Permits in 2nd year and afterward for Any Bull in Limited-Entry Areas
Continue Cow Tags as WDFW determines necessary
There are general seasons on the eastside, just not the best areas in the blues, colockum, or yakima.
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
If we want more tags available, then we need to work on habitat increases and predator decreases.
This is a serious problem, habitat work and predator control might result in twice the available elk? :dunno:
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 14, 2013, 09:15:56 PM
Is there someone on the east side that wants to hunt on the wet side?
I live in Veradale and hunt the westside every year
Post by: JLS on February 14, 2013, 09:31:33 PM
Post by: Todd_ID on February 14, 2013, 10:01:22 PM
If we want more tags available, then we need to work on habitat increases and predator decreases.
This is a serious problem, habitat work and predator control might result in twice the available elk? :dunno:
Twice the current number of elk is a lofty goal. But it's not impossible. If we put the right food and land use controls in place, then it is possible. Neither are likely, however. We only have so many donated man-hours available for habitat projects, and the land use is controlled by those with the law and pocketbooks behind them. All we, as individuals, can do is support those groups who do actually "put the money to dirt" and volunteer our time for as long as we can to help future generations of hunters. If we get a bit of the reward from the work, then that is a bonus.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 14, 2013, 10:21:50 PM
Or you go to a system like we have now which only benefits the State by way of more fees collected. The only reason the State can convince people this is a good system is the PERCEIVED idea that because there are more choices, your odds are better, and preference points will eventually assure you of being drawn. But giving everybody more choices waters down your odds. You get people putting in for your favorite hunt who wouldn't normally but they have extra choices so they put in for a backup. The extra choices actually make it less likely that if you do get drawn, you will draw your first choice.
Say I don't mind hunting the regular season in unit 638 because my family has a cabin there and I like putting in for a cow tag so if I get drawn, I have a better chance of filling my freezer. In the old days maybe 100 people would use their one draw choice for say, 30 cow tags. So I had a 30% chance of being drawn, or chances were I'd be drawn every three or four years. Now with all the different draws, everybody can put in for cow tags, because they can also put in for a quality bull hunt and not have to make a choice. Not only that, but everybody gets four choices for cow hunts so more people put in for that tag as a backup choice. So now say 300 people put in for those 30 tags. Now my odds are about 10% or average a draw every ten years. Sure, I get 4 choices like everybody else, but chances are I'll be drawn for a hunt in another area that I'm not as familiar with and I don't have a nice cabin to stay in and my partners aren't around to help pack.
And preference points, don't get me started. They are as bad as a pyramid scheme. If you're not in on the ground floor, you're at a disadvantage and the worse the odds of drawing are, the worse you're screwed if you don't have the max points possible.
Post by: ing on February 14, 2013, 10:39:36 PM
GotchaYeah, I could probably go for that but it still forces us to choose an area. Like I said before, I dont ever plan on hunting the west side,but I'd like to be able to have the option too for whatever reason.If its a distribution issue then why not just drop the whole eastside/westside elk tags? Just make it an elk tag good for the whole state like deer is. Then run the general elk seasons on both sides of the state at the same time. People that hunt the west side will still hunt the west side and people that hunt the east side will still hunt the east side. Then you can put in for whatever special elk tag you want to and still be able to hunt your regular areas.
So how about this:
Statewide General Elk Tag (hunt any general season, apply for your choice of LE areas statewide)
Eliminate Spike Elk Tags
Increase Permits in 2nd year and afterward for Any Bull in Limited-Entry Areas
Continue Cow Tags as WDFW determines necessary
There are general seasons on the eastside, just not the best areas in the blues, colockum, or yakima.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 15, 2013, 10:06:09 AM
Wanna improve draw odds? Only give each tag holder one pick each year, just like the old days. You pick one permit to put in for each year, cow, quality bull, bull, spike, you decide, you only get one choice.Exactly. I heard much less pi**ing and moaning before the state went to multiple categories for each species. I knew that things were going to be scrwed up big time when this new system happened. At least with the old system, even if odds were long, you could choose the quality or be happy putting in for antlerless knowing you had a good shot every few years. Now everyone puts in for everything, and odds are screwed for the forseeable future. I think the WDFW likes it though :bash:
Or you go to a system like we have now which only benefits the State by way of more fees collected. The only reason the State can convince people this is a good system is the PERCEIVED idea that because there are more choices, your odds are better, and preference points will eventually assure you of being drawn. But giving everybody more choices waters down your odds. You get people putting in for your favorite hunt who wouldn't normally but they have extra choices so they put in for a backup. The extra choices actually make it less likely that if you do get drawn, you will draw your first choice.
Say I don't mind hunting the regular season in unit 638 because my family has a cabin there and I like putting in for a cow tag so if I get drawn, I have a better chance of filling my freezer. In the old days maybe 100 people would use their one draw choice for say, 30 cow tags. So I had a 30% chance of being drawn, or chances were I'd be drawn every three or four years. Now with all the different draws, everybody can put in for cow tags, because they can also put in for a quality bull hunt and not have to make a choice. Not only that, but everybody gets four choices for cow hunts so more people put in for that tag as a backup choice. So now say 300 people put in for those 30 tags. Now my odds are about 10% or average a draw every ten years. Sure, I get 4 choices like everybody else, but chances are I'll be drawn for a hunt in another area that I'm not as familiar with and I don't have a nice cabin to stay in and my partners aren't around to help pack.
And preference points, don't get me started. They are as bad as a pyramid scheme. If you're not in on the ground floor, you're at a disadvantage and the worse the odds of drawing are, the worse you're screwed if you don't have the max points possible.
Post by: Curly on February 15, 2013, 10:14:53 AM
:yeah: The category system bites. I hate it. :bash:Wanna improve draw odds? Only give each tag holder one pick each year, just like the old days. You pick one permit to put in for each year, cow, quality bull, bull, spike, you decide, you only get one choice.Exactly. I heard much less pi**ing and moaning before the state went to multiple categories for each species. I knew that things were going to be scrwed up big time when this new system happened. At least with the old system, even if odds were long, you could choose the quality or be happy putting in for antlerless knowing you had a good shot every few years. Now everyone puts in for everything, and odds are screwed for the forseeable future. I think the WDFW likes it though :bash:
Or you go to a system like we have now which only benefits the State by way of more fees collected. The only reason the State can convince people this is a good system is the PERCEIVED idea that because there are more choices, your odds are better, and preference points will eventually assure you of being drawn. But giving everybody more choices waters down your odds. You get people putting in for your favorite hunt who wouldn't normally but they have extra choices so they put in for a backup. The extra choices actually make it less likely that if you do get drawn, you will draw your first choice.
Say I don't mind hunting the regular season in unit 638 because my family has a cabin there and I like putting in for a cow tag so if I get drawn, I have a better chance of filling my freezer. In the old days maybe 100 people would use their one draw choice for say, 30 cow tags. So I had a 30% chance of being drawn, or chances were I'd be drawn every three or four years. Now with all the different draws, everybody can put in for cow tags, because they can also put in for a quality bull hunt and not have to make a choice. Not only that, but everybody gets four choices for cow hunts so more people put in for that tag as a backup choice. So now say 300 people put in for those 30 tags. Now my odds are about 10% or average a draw every ten years. Sure, I get 4 choices like everybody else, but chances are I'll be drawn for a hunt in another area that I'm not as familiar with and I don't have a nice cabin to stay in and my partners aren't around to help pack.
And preference points, don't get me started. They are as bad as a pyramid scheme. If you're not in on the ground floor, you're at a disadvantage and the worse the odds of drawing are, the worse you're screwed if you don't have the max points possible.
Post by: skywalker253 on February 15, 2013, 04:33:41 PM
Group A. (Minimium 10 points to enter) Take a percentage of special permits for each hunt choice and stick them into a Group A category. Each applicant has a random chance of gettting drawn. This way high point holders are competing with high point holders.
1) They have invested the most money into the permit system.
2) They have been waiting the longest to draw.
3) If they were awarded points from the game department, which has put them up to the top of the list; they should receive their reward before they die. If not that year, then soon after.
4) They are not forced to compeat with the lower point holders. This ensures that anyone waiting 10 seasons or longer to draw has a greater percentage of drawing. I feel like those who have been waiting or were awarded points should not have to sit back with 23 points and watch someone apply with 1 point and get drawn.
5) Perhaps by putting in a 10 point minimum to apply, it will help keep out people with 1 point who apply for a hunt they know nothing about and probably should not be applying for the hunt choice in the first place.
Group B) (9 points and below required to enter) Take remaining permits for each hunt choice and have them randomly draw like current system. Applicants with more points have a higher percentage of drawing.
1) They likely have a smaller investment into the permit system.
2) They likely have not been waiting near as long to draw.
3) They likely were NOT awarded points by the game department. If they were, then they would still be able to enter into the Group A (if they met the 10 point minimum). They would also enter into Group B.
4) They are not forced to compeat with the high point holders.
Perhaps the game department charges a small fee to the Group A applicants of $7.00 to enter into Group A.
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2013, 04:41:03 PM
Post by: skywalker253 on February 15, 2013, 04:46:50 PM
Skywalker, no thanks. I'd rather see it simplified instead of made more complicated.
I don't see how taking a percentage of permits and setting them aside for high point holders is all that complicated. Everything about the system would stay the same. Just pull a percentage of hunts and reserve them for the high point holders. Not that complicated.
Post by: huntingfool7 on February 15, 2013, 04:55:21 PM
Skywalker, no thanks. I'd rather see it simplified instead of made more complicated.:yeah:
Post by: GoPlayOutside on February 15, 2013, 04:58:51 PM
However, once I draw a tag....bye bye Washington. I'll move onto to a different state and wouldn't waste my time with Washington Draws.
Post by: skywalker253 on February 15, 2013, 05:01:13 PM
My suggestions simply break up the point holders to increase the chances of the 10 point plus holders, yet still give someone with 1 point a fair chance of drawing. Simply taking a percentage of permits to award those, who have been waiting or derserve a reward. Not that complicated or hard to comprehend.
Post by: skywalker253 on February 15, 2013, 05:09:30 PM
Whether you like my suggestion or not, is not the point. Nobody can deny that their have been countless posts regarding the reasons I stated above. Just read the title of this topic. Something needs to change....
Post by: skywalker253 on February 15, 2013, 05:19:10 PM
For having over 10 points myself, I say sure....offer up 60% of the tags to those that qualify.
However, once I draw a tag....bye bye Washington. I'll move onto to a different state and wouldn't waste my time with Washington Draws.
Considering the comments and stories I have read on here; 10 points doesn't mean anything. I have 17 and have been told countless times; "don't expect to get drawn they way the Wa point system is setup." "17 points is virtually the same as 1 point." etc. I was excited, but now I have just decided to use them in a "not so popular area" to increase my draw chances. Why apply in the Blues, when a large percentage of the permits drawn are to average point holders. I would rather get drawn this year and have a chance at something.
Post by: Bullkllr on February 15, 2013, 05:22:42 PM
As long as so many people are applying for so few permits, but in so many categories- the system will be screwed.
While it may be a partial solution to award a % of tags to those with 10 pts and more, I think that is basically what is happening most of the time anyway. Sure, someone with 1 pt gets lucky once in awhile, but most of the highest demand tags are going to those with higher points (I know you can get pts to draw info on the wdfw website somewhere). You would soon have just as many people complaining that they can't get drawn with 10 or more points anyway.
And the scarey thing is (as has already been stated) this present system was a fix that was supposedly asked for and supported by license holders :dunno:
Post by: skywalker253 on February 15, 2013, 06:48:32 PM
Skywalker.
As long as so many people are applying for so few permits, but in so many categories- the system will be screwed.
While it may be a partial solution to award a % of tags to those with 10 pts and more, I think that is basically what is happening most of the time anyway. Sure, someone with 1 pt gets lucky once in awhile, but most of the highest demand tags are going to those with higher points (I know you can get pts to draw info on the wdfw website somewhere). You would soon have just as many people complaining that they can't get drawn with 10 or more points anyway.
And the scarey thing is (as has already been stated) this present system was a fix that was supposedly asked for and supported by license holders :dunno:
Perhaps a better solution is to leave everything the same, but create a seperate category for high demand hunts. Make it a 10 point or more category to apply for a percentage of the tags. The remaining tags are open to anyone. This would fix the categories you speak of, which would get screwed. Nothing would change. Simply break up the point holders. I disagree with what you said about mostly high point holders are the ones drawn for the high demand tags. If you look at the break downs, they can be missleading.
Example- If someone is drawn at 3 points and somebody is drawn at 22 points; the average points it takes to get drawn would be 12.5 (13). That is miss leading. From what I have seen; several are drawn for the high demand hunts will few points. Some are drawn with a ton of points. I depends on the luck of the draw.
There is no perfect draw system. I would just like them to place more emphasize on the high point holders. Does not seem very fair for a guy to apply year after year to not be drawn with 23 points. Yet a guy with 3 points gets drawn. I don't care how they do it, just break it up a bit or change the odds.
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2013, 06:53:09 PM
Quote
There is no perfect draw system. I would just like them to place more emphasize on the high point holders. Does not seem very fair for a guy to apply year after year to not be drawn with 23 points. Yet a guy with 3 points gets drawn. I don't care how they do it, just break it up a bit or change the odds.
The system already does what you're talking about. Those with the most points have a much greater chance of being drawn. With each point increase, your odds go up exponentially. There's no reason to change that part of the system. The mathematics of it work just as designed.
If you think about it, a person applying for the first time has 1 point. That puts their "name in the hat" 1 time. A person who has applied and not drawn for 10 years, has 10 points, and their name goes in the hat 100 times. So that person has a 100 times greater chance of being drawn than the person applying for the first time.
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on February 15, 2013, 07:51:33 PM
I will have 15 points this year. I know i have little chance of drawing. I just looked it up and there are 700 people with 15 or more points for elk. So i know that i am getting up there in the point category but that really doesn't matter. I know that every year i apply i have a chance to draw a permit. And i also know that i might never draw a Quality permit. But i know i have a chance. If you change stuff now you will make alot of people mad because they have invested alot of time and money into the points they do have.
I think the best way to go about it is money up front for Once in a lifetime tags.
I think the idea i have would work, but it would suck.
Every unit will become a draw, say coweeman has 750 permits, ryderwood will have 750 permits and so on and every year you will have to draw, I think that is where they are going with the Bull category. You will be able to apply every year but you will not hunt every year.
Post by: elksnout on February 15, 2013, 10:39:36 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2013, 10:57:29 PM
Quote
In nine years of applying in Oregon I have went on two eastside limited entry bull hunts. And the best thing was I pretty much knew which year I would draw.
That's because they don't have a general season in those units. If Washington did away with the general season, the number of permits would increase, and you would draw every 2 to 3 years. Just like Oregon. But you couldn't hunt every year. Most people don't want to give up their annual elk hunt.
Post by: elksnout on February 15, 2013, 11:01:41 PM
QuoteIn nine years of applying in Oregon I have went on two eastside limited entry bull hunts. And the best thing was I pretty much knew which year I would draw.
That's because they don't have a general season in those units. If Washington did away with the general season, the number of permits would increase, and you would draw every 2 to 3 years. Just like Oregon. But you couldn't hunt every year. Most people don't want to give up their annual elk hunt.
Actually there is a second season spike only hunt which I believe is general. My hunts were any bull.
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2013, 11:09:14 PM
QuoteIn nine years of applying in Oregon I have went on two eastside limited entry bull hunts. And the best thing was I pretty much knew which year I would draw.
That's because they don't have a general season in those units. If Washington did away with the general season, the number of permits would increase, and you would draw every 2 to 3 years. Just like Oregon. But you couldn't hunt every year. Most people don't want to give up their annual elk hunt.
Actually there is a second season spike only hunt which I believe is general. My hunts were any bull.
Okay, I know they do have a few units open for spike only in eastern Oregon, but the majority of it is draw only. This allows for a lot more draw permits and makes for some relatively easy to draw hunts. Not only that but Oregon is much bigger than Washington with a whole lot more public land, AND less people.
The point is, your comparing apples to oranges. Oregon is simply a better state for elk hunting. It's not the draw system that makes it that way.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 15, 2013, 11:34:38 PM
Skywalker, no thanks. I'd rather see it simplified instead of made more complicated.
I don't see how taking a percentage of permits and setting them aside for high point holders is all that complicated. Everything about the system would stay the same. Just pull a percentage of hunts and reserve them for the high point holders. Not that complicated.
How are they gonna divy up the quality bull hunts that only give out 1 or 2 tags?
Here's part of the problem with draws where preference points are concerned. It's simple math
Last year, 21,101 people put in for moose tags. 150 tags were issued. That means your odds of drawing a moose tag was 7 tenths of one percent or 7 people out of 1,000. It would take 141 years for everybody who applied to be drawn. We're not going to live that long. It would take 70 years for half of us to be drawn. Most of us won't be hunting that long. Then there are the new hunters who will want to put in for moose tags. They will have even more impossible odds of drawing because they'll be behind the preference point curve. No amount of preference points are going to change those odds. So why should some 80 year old hunter who's been putting in for 70 years have more of a chance to draw a moose tag than a 20 year old newbie? Because that is the end of the slippery slope of preference points. After a while your chances of drawing will be next to nil if you don't have at least 50 preference points. So 90% of the people getting drawn or more will be 70 or 80 year old guys who've been trying all their lives to get drawn. And a vast majority of those old guys still won't get drawn before they die. What a deal. I'd rather have a chance of getting drawn when I was young enough to enjoy it.
Post by: elksnout on February 15, 2013, 11:53:31 PM
QuoteIn nine years of applying in Oregon I have went on two eastside limited entry bull hunts. And the best thing was I pretty much knew which year I would draw.
That's because they don't have a general season in those units. If Washington did away with the general season, the number of permits would increase, and you would draw every 2 to 3 years. Just like Oregon. But you couldn't hunt every year. Most people don't want to give up their annual elk hunt.
Actually there is a second season spike only hunt which I believe is general. My hunts were any bull.
Okay, I know they do have a few units open for spike only in eastern Oregon, but the majority of it is draw only. This allows for a lot more draw permits and makes for some relatively easy to draw hunts. Not only that but Oregon is much bigger than Washington with a whole lot more public land, AND less people.
The point is, your comparing apples to oranges. Oregon is simply a better state for elk hunting. It's not the draw system that makes it that way.
Oregon is a better state for elk hunting which is why I put in for the draws. And there are plenty of general hunts on the coast and cascades with various antler restrictions. My point was, I find it beyond absurd that I can't get a bull tag in this state with fifteen points. Like Washington, Oregon tends to manage the eastside differently from the west. But Oregon has zones ( coast, cascade, central, n.e ,etc. ) and manages units which might be side by side each other differently. More micro managed I suppose. Which I tend to believe is one of the reason's they have more elk. Where Washington gives us flatout west and eastside. You're right, comparing our states draw system to any other western state is comparing apples to oranges. My :twocents:
Post by: Austrian Hunter on February 16, 2013, 12:01:18 AM
Want to really increase your odds, change OIL back to fronting your app. $2500 a pop. They hold onto it until June and issue a refund, all but $50 fee. They get interest off of all of it. Be serious or need not apply. This letting everyone have a shot at 7 bucks a pop, you will be LUCKY if its OIL.I don't disagree with fronting, but I do disagree with fronting $2500. Front the money it costs to buy the tag. People who don't have that kind of expendable cash should not be penalized and not be able to apply. I know I wouldn't have that money to tie up.
I second that statement!!!
Post by: skywalker253 on February 16, 2013, 12:52:53 AM
QuoteThere is no perfect draw system. I would just like them to place more emphasize on the high point holders. Does not seem very fair for a guy to apply year after year to not be drawn with 23 points. Yet a guy with 3 points gets drawn. I don't care how they do it, just break it up a bit or change the odds.
The system already does what you're talking about. Those with the most points have a much greater chance of being drawn. With each point increase, your odds go up exponentially. There's no reason to change that part of the system. The mathematics of it work just as designed.
If you think about it, a person applying for the first time has 1 point. That puts their "name in the hat" 1 time. A person who has applied and not drawn for 10 years, has 10 points, and their name goes in the hat 100 times. So that person has a 100 times greater chance of being drawn than the person applying for the first time.
I agree with you Bobcat. Everything you said is right on. I would just like to see even MORE emphasis on the high point holders. And I am not saying that because I have 17 points. Even if I had 3 points I would like to see this. The emphasis should be placed on the applicants who have been waiting the longest and applicants with reward points. WDFW Hates Me (Love the user name by the way.) He summed it up well, when he said 700 people have 15 or more points. That is exactly my point. Why not take those high point holders and compete with each other. Eliminate the low point holders from their draw, and create a seperate draw for the lower point holders. This should cycle through the high point holders at a faster rate; thus increasing everyones chance at getting drawn faster. In some cases it gives hope to an elderly hunter, who would like one last chance at a trophy animal before he cannot hunt anymore.
In regards to tag distribution- That will be the highly debatable part of my suggestion. 1 tag hunt choices should be reserved for high point holders only. Once a lower point holder meets the high point holder criteria; they can enter. Or perhaps you give 2 tags. 1 for each point holder category (high and low).
Only throwing ideas out there. By no means am I saying this is the right way to do it. Just ideas....
Post by: Curly on February 16, 2013, 07:14:57 AM
Post by: EyeTooth on February 16, 2013, 08:12:53 AM
With the new system, what the people with the most points got was a free cow elk permit and the ability to keep their bull points, not in just one bull section, but two!
The unintended consequences are that they created more competition for themselves in both bull sub categories, dramatically increased the average number of points that it takes to draw in every sub category for everyone, and completely destroyed the chance for themselves and the people that had already chosen to use their points each year to try to draw any easier to get permit, of ever being able to expect to draw any kind of permit on a semi regular basis again.
This isn’t meant to be a complaint, although I do feel very sorry for the average cow permit applicants. I just think that any new changes need to be discussed very thoroughly, well thought out, and should only be made by people who will consider the best interests of all of the applicants, no matter how many points they have. We’re all in this together and we should be very careful what we ask for.
Even if the WDFW would have started this new system the way that I thought they should have, as described above, it is a system that would have eventually put us in the same situation that we're in right now anyway. It would have just taken a little longer to get here. Very short sighted planning in my opinion.
Post by: bobcat on February 16, 2013, 08:26:30 AM
It was extremely unfair what they did. And they did it with almost no input from the general public. We heard about the proposal, and a month later it was a done deal. :bash:
Post by: Curly on February 16, 2013, 08:35:25 AM
But, was it really GMAC that lobbied for the point distribution? I got the impression that it was Dave Ware's decision because it was "easier" for Outdoor Central (as he put it) to do it that way. I've been pissed for a couple years now because of Dave Ware's decision to distribute the points like he did (and I hate his reasoning that they did it because it was an easier solution for him, instead of doing what was fair).
Post by: elksnout on February 16, 2013, 09:53:39 AM
Post by: JPhelps on February 16, 2013, 10:00:12 AM
No department owes me a tag, I don't deserve a tag and I knew it was a gamble when I started putting in 7 years ago. When I was growing up I don't know how many times I heard "life isn't fair". There are plenty of other states like Idaho and Montana that allow you to hunt big bulls and bucks every year.
Post by: adamR on February 16, 2013, 10:31:49 AM
For me drawing a permit is a "BONUS"
No department owes me a tag, I don't deserve a tag and I knew it was a gamble when I started putting in 7 years ago. When I was growing up I don't know how many times I heard "life isn't fair". There are plenty of other states like Idaho and Montana that allow you to hunt big bulls and bucks every year.
BINGO :yeah:
WELL SAID!!!
The game dept doesn't owe you anything. The guy that never gets his way is always treated poorly and nothing is ever fair. The reality is the system is very fair and you will never make everyone happy so a exponential points system is the fairest they can make it.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on February 16, 2013, 01:24:56 PM
If there were an Oregon type system in place (75% of tags go to max points) what would the point creep be like in Washington? For example in Oregon the max points are 17 (close enough) and if you have 10 points the point creep is so bad that you won't draw a tag in the "big three" elk units for 30ish years... if that.
What would it be like in Washington with that kind of a system?
It would take a hell of a long time, many many years, for the people in WA with max points to all be drawn for their quality permits.
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on February 16, 2013, 02:16:28 PM
I think the people that want a true preference point system are greedy and think that they are owed a tag because they have been applying for so many years. I say tough crap, you aren't owed a special permit, you apply for an opportunity draw that permit. If you buy a lottery ticket every week for 20 years do you feel cheated if you never hit? And do you think you should have more preference than the person who has only been buying a lottery ticket for 2 weeks?
Post by: winshooter88 on February 16, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
Post by: skywalker253 on February 16, 2013, 02:57:19 PM
I think there is no need to try to accommodate the high point holders. WDFW already gifted them points in every category when they started this damn category thing. They have the high points because they only apply for the premier permits, and that is the chance they take. :twocents:
You would not have that opinion if you were sitting on 23 points and hoping to get drawn every year. And if your hunting partner gets drawn at 3 points, you would probably be frusterated.
There is truth to what you are saying about stacking points, because they are applying for premier hunts. It took my dad over 30 years to get drawn for a cow tag in GMU 673. I don't think that is a premier hunt. :dunno:
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on February 16, 2013, 03:12:22 PM
If i wanted a better opportunity to draw i would apply for a unit with better odds.
Post by: skywalker253 on February 16, 2013, 03:14:11 PM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on February 16, 2013, 03:40:39 PM
Post by: Curly on February 16, 2013, 03:46:07 PM
Lets say your dad 65 a couple years ago and when the category system was created and say he had already drawn an elk permit the year before. He would be starting in the senior category with 0 points. Now its 3 years into the category system, your dad is 68 and has 3 points built up now, but there is a whole pool of 65 year olds with points they were gifted by WDFW (possibly 15 or 16 points). What are the chances of a 65 year old guy drawing in the category when there are so many other guys that have several points? (and it's not like the guys with 10 points in the category are 75 years old).
Post by: EyeTooth on February 16, 2013, 03:51:40 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on February 16, 2013, 03:54:06 PM
Post by: Curly on February 16, 2013, 03:54:41 PM
Post by: Curly on February 16, 2013, 03:56:47 PM
Curly, do you want to know what is really screwed??? I have my points breakdown, and i have 11, 65 and over points. So now when i turn 65 i already have points because that is how many i had when they went to the new system.
Yeah, I know. A person should only have 11 points in that category when they have been applying in that category for that many years so he should be 76 by then. That is messed up.
Post by: NWWA Hunter on February 16, 2013, 04:33:14 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on February 16, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
Post by: skywalker253 on February 16, 2013, 05:07:22 PM
I believe that if we want a change we need to raise non resident OIL fees to 10X ($3320 vs $1652) our cost ($332) get some of the non residents out. Plus if we made all oil up front money it would make those who really want it stay in, get the guys out putting in their 90 year old dad and wives who don't hunt and the rest can buy the raffle tag for their $6 per ticket. I also don't get why no one thinks we should manage like Colorado. They are unit by unit. Units can be managed more selectively as to what the population can handle. You draw your tag by purchasing it with your points. Its fair in that you could draw a early tag every year for deer or a late tag every 15 years. It allows each hunter to make a choice. For ex. If we had 200 archery hunters, 75 muzzleloader hunters, 800 general rifle hunters in a unit right now, 50 late rifle tags, 25 late archery, and 15 late muzzleloader. It would be 0 points early archery (200 tags), 0 pts early muzzleloader(75 tags), 0 point Oct 5-12 rifle( 150 tags), 2 points oct 13-20 (250 tags), 3 points oct 21-28(175 tags), 6 points oct 29-Nov 4(50 tags), 12 points Nov 4-15 (30 tags), 10 points late archery (20 tags), 10 points late muzzleloader (15 tags). These are just rough numbers to pose an example but as you see a person could choose to hunt the unit early rifle, muzzleloader, or archery every year or wait over 10 years for the best season. It allows each person to make their choice. When people talk of point creep its because most of these systems are between less than 10 years and 20 years old. It takes time for them to level our. In Colorado they instituted it and the lower point units are leveling out and not creeping but the high points will continue as the demand will ALWAYS outlast supply. Some units will also always fluctuate due to trophy potential, disease, winter kill, drought, etc. Just like now as when someone hears of a big animal killed where do you think all the general season hunters are going? In a points game it just fluctuates the points but will lower them in a different unit.
Now I will sound like Bobbycat, but that is too complicated. If I am understanding you correctly; say I have 3 points and I choose to use them on the Oct 21-28 (175 tags) hunt and get drawn. The following year my points reset to 0 points; correct?
So unless I wait and accumulate a ton of points, I can never put it for one of your 10 points categories. If I am understanding you correctly?
Assuming I am; I would never want that. I would rather keep it the way it is now and have a chance at everything and build points in each category. Perhaps you left out some details and need to explain further. I just don't see how that would work in Wa with the mass amount of hunters and limited number of game animals compared to the other western states (MT, CO, WY, OR, ID, etc)
Post by: bobcat on February 16, 2013, 05:18:26 PM
Post by: skywalker253 on February 16, 2013, 05:42:52 PM
Skywalker, you just made me think of another point about the point distribution that WDFW did to all categories. The seniors got screwed over with that deal.
Lets say your dad 65 a couple years ago and when the category system was created and say he had already drawn an elk permit the year before. He would be starting in the senior category with 0 points. Now its 3 years into the category system, your dad is 68 and has 3 points built up now, but there is a whole pool of 65 year olds with points they were gifted by WDFW (possibly 15 or 16 points). What are the chances of a 65 year old guy drawing in the category when there are so many other guys that have several points? (and it's not like the guys with 10 points in the category are 75 years old).
Agreed.
One thing that none of us have brought up. Did anyone notice how many of the hunt choices for Doe tags, got moved into "second deer permits" when they went to the new system? I did not like that, as it forced hunters to purchase a second deer special permit application to apply for the hunt they had been applying for in the previous category. Clearly a strategic financial move by our game department. I could careless about shooting 2 deer in a season or accumulating points in this category. I don't eat deer. I give it away to charity after I pay to have it butchered.
My only other complaint is what I stated previously with the older high point holders. I would like to see those older guys get drawn for their OIL hunt before it gets too late for them. I can't imagine too many older hunters putting in for Watershed or the Wenaha units, unless they are not doing their research. Those are extremly challenging hunts. Meaning; I don't see them being a major factor impacting the draw odd for the others applying for those hunts.
Post by: Relish the Journey on February 16, 2013, 05:49:06 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 17, 2013, 09:24:24 PM
pretty complex conversation for the time I have.....
Distribution would be a fair way to describe why they do it. If you think the draw odds are bad now, could you imagine if all the westside folks applied as well. I am sure the folks living in Dayton and such places would have a nice take on it.
You really want to sacrifice and help draw odds, make it so you can either put in for OIL or deer and elk, NOT BOTH like Idaho does.
:yeah: something that needs to be done in this state if they truly wanted to increase draw odds
Post by: huntnnw on February 17, 2013, 09:28:43 PM
I like the Oregon system. Why not give 90% of the tags w/ the guys with the most points? You know going in if you have a realistic chance of drawing and you can plan accordingly. If it takes to many points (years) to draw then you put in for a easier tag. There should be no complaints if you know it is going to take 17 years (I have 17 points) to draw. I don't like the fact that I have been putting in for that many years (for all species) and every year I get a Dear John letter. Just doesn't seem to be fair when you wait that long and someone has drawn the same permit 2 or 3 times. Washington easily has the worst system.
dumbest system out there!! just like UT and CO..what about the 13yr old kid that decides to start applying for a OR Wenaha elk tag? whats it going to be when he can draw? 40 years? stupid
Post by: Mr Mykiss on February 18, 2013, 07:41:56 AM
what about the 13yr old kid that decides to start applying for a OR Wenaha elk tag? whats it going to be when he can draw? 40 years?
More...
Post by: fly4fish on February 18, 2013, 08:56:48 AM
If it was up to me, you would not be able to put in for a point if you buy a Westside tag.
Post by: huntnnw on February 18, 2013, 11:25:55 PM
Post by: bucklucky on February 19, 2013, 08:30:27 AM
Post by: huntnnw on February 19, 2013, 09:37:53 PM
Post by: skywalker253 on February 20, 2013, 01:03:16 AM
You goofy guys that think they are owed a special permit. Come on, your playing the lottery . I just enjoy the CHANCE to draw a good tag and look forward to being turned down. There is plenty of good general season hunts to go on in washington. There are some good areas with BIG bulls that are general season tags on both the east and west side, same with buck tags. If you want better odds of drawing a good tag , put in for more states. Its no gimmie, I dont care if you have max points. Ive always said it was a Bonus if you draw. The absurdity is people always bitchng about the washington draws IMO. Good luck on the draws this year . IMO they are giving out way too many tags for special permits . Wish they would take some away .
Where do you come up with "people think they are owed a special permit?" Nobody has ever said that in this thread. The HuntWA members have been offerring their positive and negative opinions regarding the current draw system. They have also been offering suggestions on how to make it better in their opinion. Most on here have agreed it is a lottery and your are taking your chances. The members are simply bouncing ideas around within the forum.
I agree with you, that there are plenty of areas to harvest a nice bull. I don't agree that there are plenty of big bull areas on the Eastside to hunt during the general season. There are if you draw a special permit.
Post by: bucklucky on February 20, 2013, 08:14:24 AM
Post by: Curly on February 20, 2013, 08:25:41 AM
Get rid of the points, split the draw and call it good and fair.
:yeah:
Post by: Mr Mykiss on February 20, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
However, I think there would be a revolution, riot or at least a lawsuit filed by those that have a decent amount of points let alone the max points guys!!!
BL, how would you propose compensating those with 18 points? 10 points? 6 points? I think they are owed something... me I'm just a 2 point guy I like your idea :chuckle:
Post by: 180-GRAIN on February 20, 2013, 08:54:04 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 20, 2013, 03:30:44 PM
That would work for sure. Idaho doesn't seem like they have a great system, I just started looking into it.
However, I think there would be a revolution, riot or at least a lawsuit filed by those that have a decent amount of points let alone the max points guys!!!
BL, how would you propose compensating those with 18 points? 10 points? 6 points? I think they are owed something... me I'm just a 2 point guy I like your idea :chuckle:
They already got what they had coming to them. They had better odds to draw the last few years than everybody else. If they didn't get drawn, that's chance for you.
Does a guy who buys $500 worth of lottery tickets have anything more coming to him than the guy who bought a $2 ticket? Nope, he had better odds to get drawn, but there are no guarantees. The guys with 18 points already leapfrogged over everybody else for cow tags when the State created the new sub catagories and gifted them their points for them.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on February 20, 2013, 03:42:51 PM
I will never join the revolution even though it would benefit me...only because two of my best hunting partners have not drawn yet with max points.
Post by: bucklucky on February 20, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 20, 2013, 08:39:17 PM
I like the Oregon system. Why not give 90% of the tags w/ the guys with the most points? You know going in if you have a realistic chance of drawing and you can plan accordingly. If it takes to many points (years) to draw then you put in for a easier tag. There should be no complaints if you know it is going to take 17 years (I have 17 points) to draw. I don't like the fact that I have been putting in for that many years (for all species) and every year I get a Dear John letter. Just doesn't seem to be fair when you wait that long and someone has drawn the same permit 2 or 3 times. Washington easily has the worst system.LMAO, this idea is as bad now as it was a couple months ago at the gmac meeting. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on February 20, 2013, 08:41:56 PM
Me too!QuoteWashington easily has the worst system
I disagree TENFOLD
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on February 20, 2013, 09:10:50 PM
The guys that are 65 have had there whole life to hunt the best washington has had to offer. The next 30-40 years are going to be even tougher as this state and country becomes more liberal and anti gun and anti hunting we need the younger generation to get into this, and if giving them a chance to draw a permit then so be it. I can hunt bulls every year, if i choose to apply for an east side permit and not hunt elk so be it. I can still hang with my boy and mentor him on his hunts. I dont believe in fair or not fair, hell life isn't fair, somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. But with the number of elk/person more will lose than win. Thus we have bitching and moaning rather than relishing the opportunities we do have.
Post by: huntnphool on February 20, 2013, 09:13:09 PM
Yeah, i disagree also. I have 15 points, and i would rather see my son have a chance with the 3 points he has then putting in 5 bucks for a point for him knowing he will never have a chance to draw a permit. At least right now he has a chance to draw.Well said. :yeah:
The guys that are 65 have had there whole life to hunt the best washington has had to offer. The next 30-40 years are going to be even tougher as this state and country becomes more liberal and anti gun and anti hunting we need the younger generation to get into this, and if giving them a chance to draw a permit then so be it. I can hunt bulls every year, if i choose to apply for an east side permit and not hunt elk so be it. I can still hang with my boy and mentor him on his hunts. I dont believe in fair or not fair, hell life isn't fair, somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. But with the number of elk/person more will lose than win. Thus we have bitching and moaning rather than relishing the opportunities we do have.
Post by: steeleywhopper on February 20, 2013, 09:25:58 PM
So lets say you draw a Quality bull tag and a cow tag. The way it is now you only get to shoot one or the other, not both. If the WDFW decided that X amout of cows need to be removed from said area and X amount of "Quality" bulls need removed from said area then why are we only allowed to fill one tag? Let the person who draws two tags fill both! Obviously the WDFW came up with a specific amount of animals that were up for harvest, so let them be harvested. What the heck is the difference if someone with two special draw tags does it or the guy with one tag? Get rid of the possibility of someone drawing two tags or let them fill both tags. I think the system is flawed bigtime in this area. Right now tags are being wasted and not going to people who have payed into the game. Pisses me off to no end!
Post by: bobcat on February 20, 2013, 09:32:26 PM
The best part about it, like others have said, is that new hunters still have a chance of drawing special permits. Unlike states with a preference point system, where nobody but the max point holders have any chance at all.
Post by: huntnnw on February 20, 2013, 09:56:42 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on February 20, 2013, 11:02:29 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 20, 2013, 11:13:14 PM
NV of all pt systems is the best..rest are junk! I feel bad for new hunters trying to play the game now in these western states..40 yr wait on a elk or mule deer tag in some units. Hell UT book cliffs which is considered not a tough draw was 10 pt to draw 4 years ago..now its 13 for a mediocre hunt that in 10 years will become 20+ stupid stupid!
Post by: steeleywhopper on February 20, 2013, 11:44:12 PM
I don't think it's very often that someone draws both a cow elk permit and a bull permit, but even so, I don't see the big deal. No, I don't really like the way the draw is set up now, with the different categories. I think you should only be able to apply in one category per specie. But still, if someone does draw two elk permits in the same year, oh well, that person just zeroed out their points in two categories, and probably didn't make use of one of the permits. But that's their choice. Their points, their choice. If they wanted to avoid the possibility of drawing both, they could have applied for just a point in one of the categories. The system is what it is, and you just have to learn how to use it best to your advantage.
The best part about it, like others have said, is that new hunters still have a chance of drawing special permits. Unlike states with a preference point system, where nobody but the max point holders have any chance at all.
Dont get me wrong, I love being able to have a chance at drawing every year unlike Colorado or other states. I just think that if a guy draws two Elk permits then let him fill them. Making it mandatory that you cannot fill more than one special permit is BS if you are going to allow people to draw more than one permit. I would think that it goes against WDFW's management objectives in areas with special tpermits avaliable. Otherwise fix it so that there is no possibility to draw two permits. My 2 cents and I'm still gonna shell out the $700.00 plus dollars in tags and licenses this year to hunt and fish in Washington.
Post by: bucklucky on February 20, 2013, 11:48:10 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 21, 2013, 12:09:35 AM
WA has the worst system? :chuckle: not even close!! Ill take WA draw than most western states..atleast you have a CHANCE!! look at UT and CO what a joke u have no chance till u get to max points..that may be 30 years now in some units..hell no..stupid..ID is the best!!
I agree Idaho is best, but you are wrong about Utah. 50% of tags are random draw, 50% go to max points, for that reason I like UT the best of all states with point systems. In Utah I have 12 points, there are units that I could draw for sure and kill a 300-350 bull, but I will hold out for a top unit.
Two years ago I had a rifle hunter draw a bull elk tag in Utah's Wasatch Unit the first year he applied, I also had a hunter pull another highly sought after elk tag with 6 points a few years ago, so half the tags are really going to random applicants. ;)
Post by: skywalker253 on February 21, 2013, 12:49:59 AM
I like the Oregon system. Why not give 90% of the tags w/ the guys with the most points? You know going in if you have a realistic chance of drawing and you can plan accordingly. If it takes to many points (years) to draw then you put in for a easier tag. There should be no complaints if you know it is going to take 17 years (I have 17 points) to draw. I don't like the fact that I have been putting in for that many years (for all species) and every year I get a Dear John letter. Just doesn't seem to be fair when you wait that long and someone has drawn the same permit 2 or 3 times. Washington easily has the worst system.LMAO, this idea is as bad now as it was a couple months ago at the gmac meeting. :chuckle:
You the man bro! Never wrong and always right! :tup:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 21, 2013, 05:22:29 AM
Post by: Alan K on February 21, 2013, 06:21:46 AM
Dont get me wrong, I love being able to have a chance at drawing every year unlike Colorado or other states. I just think that if a guy draws two tags then let him fill them. Making it mandatory that you cannot fill more than one tag is BS if you are going to allow people to draw more than one tag. I would think that it goes against WDFW's management objectives in areas with special tags avaliable. Otherwise fix it so that there is no possibility to draw two tags. My 2 cents and I'm still gonna shell out the $700.00 plus dollars in tags and licenses this year to hunt and fish in Washington.
That's one of the good things about our current system. It should be pointed out too, that you're not applying for tags, you're applying for permits. Your tag is bought over the counter, and the permits you draw allow you to use that tag during (often) different seasons and with (often) different restrictions. Only allowing the filling of one tag despite multiple permits is supposed to act as a disincentive for people to actually apply in multiple categories. I think once enough people burn multiple categories worth of points in the same year it'll finally catch on and alleviate some of the pressure on some hunts. I hear of several people each year who 'waste', if you want to call it that, their points in some categories. It's a gamble with any real amount of points, and just plain dumb as far as I'm concerned if you have more than 8-10 points in the categories you're applying in.
Here's my application strategy, for Washington elk. I have 14 points in all categories I'm eligible for (15 in the 2013 draw):
Quality elk only, plus points only in every other category until I draw Quality. (Due to the increased chance of drawing multiple)
Once I draw Quality, I'll apply for both Quality and Bull both until I draw Bull, and points in everything else. If I hit the lottery and draw quality again with very few points at the same time as Bull, I wouldn't mind 'missing out' on the Bull permit. I can still hunt it though. Remember there are trophy quality animals in every unit, just more or less depending which one you're in.
If I end up reaching 8 or so Quality points before I draw Bull I'll switch to applying for just Bull until I draw it, or putting in for only the hardest to draw Quality hunts at the same time.
As for Antlerless points, I don't really care to draw a cow tag, but I keep buying points so that some day when I have a son or daughter I can apply in a group with him or her. Early success in a young persons hunting career is the greatest driver in getting them hooked IMO.
Post by: huntingfool7 on February 21, 2013, 06:46:45 AM
Alan- A man with a plan. Nice and well thought out.Dont get me wrong, I love being able to have a chance at drawing every year unlike Colorado or other states. I just think that if a guy draws two tags then let him fill them. Making it mandatory that you cannot fill more than one tag is BS if you are going to allow people to draw more than one tag. I would think that it goes against WDFW's management objectives in areas with special tags avaliable. Otherwise fix it so that there is no possibility to draw two tags. My 2 cents and I'm still gonna shell out the $700.00 plus dollars in tags and licenses this year to hunt and fish in Washington.
That's one of the good things about our current system. It should be pointed out too, that you're not applying for tags, you're applying for permits. Your tag is bought over the counter, and the permits you draw allow you to use that tag during (often) different seasons and with (often) different restrictions. Only allowing the filling of one tag despite multiple permits is supposed to act as a disincentive for people to actually apply in multiple categories. I think once enough people burn multiple categories worth of points in the same year it'll finally catch on and alleviate some of the pressure on some hunts. I hear of several people each year who 'waste', if you want to call it that, their points in some categories. It's a gamble with any real amount of points, and just plain dumb as far as I'm concerned if you have more than 8-10 points in the categories you're applying in.
Here's my application strategy, for Washington elk. I have 14 points in all categories I'm eligible for (15 in the 2013 draw):
Quality elk only, plus points only in every other category until I draw Quality. (Due to the increased chance of drawing multiple)
Once I draw Quality, I'll apply for both Quality and Bull both until I draw Bull, and points in everything else. If I hit the lottery and draw quality again with very few points at the same time as Bull, I wouldn't mind 'missing out' on the Bull permit. I can still hunt it though. Remember there are trophy quality animals in every unit, just more or less depending which one you're in.
If I end up reaching 8 or so Quality points before I draw Bull I'll switch to applying for just Bull until I draw it, or putting in for only the hardest to draw Quality hunts at the same time.
As for Antlerless points, I don't really care to draw a cow tag, but I keep buying points so that some day when I have a son or daughter I can apply in a group with him or her. Early success in a young persons hunting career is the greatest driver in getting them hooked IMO.
Post by: bobcat on February 21, 2013, 07:16:21 AM
Quote
Only allowing the filling of one tag despite multiple permits is supposed to act as a disincentive for people to actually apply in multiple categories.
:yeah:
Can you imagine how much worse odds would be if we were actually drawing tags instead of just permits, where each tag was valid for one animal? :yike:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2013, 10:42:00 PM
With 17 Points in the 2012 draw your chance of getting a:
Dayton (hunt 2006) blue mtns rifle bull tag would have been 12%.
Colockum (hunt 2018) rifle bull tag would have been 2.7%
Mudflow (hunt 2041) rifle bull tag would have been 5.8%
But...you can't get em if you don't apply 8)
Post by: bobcat on February 26, 2013, 10:47:14 PM
For the folks who were frustrated that they have a lot of points and still can't draw a good unit....here are some sobering numbers from the 2012 draw that might help you understand why:
With 17 Points in the 2012 draw your chance of getting a:
Dayton (hunt 2006) blue mtns rifle bull tag would have been 12%.
Colockum (hunt 2018) rifle bull tag would have been 2.7%
Mudflow (hunt 2041) rifle bull tag would have been 5.8%
But...you can't get em if you don't apply 8)
Are you sure about those numbers? If so, odds are way better than I thought.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 26, 2013, 10:53:42 PM
Post by: skywalker253 on February 27, 2013, 12:55:48 AM
For the folks who were frustrated that they have a lot of points and still can't draw a good unit....here are some sobering numbers from the 2012 draw that might help you understand why:
With 17 Points in the 2012 draw your chance of getting a:
Dayton (hunt 2006) blue mtns rifle bull tag would have been 12%.
Colockum (hunt 2018) rifle bull tag would have been 2.7%
Mudflow (hunt 2041) rifle bull tag would have been 5.8%
But...you can't get em if you don't apply 8)
Are you sure about those numbers? If so, odds are way better than I thought.
If what you posted is accurate, then maybe the draw system does need to change. No wonder we have so many hunters with max points or close to it. I don't consider 10 points much of a reward with those odds. What good is a reward, if you may never even use it. They should give hunters, who work with the game department a special permit. Let them choose what they want. Perhaps they have an individual draw with limited permits by hunt choice to ensure the permits are distributed fairly. This is the most discouraging post I have read since joining this site. I won't get my hopes up...
Post by: huntnnw on February 28, 2013, 01:16:39 AM
Post by: kentrek on February 28, 2013, 02:03:52 AM
For the folks who were frustrated that they have a lot of points and still can't draw a good unit....here are some sobering numbers from the 2012 draw that might help you understand why:
With 17 Points in the 2012 draw your chance of getting a:
Dayton (hunt 2006) blue mtns rifle bull tag would have been 12%.
Colockum (hunt 2018) rifle bull tag would have been 2.7%
Mudflow (hunt 2041) rifle bull tag would have been 5.8%
But...you can't get em if you don't apply 8)
Are you sure about those numbers? If so, odds are way better than I thought.
If what you posted is accurate, then maybe the draw system does need to change. No wonder we have so many hunters with max points or close to it. I don't consider 10 points much of a reward with those odds. What good is a reward, if you may never even use it. They should give hunters, who work with the game department a special permit. Let them choose what they want. Perhaps they have an individual draw with limited permits by hunt choice to ensure the permits are distributed fairly. This is the most discouraging post I have read since joining this site. I won't get my hopes up...
well i see your point..but look at these great tags as "oil tags"...once in a life time is ONCE IN A LIFE TIME..i know its not how its marketed but thats how it is..plus if your live in WA what is another 6 bucks to apply ??? most people spend that much in one super coffe stand per day.....
your getting a 10-15k hunt for essentially nothing :tup:
Post by: huntnnw on February 28, 2013, 05:44:37 AM
Post by: coachcw on February 28, 2013, 06:45:45 AM
I wanna see the deer and elk go to $50 to apply...weed out the not so serious:tup: aswell as limiting the raffle tags !
Post by: idahohuntr on February 28, 2013, 08:14:22 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 28, 2013, 08:36:40 AM
Post by: The scout on February 28, 2013, 10:04:25 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 28, 2013, 11:58:58 AM
and idahohuntr they would never go for that because it has nothing to do with managing animals it has to do with money and managing people and that would reduce millions of dollors. :twocents:
If revenue were a concern, let folks buy points for as many catergories as they want...but only actually enter very few hunts each year :dunno:
Post by: Mr Mykiss on February 28, 2013, 12:46:00 PM
Post by: loper on February 28, 2013, 01:17:25 PM
One thing that none of us have brought up. Did anyone notice how many of the hunt choices for Doe tags, got moved into "second deer permits" when they went to the new system?
Of course. :D
I did not like that, as it forced hunters to purchase a second deer special permit application to apply for the hunt they had been applying for in the previous category.
And in many cases allowed hunters to actually use the permit they had drawn. :tup:
A number of times hunting deer in the Palouse my dad or I drew an antlerless tag in a unit in SE Washington but ended up taking a buck in either the general season or the late buck season (when it existed) rendering the antlerless permit useless. :dunno:
Clearly a strategic financial move by our game department.
From a pessimistic glass-half-empty perspective, perhaps. :)
Another perspective is: Deer damage on winter wheat in the Palouse is a documented problem; and those tags were issued with certain harvest success percentages in mind. Every hunter who was in the boat I described above was one more who couldn't take a doe out (which is the intent of those hunts; hunter opportunity in a damage situation). :brew:
Some people actually do like to take two deer a year. :EAT:
I don't eat deer. I give it away to charity after I pay to have it butchered.
Always an excellent use of game harvested. :)
Post by: skywalker253 on February 28, 2013, 01:30:33 PM
Rifle hunters could make the argument that the game department should cateer to the majority of their supporters, who pay their increased fee's.
Selecting a different weapon of choice is not going to fix the draw system. All that would mean; less rifle applicants are now brought over into the other weapon choice categories, thus lowering the draw odds.
Increasing the special permit fee's- I mentioned this earlier in the topic. I like the idea, but you would have to create a draw system, which works for all peoples budgets. This would stir up a lot of conterversy. You are going to have the die hard hunters, who have no problem with it, if it weeds out the not so serious applicants. Then you will have the applicants, who either cannot afford to pay or refuse to pay to apply. Those same people are in the Discovery Pass thread complaining. The last thing the majority wants is increased fee's.
Purchasing points- I don't like the idea. It would end up becoming a rich mans special permit. Even if you limited it to purchasing (Example- 5 points per year) you would end up with too many high point holders. I think it would muddy up the draw system. That is what the govenors tag and raffle tags are for. You can pay to play as much as your budget can afford.
Personally; I like our draw system. I would not mind seeing a few suttle changes made to imporve it. I was not to happy to see the draw percentages another member calculated out, based off the number of points I have. I would like to see a mild special permit fee increase (Example- $25.00) for specific hunt choices. On the condition they leave leave a certain number of permits to everyone else, who may not want or cannot afford the increase. This gives everyone an equal opprotunity to draw.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on February 28, 2013, 02:48:20 PM
Post by: steen on February 28, 2013, 05:24:19 PM
The reason for my suggestion is because I have read so many comments on here, where people are pissed off because they have a ton of points and cannot get drawn. Comments stating that max points doesn't mean *censored* in Wa, the way the draw system is setup. Some guy with 2 points randomly applies in a trophy area, which requires private land access, and he gets drawn with no knowledge of the area. In the meantime plenty of high point holders sit back for years waiting, while the permits go to waste to hunters who have no business applying for the area in the first place.I drew my second choice this year for whitetail buck and never hunted the unit. I had been in it for other reasons but never to hunt. My husband and I scouted it and did our homework got lucky and harvested a respectable buck. I would have liked to have drawn it in my first choice but discovered a fun place to hunt. My husband will probably put in for this unit this year. Not everyone puts in for units they don't know and not put an effort into making a good hunt out of it. I enjoy the new system and have drawn 3 tags in the last 3 years and will draw with one point less than When I drew my elk tag this season. It is like winning the lottery ( which I don't buy into ). I almost feel guilty drawing the three tags and my husband has only drawn one NOT!
Whether you like my suggestion or not, is not the point. Nobody can deny that their have been countless posts regarding the reasons I stated above. Just read the title of this topic. Something needs to change....
Post by: bobcat on February 28, 2013, 06:07:11 PM
Quote
All applicants need to know; if they don't have 10 points or more then everything stays the same and their chances increase. They no longer have to compete with high point holder. Those that do have 10 or more points; they apply in Group A. Everything else stays the same and their draw chances increase.
This is not possible. Your idea is to have a separate draw for those with 10 points or more. You say it would increase their odds. But you also say those people with less than ten points would have better odds. How is that possible? If you make odds better for one group, it gets worse for the other.
This talk of giving even more of an advantage to those with high numbers of points- all it will do is make it even harder for new hunters. That's the complete opposite of what we need to do.
I dislike the un-needed categories in our system, but I don't want to see any changes. Just leave it as it is and let people get used to it. Everyone has the same chances. I see no reason to complain about any of it.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 28, 2013, 06:47:55 PM
I wasn't suggesting you be allowed to buy multiple points per year. I am saying keep the system the way it is, except limit number of hunt choices/applications somewhat like Idaho. Maybe something like you get one "quality" choice (deer, elk, sheep, moose, or goat) and one antlerless choice etc. However, still allow guys to build points by putting in for a ghost point option like you can do now if you don't want to actually enter the draw.
Purchasing points- I don't like the idea. It would end up becoming a rich mans special permit. Even if you limited it to purchasing (Example- 5 points per year) you would end up with too many high point holders. I think it would muddy up the draw system. That is what the govenors tag and raffle tags are for. You can pay to play as much as your budget can afford.
I am fortunate that I can buy points for many states but I agree with you that it should not be a "rich mans" sport/permit. I understand the benefits and revenue associated with governors tags, raffle tags, point systems etc...but at the end of the day when you have raffles/point systems etc. you are basically saying unless you can commit the resources (money) to buy tickets and apps for many years you will be at a disadvantage. Wildlife is owned by all of the people, not just the wealthy and while I prefer raffles/points over outright auctioning a tag that only 4 friggin people can bid on I still think the little guy is at a disadvantage to accessing what should be a public resource equally available to folks regardless of their income/wealth.
Post by: steeleywhopper on February 28, 2013, 07:26:12 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 28, 2013, 08:55:08 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on February 28, 2013, 09:21:21 PM
Each year your draw odds get worse even though you get another point. If you stop and do the probability/math/statistics it gets really depressing. :twocents:
Post by: steeleywhopper on February 28, 2013, 09:29:38 PM
They provide the information you need to calculate odds yourself...but it is not a super straightforward process. Is there a specific hunt you are interested in knowing the odds of (for a given number of points)?Not interested myself, I really don't care to know the true odds of drawing a tag. I would like to believe in my own small world that I might draw another East side bull tag sometime before 2089. Figured the guys trying to bust their brains to figure out the odds might just want to have WDFW put them out for all to see.
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 28, 2013, 09:32:42 PM
Maybe we could put some heat to the WDFW and make them show us the "true" odds. Every casino game and lottery style game will have the true odds posted somewhere, why not this "lottery". Just saying....It is impossible to truly calculate the draw odds this state has with there present system, except for the hunts that offer only 1 tag in that particular draw. And even then, the 1 tag hunt choice odds will be based on how many actually apply and the points that they have. Odds cannot be truly put out there pre-application wise.
Scenario:
2 tags.
2,000 people apply
Squared, there would be roughly 40,000 names in the hat.
The 16 point holder drew the 1st tag available.
Now there are 39,744 names in the hat.
Your odds just got a whole lot worse even though that 16 point holder is out of the way since now there's only 1 tag left.
Everytime a tag gets drawn, regardless of how many points you have, your odds get significantly worse.
But hey, everyone has a chance..........cough, cough, cough (sales pitch bought hook-line-and sinker courtesy of the WDFW)
Look at the fine print on a lottery ticket. Odds of winning are an estimation. Lots of disclaimer language in the fine print, for example.
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 28, 2013, 09:42:13 PM
sometime before 2089.
:chuckle:
I'll be 126 years old.
That means I'll have 92 points.
My odds will still suck. :chuckle:
Post by: skywalker253 on February 28, 2013, 09:44:26 PM
Did you voice your concerns to WDFW?
No....
As I have stated many times; I like our current draw system. I went from drawing zero cow permits to 3 in 3 years. Like anything; there is always room for improvement. I am simply throwing out ideas for others in the topic, who are not happy with it. Just ideas....
Post by: idahohuntr on February 28, 2013, 09:57:46 PM
Some examples:
Dayton Quality Bull Unit (Hunt 2006 - 26 permits) Odds for 2012 Draw:
1 pt - 0.046%
5 pts - 1.141%
10 pts - 4.489%
15 pts - 9.829%
Quality Elk Unit with the worst odds??? Colockum (2019) 25 points would have given you a 1.144% chance in 2012 :yike:
Post by: skywalker253 on February 28, 2013, 09:59:14 PM
QuoteAll applicants need to know; if they don't have 10 points or more then everything stays the same and their chances increase. They no longer have to compete with high point holder. Those that do have 10 or more points; they apply in Group A. Everything else stays the same and their draw chances increase.
This is not possible. Your idea is to have a separate draw for those with 10 points or more. You say it would increase their odds. But you also say those people with less than ten points would have better odds. How is that possible? If you make odds better for one group, it gets worse for the other.
This talk of giving even more of an advantage to those with high numbers of points- all it will do is make it even harder for new hunters. That's the complete opposite of what we need to do.
I dislike the un-needed categories in our system, but I don't want to see any changes. Just leave it as it is and let people get used to it. Everyone has the same chances. I see no reason to complain about any of it.
I am not an odds guru, but here is my example...
Under the current system the more points you have; the more entires you have in the pool. Correct?
So if you remove anyone with 10 points or more; simple math should tell us that anyone with 9 points or less would have a better chance of drawing, because they are not compeating with the high point holders. Am I missing something?
Post by: snowpack on February 28, 2013, 10:02:45 PM
Post by: skywalker253 on February 28, 2013, 10:05:52 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the entire purpose of the point system designed around the more points you have the better odds you have of being selected? A new hunter has a chance to draw with 1 point, but the system is designed to provide an advantage to those, who have been applying for several years to get a permit. I like our current system; however based off the posts in this topic, I don't feel (like many others) that a applicant with high points has much of an advantage in the draw. Too many applicants with a high number of points.
Post by: skywalker253 on February 28, 2013, 10:14:08 PM
I wasn't suggesting you be allowed to buy multiple points per year. I am saying keep the system the way it is, except limit number of hunt choices/applications somewhat like Idaho. Maybe something like you get one "quality" choice (deer, elk, sheep, moose, or goat) and one antlerless choice etc. However, still allow guys to build points by putting in for a ghost point option like you can do now if you don't want to actually enter the draw.
Purchasing points- I don't like the idea. It would end up becoming a rich mans special permit. Even if you limited it to purchasing (Example- 5 points per year) you would end up with too many high point holders. I think it would muddy up the draw system. That is what the govenors tag and raffle tags are for. You can pay to play as much as your budget can afford.
I am fortunate that I can buy points for many states but I agree with you that it should not be a "rich mans" sport/permit. I understand the benefits and revenue associated with governors tags, raffle tags, point systems etc...but at the end of the day when you have raffles/point systems etc. you are basically saying unless you can commit the resources (money) to buy tickets and apps for many years you will be at a disadvantage. Wildlife is owned by all of the people, not just the wealthy and while I prefer raffles/points over outright auctioning a tag that only 4 friggin people can bid on I still think the little guy is at a disadvantage to accessing what should be a public resource equally available to folks regardless of their income/wealth.
I couldn't agree more. I suggested your idea a few weeks back and everyone in the thread said it would not work.
Post by: skywalker253 on February 28, 2013, 10:19:18 PM
But each year only a few '10 pointers' are removed and many, many more '8 pointers' are turned into '9 pointers' so the odds actually tend to keep dropping as the years roll by.
So then it would work for the first year, then go to crap after that. Good post!
Post by: snowpack on February 28, 2013, 10:24:51 PM
I like our current system; however based off the posts in this topic, I don't feel (like many others) that a applicant with high points has much of an advantage in the draw. Too many applicants with a high number of points.I think part of it is that most focus on permits for a handful of areas--2 that really get the most applicants. They could apply with little competition to other hunt choices. Some good hunts too. But human nature...get attached to points and think more points = more value = need to be used on the higher 'trophy' hunt choice.
Post by: skywalker253 on March 01, 2013, 02:47:28 PM
I like our current system; however based off the posts in this topic, I don't feel (like many others) that a applicant with high points has much of an advantage in the draw. Too many applicants with a high number of points.I think part of it is that most focus on permits for a handful of areas--2 that really get the most applicants. They could apply with little competition to other hunt choices. Some good hunts too. But human nature...get attached to points and think more points = more value = need to be used on the higher 'trophy' hunt choice.
I agree. I suppose the applicant would have to place a value on the hunting experience they can expect; if drawn. I think that is one of the reasons why so many people apply there. I decided I will buy a multi season application and hope I get drawn. A cow and a spike are equally rewarding, but I would prefer to get a nice branched antlered bull on the westside. If I get drawn, then I will put in 110% but I am not banking on it. I will shoot the first nice bull I see. I don't care about showing off my bull at the sportsman show or any of that kind of stuff. I'm not picky.
Post by: Hrdcorh2ofowler on March 03, 2013, 03:04:42 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 03, 2013, 10:13:50 PM
Post by: JLS on March 03, 2013, 10:15:30 PM
there is one simple change to this whole system pick bucks and bulls or OIL tag cant apply in both...increased odds instantly,but no way out WDFW would allow something like this..they wouldnt get money
There would be some major league conniption fits from hunters if this were proposed.
Post by: bobcat on March 03, 2013, 10:30:13 PM
there is one simple change to this whole system pick bucks and bulls or OIL tag cant apply in both...increased odds instantly,but no way out WDFW would allow something like this..they wouldnt get money
All the tough to draw hunts would still be tough to draw. But I guess it would be fine with me. I'd be ok only applying for moose for the next 20 years. You're right though, it would never happen. Two reasons- less revenue to the WDFW, and it really wouldn't be fair, changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 04, 2013, 12:46:12 AM
there is one simple change to this whole system pick bucks and bulls or OIL tag cant apply in both...increased odds instantly,but no way out WDFW would allow something like this..they wouldnt get money
All the tough to draw hunts would still be tough to draw. But I guess it would be fine with me. I'd be ok only applying for moose for the next 20 years. You're right though, it would never happen. Two reasons- less revenue to the WDFW, and it really wouldn't be fair, changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Ahhhh but they did change the rules when they created the new categories and let the points carry over to all categories instead of making people earn them by applying. Was that fair?
Post by: Houndhunter on March 04, 2013, 05:49:31 AM
there is one simple change to this whole system pick bucks and bulls or OIL tag cant apply in both...increased odds instantly,but no way out WDFW would allow something like this..they wouldnt get money
All the tough to draw hunts would still be tough to draw. But I guess it would be fine with me. I'd be ok only applying for moose for the next 20 years. You're right though, it would never happen. Two reasons- less revenue to the WDFW, and it really wouldn't be fair, changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Ahhhh but they did change the rules when they created the new categories and let the points carry over to all categories instead of making people earn them by applying. Was that fair?
No...... Good point
Post by: loper on March 04, 2013, 09:37:02 AM
there is one simple change to this whole system pick bucks and bulls or OIL tag cant apply in both...increased odds instantly,but no way out WDFW would allow something like this..they wouldnt get money
There would be some major league conniption fits from hunters if this were proposed.
It was one of the proposals under discussion at the WDFW season setting public meetings held in August/September of 2008; it received a number of negative comments from those in attendance at the Vancouver meeting, specifically from those who didn't want their hunting opportunity restricted in any way
Post by: idahohuntr on March 04, 2013, 05:43:08 PM
there is one simple change to this whole system pick bucks and bulls or OIL tag cant apply in both...increased odds instantly,but no way out WDFW would allow something like this..they wouldnt get money
There would be some major league conniption fits from hunters if this were proposed.
Maybe...but I think people would actually realize its a much better system in that lower quality tags would not take so long to draw. Right now, there is not as much difference in draw odds as most states for antlerless tags relative to quality tags given that everybody can put in for darn near everything (several categories and several choices in each category). Most states you get one, maybe two elk choices...not 10 like WA (2 quality, 4 bull, 4 antlerless). Under a limited app system guys that want to meat hunt have much better odds at cow tags, and yes, high quality bull tags are still going to be tough...but odds would improve a little....how much is anyones guess. :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on March 04, 2013, 10:04:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 04, 2013, 10:09:28 PM
just look at ID draw odds for animals...there sheep units are dbl digit applicants :yike: one is almost 50% draw..all across the board moose, goat and even the good deer and elk units are nothing like WA applicant numbers
Idaho also has a much lower human population than us, and a much higher number of animals.
Post by: JLS on March 04, 2013, 10:10:32 PM
there is one simple change to this whole system pick bucks and bulls or OIL tag cant apply in both...increased odds instantly,but no way out WDFW would allow something like this..they wouldnt get money
There would be some major league conniption fits from hunters if this were proposed.
Maybe...but I think people would actually realize its a much better system in that lower quality tags would not take so long to draw. Right now, there is not as much difference in draw odds as most states for antlerless tags relative to quality tags given that everybody can put in for darn near everything (several categories and several choices in each category). Most states you get one, maybe two elk choices...not 10 like WA (2 quality, 4 bull, 4 antlerless). Under a limited app system guys that want to meat hunt have much better odds at cow tags, and yes, high quality bull tags are still going to be tough...but odds would improve a little....how much is anyones guess. :twocents:
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I've thought the special permit process was a load of crap from the day it went to the multiple choice sham it is now. The cow elk/moose applicants really took it in the shorts on that one.
I'm just saying in general, folks would have a cow. Look how many are already wailing that "it's not fair".
It's kind of ironic how by "not wanting to restrict their hunting opportunity", folks basically made it unattainable.
So be it.
Post by: JLS on March 04, 2013, 10:12:07 PM
just look at ID draw odds for animals...there sheep units are dbl digit applicants :yike: one is almost 50% draw..all across the board moose, goat and even the good deer and elk units are nothing like WA applicant numbers
Idaho also has a much lower human population than us, and a much higher number of animals.
If you took total population of hunters in Idaho and Washington, I'm betting they won't be all that different.
Post by: huntnnw on March 04, 2013, 10:22:36 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 04, 2013, 10:24:52 PM
just look at ID draw odds for animals...there sheep units are dbl digit applicants :yike: one is almost 50% draw..all across the board moose, goat and even the good deer and elk units are nothing like WA applicant numbers
Idaho also has a much lower human population than us, and a much higher number of animals.
If you took total population of hunters in Idaho and Washington, I'm betting they won't be all that different.
That's possible, but I bet they have a lot more permits available. We have just over 100 moose permits. How many does Idaho have? What about bighorn sheep?
I'm not trying to say Idaho's "system", or lack thereof, is not the best thing going. It is.
It's just that now that we have our points system, there really is no going back.
Post by: huntnnw on March 04, 2013, 10:27:16 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 04, 2013, 10:30:26 PM
yeah there is...when has the Gov't given a chit what people think?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
Are you saying you think the WDFW could do away with the point system and limit our applications each year, the same way Idaho does?
Post by: huntnnw on March 04, 2013, 11:24:28 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 05, 2013, 07:15:57 AM
Post by: huntnnw on March 05, 2013, 09:57:39 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 05, 2013, 10:20:42 PM
I agree with huntnnw on the Idaho quantity tags
Post by: huntnnw on March 05, 2013, 10:46:46 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2013, 10:51:01 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 05, 2013, 10:59:02 PM
this state should be DRAW only for mule deer too! way to many people hunting far to little habitat..look at the other western states that have 10X the mule deer we have and half the human pop and they are all draw. This state could have fantastic and trophy quality hunts all over.
Post by: skywalker253 on March 05, 2013, 11:22:23 PM
and pick OIL or bucks and bulls..point systems suck!! and 5 year waiting period after u draw a trophy bull or buck unit. u would see apps in category's cut in half!
this state should be DRAW only for mule deer too! way to many people hunting far to little habitat..look at the other western states that have 10X the mule deer we have and half the human pop and they are all draw. This state could have fantastic and trophy quality hunts all over.
Is that factual information or your opinion? Post some factual info to support your statements. I am not saying I disagree with you. I would just like to see how you came to these conclusions.
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2013, 11:50:29 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 06, 2013, 12:50:05 AM
Post by: skywalker253 on March 06, 2013, 02:55:00 AM
I agree it should be draw only for mule deer. Which would probably mean draw only for ALL deer, or most deer anyway. Since doing away with general seasons for mule deer would end up putting a lot more pressure on whitetail deer and blacktail deer.
Draw only would be good for specific units, which have too many hunters on top of each other. With more land becoming private, leased, posted, windmills, etc. it is putting too many people in an area and turning the hunting experience into an opening morning hunt. A legal buck is lucky to make it out of the canyon they are in, but usually get killed in the next canyon they enter. What use to be a quality hunt has turned into "killing a deer not hunting." In many cases the deer being harvested are barely legal, because most hunters are not going to pass on a barely legal buck; knowing it is gonna get killed by the next guy. I have passed on several small deer, which I watched run a few hundred yards and get shot by the next guy.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 06, 2013, 07:30:01 AM
So if Washington would get rid of points and do the draw the same as Idaho, we'd have the same good odds of drawing and bigger bucks and bulls in every unit?
Don't we all wish :chuckle: I say keep the points, limit the apps/choices per hunter to bring odds up (still won't be as good as Idaho given their higher numbers of tags). This of course does not change the quantity/quality of animals in the units.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 06, 2013, 07:40:14 AM
people in this state drooling over a desert tag and 5,000 apps...wow....theres plenty of hunts in ID and others that are a general hunt better quality bucks taken every year..I laugh my ass every year seeing pics of desert harvest. and think of how long they applied for this let down
I've hunted many Idaho draw mule deer units but I can't compare it to any WA mule deer hunts. I still put in for WA hunts because I live here and it only costs me a few dollars...that probably goes for the other 5000 people you mention...its not that everyone thinks there are no better units...just convenient to draw a tag closer to home and cheaper. Thats why I think limiting application choices would be a good thing, it would make more of the medium quality tags a lot easier to draw, and those medium quality tags are still better than a general WA deer hunt which IMO is a joke in many units.
Post by: npaull on March 06, 2013, 09:35:27 AM
Quote
With more land becoming private, leased, posted, windmills, etc. it is putting too many people in an area and turning the hunting experience into an opening morning hunt
This, in my mind, is the fundamental threat to hunting, not just in Washington but everywhere. Which is why it is so distressing to me to see many hunters opposing the creation of new wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are the best thing that can happen for hunting, in my opinion. But I digress.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 06, 2013, 06:11:27 PM
I agree it should be draw only for mule deer. Which would probably mean draw only for ALL deer, or most deer anyway. Since doing away with general seasons for mule deer would end up putting a lot more pressure on whitetail deer and blacktail deer.
Not if putting in for drawings meant you couldn't hunt the general seasons. Make that a rule for mule deer and all quality bull/buck hunts. You might not get drawn every year, but when you do, you have a shot at something special.
Post by: huntnphool on March 06, 2013, 06:35:47 PM
The problem is there are a lot of people that don't care about a shot at something special, they are only concerned with being allowed to hunt every year.You might not get drawn every year, but when you do, you have a shot at something special.Quote from: link=topic=118528.msg1584874#msg1584874 date=1362556229
Post by: buckhorn2 on March 06, 2013, 07:01:22 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 06, 2013, 07:59:53 PM
The problem is there are a lot of people that don't care about a shot at something special, they are only concerned with being allowed to hunt every year.You might not get drawn every year, but when you do, you have a shot at something special.Quote from: link=topic=118528.msg1584874#msg1584874 date=1362556229
So they hunt the general hunt. Life is full of choices.
Post by: sakoshooter on March 07, 2013, 01:01:28 PM
I agree it should be draw only for mule deer. Which would probably mean draw only for ALL deer, or most deer anyway. Since doing away with general seasons for mule deer would end up putting a lot more pressure on whitetail deer and blacktail deer.
I disagree. Many hunters simply want to hunt together w/friends & family every year. Making it draw only would break up all those groups and make people look at out of state tags or worse - give up hunting all together. If it was a draw, there are much better places to apply than here in WA. If you ask me, there are way too many special tags available now for mule deer hunts just so the WDFW can get extra money from the application process and the mult-season licenses. The harvest from all these special tags takes away from the general season. All for the sake of the almighty dollar$$$.
Post by: bobcat on March 07, 2013, 01:25:15 PM
I disagree. Many hunters simply want to hunt together w/friends & family every year. Making it draw only would break up all those groups and make people look at out of state tags or worse - give up hunting all together. If it was a draw, there are much better places to apply than here in WA. If you ask me, there are way too many special tags available now for mule deer hunts just so the WDFW can get extra money from the application process and the mult-season licenses. The harvest from all these special tags takes away from the general season. All for the sake of the almight dollar$$$.
I realize it's what many hunters WANT, but what's the point if there is nothing to hunt? Theoretically these groups of people could still get together at the same time every year, and go on a camping trip. Right? They could bring a camera instead of a gun (maybe try for some wolf photographs.) Or instead of hunting deer like they're accustomed to, hunt predators (bobcats, coyotes, cougar, bear.)
Or like you said, hunt deer in another state.
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2013, 01:50:47 PM
That makes too much sense though Bob, those type of hunters will not understand until its too late.I disagree. Many hunters simply want to hunt together w/friends & family every year. Making it draw only would break up all those groups and make people look at out of state tags or worse - give up hunting all together. If it was a draw, there are much better places to apply than here in WA. If you ask me, there are way too many special tags available now for mule deer hunts just so the WDFW can get extra money from the application process and the mult-season licenses. The harvest from all these special tags takes away from the general season. All for the sake of the almight dollar$$$.
I realize it's what many hunters WANT, but what's the point if there is nothing to hunt? Theoretically these groups of people could still get together at the same time every year, and go on a camping trip. Right? They could bring a camera instead of a gun (maybe try for some wolf photographs.) Or instead of hunting deer like they're accustomed to, hunt predators (bobcats, coyotes, cougar, bear.)
Or like you said, hunt deer in another state.
Post by: RC3 on March 07, 2013, 07:54:11 PM
Post by: snowpack on March 07, 2013, 08:07:28 PM
So, I'm not advocating for more private land, but from having hunted in states with more private than here and more hunters/population, all of them as far as I can recall had cheaper license/tags, more tags per person, fewer 'other' restrictions, longer (much in cases) seasons and tended to have much higher success rates. I didn't sense it as being the opening morning hunt. Never saw the combat/competiveness in hunting until on public land/severely restricted states. Just saying, based off experience.QuoteWith more land becoming private, leased, posted, windmills, etc. it is putting too many people in an area and turning the hunting experience into an opening morning hunt
This, in my mind, is the fundamental threat to hunting, not just in Washington but everywhere. Which is why it is so distressing to me to see many hunters opposing the creation of new wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are the best thing that can happen for hunting, in my opinion. But I digress.
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2013, 09:48:16 PM
they will keep raising the permit app fees until the revenue goes down.They will raise them past that point as well. You have to remember that this is state ran by Democrats, who's solution to everything is increase revenue.
Post by: elk247 on March 07, 2013, 10:47:28 PM
I disagree. Many hunters simply want to hunt together w/friends & family every year. Making it draw only would break up all those groups and make people look at out of state tags or worse - give up hunting all together. If it was a draw, there are much better places to apply than here in WA. If you ask me, there are way too many special tags available now for mule deer hunts just so the WDFW can get extra money from the application process and the mult-season licenses. The harvest from all these special tags takes away from the general season. All for the sake of the almight dollar$$$.
I realize it's what many hunters WANT, but what's the point if there is nothing to hunt? Theoretically these groups of people could still get together at the same time every year, and go on a camping trip. Right? They could bring a camera instead of a gun (maybe try for some wolf photographs.) Or instead of hunting deer like they're accustomed to, hunt predators (bobcats, coyotes, cougar, bear.)
Or like you said, hunt deer in another state.
What? Hunt with a camera? Go camping instead? I usually tend to agree with you but this is crazy. It seems like all your concerned with is hunting horn. Some people do enjoy hunting with thier family. My dad and uncle taught me to hunt. I still hunt with them even if they are older now and cant get around like they used to. I belive in paying it foward so i will continue to pack out thier animals. Im also happy that my son is able to learn the wealth of hunting/life lessons that only hunting camp can provide.
Post by: sakoshooter on March 08, 2013, 01:44:53 AM
I disagree. Many hunters simply want to hunt together w/friends & family every year. Making it draw only would break up all those groups and make people look at out of state tags or worse - give up hunting all together. If it was a draw, there are much better places to apply than here in WA. If you ask me, there are way too many special tags available now for mule deer hunts just so the WDFW can get extra money from the application process and the mult-season licenses. The harvest from all these special tags takes away from the general season. All for the sake of the almight dollar$$$.
I realize it's what many hunters WANT, but what's the point if there is nothing to hunt? Theoretically these groups of people could still get together at the same time every year, and go on a camping trip. Right? They could bring a camera instead of a gun (maybe try for some wolf photographs.) Or instead of hunting deer like they're accustomed to, hunt predators (bobcats, coyotes, cougar, bear.)
Or like you said, hunt deer in another state.
What? Hunt with a camera? Go camping instead? I usually tend to agree with you but this is crazy. It seems like all your concerned with is hunting horn. Some people do enjoy hunting with thier family. My dad and uncle taught me to hunt. I still hunt with them even if they are older now and cant get around like they used to. I belive in paying it foward so i will continue to pack out thier animals. Im also happy that my son is able to learn the wealth of hunting/life lessons that only hunting camp can provide.
Not counting Master Hunter tags, last year alone there were 9107 special deer tags available thru the WDFW draw in Wa. Tell me it's not about the money!
In 2011 the WDFW made just under $1,000,000.00 from Multi Season tags. This last year they doubled that.
If the concern is actually about the number of deer available, let's cut down on all the late season tags during the rut and all the antlerless tags. How about the deprevation tags to farmers that won't even allow hunting on their property. I'd say there are much better ways of increasing opportunity and deer numbers without making the general season a draw.
Post by: skywalker253 on March 08, 2013, 01:57:06 AM
I disagree. Many hunters simply want to hunt together w/friends & family every year. Making it draw only would break up all those groups and make people look at out of state tags or worse - give up hunting all together. If it was a draw, there are much better places to apply than here in WA. If you ask me, there are way too many special tags available now for mule deer hunts just so the WDFW can get extra money from the application process and the mult-season licenses. The harvest from all these special tags takes away from the general season. All for the sake of the almight dollar$$$.
I realize it's what many hunters WANT, but what's the point if there is nothing to hunt? Theoretically these groups of people could still get together at the same time every year, and go on a camping trip. Right? They could bring a camera instead of a gun (maybe try for some wolf photographs.) Or instead of hunting deer like they're accustomed to, hunt predators (bobcats, coyotes, cougar, bear.)
Or like you said, hunt deer in another state.
What? Hunt with a camera? Go camping instead? I usually tend to agree with you but this is crazy. It seems like all your concerned with is hunting horn. Some people do enjoy hunting with thier family. My dad and uncle taught me to hunt. I still hunt with them even if they are older now and cant get around like they used to. I belive in paying it foward so i will continue to pack out thier animals. Im also happy that my son is able to learn the wealth of hunting/life lessons that only hunting camp can provide.
I could not agree with you more. Go on a camping trip???? Go search for wolves to take photos???? Are you serious Bobby Kitten???? I'm trying to determine who is more strong in their opinions. Bobby "I tell it like it is" Kitten or Huntn "I know everything about everything" Phool. Bobby Kitten is by far the most negative person on Hunt-Wa, but I love your style because you tend to go aganist the majority. I love that about you. Huntnphool is by far the self proclaimed "genius" of hunting. He is the guy that goes to all the sportsman shows to tell his "Fish Stories" of hunting. I read his posts and get embarassed for the guy. I feel bad....somebody needs to pull this guy aside and let him know he comes off like a "Meatball" in this forum. The famous "Lock the Gates" thread was the thread of the year. LMFAO....
Post by: skywalker253 on March 08, 2013, 02:07:15 AM
Post by: kentrek on March 08, 2013, 02:17:53 AM
I disagree. Many hunters simply want to hunt together w/friends & family every year. Making it draw only would break up all those groups and make people look at out of state tags or worse - give up hunting all together. If it was a draw, there are much better places to apply than here in WA. If you ask me, there are way too many special tags available now for mule deer hunts just so the WDFW can get extra money from the application process and the mult-season licenses. The harvest from all these special tags takes away from the general season. All for the sake of the almight dollar$$$.
I realize it's what many hunters WANT, but what's the point if there is nothing to hunt? Theoretically these groups of people could still get together at the same time every year, and go on a camping trip. Right? They could bring a camera instead of a gun (maybe try for some wolf photographs.) Or instead of hunting deer like they're accustomed to, hunt predators (bobcats, coyotes, cougar, bear.)
Or like you said, hunt deer in another state.
What? Hunt with a camera? Go camping instead? I usually tend to agree with you but this is crazy. It seems like all your concerned with is hunting horn. Some people do enjoy hunting with thier family. My dad and uncle taught me to hunt. I still hunt with them even if they are older now and cant get around like they used to. I belive in paying it foward so i will continue to pack out thier animals. Im also happy that my son is able to learn the wealth of hunting/life lessons that only hunting camp can provide.
I could not agree with you more. Go on a camping trip???? Go search for wolves to take photos???? Are you serious Bobby Kitten???? I'm trying to determine who is more strong in their opinions. Bobby "I tell it like it is" Kitten or Huntn "I know everything about everything" Phool. Bobby Kitten is by far the most negative person on Hunt-Wa, but I love your style because you tend to go aganist the majority. I love that about you. Huntnphool is by far the self proclaimed "genius" of hunting. He is the guy that goes to all the sportsman shows to tell his "Fish Stories" of hunting. I read his posts and get embarassed for the guy. I feel bad....somebody needs to pull this guy aside and let him know he comes off like a "Meatball" in this forum. The famous "Lock the Gates" thread was the thread of the year. LMFAO....
lol you must be drunker than me cuz your the one sounding like a "meatball" :brew: just being honest..figured i might as well say it :hello:
im glad for the perspectives of both bobcat and huntnphool..we need sound minds to stop tyranny of the majority..esp when the majority is as lazy as it is...if everyone thought like you do ya think the world would be a better place ? think hard on that for a day or two.... no hard feelings :tup:
Post by: skywalker253 on March 08, 2013, 02:49:37 AM
I have said it before and I will say it again "I don't care what the forum thinks." If I did, I would not post. I know I rub people the wrong way, because I am alot like Bobby Kitten with my posts. I tell it like it is, and I call it how I see it. For some, that pisses them off, but others respect it. Nobody can argue that "everything about everything" is by far the most condaceding individual within this forum. And we all know he has a personal issue towards natives. My wife and kids are enrolled tribal members, so I tend to take his comments towards natives personal; despite the fact that I support his opinions towards natives, who abuse their rights. At least we agree on something...
Post by: kentrek on March 08, 2013, 03:22:02 AM
:brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew:
I have said it before and I will say it again "I don't care what the forum thinks." If I did, I would not post. I know I rub people the wrong way, because I am alot like Bobby Kitten with my posts. I tell it like it is, and I call it how I see it. For some, that pisses them off, but others respect it. Nobody can argue that "everything about everything" is by far the most condaceding individual within this forum. And we all know he has a personal issue towards natives. My wife and kids are enrolled tribal members, so I tend to take his comments towards natives personal; despite the fact that I support his opinions towards natives, who abuse their rights. At least we agree on something...
:tup: time to get back to the.. :party1:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 08, 2013, 03:22:32 AM
How about STOP paying land owners for game damages, who are SUPPOSE to open up their land to the public for submitting damage claims. In the end they open up a minimal portion of land, which generally has NO game on it to satisfy the game department requirements. In the meantime they recieve land owner permits and harvest game in the areas, which the public should be hunting in the first place. What a waste of the game departments budget.
I'm with you there. If you take public money for crop damage, you open your land to public hunting. Otherwise, you're on your own. And no landowner tags.
Post by: skywalker253 on March 08, 2013, 03:30:53 AM
How about STOP paying land owners for game damages, who are SUPPOSE to open up their land to the public for submitting damage claims. In the end they open up a minimal portion of land, which generally has NO game on it to satisfy the game department requirements. In the meantime they recieve land owner permits and harvest game in the areas, which the public should be hunting in the first place. What a waste of the game departments budget.
I'm with you there. If you take public money for crop damage, you open your land to public hunting. Otherwise, you're on your own. And no landowner tags.
I agree with you. I am just pointing out that land owners, who get tags are not exactly being honest with the public or the game department, in terms of the land avaliable for the public to hunt.
Post by: huntnphool on March 08, 2013, 08:43:48 AM
:brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew:Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it should not come with the intentional contempt and insolence you are displaying toward Bob. Say what you want about me, your drunken slur means nothing, but Bob was simply expressing his opinion and has the privilege to do so. For you to mock his site name is disrespectful and a obvious attempt at confrontation, both of which shed light on your diminishing character and disposition. :twocents:
I have said it before and I will say it again "I don't care what the forum thinks." If I did, I would not post. I know I rub people the wrong way, because I am alot like Bobby Kitten with my posts. I tell it like it is, and I call it how I see it. For some, that pisses them off, but others respect it. Nobody can argue that "everything about everything" is by far the most condaceding individual within this forum. And we all know he has a personal issue towards natives. My wife and kids are enrolled tribal members, so I tend to take his comments towards natives personal; despite the fact that I support his opinions towards natives, who abuse their rights. At least we agree on something...
Post by: WAcoueshunter on March 08, 2013, 09:05:31 AM
Post by: sakoshooter on March 08, 2013, 05:13:08 PM
The only thing that separates applicants is the hunt number. 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th choice applicants are all lumped together in each drawing according to hunt number. Myself, I don't feel it's fair for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice applicant to be drawn ahead of a 1st choice applicant in any given hunt choice.
I'd like to see only 1st choice applicants competing against each other for any given hunt choice and whatever is left over could be awarded via a drawing for 2nd, 3rd and 4th consecutively.
This would greatly reduce applicants for any given hunt plus greatly up the odds for those with the highest number of points.
I've heard from more than a few hunters that received a tag for their latter choices only to not go on the hunt because it really wasn't what they wanted. I'll bet a lot more of this goes on than we'll ever know.
And another thing that is simply assinine in WA's draw is to issue multiple tags for the same species for the same season. A co-worker of mine drew a cow tag in one unit and a quality bull tag in another for the same dates. He hunted the quality tag but lost all his points for cow since he was drawn.
You'd think that since this is computerized, it could be easily programed to prevent this. It could be set up to automatically void the lesser of the two when you double draw.
Post by: Alan K on March 08, 2013, 05:33:08 PM
If we really want to up our chances of drawing a quality tag or even an antlerless tag, let's get the WDFW to change the way they draw out the winners each year.
The only thing that separates applicants is the hunt number. 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th choice applicants are all lumped together in each drawing according to hunt number. Myself, I don't feel it's fair for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice applicant to be drawn ahead of a 1st choice applicant in any given hunt choice.
I'd like to see only 1st choice applicants competing against each other for any given hunt choice and whatever is left over could be awarded via a drawing for 2nd, 3rd and 4th consecutively.
This would greatly reduce applicants for any given hunt plus greatly up the odds for those with the highest number of points.
I've heard from more than a few hunters that received a tag for their latter choices only to not go on the hunt because it really wasn't what they wanted. I'll bet a lot more of this goes on than we'll ever know.
I agree completely. It would basically have the same effect as limiting everyone to a single hunt choice, but then hopefully fill some of the few under subscribed hunts at the same time.
That makes me laugh to hear about people who apply for a hunt and don't go on it because it's not what they wanted. . . Why put it down on the application then? I don't think I'll ever understand that.
And another thing that is simply assinine in WA's draw is to issue multiple tags for the same species for the same season. A co-worker of mine drew a cow tag in one unit and a quality bull tag in another for the same dates. He hunted the quality tag but lost all his points for cow since he was drawn.
You'd think that since this is computerized, it could be easily programed to prevent this. It could be set up to automatically void the lesser of the two when you double draw.
In that case the system is working exactly as planned. The whole point of the new draw system, aside from taking more money out of our pockets, is to allow people to build points in categories while actually applying in others. It's a gamble to apply for multiple permits for the same species rather than just one and points in the rest. When enough people get burned like your co-worker maybe they'll quit applying in multiple categories and increase the odds for everyone.
Post by: sakoshooter on March 08, 2013, 07:38:57 PM
And another thing that is simply assinine in WA's draw is to issue multiple tags for the same species for the same season. A co-worker of mine drew a cow tag in one unit and a quality bull tag in another for the same dates. He hunted the quality tag but lost all his points for cow since he was drawn.
You'd think that since this is computerized, it could be easily programed to prevent this. It could be set up to automatically void the lesser of the two when you double draw.
In that case the system is working exactly as planned. The whole point of the new draw system, aside from taking more money out of our pockets, is to allow people to build points in categories while actually applying in others. It's a gamble to apply for multiple permits for the same species rather than just one and points in the rest. When enough people get burned like your co-worker maybe they'll quit applying in multiple categories and increase the odds for everyone.
[/quote]
The system shouldn't be designed to 'burn' anybody. We pay thru the nose for this system and the people that run it. It needs to be designed with hunters best interest in mind. And the animals we hunt. Not to take our money and burn us.
Post by: Alan K on March 08, 2013, 07:57:02 PM
I hope everyone whines on here and every other form of media possible when they draw multiple permits in the same year and 'wastes' (even though they can still participate on each hunt until they fill their tag) their points. Like I said before, the more people quit applying in several categories, the more everyone's odds will go up. :tup:
Post by: skywalker253 on March 08, 2013, 08:10:11 PM
:brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew:Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it should not come with the intentional contempt and insolence you are displaying toward Bob. Say what you want about me, your drunken slur means nothing, but Bob was simply expressing his opinion and has the privilege to do so. For you to mock his site name is disrespectful and a obvious attempt at confrontation, both of which shed light on your diminishing character and disposition. :twocents:
I have said it before and I will say it again "I don't care what the forum thinks." If I did, I would not post. I know I rub people the wrong way, because I am alot like Bobby Kitten with my posts. I tell it like it is, and I call it how I see it. For some, that pisses them off, but others respect it. Nobody can argue that "everything about everything" is by far the most condaceding individual within this forum. And we all know he has a personal issue towards natives. My wife and kids are enrolled tribal members, so I tend to take his comments towards natives personal; despite the fact that I support his opinions towards natives, who abuse their rights. At least we agree on something...
I like Bob. I think I said that already. I call him Bobby Kitten and he calls me Luke; so big deal. I am sure Bob does not need you to defend him. And if he took my comment serious, then he would have likely responded. He knows I was just poking fun. You are just being all drama and making something out of nothing. Kinda like when you got my cell number and blew my phone up for 2 weeks. Then you got mad cus I blew you off, because you would not leave me alone. Too bad I don't drink, but that was just another one of your cheap shots towards natives.
Post by: Bob33 on March 08, 2013, 08:20:18 PM
Let's think about that. No one on here appears to like it, but most everyone keeps playing the game so revenues to WDFW are up.
Absurd, or brilliant?
Post by: huntnphool on March 08, 2013, 08:45:20 PM
LOL :chuckle: You are funny.:brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew: :brew:Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it should not come with the intentional contempt and insolence you are displaying toward Bob. Say what you want about me, your drunken slur means nothing, but Bob was simply expressing his opinion and has the privilege to do so. For you to mock his site name is disrespectful and a obvious attempt at confrontation, both of which shed light on your diminishing character and disposition. :twocents:
I have said it before and I will say it again "I don't care what the forum thinks." If I did, I would not post. I know I rub people the wrong way, because I am alot like Bobby Kitten with my posts. I tell it like it is, and I call it how I see it. For some, that pisses them off, but others respect it. Nobody can argue that "everything about everything" is by far the most condaceding individual within this forum. And we all know he has a personal issue towards natives. My wife and kids are enrolled tribal members, so I tend to take his comments towards natives personal; despite the fact that I support his opinions towards natives, who abuse their rights. At least we agree on something...
I like Bob. I think I said that already. I call him Bobby Kitten and he calls me Luke; so big deal. I am sure Bob does not need you to defend him. And if he took my comment serious, then he would have likely responded. He knows I was just poking fun. You are just being all drama and making something out of nothing. Kinda like when you got my cell number and blew my phone up for 2 weeks. Then you got mad cus I blew you off, because you would not leave me alone. Too bad I don't drink, but that was just another one of your cheap shots towards natives.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 08, 2013, 11:56:17 PM
"The absurdity of WDFW draw system".
Let's think about that. No one on here appears to like it, but most everyone keeps playing the game so revenues to WDFW are up.
Absurd, or brilliant?
Not everybody Bob. It only took getting an any season tag once to figure out what a scam that draw is. Money money money. I quit putting in for that and cut way back on the other draws I put in for.
Post by: elk247 on March 09, 2013, 12:05:32 AM
Post by: judojudd on March 09, 2013, 01:18:13 AM
Now that I'm a little more educated, I'm not so down on the system overall. In fact, all this digging has made me realize that my westside OTC unit is the right place to be for success. So when all is said and done, I won't get too bent out of shape about the system and just put my work in to kill an animal where I can.
Post by: elk247 on March 09, 2013, 01:25:08 AM
Post by: skywalker253 on March 09, 2013, 02:30:57 AM
:tup: I'm with ya there. Otc is good enough for me. And my unit produces year after year also. Seems like general season is overlooked by many. Animals dont magicly appear during permit hunts.
Good point...
I agree the animals don't just appear and you still have to hunt for them. There are clearly some advantages with certain special permits. I don't think anybody will argue that point. I know I would be pretty hard pressed to find a 350 inch Rosie in thick brush during the general rifle season, versus trying to find that same calibur of bull in some of the eastern special permit hunts. I also think many people miss what makes up a special permit. There is something to be said about the experience you should expect, when drawing certain permits. I am thinking a Wenaha wilderness permit should be a much better hunting experience versus a Toutle Bull permit. I think most would agree they would both be fun hunts, but a wilderness hunt trumps just about any hunt offered. IMO
You have to place a value on the hunting experience you should expect to get when drawing a special permit. Each individual may have a different interpretation of what that value means to them.
Post by: sakoshooter on March 09, 2013, 10:33:35 AM
The absurdity IS the WDFW draw system ! Im good with the general seasons. I wont support the fund raiser system they have in place. Never have. The only people that need special hunts are youth and disabled. I am confident that I can harvest a fine game animal with scouting, skills, and hard work. Most of you guys dont want to hear this but its true. There is no lack of mule deer. There in every roadside ditch in EWa. Cougars arent over hunted, there thicker then ever. Bears too. Thats the result of taking away bait and hounds from us hunter. The draw system is a completely broken. If it was like Idaho maybe, i could get behind it. But this is where we are now. Hunters arguing with other hunters about which general season needs to go away for another to prosper. Wolves and tree huggers are the real enemy. And headlights if your a deer.
I can pretty much agree with this other than the mule deer population. It's way down because of reasons you listed already.
It's unfortunate that the WDFW uses the harvest from all the special hunts as herd control besides the main objective - money. All those animals could be available during the general seasons if they weren't killed during the special hunts and the end result would be the same herd population wise.
This whole state has turned into one big fund raising raffle between the mult-season tags and special hunts. All of this used to be just plain ol fashioned general hunting season when you could plan on certain dates with family and friends. Like Bob33 said, most hunters continue to donate to support it. I've cut my applications waaaay back the last two years and the only special tags I'm applying for are the ones I have max points in which is still doubtful if I'll ever get drawn the way they do it here. And I'll never apply for the multi-season again.
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 09, 2013, 07:08:31 PM
"The absurdity of WDFW draw system".
Let's think about that. No one on here appears to like it, but most everyone keeps playing the game so revenues to WDFW are up.
Absurd, or brilliant?
It's brilliant. It's a brilliant way of guaranteeing I will be hunting out of state every year. :chuckle:
Post by: skywalker253 on March 10, 2013, 04:46:19 AM
The absurdity IS the WDFW draw system ! Im good with the general seasons. I wont support the fund raiser system they have in place. Never have. The only people that need special hunts are youth and disabled. I am confident that I can harvest a fine game animal with scouting, skills, and hard work. Most of you guys dont want to hear this but its true. There is no lack of mule deer. There in every roadside ditch in EWa. Cougars arent over hunted, there thicker then ever. Bears too. Thats the result of taking away bait and hounds from us hunter. The draw system is a completely broken. If it was like Idaho maybe, i could get behind it. But this is where we are now. Hunters arguing with other hunters about which general season needs to go away for another to prosper. Wolves and tree huggers are the real enemy. And headlights if your a deer.
I can pretty much agree with this other than the mule deer population. It's way down because of reasons you listed already.
It's unfortunate that the WDFW uses the harvest from all the special hunts as herd control besides the main objective - money. All those animals could be available during the general seasons if they weren't killed during the special hunts and the end result would be the same herd population wise.
This whole state has turned into one big fund raising raffle between the mult-season tags and special hunts. All of this used to be just plain ol fashioned general hunting season when you could plan on certain dates with family and friends. Like Bob33 said, most hunters continue to donate to support it. I've cut my applications waaaay back the last two years and the only special tags I'm applying for are the ones I have max points in which is still doubtful if I'll ever get drawn the way they do it here. And I'll never apply for the multi-season again.
I heard one reason why they seperate out the special permit hunts from the general season, is due to hunter safety. They want to make sure the land can sustain the number of hunters within the area. They are also trying to not over-stress the animals. A biologist told me the animals have better fair chase conditions if they are hunted steady (spread out) versus a huge influx of hunters in one area for a short period of time.
Post by: sakoshooter on March 10, 2013, 12:02:17 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 10, 2013, 12:06:39 PM
I don't doubt a bio told you that Skywalker but I don't buy the hunter safety excuse. Even the spread out pressure: We used to have long seasons. Now we have a very short season with special hunts running thru what used to be the general season. The only difference these days is the millions of $$$ the WDFW is getting for us to enjoy the same season. I like to call it 'legalized racketeering'.+1
Post by: actionshooter on March 10, 2013, 02:37:40 PM
+2I don't doubt a bio told you that Skywalker but I don't buy the hunter safety excuse. Even the spread out pressure: We used to have long seasons. Now we have a very short season with special hunts running thru what used to be the general season. The only difference these days is the millions of $$$ the WDFW is getting for us to enjoy the same season. I like to call it 'legalized racketeering'.+1
Post by: Bullkllr on March 10, 2013, 05:00:11 PM
But, if we had long general seasons like we used too, we would likely soon have no mule deer.
Post by: skywalker253 on March 10, 2013, 07:29:52 PM
I don't doubt a bio told you that Skywalker but I don't buy the hunter safety excuse. Even the spread out pressure: We used to have long seasons. Now we have a very short season with special hunts running thru what used to be the general season. The only difference these days is the millions of $$$ the WDFW is getting for us to enjoy the same season. I like to call it 'legalized racketeering'.
Yeah I don't know what to beleive. I just try and pick my spots when it comes to hunting and spending money with the WSDFW. I can remember the old days, when you purchased a deer tag and could pretty much hunt wherever you wanted if "no hunting" signs were not posted. The seasons were longer and many units let you shoot either sex without having to draw a special permit to do it. Now you have to really keep up on it. Like many on Hunt-Wa; I go for the experiences and memories created with my family. We like to put in for deer and elk permits as a bonus, but we have never put it for everything. For the most part I have no complaints, but I think is was pretty crappy they moved many of the good anterless deer hunts to the second deer permit category. That was a strategic move to generate more money. The rubbed me the wrong way, but I still paid it to show my support.
Post by: huntnphool on March 10, 2013, 07:39:31 PM
True points.I believe less of the big migrating bucks would be killed if the general season ran through October and the late permit hunts were eliminated. :twocents:
But, if we had long general seasons like we used too, we would likely soon have no mule deer.
Post by: Bullkllr on March 10, 2013, 08:06:31 PM
True points.I believe less of the big migrating bucks would be killed if the general season ran through October and the late permit hunts were eliminated. :twocents:
But, if we had long general seasons like we used too, we would likely soon have no mule deer.
Good point. Those permits add up to a pretty considerable number, and success rates (for modern) are pretty near 100%.
Post by: bobcat on March 10, 2013, 08:15:10 PM
The same number of people, vying for the same number of permits, odds will not change by a simple change of the rules. The only way to REALLY increase odds, are not going to be popular. One would be a substantial increase in the cost to apply. Say $100 for each OIL app, and how about $50 for each Quality deer or elk app? I could see many people dropping out if it were that costly.
The other thing would be to have a 2 or 3 year waiting period if you draw any quality or OIL permit.
Post by: Bob33 on March 10, 2013, 08:34:49 PM
Quote
The only way to REALLY increase odds, are not going to be popular. One would be a substantial increase in the cost to apply. Say $100 for each OIL app, and how about $50 for each Quality deer or elk app? I could see many people dropping out if it were that costly.I think that is probably being considered. "Price elasticity of demand" is a measure of how much demand changes when the price of a product changes. If WDFW were to increase the price of an application fourfold, and demand dropped by 75 percent, their revenues would be the same: one fourth of the demand at four times the price.
Draw odds would improve dramatically under this scenario.
The downstream impact on outfitters, local business etc. could of course be adverse.
I suspect that game departments across the country, including the one in Olympia are looking at this.
Post by: bbarnes on March 10, 2013, 09:12:00 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 10, 2013, 09:15:00 PM
How can the WDFW even draw for pemits in S W Washington GMU without telling us before we waste our points to hunt sick hoof rotted elk.They need to identify these GMUs in the hunter regulations and let us know the infected ones were being ripped off.
I drew a muzzleloader cow permit in the Winston this last season, and don't feel I was ripped off. I killed a cow that just showed the very first symptoms of having hoof rot, but she was healthy and the meat was fine.
edit: I should add that I do agree with the way you are pushing the DFW to do more about it, at least study it and find out what's causing it. You'd think they could at least spend as much on the hoof rot issue as they're spending on wolves every year.
Post by: skywalker253 on March 10, 2013, 10:33:31 PM
How can the WDFW even draw for pemits in S W Washington GMU without telling us before we waste our points to hunt sick hoof rotted elk.They need to identify these GMUs in the hunter regulations and let us know the infected ones were being ripped off.
I agree; especially since we have never seen any clinical outcomes trials from WSDFW, which provide us with a definitive answer of whether or not it is ok to eat an animal with hoof rott. I suppose the game department could say that "hunting is a priviledge in Wa.""The game department is not forcing hunters to hunt SW Wa or put in for special permits there." I can see them saying that in response. But in the end it is their job to manage the elk and they have a responsibility to inform the public whether or not it is safe to harvest. If I shoot an elk with hoof rott and it smells bad; I will shovel and shut up. I'm not wasting my tag on a rotting animal. Unless you see it limping; how are you going to know until you get over to it, and do an examination? Even if it is limping; it could mean it was wounded etc.
Post by: skywalker253 on March 10, 2013, 10:39:36 PM
QuoteThe only way to REALLY increase odds, are not going to be popular. One would be a substantial increase in the cost to apply. Say $100 for each OIL app, and how about $50 for each Quality deer or elk app? I could see many people dropping out if it were that costly.I think that is probably being considered. "Price elasticity of demand" is a measure of how much demand changes when the price of a product changes. If WDFW were to increase the price of an application fourfold, and demand dropped by 75 percent, their revenues would be the same: one fourth of the demand at four times the price.
Draw odds would improve dramatically under this scenario.
The downstream impact on outfitters, local business etc. could of course be adverse.
I suspect that game departments across the country, including the one in Olympia are looking at this.
I would be willing to pay more, but I can see many lower income hunters or anit-game department hunters, who would refuse to do so. More money more problems....
Post by: skywalker253 on March 10, 2013, 10:48:15 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 10, 2013, 11:27:48 PM
Why not give the guys, who have been waiting forever a better chance, by eliminating people with 1-9 points. Why should they get drawn, when they have invested the least amount of time (waiting) and money (special permit application costs).$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If people knew they could not draw a tag before applying for 10 years then they would simply go elsewhere, which translates to a serious cut in revenue, and thats really what the permit system is all about ultimately, revenue generation.
Post by: huntnnw on March 10, 2013, 11:37:37 PM
thats about as ignorant as it gets and its obvious u have not traveled all parts of E WA :bash:
Post by: huntnnw on March 10, 2013, 11:40:44 PM
Post by: skywalker253 on March 11, 2013, 12:02:56 AM
Why not give the guys, who have been waiting forever a better chance, by eliminating people with 1-9 points. Why should they get drawn, when they have invested the least amount of time (waiting) and money (special permit application costs).$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If people knew they could not draw a tag before applying for 10 years then they would simply go elsewhere, which translates to a serious cut in revenue, and thats really what the permit system is all about ultimately, revenue generation.
So why not take say 25 permits and divide them up into 2 groups to eliminate that problem? 1-9 points is Group A. 10-max points is group B. Split the draw, but limit the Group A permits to say 10 of the 25 given between the 2 groups. IDK...I am just throwing out my ideas. For all I know, my ideas could screw the whole thing up. I don't really understand how they do it in the first place. What the hell is max points. I got 17....am I at max points?
Post by: bobcat on March 11, 2013, 12:07:27 AM
Post by: skywalker253 on March 11, 2013, 12:09:39 AM
There really is no such thing as max points.
I know you understand this pretty well. When guys on here reference "Max Points"....what do they mean?
Post by: bobcat on March 11, 2013, 12:14:40 AM
Post by: skywalker253 on March 11, 2013, 12:22:11 AM
I don't really know where that term comes from. I think it may be a legitimate phrase in other states. But I suppose what is meant by it here in this state, is that if you have been applying since the beginning of the point system (1996) and haven't been drawn, you would have "max points." (And that would be 17 right now)
Thanks Bobcat....
You seem to be the voice of reason on this site. I always enjoy reading your posts. You tell it like it is. I like that. I am the same way, but my delivery sucks! LOL
Do you know when the Multi Season permit results are announced? I purchased mine last night and submitted. This was my first time applying.
Post by: bobcat on March 11, 2013, 12:28:44 AM
Post by: elk247 on March 11, 2013, 12:40:33 AM
"There is no lack of mule deer. There in every roadside ditch in EWa. "C'mon man. Obviously I didn't mean literally. I was referring to the places with high mule deer populations. Ignorance is making an assumption of my knowledge of the state. Where I hunt I see road kill. It happens.
thats about as ignorant as it gets and its obvious u have not traveled all parts of E WA :bash:
Post by: huntnnw on March 11, 2013, 12:45:37 AM
Post by: skywalker253 on March 11, 2013, 01:12:42 AM
Well you typed it]
LMFAO
Post by: elk247 on March 11, 2013, 03:37:49 AM
If its a distribution issue then why not just drop the whole eastside/westside elk tags? Just make it an elk tag good for the whole state like deer is. Then run the general elk seasons on both sides of the state at the same time. People that hunt the west side will still hunt the west side and people that hunt the east side will still hunt the east side. Then you can put in for whatever special elk tag you want to and still be able to hunt your regular areas.
How about this? Option 1. Statewide general elk season. All open gmu and current restriction apply. If you choose this tag you cannot apply for special hunts.
Option 2. Choose east/west and apply for tags of that choice. If you don't get drawn you still
hunt general season of side you chose
This would benefit all IMO. If eastside hunters want a chance at a branched bull they can go west. It would then limit the amount of applicants for eastside allowing for better draw odds. Antlerless would be available in both east and west side for hunters that just need to fill the freezer. (Only gmu's that need to be managed) The last rule would be hunters have to choose OIL or quality bull/bucks and are limited to 3 choices
Once drawn applicant must wait 5 years before applying in the region they were drawn in. (Region not gmu)
Thoughts?
Post by: idahohuntr on March 11, 2013, 07:29:39 AM
non res needs to be capped at 10% like most states!
This would have no effect. There are very few non-res hunters in Washington and they do not come even close to taking up 10% of the tags now...in general hunts or draw hunts.
Post by: B.G.hunter on March 11, 2013, 08:07:41 AM
:yeah:non res needs to be capped at 10% like most states!
This would have no effect. There are very few non-res hunters in Washington and they do not come even close to taking up 10% of the tags now...in general hunts or draw hunts.
Post by: huntnnw on March 11, 2013, 10:41:18 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on March 13, 2013, 12:13:27 PM
Limiting choices like many are talking about will not make for much of an improvement. With the exception of doe and cow permits. But for the primo buck, bull, and OIL permits, I don't see how odds would be changed by much. Sure for the person who already limits himself to only one application per year, it would be a benefit. But for most of us, who like to apply for everything, your odds actually would go down (potentially.)
The same number of people, vying for the same number of permits, odds will not change by a simple change of the rules. The only way to REALLY increase odds, are not going to be popular. One would be a substantial increase in the cost to apply. Say $100 for each OIL app, and how about $50 for each Quality deer or elk app? I could see many people dropping out if it were that costly.
The other thing would be to have a 2 or 3 year waiting period if you draw any quality or OIL permit.
The cost to apply has already gone way up. Think about it: It used to cost $4 for a special hunt app that included bucks & does or bulls & cows. Then they raised the cost of an app to $6.50. 150+% raise. Then they separated them so you have to apply for bucks and does seperately. This doubled the cost or a 300% raise. Then they seperated quality buck and bull from regular buck and bull - 600% raise. Then they raised the app fee to $13.70 for quality apps and $7.10 for the rest and cut your chances in half by allowing you only two choices that cannot be the same. Now we're up to over a 1300% raise to apply for the chance to hunt good bucks and not much less for does and cows. The % of raise I'm refering to all took place in less than 5 years and you want to raise it some more? Sorry, I don't share your opinion.
Can we even fathom the amount of money the WDFW takes in just from application fees to hunt what we used to hunt during the general season with a regular hunting license?
Post by: bobcat on March 13, 2013, 01:13:49 PM
Quote
The % of raise I'm refering to all took place in less than 5 years and you want to raise it some more? Sorry, I don't share your opinion.
Can we even fathom the amount of money the WDFW takes in just from application fees to hunt what we used to hunt during the general season with a regular hunting license?
I think you misunderstood. My opinion is NOT that costs should go up. I was only saying that raising fees would be a way to increase odds. People keep complaining because they're not drawing the permits they want. Many of the "solutions" they come up with will make very little difference, IMO. That is why I brought up a couple of things that WOULD increase odds. Of course both of these are not popular, as I also stated.
No, I would not be in favor of any more increases at this time. I think the increases they just recently did, came at a bad time. People are making less money now than they were 4 or 5 years ago. At least I know I am. I can't afford to go pheasant hunting anymore because of the price of gas. I used to go several weekends every season. But it's $200 a trip just for gas to get there and back.
So now I try to do all or most of my hunting within 10 to 20 miles of home. Which means no more bird hunting, only deer, elk, and bear.
Nope, my suggestions were only to point out what I feel would make a difference in draw odds. To increase odds you need to decrease the number of people applying. The only way to do that is to make it more expensive. Or, institute a waiting period, as I said.
The thing is, I don't really have a problem with our draw system. I don't see a need to change it. And as for the fees they charge, I really think a decrease is in order, until the economy improves (if ever.)
Post by: Mr Mykiss on March 13, 2013, 05:22:16 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on March 14, 2013, 02:33:59 AM
QuoteThe % of raise I'm refering to all took place in less than 5 years and you want to raise it some more? Sorry, I don't share your opinion.
Can we even fathom the amount of money the WDFW takes in just from application fees to hunt what we used to hunt during the general season with a regular hunting license?
I think you misunderstood. My opinion is NOT that costs should go up. I was only saying that raising fees would be a way to increase odds. People keep complaining because they're not drawing the permits they want. Many of the "solutions" they come up with will make very little difference, IMO. That is why I brought up a couple of things that WOULD increase odds. Of course both of these are not popular, as I also stated.
No, I would not be in favor of any more increases at this time. I think the increases they just recently did, came at a bad time. People are making less money now than they were 4 or 5 years ago. At least I know I am. I can't afford to go pheasant hunting anymore because of the price of gas. I used to go several weekends every season. But it's $200 a trip just for gas to get there and back.
So now I try to do all or most of my hunting within 10 to 20 miles of home. Which means no more bird hunting, only deer, elk, and bear.
Nope, my suggestions were only to point out what I feel would make a difference in draw odds. To increase odds you need to decrease the number of people applying. The only way to do that is to make it more expensive. Or, institute a waiting period, as I said.
The thing is, I don't really have a problem with our draw system. I don't see a need to change it. And as for the fees they charge, I really think a decrease is in order, until the economy improves (if ever.)
I guess I did misunderstood ya.
I also gave up pheasant hunting two years ago when they doubled the price of the western Wa pheasant license and cut the released birds in half.
Gas prices being double what they were a few years ago with no hope fo coming down and reduced wages because of this economy has me picking and choosing also. Can't afford to drive to eastern Wa for birds anymore like I used to.