Post by: huntnphool on April 02, 2014, 02:30:56 PM
The poll is only addressing leaving bonus points as inheritance to "one", pre determined family member, in the event of the bonus point holders death.
"Not transfering or selling them!"
Post by: vandeman17 on April 02, 2014, 02:40:30 PM
Post by: blacktail378 on April 02, 2014, 03:01:37 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 02, 2014, 03:09:00 PM
elkfins spells it out very well! :tup:
What a great gift and potential lasting memory to leave for your child after you're gone.
Post by: Curly on April 02, 2014, 03:16:10 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 02, 2014, 03:19:50 PM
I don't like the idea. I especially don't like it since a lot of the points people have were never even earned; they were just given to them because Dave Ware was too lazy to do the right thing and ask all point holders what category they wanted their points to be placed. If it wasn't for that little detail, I might go along with the idea. :twocents:You were only given equal points in "lesser" hunts, they were not given across the board.
In other words, someone with 10 quality deer points did not receive 10 points in quality elk, 10 points in moose, 10 points in goats etc.
Post by: gallion_t on April 02, 2014, 03:21:38 PM
Im not sure how you could prevent people from just buying points for their parents to increase the number they would inherit. I don't think it would be as big of an issue with deer and elk tags as you have to also buy the tag to get the point so you're into it $50+ per year just for a point. However with the OIL tags you can just buy the point for $13, not a big deal.
Basically I like the idea of not having a parents points go to waste. Most parents would rather see their kid get the trophy animal than themselves and I think it would be a great memory for a lot of people. However I don't see how you could prevent people from taking advantage of the system.
Post by: kentrek on April 02, 2014, 03:22:47 PM
Make folks pick certain categories like idaho an limit peoples options...
Add more tags !!!!!!!! spread people out !!! have a five year wait after drawing quality....
Post by: huntnphool on April 02, 2014, 03:27:53 PM
Id back this as long point creep was minimized, prolly not a problem for awhile but eventually it would happenWhy couldn't WDFW contact the pre determined family member and say "your father had desiganted you the benificiary of his bonus points. You get to choose one set of points that he accumulated from any of the species he has points for." :dunno:
Make folks pick certain categories like idaho an limit peoples options...
Add more tags !!!!!!!! spread people out !!! have a five year wait after drawing quality....
Post by: jackmaster on April 02, 2014, 03:28:30 PM
Post by: Curly on April 02, 2014, 03:31:46 PM
I don't like the idea. I especially don't like it since a lot of the points people have were never even earned; they were just given to them because Dave Ware was too lazy to do the right thing and ask all point holders what category they wanted their points to be placed. If it wasn't for that little detail, I might go along with the idea. :twocents:You were only given equal points in "lesser" hunts, they were not given across the board.
In other words, someone with 10 quality deer points did not receive 10 points in quality elk, 10 points in moose, 10 points in goats etc.
Obviously they weren't given cross species. Prior to the new system there was no such thing as "quality" points.
If a guy had 10 deer points, he was given 10 points in every deer permit category. (Doe, second deer, quality, buck, senior, disabled, etc.) So that 10 points became 60 or more.
Is your poll only talking about inheriting quality category points?
Post by: huntandjeep on April 02, 2014, 06:03:05 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on April 02, 2014, 06:08:01 PM
As it is now, youth points disappear. Why not make them carry over? Why not add them to the other points in the same category?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 02, 2014, 06:55:49 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 02, 2014, 07:08:55 PM
This topic was mentioned at a GMAC meeting a few months ago...I can't recall an idea ever getting squashed so quickly in my life! :tup:
Post by: Curly on April 02, 2014, 07:11:25 PM
I think that if we as hunters were to put any effort into the current point system it should be strictly to abolish it...
Amen!
Post by: bobcat on April 02, 2014, 07:12:58 PM
Quote
This topic was mentioned at a GMAC meeting a few months ago...I can't recall an idea ever getting squashed so quickly in my life!
Not a surprise, but nevertheless, good to hear. This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard of. If our state did something like this we'd be the laughing stock of every other state in the country, that's for sure. :chuckle:
Post by: Mfowl on April 02, 2014, 07:18:54 PM
Post by: danderson on April 02, 2014, 07:29:54 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on April 02, 2014, 07:34:19 PM
I vote no, the real issue here is that many of our senior sportsmen are getting to the age were they wont be able to take advantage of a special permit if they ever did end up drawing one for example, I have a good friend that's been putting in since day one of the current special permit system, he has 17 points for Quality Elk, 17 points for Special Elk, 17 points for Moose, 17 points for Goat, and 17 points for sheep, he just turned 73 years old, for what ever reason my friend cant seem to draw a permit and the odds just get worse, along with his ability to hike more than a mile from the truck, the two of us have come up with a solution to the problem, offer a cash out so to speak option for seniors that choose to, let them combine there total points earned to one particular hunt, its still not a guarantee that they will draw but a heck of a lot better.
The problem here is that he is obviously putting in for specific and limited permits. If he opens up his options just a bit he will draw.
Post by: kentrek on April 02, 2014, 07:49:40 PM
Id back this as long point creep was minimized, prolly not a problem for awhile but eventually it would happenWhy couldn't WDFW contact the pre determined family member and say "your father had desiganted you the benificiary of his bonus points. You get to choose one set of points that he accumulated from any of the species he has points for." :dunno:
Make folks pick certain categories like idaho an limit peoples options...
Add more tags !!!!!!!! spread people out !!! have a five year wait after drawing quality....
That would be the only way to do it...getting all points would speed up point creep too fast an people would complain
Anytime points don't disappear when they potentially could have your going to encounter point creep,by reducing it down to one category and tweaking the current system to cancel out the minimal point creep created,there should be no reason anybody could cry foul...
I don't have any numbers to play with (I doubt Washington does either) but off the top of my head if we implemented your idea and we just eliminated "poacher reward points" it would offset point creep to way beyond the current "supposed" point creep rate
Post by: idahohuntr on April 02, 2014, 08:27:50 PM
the two of us have come up with a solution to the problem, offer a cash out so to speak option for seniors that choose to, let them combine there total points earned to one particular hunt, its still not a guarantee that they will draw but a heck of a lot better.Oh god! This is a bad idea gone horribly wrong :yike: So your friend and his 5 categories of 17 points equals 85 points. With 85 something points that equals 7225 names in the hat... There are several hundred guys with 17+ moose, sheep, goat points right now and that number will just continue to build. Im guessing many of them are seniors...you wanna talk about driving up point totals to a place where if you don't have hundreds of points to throw at a specific hunt you might as well forget it!
Remember, there are no free lunches in these ponzi schemes...giving opportunity to one group means you are taking it from another. In this case you would be providing opportunity to seniors and to do so you would have to take away from new applicants, most likely younger kids. No thanks...Grandpa probably got to enjoy a lot more quality hunting than his grand kids ever will...so I am not inclined to punish them with this bad idea.
Post by: danderson on April 02, 2014, 11:44:17 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on April 03, 2014, 02:26:25 AM
Post by: returnofsid on April 03, 2014, 05:11:42 AM
Post by: Bob33 on April 03, 2014, 06:30:27 AM
Post by: danderson on April 03, 2014, 06:38:16 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 03, 2014, 07:13:16 AM
Post by: arees on April 03, 2014, 08:04:27 AM
There are too few animals and too many hunters. Any scheme you come up with is simply taking the chance to hunt that animal from one person and giving it to another. Which person is more deserving? Who knows. If someone is really deserving, hold a charity event. The people on this site have proven to be quite generous on charity events.
I have a house with a mortgage. It would be nice if the bank forgave the remainder of the mortgage when I died so my son could get the house without any debt. Should I suggest this to my banker?
Post by: idahohuntr on April 03, 2014, 08:21:21 AM
My idea of the cash out option would reduce your odds initially, but would increase your odds exponentially in the following years for drawing a permitYour idea, like other ponzi schemes, would be great for people who got in at the base level (e.g., those with 17 points in multiple categories right now). Most of the highest quality tags would go to those guys which means everyone else putting in for the really high quality tags would have significantly reduced odds and they too would have to build points in many categories for several decades and wait until they became a senior to "cash in" so they too could draw.
Do you folks who believe you are entitled to a permit and thus we need to change the system to give you (or your heirs) significantly better odds make these same arguments to the State Lottery Office? :chuckle: I mean, I know guys who have been buying lottery tickets for 30+ years and they still haven't hit the jackpot...it'd be nice if the state would at least let them cash-out and get their money back with interest if they don't win before they die :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 03, 2014, 08:25:06 AM
Our system is already screwed beyond belief. Best option...NO POINTS I don't think we need to make it more messed up.:yeah:
I dont look at it as buying a point anyways... I am buying my entry into that particular draw... in wa at least... I do buy points in other states...
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 03, 2014, 08:32:10 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on April 03, 2014, 08:38:58 AM
This would be a nightmare to administer. I voted against.
:yeah:
Same here
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 08:41:48 AM
Quote
I have a house with a mortgage. It would be nice if the bank forgave the remainder of the mortgage when I died so my son could get the house without any debt. Should I suggest this to my banker?
Such a noble idea- how could your bank not agree to do that for your son? ??? :chuckle:
Post by: Jonathan_S on April 03, 2014, 08:50:34 AM
My idea of the cash out option would reduce your odds initially, but would increase your odds exponentially in the following years for drawing a permitYour idea, like other ponzi schemes, would be great for people who got in at the base level (e.g., those with 17 points in multiple categories right now). Most of the highest quality tags would go to those guys which means everyone else putting in for the really high quality tags would have significantly reduced odds and they too would have to build points in many categories for several decades and wait until they became a senior to "cash in" so they too could draw.
Do you folks who believe you are entitled to a permit and thus we need to change the system to give you (or your heirs) significantly better odds make these same arguments to the State Lottery Office? :chuckle: I mean, I know guys who have been buying lottery tickets for 30+ years and they still haven't hit the jackpot...it'd be nice if the state would at least let them cash-out and get their money back with interest if they don't win before they die :dunno: :chuckle:
??? I agree with IDHunter, whaddya know :chuckle:
Post by: kentrek on April 03, 2014, 09:00:57 AM
QuoteI have a house with a mortgage. It would be nice if the bank forgave the remainder of the mortgage when I died so my son could get the house without any debt. Should I suggest this to my banker?
Such a noble idea- how could your bank not agree to do that for your son? ??? :chuckle:
If you had pile of money left over wouldnt you think it odd if the bank didnt allow you to give it to your son ?? That your money just disappears because its unfair to other kids ???
Looks as if we do all agree that we could kill the point system,id rather there be less special permit areas to help spread hunters out...make hunting zones similar to idaho...manage people and the elk...not money
Save special permits for the elderly & the youth & veterans so we can still achieve what some of us have been discussing in the last couple days
Post by: Bullkllr on April 03, 2014, 09:03:08 AM
Do you folks who believe you are entitled to a permit and thus we need to change the system to give you (or your heirs) significantly better odds make these same arguments to the State Lottery Office? :chuckle: I mean, I know guys who have been buying lottery tickets for 30+ years and they still haven't hit the jackpot...it'd be nice if the state would at least let them cash-out and get their money back with interest if they don't win before they die :dunno: :chuckle:
Can't help but strongly agree with this. :tup:
The only change to this system that even makes sense is to A) ditch all the different categories for each species or B) ditch all points and go back to the way it used to be. Any more complication is just shifting odds meaninglessly from one applicant to another.
It really wasn't so bad back before points. Everyone had equal chance. If you wanted to put in for a cow elk tag you had to start hunting like 3 days after the opener in the general season. Some guys got lucky and drew all the time, some went years being blanked... kinda like it is now only way less complicated and waaaay less 'itching IMHO.
Post by: JLS on April 03, 2014, 09:07:40 AM
Our system is already screwed beyond belief. Best option...NO POINTS I don't think we need to make it more messed up.
I couldn't agree more.
Post by: Bob33 on April 03, 2014, 09:19:00 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 03, 2014, 09:23:50 AM
I think this would decrease the number of applicants greatly, because many people won't apply unless they get help from nice people on the internet.
Post by: JLS on April 03, 2014, 09:27:08 AM
Here's an idea to improve drawing odds- let's get rid of the Internet. :yike:
Al Gore just called and said that ain't happenin' 8)
Post by: Skillet on April 03, 2014, 09:28:51 AM
If you had pile of money left over wouldnt you think it odd if the bank didnt allow you to give it to your son ?? That your money just disappears because its unfair to other kids ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States)
Some of it does just disappear.
If someone has put in for draws for years then I can see why they have a sense of entitlement to the points as if they own something. But the points aren't owned - they're not anything, actually. They are just a record of the number of times you've struck out and in spite of the original intent of the system, accruing more points does not guarantee you an increased chance of drawing next year. Another accrued point just reduces your chances less than the guy with fewer strikeouts to his name.
Post by: kentrek on April 03, 2014, 09:44:18 AM
Two million dollars a year in application fee revenues, and my nickel say that's not going to happen.
Which is why everyone should sign uc wardens partition an lets get some folks that actually want to manage for the best interest of the people...an not whats best for the states pocket
Post by: arees on April 03, 2014, 09:46:39 AM
But I don't have a pile of money. I have a pile of losing lottery tickets. Can I pay off my mortgage with those?QuoteI have a house with a mortgage. It would be nice if the bank forgave the remainder of the mortgage when I died so my son could get the house without any debt. Should I suggest this to my banker?
Such a noble idea- how could your bank not agree to do that for your son? ??? :chuckle:
If you had pile of money left over wouldnt you think it odd if the bank didnt allow you to give it to your son ?? That your money just disappears because its unfair to other kids ???
I'm pretty sure that WDFW doesn't come take any animals back that you have already shot. They just don't give you anything for your losing permit applications.
Post by: fair-chase on April 03, 2014, 09:57:18 AM
Two million dollars a year in application fee revenues, and my nickel say that's not going to happen.
Is that all??? After administrative costs and contracting an agency to run the draw(s), I can't imagine much of a profit from 2 million. But that's not really the point. The WDFW should be generating revenue by (A) recruiting new hunters and fishermen, and (B) attracting non-residents to recreate in Washington. As far as I can tell it is doing neither.
Post by: Bigshooter on April 03, 2014, 10:48:40 AM
Post by: washelkhunter on April 03, 2014, 11:11:40 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 03, 2014, 04:28:11 PM
The contract to run the draw is quite small...$5-8k is what I am recalling?? I would guess the draw is actually quite "profitable". I'd be happy to handle it for WDFW :chuckle:Two million dollars a year in application fee revenues, and my nickel say that's not going to happen.
Is that all??? After administrative costs and contracting an agency to run the draw(s), I can't imagine much of a profit from 2 million. But that's not really the point. The WDFW should be generating revenue by (A) recruiting new hunters and fishermen, and (B) attracting non-residents to recreate in Washington. As far as I can tell it is doing neither.
Post by: kirkthoma on April 05, 2014, 09:48:40 PM
Post by: Colville on April 08, 2014, 12:16:24 PM
What's the basis for treating one citizen of our state demonstrably different than another for access to the same limited PUBLIC resources?
Please explain how having relatives that hunted means you should receive more opportunity than someone who didn't? I got born. I'm a citizen. I pay taxes. I'm equal in all other respects but my father doesn't hunt. Why should my odds of drawing be reduced?
The hunter who built the points received the benefit of them all the way along, they had better odds each year. They could have used them for lesser quality hunts but held out, maybe never drawing. They had an absolutely fair shake. When a person purchases a point they aren't getting a commodity. It's not property. It's a lotto ticket and he/she benefited from it by virtue of increasing their odds regardless of whether they drew.
I can't see any reasonable basis to extend a preference in drawing outcomes to people based on the good fortune of having been in a hunting family.
PS: not to mention that everyone's 50 year old non hunter relative would now be getting a license and earning points whether they hunt, or don't as an investment by their kids in improved odds in the future.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 08, 2014, 01:22:40 PM
Keep it simple.:yeah: Very well said!
What's the basis for treating one citizen of our state demonstrably different than another for access to the same limited PUBLIC resources?
Please explain how having relatives that hunted means you should receive more opportunity than someone who didn't? I got born. I'm a citizen. I pay taxes. I'm equal in all other respects but my father doesn't hunt. Why should my odds of drawing be reduced?
The hunter who built the points received the benefit of them all the way along, they had better odds each year. They could have used them for lesser quality hunts but held out, maybe never drawing. They had an absolutely fair shake. When a person purchases a point they aren't getting a commodity. It's not property. It's a lotto ticket and he/she benefited from it by virtue of increasing their odds regardless of whether they drew.
I can't see any reasonable basis to extend a preference in drawing outcomes to people based on the good fortune of having been in a hunting family.
PS: not to mention that everyone's 50 year old non hunter relative would now be getting a license and earning points whether they hunt, or don't as an investment by their kids in improved odds in the future.
Post by: Falcon on April 08, 2014, 09:56:10 PM
Keep it simple.:yeah: Very well said!
What's the basis for treating one citizen of our state demonstrably different than another for access to the same limited PUBLIC resources?
Please explain how having relatives that hunted means you should receive more opportunity than someone who didn't? I got born. I'm a citizen. I pay taxes. I'm equal in all other respects but my father doesn't hunt. Why should my odds of drawing be reduced?
The hunter who built the points received the benefit of them all the way along, they had better odds each year. They could have used them for lesser quality hunts but held out, maybe never drawing. They had an absolutely fair shake. When a person purchases a point they aren't getting a commodity. It's not property. It's a lotto ticket and he/she benefited from it by virtue of increasing their odds regardless of whether they drew.
I can't see any reasonable basis to extend a preference in drawing outcomes to people based on the good fortune of having been in a hunting family.
PS: not to mention that everyone's 50 year old non hunter relative would now be getting a license and earning points whether they hunt, or don't as an investment by their kids in improved odds in the future.
+ 1 on that!