Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 10:57:29 AM
Post by: mp.hunter on May 25, 2015, 11:03:52 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 11:13:33 AM
I will start, minimum points to apply for certain (popular) categories.
Huh? You can apply for any category you want if you have 1 point.
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 11:14:56 AM
Post by: mp.hunter on May 25, 2015, 11:16:06 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: tracksoup on May 25, 2015, 11:16:36 AM
Post by: mp.hunter on May 25, 2015, 11:17:26 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Mfowl on May 25, 2015, 11:18:27 AM
I will start, minimum points to apply for certain (popular) categories.
Huh? You can apply for any category you want if you have 1 point.
I think he means you need to have a certain amount of points just to be able to apply for some of the most desirable tags. For example you would need to have 5 points minimum just to apply for an Entiat rifle tag.
I would like the process to be moved earlier in the year and shorten the time between the deadline and the results being posted.
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 11:21:07 AM
Actually there is one thing, and it wouldn't be a significant change, but in my opinion people who draw moose, sheep, and goat tags should not be able to apply again if they don't harvest an animal. They had their chance, that should be good enough.
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 11:22:31 AM
I'll add something. I wish they would do away with squaring the points in the OIL categories. I like the idea of squaring the points in all the other categories.
I could go along with that.
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 11:24:58 AM
Sorry, a minimum of day 5 points to apply is what I meant to say. Just an example like for some of the blues hunts you would need (Pick the number) of points to put in, that way some of the larger point holders get drawn.
One of the nice things about the Washington system is that everyone has a chance, regardless how many points they currently have, including those that start at the beginning. I'd hate to see them do something like that. :twocents:
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 11:28:09 AM
Drop the license purchase requirement to apply!
I disagree. I would like to see all permit holders have a valid big game hunting license and hunter safety card before they apply for hunts. Seems a bit rigged if a kid 3 months old can start "applying" causing point creap, and longer odds for us all that have actually been putting in. Im not trying to piss off any father's here bc I see the other side of the story where they might not have a chance to draw at all if you dont. But just sucks thinking about how some kid that may never even want to go hunting and his dad putting him in every year to get his tag and take him on a "hunting trip" when he gets drawn and then gets to watch old pops use his tag. I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 11:28:49 AM
Actually there is one thing, and it wouldn't be a significant change, but in my opinion people who draw moose, sheep, and goat tags should not be able to apply again if they don't harvest an animal. They had their chance, that should be good enough.
:chuckle: Yeah, I can see how this has become a problem.....lol :chuckle:
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 11:31:29 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 11:32:39 AM
I personally would also like to see 50% of quality and OIL tags go to people with the most points:yeah: I really like that Idea.
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 11:33:05 AM
Drop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
Post by: rackattack on May 25, 2015, 11:33:52 AM
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 11:36:43 AM
Drop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 11:37:11 AM
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 11:38:38 AM
Drop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 11:43:09 AM
Drop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 11:49:44 AM
Drop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
You can't put in for "tags" without a license, and the points are only for moose, goat and sheep. Without the current rule, non residents would then be required to purchase a license in order to apply for those 3, that is the reason behind it.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 25, 2015, 11:52:49 AM
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 11:53:51 AM
Drop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
You can't put in for "tags" without a license, and the points are only for moose, goat and sheep. Without the current rule, non residents would then be required to purchase a license in order to apply for those 3, that is the reason behind it.
And if you're a non resident, I believe you should have to pay to play with the residents. I pay non resident prices for all my tags in other states and Im not bitchin. I don't think we should be allow loop holes in our system bc we are concerned about the non residents. IMO we should ALL have buy the general hunting license and permit applications. If we draw, pay for the tags
Post by: NWWA Hunter on May 25, 2015, 11:54:27 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on May 25, 2015, 11:57:38 AM
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 11:58:48 AM
I pay non resident prices for all my tags in other statesDrop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
You can't put in for "tags" without a license, and the points are only for moose, goat and sheep. Without the current rule, non residents would then be required to purchase a license in order to apply for those 3, that is the reason behind it.
:dunno: And if non residents draw a permit here, they pay for their out of state tag too. They just don't need to pay for the license up front to apply.
At least in some other states, you don't draw you get your money back.
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 11:59:51 AM
I am against not buying the license first. This would make it even harder to draw as the casual person would put in only to draw a special tag. Additionally it would make it cost effective for hundreds or thousands of non residents to apply. Also as to the guys who fill their wifes or kids tags. I believe we need to raise the fines and punishment for this type of poaching. Its sad how many people think this is ok since they spent money on a tag. I know this happens way more than most people want to admit. I would like to see the whole state go to draw only like Colorado is. This would allow people to purchase tags with their points. So if you want to wait to hunt only the late tag and wait 15 years you can or if you want an easy draw every year you can. More than likely you could draw a second choice rifle, archery, muzzleloader tag for a less desireable season or specie. The problem is with a huge population and lower animal population to the ratio of hunters. Everyone wants to hunt everything and have the chance to draw for everything and that is why application odds are astronomical.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: Very well put. I'm totally with buying all licenses and tags upfront before applying. I would be fine with refunds given, or the other way just paying after we get drawn.
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 12:01:27 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 12:04:23 PM
I just thought of something- I would like to do away with the point option. Either apply for a hunt or don't apply at all.
Most of the quality hunts are one in the same Bob. :chuckle:
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 12:04:36 PM
I pay non resident prices for all my tags in other statesDrop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
You can't put in for "tags" without a license, and the points are only for moose, goat and sheep. Without the current rule, non residents would then be required to purchase a license in order to apply for those 3, that is the reason behind it.
:dunno: And if non residents draw a permit here, they pay for their out of state tag too. They just don't need to pay for the license up front to apply.
At least in some other states, you don't draw you get your money back.
Let's knock some of those non residents out of the pool and make the ones who stick around contribute to our WDFW, and our states conservation efforts for a few years before giving them one of our OIL or quality tags.
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 12:09:40 PM
I pay non resident prices for all my tags in other statesDrop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
You can't put in for "tags" without a license, and the points are only for moose, goat and sheep. Without the current rule, non residents would then be required to purchase a license in order to apply for those 3, that is the reason behind it.
:dunno: And if non residents draw a permit here, they pay for their out of state tag too. They just don't need to pay for the license up front to apply.
At least in some other states, you don't draw you get your money back.
Let's knock some of those non residents out of the pool and make the ones who stick around contribute to our WDFW, and our states conservation efforts for a few years before giving them one of our OIL or quality tags.
No argument there, what I'd really like to see is all applications start at $50.00/ea, moose, sheep and goat $100.00/ea, all non refundable.
License and tags must also be purchased up front when applying, then refunded if not drawn.
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 12:11:34 PM
I pay non resident prices for all my tags in other statesDrop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
You can't put in for "tags" without a license, and the points are only for moose, goat and sheep. Without the current rule, non residents would then be required to purchase a license in order to apply for those 3, that is the reason behind it.
:dunno: And if non residents draw a permit here, they pay for their out of state tag too. They just don't need to pay for the license up front to apply.
At least in some other states, you don't draw you get your money back.
Let's knock some of those non residents out of the pool and make the ones who stick around contribute to our WDFW, and our states conservation efforts for a few years before giving them one of our OIL or quality tags.
No argument there, what I'd really like to see is all applications start at $50.00/ea, moose, sheep and goat $100.00/ea, all non refundable.
License and tags must also be purchased up front when applying, then refunded if not drawn.
I would be into that idea. This is awesome, great thread OP
Post by: rackattack on May 25, 2015, 12:12:46 PM
I pay non resident prices for all my tags in other statesDrop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
You can't put in for "tags" without a license, and the points are only for moose, goat and sheep. Without the current rule, non residents would then be required to purchase a license in order to apply for those 3, that is the reason behind it.
:dunno: And if non residents draw a permit here, they pay for their out of state tag too. They just don't need to pay for the license up front to apply.
At least in some other states, you don't draw you get your money back.
Let's knock some of those non residents out of the pool and make the ones who stick around contribute to our WDFW, and our states conservation efforts for a few years before giving them one of our OIL or quality tags.
No argument there, what I'd really like to see is all applications start at $50.00/ea, moose, sheep and goat $100.00/ea, all non refundable.
License and tags must also be purchased up front when applying, then refunded if not drawn.
I would be into that idea. This is awesome, great thread OP
Let's make this the longest quote ever........ :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 12:12:58 PM
I pay non resident prices for all my tags in other statesDrop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
You can't put in for "tags" without a license, and the points are only for moose, goat and sheep. Without the current rule, non residents would then be required to purchase a license in order to apply for those 3, that is the reason behind it.
:dunno: And if non residents draw a permit here, they pay for their out of state tag too. They just don't need to pay for the license up front to apply.
At least in some other states, you don't draw you get your money back.
Let's knock some of those non residents out of the pool and make the ones who stick around contribute to our WDFW, and our states conservation efforts for a few years before giving them one of our OIL or quality tags.
No argument there, what I'd really like to see is all applications start at $50.00/ea, moose, sheep and goat $100.00/ea, all non refundable.
License and tags must also be purchased up front when applying, then refunded if not drawn.
I would be into that idea. This is awesome, great thread OP
I'm talking residents too!
Post by: mp.hunter on May 25, 2015, 12:16:44 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 12:17:42 PM
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 12:18:54 PM
Yea, the state is not reliant on non-resident revenue, I like that. As indicated in how much they charge for NR tags and fees. I just think when the word "fair" is used, when it comes to our draw system, I don't think someone should wait over 17 years to draw a reasonable quality tag, that's why a minimum should be implemented.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
100%
Post by: rackattack on May 25, 2015, 12:21:05 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 12:21:41 PM
Yea, the state is not reliant on non-resident revenue, I like that. As indicated in how much they charge for NR tags and fees. I just think when the word "fair" is used, when it comes to our draw system, I don't think someone should wait over 17 years to draw a reasonable quality tag, that's why a minimum should be implemented.
There are those of us that would like to see the late "quality" hunts go away all together, that would make it "fair" for everyone, including the animals! ;)
Post by: mp.hunter on May 25, 2015, 12:21:44 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: LabChamp on May 25, 2015, 12:22:07 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 12:34:46 PM
Let's get back to the real topic. Trophyhunt, what day did they ask you to witness the draw?Ha, I can't believe we made it to the second page before that question was asked!! lol. I haven't been called yet, they will give me a short notice they said.
Post by: danderson on May 25, 2015, 12:36:24 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 12:38:39 PM
Post by: mp.hunter on May 25, 2015, 12:52:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: daddyelk on May 25, 2015, 12:53:54 PM
Post by: mp.hunter on May 25, 2015, 12:54:10 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on May 25, 2015, 12:58:19 PM
I pay non resident prices for all my tags in other statesDrop the license purchase requirement to apply!I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
If they "tag out every year" they are purchasing licenses every year, apples and oranges.
I would be fine with it if they were the ones hunting and or applying. But when some guys wife shoots a mule deer in Ellensburg while his wife is actually at work in bellevue.... Thats just not right
I agree 100%, but again that's a completely different topic. ;)
I used that as an example of how it's unfair to be putting in for hunting tags or points when you aren't even eligible to own a hunting license
You can't put in for "tags" without a license, and the points are only for moose, goat and sheep. Without the current rule, non residents would then be required to purchase a license in order to apply for those 3, that is the reason behind it.
:dunno: And if non residents draw a permit here, they pay for their out of state tag too. They just don't need to pay for the license up front to apply.
At least in some other states, you don't draw you get your money back.
Let's knock some of those non residents out of the pool and make the ones who stick around contribute to our WDFW, and our states conservation efforts for a few years before giving them one of our OIL or quality tags.
No argument there, what I'd really like to see is all applications start at $50.00/ea, moose, sheep and goat $100.00/ea, all non refundable.
License and tags must also be purchased up front when applying, then refunded if not drawn.
Just thought I would point out non resident special permit apps already are 110.50 each. Those are the most expensive points out there especially when you consider that you also have to buy a tag before applying for deer and elk. I would put in if application prices were reasonable and I wasn't required to buy the tags up front. I still have a lot of points from before I moved down here
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 01:00:41 PM
Post by: mp.hunter on May 25, 2015, 01:03:47 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Halo on May 25, 2015, 01:05:03 PM
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on May 25, 2015, 01:10:33 PM
Post by: skidynastar33 on May 25, 2015, 01:12:57 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 01:20:05 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
I would also like to see points passed on to one designated family members through a will should someone die. Designated Wild ID must be set up in advance. This, of course, is completely unacceptable to the "where's mine" and "all about me or nobody" members on this site.
:bdid:
That would not be fair. What about people who don't have anyone to transfer their points to? Not only that, it would just unnecessarily complicate the system. Have you ever heard of any other states doing this? I can't imagine any other change that I would be more opposed to than this. A young hunter just starting out doesn't deserve to have a lot of points just given to him. They need to be earned.
Post by: adamR on May 25, 2015, 01:37:37 PM
I would also like to see points passed on to one designated family members through a will should someone die. Designated Wild ID must be set up in advance. This, of course, is completely unacceptable to the "where's mine" and "all about me or nobody" members on this site.
I like this, only if it is in a will, to one person, and only after the gifter has passed...
Why does it always have to come down to money? I say it every year, just because some of you are apparently well off and could afford to pay more per application or fund every oil hunt before you get drawn doesn't mean the average hunter could. So because I have a kid and one on the way and don't have a ton of extra money lying around I don't deserve to draw an OIL hunt? If I get drawn I will come up with the money but I can't just let the state borrow $1000 every spring until I find out I didn't get drawn.
Huntnphool you mentioned the "wheres mine" and "all about me or nobody" members, that's a two way street. Those of you that aren't happy with the fairest system available only complain because you haven't been drawn but it is the fairest system possible! Get over it!
The only change I would really be ok with is limiting every draw to two choices like quality is now. This would drastically increase odds across that board.
Post by: Bigshooter on May 25, 2015, 01:42:13 PM
10 year wait after drawing a quality deer or elk tag.
5 Year wait after drawing a buck or bull tag.
1 year wait after drawing an anterless tag.
oil tag money up front when you apply, resident and nonresident.
Nonresidents buy a license when applying instead of buying a tag. Only buy tag if drawn. Quota on nonresident tags.
Unable to draw multiple tags the same year.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 25, 2015, 01:43:14 PM
Post by: jrebel on May 25, 2015, 01:45:21 PM
1. I don't agree with having a certain number of points before applying for certain hunts. Anyone should be able to apply at any time for any hunt.
2. Set a % of tags that go to people with the most points. Example.....25% of the tags will go to people with 15 points or more.....This should not exclude people with 15 or more points from drawing the other 75% of the quota. It just guarantees that 25% of the tags would go to people with multiple points. This will help level the playing field and will also give people that have multiple points / years a better chance of drawing.
The way the system is now....your points don't mean anything. If you have 4500 applicants / people with an average of 11 points (squared) per person, your 15 or 25 points are still a very small percentage of the draw.
3. A system that will not allow you to draw multiple tags in the same species. If you draw quality....you cannot draw buck or doe. If don't draw quality but draw buck, you cant draw doe, ect. It is really dumb that you you could theoretically draw quality, buck and doe all in one year and only kill one animal. Wast of points. :twocents:
:twocents:
Post by: Westside88 on May 25, 2015, 01:52:10 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 01:55:23 PM
I would also like to see points passed on to one designated family members through a will should someone die. Designated Wild ID must be set up in advance. This, of course, is completely unacceptable to the "where's mine" and "all about me or nobody" members on this site.
I like this, only if it is in a will, to one person, and only after the gifter has passed...
Why does it always have to come down to money? I say it every year, just because some of you are apparently well off and could afford to pay more per application or fund every oil hunt before you get drawn doesn't mean the average hunter could. So because I have a kid and one on the way and don't have a ton of extra money lying around I don't deserve to draw an OIL hunt? If I get drawn I will come up with the money but I can't just let the state borrow $1000 every spring until I find out I didn't get drawn.
Huntnphool you mentioned the "wheres mine" and "all about me or nobody" members, that's a two way street. Those of you that aren't happy with the fairest system available only complain because you haven't been drawn but it is the fairest system possible! Get over it!
The only change I would really be ok with is limiting every draw to two choices like quality is now. This would drastically increase odds across that board.
Get over it? :chuckle: I don't see you advocating for the elimination of late hunts, how is that considered "where's mine"? :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on May 25, 2015, 01:59:27 PM
This, of course, is completely unacceptable to the "where's mine" and "all about me or nobody" members on this site.
Case and point right here!
Quote from: link=topic=175342.msg2318920#msg2318920 date=1432585205
That would not be fair. A young hunter just starting out doesn't deserve to have a lot of points just given to him. They need to be earned.
Post by: Skillet on May 25, 2015, 02:13:37 PM
While I believe the WDFW was well-Intentioned by providing people points for turning in poachers, they really polluted the intention of the draw system by assigning a non-time related value to them. That screw up on their part doesn't change the fundamental reason for points in the first place - they are meant to help the odds of those who have waited. Not to help those privelidged few who are born to unlucky applicants gain an advantage over those who have been applying for years.
Post by: Gringo31 on May 25, 2015, 02:16:37 PM
For example: You can't limit a person to buck deer OR quality deer because of loss of revenue. You could offer extra tags for extra options (like multi season) but that just makes people upset that it's a rich mans game. The only thing I think they should do that doesn't rattle too many people is do the draw about 3 months earlier. :twocents:
You could add a few versions of that as well. Do the OIL tags earlier than the normal tags. This would change peoples plans if they get drawn.......but I know many people who unnecessarily worry about drawing too many tags to only get nadda.
Post by: adamR on May 25, 2015, 02:40:35 PM
I would also like to see points passed on to one designated family members through a will should someone die. Designated Wild ID must be set up in advance. This, of course, is completely unacceptable to the "where's mine" and "all about me or nobody" members on this site.I like this, only if it is in a will, to one person, and only after the gifter has passed...
Why does it always have to come down to money? I say it every year, just because some of you are apparently well off and could afford to pay more per application or fund every oil hunt before you get drawn doesn't mean the average hunter could. So because I have a kid and one on the way and don't have a ton of extra money lying around I don't deserve to draw an OIL hunt? If I get drawn I will come up with the money but I can't just let the state borrow $1000 every spring until I find out I didn't get drawn.
Huntnphool you mentioned the "wheres mine" and "all about me or nobody" members, that's a two way street. Those of you that aren't happy with the fairest system available only complain because you haven't been drawn but it is the fairest system possible! Get over it!
The only change I would really be ok with is limiting every draw to two choices like quality is now. This would drastically increase odds across that board.
Get over it? :chuckle: I don't see you advocating for the elimination of late hunts, how is that considered "where's mine"? :chuckle:
Didn't mean you get over it, wasn't specifically calling you out I was just using your quote. Just stating that those who are upset that they haven't drawn should get over it.
Post by: hughjorgan on May 25, 2015, 02:43:04 PM
Make people choose between special permits for deer and elk or applying for an OIL hunt.
Don't allow people to apply for bull/buck permits and cow/doe permits make them choose one category.
Post by: notellumcreek on May 25, 2015, 02:45:58 PM
Tag quotas for nonresident oil tags.
10 year wait after drawing a quality deer or elk tag.
5 Year wait after drawing a buck or bull tag.
1 year wait after drawing an anterless tag.
oil tag money up front when you apply, resident and nonresident.
Nonresidents buy a license when applying instead of buying a tag. Only buy tag if drawn. Quota on nonresident tags.
Unable to draw multiple tags the same year.
:tup:
Only allow one choice in a category.
:tup:
Post by: Halo on May 25, 2015, 02:53:46 PM
Post by: Skillet on May 25, 2015, 02:56:14 PM
Everybody wants better odds, better quality and want it cheaper but it just doesn't work that way. It reminds me of what a contractor friend of mine always says, "you can have it fast or perfect or cheap, but you're gonna have to pick one because you cant have all three."
:chuckle:
I've used a version of this for many years when dealing with upper-management's expectations:
"Good, Fast, Cheap - pick two."
Post by: splitshot on May 25, 2015, 03:34:34 PM
Post by: timberhunter on May 25, 2015, 03:50:29 PM
Post by: Curly on May 25, 2015, 04:06:22 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 04:12:22 PM
I'd like to see them get rid of quality categories and just put all under buck and bull. They'd probably have to make every permit the cost of what quality are now to make up for the revenue loss.
I'd like that too but I just don't think they'd ever do it.
Post by: Curly on May 25, 2015, 04:22:06 PM
Post by: buckhorn2 on May 25, 2015, 04:29:16 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 05:10:19 PM
Three thoughts.....i like 2 and 3, good points. But I do like the idea of a certain amount of points for quality tags. Seems like a lot of guys also like the idea of not being able to apply for OIL tags if you apply for quality deer or elk , and vise versa. I think that would help odds a bunch for OIL tags without impacting revenue. Love the ideas, keep them coming.
1. I don't agree with having a certain number of points before applying for certain hunts. Anyone should be able to apply at any time for any hunt.
2. Set a % of tags that go to people with the most points. Example.....25% of the tags will go to people with 15 points or more.....This should not exclude people with 15 or more points from drawing the other 75% of the quota. It just guarantees that 25% of the tags would go to people with multiple points. This will help level the playing field and will also give people that have multiple points / years a better chance of drawing.
The way the system is now....your points don't mean anything. If you have 4500 applicants / people with an average of 11 points (squared) per person, your 15 or 25 points are still a very small percentage of the draw.
3. A system that will not allow you to draw multiple tags in the same species. If you draw quality....you cannot draw buck or doe. If don't draw quality but draw buck, you cant draw doe, ect. It is really dumb that you you could theoretically draw quality, buck and doe all in one year and only kill one animal. Wast of points. :twocents:
:twocents:
Post by: vandeman17 on May 25, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
With everything being mentioned, if some of these changes took place I would consider continuing my Washington permit apps but as it stands, once I draw anything I will stop applying and be focusing out of state. :twocents:
Post by: sled on May 25, 2015, 06:19:12 PM
I think it would make the chances better, and the dept of fish and wildlife would still get their money :bash:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 25, 2015, 06:36:20 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on May 25, 2015, 06:41:22 PM
I would like to see a set percentage of the tags going to the highest percentage of points holders. I don't think its a fair system when top point holders rarely draw in the oil tags.
I would also like to see the state limit you to 1 oil tag app. And if you draw an Oil you cant apply for any Oil's for 3 years. Same with deer and elk, you draw a deer or elk tag and you can't draw for 2 years in that category.
I would be willing to front money for Oil tags as well.
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 06:41:52 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 06:43:01 PM
After reading all the posts so far the two changes I like are the earlier draw and results which should be easy and the limiting of choices to either oil or deer/elk.Those two thoughts seem to be the most popular, along with a wait period after a quality draw.
With everything being mentioned, if some of these changes took place I would consider continuing my Washington permit apps but as it stands, once I draw anything I will stop applying and be focusing out of state. :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 06:45:57 PM
The change I would like to see is that for for a successful applicant drawn for a permit not be eligible to draw again for three years. The applicant can still put in for ghost points in the mean time.I'm not sure why they would be against this, they still get their money from ghost points and it should increase odds ever so slightly.
I think it would make the chances better, and the dept of fish and wildlife would still get their money :bash:
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 06:49:43 PM
I would like to see a set percentage of the tags going to the highest percentage of points holders. I don't think its a fair system when top point holders rarely draw in the oil tags.
I don't think it's true to say that top point holders rarely draw. I think the system is working as intended. We also don't want new hunters to be discouraged by the low odds so that they don't apply. If anything, I'd like to see them quit using points in the moose, sheep, and goat draws.
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 06:52:27 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 25, 2015, 06:59:52 PM
Having the points for OIL be exponential is really no advantage considering how many names are in the hat. I wonder is the odds would be better with no points or just the points not adding up exponentially? Just have it be 5 points equal 5 names not 25.I would like to see a set percentage of the tags going to the highest percentage of points holders. I don't think its a fair system when top point holders rarely draw in the oil tags.
I don't think it's true to say that top point holders rarely draw. I think the system is working as intended. We also don't want new hunters to be discouraged by the low odds so that they don't apply. If anything, I'd like to see them quit using points in the moose, sheep, and goat draws.
Post by: rougheye on May 25, 2015, 07:02:22 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on May 25, 2015, 07:21:32 PM
I would like to see a set percentage of the tags going to the highest percentage of points holders. I don't think its a fair system when top point holders rarely draw in the oil tags.
I don't think it's true to say that top point holders rarely draw. I think the system is working as intended. We also don't want new hunters to be discouraged by the low odds so that they don't apply. If anything, I'd like to see them quit using points in the moose, sheep, and goat draws.
Easy for you to say, you got drawn for your sheep tag. Take away my points is like taking away 18 years of hopes and dreams. :'(
Post by: timberhunter on May 25, 2015, 07:29:07 PM
Post by: adamR on May 25, 2015, 07:37:54 PM
I want archery only permits for oil tags
This would be nice, if you allocate 1 permit for archery, 1 for muzzie, and 2 for rifle or something like that.
Post by: bobcat on May 25, 2015, 07:40:01 PM
I would like to see a set percentage of the tags going to the highest percentage of points holders. I don't think its a fair system when top point holders rarely draw in the oil tags.
I don't think it's true to say that top point holders rarely draw. I think the system is working as intended. We also don't want new hunters to be discouraged by the low odds so that they don't apply. If anything, I'd like to see them quit using points in the moose, sheep, and goat draws.
Easy for you to say, you got drawn for your sheep tag. Take away my points is like taking away 18 years of hopes and dreams. :'(
Mainly I don't want to see high point holders given even more preference than they already are. I think it's unfair to those who are just getting started. This year the most points a person could have is 20. Square that and you've got your name in the hat 400 times. Compared to the guy applying for the first time who only gets his name in the hat once. Doesn't seem very fair, does it?
Oh, and I haven't drawn moose yet, so I'm hoping my 19 points will help with that.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 25, 2015, 07:42:55 PM
So resource allocation for OIL? Wouldn't you need to buy a declared tag for that to begin with?I want archery only permits for oil tags
This would be nice, if you allocate 1 permit for archery, 1 for muzzie, and 2 for rifle or something like that.
Post by: vandeman17 on May 25, 2015, 07:53:03 PM
Post by: shootem on May 25, 2015, 08:39:19 PM
Post by: RadSav on May 25, 2015, 08:52:04 PM
As mentioned before I'd like to see one maybe two choices only on OIL tags.
Group size minimums at 2 or 4 depending on volume of tags available.
More spring bear tags and more spring bear areas. (should be OTC but WDFW needs the money :rolleyes:).
We used to have archery only goat tags - what ever happened to those?
If the Conflict goat hunters are encouraged to kill nannies - a nanny kill should not go against the OIL.
Fewer antlerless elk tags on west side.
Quality Bull season start a week before the cow hunters muck it up.
And a Quality permit with my name on it sometime before I die or am too old.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 25, 2015, 09:13:44 PM
I can think of a lot of things I'd change but when I put them against the states mission to collect as much money as possible from us while convincing us we are getting more opportunity they seem to not work.I've got an idea based on this site that I think would allow them to do things to improve odds and not lose money...the State provides draw results on July 1...but if you want, starting June 15 you can call a 1-900 number and pay $6.99/minute to listen to your draw results :chuckle: :chuckle: They could limit you to 1 hunt choice and probably still be revenue neutral. :chuckle:
For example: You can't limit a person to buck deer OR quality deer because of loss of revenue.
Post by: Skillet on May 25, 2015, 09:29:29 PM
Anybody in favor of getting rid of the east/west- archery, muzzy, rifle elk declaration needed before special permit application. Why not be able to apply for what ever special tag I want if my total number of options is limited. For sure you need to buy the licensce before applying for the tag but what difference does it make if I apply for different weapons or locations. Deer special tags cold be the same way. If I buy a deer license then I can apply for any special tag I want. Archery, muzzy, or rifle who cares if I only have 2,3, or 4 options total?I believe the idea with the area and/or weapon declaration is to prevent crowding and overharvest in some areas. Given the odds of pulling the more desirable permits, by forcing the choice of weapon (and area for elk) before you apply you are really committing to your backup plan when you don't draw yet again.
This is the classic example - If everybody who put in for a Peaches Ridge quality tag (and to add your example, for any weapon) but didn't draw could then head over to the west side and hunt 3pt+ elk on their OTC tag with weapon of choice, it would make for some intensive crowding beyond what we already see in the public lands.
This is one aspect of the licensing / permit application structure I believe it works as intended to distribute pressure and doesn't need to be changed.
Post by: mfswallace on May 25, 2015, 11:14:32 PM
Limit non residents tags and make the costs equal to what their home state of residency charges non residents.
Draw run in March
New OIL "non-native" tag category-- it allows 1 lucky non Indian to kill as many deer and elk as they want to in a 12 month period. $100 to apply, $5,000 for tag. Huge revenue boost!!!
Post by: huntnnw on May 25, 2015, 11:17:09 PM
Three thoughts.....i like 2 and 3, good points. But I do like the idea of a certain amount of points for quality tags. Seems like a lot of guys also like the idea of not being able to apply for OIL tags if you apply for quality deer or elk , and vise versa. I think that would help odds a bunch for OIL tags without impacting revenue. Love the ideas, keep them coming.
1. I don't agree with having a certain number of points before applying for certain hunts. Anyone should be able to apply at any time for any hunt.
2. Set a % of tags that go to people with the most points. Example.....25% of the tags will go to people with 15 points or more.....This should not exclude people with 15 or more points from drawing the other 75% of the quota. It just guarantees that 25% of the tags would go to people with multiple points. This will help level the playing field and will also give people that have multiple points / years a better chance of drawing.
The way the system is now....your points don't mean anything. If you have 4500 applicants / people with an average of 11 points (squared) per person, your 15 or 25 points are still a very small percentage of the draw.
3. A system that will not allow you to draw multiple tags in the same species. If you draw quality....you cannot draw buck or doe. If don't draw quality but draw buck, you cant draw doe, ect. It is really dumb that you you could theoretically draw quality, buck and doe all in one year and only kill one animal. Wast of points. :twocents:
:twocents:
:yeah: WA needs to look at ID system..atleast they finally broke up the moose units..still should be more like ID does in some units with 3 different tags in some units
Post by: Wacenturion on May 26, 2015, 06:52:27 AM
Only allowed to put in for 1 option. No 2nd 3rd or 4th choices
Amen to that. This is the one thing that would allow just about everyone to reasonably draw their favorite hunts, outside of the limited quality units every couple of years. Adding three additional choices sent the odds through the roof, not to mention adding on antlerless hunters who can now put in for bull or buck units without loosing their antlerless points. I would bet that most of the additional three choices are in areas unfamiliar to the applicants and generally a waste of a tag. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2015, 07:10:23 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on May 26, 2015, 07:16:08 AM
I don't believe going to only one choice instead of four would make any difference in odds. Sure, in theory it sounds great. But the number of people applying won't change. The same number of people applying for the same number of tags- how does that improve odds? Yes, certain hunts may end up with better odds, but others will then have worse odds. Overall, odds will remain the same.
I think the idea is spreading out choices. Say someone with 5 points is putting in for the colockum rifle elk tag as their number one choice because they know the have fall back chances. If they could only apply for one unit they might think twice about applying for a premier unit...
Post by: benhuntin on May 26, 2015, 07:25:25 AM
I like the idea of shortening the application period and sooner date to start putting in, also like the minimum points opinion for quality draws. The biggest change I would like to see for the OIL draws is requiring you to pay for the tags before you are entered into the draws. I would let them buy their points at the current rate, but the years you want to be put in for the draw, you would have to purchase the moose, sheep or goat tag. Then when/if you don't draw, they refund the price minus a ten dollar processing fee. I think far less people would put up the money to get into the draw, it should increase our draw odds. People will still buy the points I believe, so they shouldn't see a drop in revenue. Maybe even limit the number of species you can apply for in each year?it seems you are lookin to just better your odds, not make the overall draw better. I am totally against paying for the tag ahead of time. I can swing it and I do in Idaho, but it is total BS to make this a complete pay to hunt state for residents. I would guess that everyone that is for this option has plenty of money to do this. Good luck making it more difficult for the low income/average joe to draw good tags.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 26, 2015, 08:02:35 AM
i can almost guarantee if you and I compare checking accounts right now you win! I'm just an average Joe when it comes to income, the odds of everyone drawing a OIL tag years ago when we did have to buy the tag first, were much better than they are now. OIL tags are special tags, not everyone will get a chance to hunt them in their life. If you buy points until your ready to put in, and it's a priority, you can afford to do it. I don't think we are wanting to out price residents on putting in, if you draw you have to pay anyway. Just trying to take the number of names in the hat down from over 1 million like it is now with the most popular tag.I like the idea of shortening the application period and sooner date to start putting in, also like the minimum points opinion for quality draws. The biggest change I would like to see for the OIL draws is requiring you to pay for the tags before you are entered into the draws. I would let them buy their points at the current rate, but the years you want to be put in for the draw, you would have to purchase the moose, sheep or goat tag. Then when/if you don't draw, they refund the price minus a ten dollar processing fee. I think far less people would put up the money to get into the draw, it should increase our draw odds. People will still buy the points I believe, so they shouldn't see a drop in revenue. Maybe even limit the number of species you can apply for in each year?it seems you are lookin to just better your odds, not make the overall draw better. I am totally against paying for the tag ahead of time. I can swing it and I do in Idaho, but it is total BS to make this a complete pay to hunt state for residents. I would guess that everyone that is for this option has plenty of money to do this. Good luck making it more difficult for the low income/average joe to draw good tags.
Post by: Wacenturion on May 26, 2015, 08:08:56 AM
I don't believe going to only one choice instead of four would make any difference in odds. Sure, in theory it sounds great. But the number of people applying won't change. The same number of people applying for the same number of tags- how does that improve odds? Yes, certain hunts may end up with better odds, but others will then have worse odds. Overall, odds will remain the same.
What math are you using? If everyone puts in for four choices the extra three choices are non existent hunters. It's just someone replicating themselves three times over. Lets use my favorite hunt as an example.
Blue Mtn Foothill W.....used to be 600 people putting in for 100 permits. Use to draw every 3 or 4 years max. Then came four choices. At that point 1700 to now 2000 people putting in for 100 permits. You think maybe the odds went up? Then recently doe hunters were allowed to put in for buck hunts without loosing their doe points....now appproximately 2200 applicants for 100 tags. Average point to draw equals now is nine.
This example can be overlaid to every normal unit outside of quality limited draw tags. Get rid of the extra choices and have everyone put in for their favorite and perferred area and odds go way down. Everyone would be happier. What we have is just a shell game to make $$$.
Post by: 180-GRAIN on May 26, 2015, 08:24:45 AM
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2015, 08:27:00 AM
Now, if only one choice was allowed rather than four, the number of applicants would still be 10,759. Overall odds for a goat tag doesn't change, it's still 1 in 489. Yes, certain hunts may be less popular and odds will be better for that hunt. Other areas will be more popular and odds for that hunt may be worse than average. But in reality, the only way to really increase odds of drawing is to decrease the number of applicants or increase the number of tags. Going from four choices to one choice on an application does neither of those things.
Here's one thing to consider- a few years ago the number of choices allowed on quality deer and elk applications went from four to two. Did those permits suddenly become easy to draw?
Post by: benhuntin on May 26, 2015, 08:29:22 AM
in your first post you said you wanted to improve the draw system not take people out of the drawing, so I guess I'm confused on what you are trying to do? And I wouldn't bet on the bank account thing either.i can almost guarantee if you and I compare checking accounts right now you win! I'm just an average Joe when it comes to income, the odds of everyone drawing a OIL tag years ago when we did have to buy the tag first, were much better than they are now. OIL tags are special tags, not everyone will get a chance to hunt them in their life. If you buy points until your ready to put in, and it's a priority, you can afford to do it. I don't think we are wanting to out price residents on putting in, if you draw you have to pay anyway. Just trying to take the number of names in the hat down from over 1 million like it is now with the most popular tag.I like the idea of shortening the application period and sooner date to start putting in, also like the minimum points opinion for quality draws. The biggest change I would like to see for the OIL draws is requiring you to pay for the tags before you are entered into the draws. I would let them buy their points at the current rate, but the years you want to be put in for the draw, you would have to purchase the moose, sheep or goat tag. Then when/if you don't draw, they refund the price minus a ten dollar processing fee. I think far less people would put up the money to get into the draw, it should increase our draw odds. People will still buy the points I believe, so they shouldn't see a drop in revenue. Maybe even limit the number of species you can apply for in each year?it seems you are lookin to just better your odds, not make the overall draw better. I am totally against paying for the tag ahead of time. I can swing it and I do in Idaho, but it is total BS to make this a complete pay to hunt state for residents. I would guess that everyone that is for this option has plenty of money to do this. Good luck making it more difficult for the low income/average joe to draw good tags.
Post by: muledhunter on May 26, 2015, 08:44:42 AM
This is probably unpopular but I think they should limit what you can put in for as far as species go but still allow ghost points in the ones you can't apply for. I am just not a fan of being able to throw your name in every hat out theretotally agree. 1 oil tag a year. Deer and elk are fine
Post by: LabChamp on May 26, 2015, 08:48:24 AM
My math is simple. Let's just look at the mountain goat tags- last year there was 10,759 applicants for 22 tags. There were 12 hunts to choose from and applicants can select up to 4 choices. Using those numbers, overall odds of drawing a goat tag are 1 in 489, meaning only one person out of every 489 applicants will get a tag.
Now, if only one choice was allowed rather than four, the number of applicants would still be 10,759. Overall odds for a goat tag doesn't change, it's still 1 in 489. Yes, certain hunts may be less popular and odds will be better for that hunt. Other areas will be more popular and odds for that hunt may be worse than average. But in reality, the only way to really increase odds of drawing is to decrease the number of applicants or increase the number of tags. Going from four choices to one choice on an application does neither of those things.
Here's one thing to consider- a few years ago the number of choices allowed on quality deer and elk applications went from four to two. Did those permits suddenly become easy to draw?
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: Wacenturion on May 26, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
My math is simple. Let's just look at the mountain goat tags- last year there was 10,759 applicants for 22 tags. There were 12 hunts to choose from and applicants can select up to 4 choices. Using those numbers, overall odds of drawing a goat tag are 1 in 489, meaning only one person out of every 489 applicants will get a tag.
Now, if only one choice was allowed rather than four, the number of applicants would still be 10,759. Overall odds for a goat tag doesn't change, it's still 1 in 489. Yes, certain hunts may be less popular and odds will be better for that hunt. Other areas will be more popular and odds for that hunt may be worse than average. But in reality, the only way to really increase odds of drawing is to decrease the number of applicants or increase the number of tags. Going from four choices to one choice on an application does neither of those things.
Here's one thing to consider- a few years ago the number of choices allowed on quality deer and elk applications went from four to two. Did those permits suddenly become easy to draw?
Your statement above in red just made my point. Your examples however are like comparing apples to elephants. I was referring to normal units, not limited moose, goat, sheep, quality or some limited bull tags.
If we go to one choice only my favorite unit, Blue Mtn. West goes back to far less applicants than there are now.... my odds are better and I draw sooner than every 7-9 years. Same for other units outside the quality and limited species draw.
Post by: Wacenturion on May 26, 2015, 09:03:04 AM
Most 2nd through 4th choices are probably somewhat random based on hear say rather than familiarity of the area. Not always the case, but a large percentage I would wager.
Post by: westside bull on May 26, 2015, 09:58:34 AM
Post by: Colville on May 26, 2015, 10:14:05 AM
Wacenturion, I suspect that the cross over of doe/cow running parallel to buck/bull was more harm than the number of hunts you can apply for. There were thousands of doe only hunters who had no reason to apply for buck who may as well now, nothing to lose. Can't get the genie back in that bottle because of the revenue. If you go to one unit only per app, I think there'll be a shift of some pressure back to "easier" to draw units. I think if Entiat/Sawkane/Pogue/Chiwawa etc become borderline OIL permits many will look to improve their odds elsewhere. All the points out there exist so if you only disperse them rather than cut them out the pool all together, pressure simply shifts.
I have kids that apply for moose. I don't think unlicensed youth should be able to buy points. I'd be happy to see the net cost of all OIL permits go up by whatever the revenue loss is to youth point building before they are licensed hunters. It just seems obvious to me that kids with nothing invested and no time waited in line should not build equity, not on top of youth opportunity in these same species.
The math sucks. Tag #'s are fixed in relative terms. The need for revenue starts at no loss from last year's number so either the costs go up and opportunity down or it's more of what we have now.
Post by: johnnyaustin44 on May 26, 2015, 10:16:07 AM
They need to make all Blacktail tags Buck hunts not Quality that needs to change Like the Mashel and White river for example. :dunno:also earlier draw time. Do spring bear and general permits together due by end of January or February
Post by: BULLBLASTER on May 26, 2015, 10:24:29 AM
I know it would get messy with the 47 categpries we have. :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 26, 2015, 10:27:10 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 26, 2015, 10:30:08 AM
I would like earlier draws, too. But I think they would have to split draws or cut antlerless tags/seasons. There are elk seasons that run until the end of March. Then you get 10 days to report or however long the lab processes organs from kills, so Apr 10 all data collected. Then the bios have to place lines through dots and look for trends (a week maybe). Then they have to inform and wait for decisions through out the dept (another week). So May 1st would seem to be the earliest in my wild assumption here to apply to the draw. Unless they split it for fall season and winter season draws (antlerless). Could do the OILs and seasons that end in Dec by late Jan or early Feb. Then have a draw like it is now for the antlerless tags that go Jan-Mar.They need to make all Blacktail tags Buck hunts not Quality that needs to change Like the Mashel and White river for example. :dunno:also earlier draw time. Do spring bear and general permits together due by end of January or February
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on May 26, 2015, 10:32:35 AM
I'd like to see the draws changed back to the way they were when I was growing up. You could only apply for one hunt per species. And if you drew, there was a three year wait until you could apply again for that species. And do away with preference points. The system we have today is a scam to bring in money to the state. It doesn't help your draw odds in the long run.
:yeah:
Post by: westside bull on May 26, 2015, 10:45:57 AM
Post by: jstone on May 26, 2015, 10:58:10 AM
Post by: rackattack on May 26, 2015, 11:20:26 AM
If you don't submit your report by the end of January you don't get to put in for that year!!
:yeah:
Post by: Gringo31 on May 26, 2015, 11:29:22 AM
Quote
Id like to see permits changed to tags.... so if you draw successfully, your tag is good for that hunt. No general season. That wouod make people think more about what they apply for.
Best idea with a chance of passing yet. State still gets the same amount of revenue (unless less people put in for tags because of it)
Post by: EyeTooth on May 26, 2015, 11:40:03 AM
Thanks for being willing to advocate for us during your “witness” time with the game department this year.
After reading this thread, I would say that I fall into the (old timer) category of wishing we could go back to the ways of old, days of old, simplicity in our drawing system. We’re well beyond that now.
What I would like to know is what qualifications does one need to be a witness? How does one become a witness? Is the witness program anything other than a formality that the state requires for the drawings to be considered “legal”.
If I were to be a witness, I would like to be able to bring with me the best computer guy that I could find to be able to look into the system and make sure that there isn’t a chance that some people would be favored in the drawings, and/or that others weren’t being blacklisted, or hindered in the drawings in any way. Other than eating doughnuts, drinking coffee and just being present during this drawing process, what professional qualities do you bring to the “witness” table? I’m definitely not saying that I’m qualified to be a witness, but I will say that if I were a witness, I would do anything in my power to prove to myself and everyone else that the drawings are legit. If I was there it may not be the most comfortable place for the “yes” men and women in the room, and if I found there to be any discrepancies at all in the system I wouldn't hesitate to let EVERYONE know.
Please don’t misunderstand or be insulted be my post. I’ve seen how some state business is conducted. You’ve already shown that you care about us by starting this thread. Thank you! These drawings are serious business for a lot of hunters, and we need a perfectly unbiased and very honest group of people to be conducting them. If you could just figure out how to really make sure that the drawings that we have are perfectly fair, your witness time would be very well spent!
Thanks again for being willing to help.
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on May 26, 2015, 11:43:25 AM
Also would like to see it similar to Idaho if you want a moose tag you cant put in for other oil tags. That would help cut down on applicants in some of the tags because they really want a ram instead of a moose but put in for both just because they can.
Post by: Skillet on May 26, 2015, 11:44:06 AM
If the solution isn't revenue neutral, it's D.O.A. So only applying for one oil species will only work if you can still buy the point for the others. It's the problem with the other reduction strategies. If they rely on reducing the apps you can purchase and apply for it will only work if they make up the revenue with increased app charges. Maybe that would be worth it to some but that is the only way it would work.
Wacenturion, I suspect that the cross over of doe/cow running parallel to buck/bull was more harm than the number of hunts you can apply for. There were thousands of doe only hunters who had no reason to apply for buck who may as well now, nothing to lose. Can't get the genie back in that bottle because of the revenue. If you go to one unit only per app, I think there'll be a shift of some pressure back to "easier" to draw units. I think if Entiat/Sawkane/Pogue/Chiwawa etc become borderline OIL permits many will look to improve their odds elsewhere. All the points out there exist so if you only disperse them rather than cut them out the pool all together, pressure simply shifts.
I have kids that apply for moose. I don't think unlicensed youth should be able to buy points. I'd be happy to see the net cost of all OIL permits go up by whatever the revenue loss is to youth point building before they are licensed hunters. It just seems obvious to me that kids with nothing invested and no time waited in line should not build equity, not on top of youth opportunity in these same species.
The math sucks. Tag #'s are fixed in relative terms. The need for revenue starts at no loss from last year's number so either the costs go up and opportunity down or it's more of what we have now.
Can't find a thing to disagree with in here. And I looked hard, 'cause I'm feeling pretty punchy today. :chuckle:
I believe 100% the splitting of permits into categories and allowing applications into all of them destroyed the draw process. It was sold to us as an "increase in opportunity" - but what was left out was the opportunity was not to actually hunt, but the opportunity to choose what to apply for. It is a sham revenue generator that the WDFW should be ashamed of forcing on us.
Both Bobcat and WACenturian are correct. As per BC, there are so many people and so many tags. It's the the Lottery mentality - "Somebody's gotta to win it!" As per WACent, there are almost 4 times the applicants as used to be in his particular hunt, dramatically lowering his actual odds, but only for that hunt. For WACent's overall odds of pulling a permit of any kind to get remotely closer to where they were before the big split (getting back to same odds can't happen because everybody's points got replicated throughout all categories of the same species), WACent has to apply for everything possible (deer, elk, OIL) and be happy with pulling whatever he can every 2-3 years instead of the one hunt he wanted every 2-3 years. Spending all that money on all those applications is the opportunity we were actually given and makes Bobcat's statement closer to accurate.
:twocents:
Post by: mp.hunter on May 26, 2015, 12:11:19 PM
Hi trophyhunt,
Thanks for being willing to advocate for us during your “witness” time with the game department this year.
After reading this thread, I would say that I fall into the (old timer) category of wishing we could go back to the ways of old, days of old, simplicity in our drawing system. We’re well beyond that now.
What I would like to know is what qualifications does one need to be a witness? How does one become a witness? Is the witness program anything other than a formality that the state requires for the drawings to be considered “legal”.
If I were to be a witness, I would like to be able to bring with me the best computer guy that I could find to be able to look into the system and make sure that there isn’t a chance that some people would be favored in the drawings, and/or that others weren’t being blacklisted, or hindered in the drawings in any way. Other than eating doughnuts, drinking coffee and just being present during this drawing process, what professional qualities do you bring to the “witness” table? I’m definitely not saying that I’m qualified to be a witness, but I will say that if I were a witness, I would do anything in my power to prove to myself and everyone else that the drawings are legit. If I was there it may not be the most comfortable place for the “yes” men and women in the room, and if I found there to be any discrepancies at all in the system I wouldn't hesitate to let EVERYONE know.
Please don’t misunderstand or be insulted be my post. I’ve seen how some state business is conducted. You’ve already shown that you care about us by starting this thread. Thank you! These drawings are serious business for a lot of hunters, and we need a perfectly unbiased and very honest group of people to be conducting them. If you could just figure out how to really make sure that the drawings that we have are perfectly fair, your witness time would be very well spent!
Thanks again for being willing to help.
[/quote
I was a witness last year. The game department does not do the draw themselves, outdoor central does. After the draw is done it gets sent back to WDFW and they then have to go through all the categories and make sure the points are moved to 0 for the winners. This process takes time. So you don't actually see the draw take place, however it is explained to the witnesses on how it is administered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2015, 12:12:00 PM
Quote
I believe 100% the splitting of permits into categories and allowing applications into all of them destroyed the draw process. It was sold to us as an "increase in opportunity" - but what was left out was the opportunity was not to actually hunt, but the opportunity to choose what to apply for. It is a sham revenue generator that the WDFW should be ashamed of forcing on us.
:tup:
If it were up to me, we would be dumping our system entirely and adopting Idaho's. No points! Points are evil!
Post by: Wacenturion on May 26, 2015, 12:13:51 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2015, 12:18:38 PM
If the solution isn't revenue neutral, it's D.O.A. So only applying for one oil species will only work if you can still buy the point for the others. It's the problem with the other reduction strategies. If they rely on reducing the apps you can purchase and apply for it will only work if they make up the revenue with increased app charges. Maybe that would be worth it to some but that is the only way it would work.
Wacenturion, I suspect that the cross over of doe/cow running parallel to buck/bull was more harm than the number of hunts you can apply for. There were thousands of doe only hunters who had no reason to apply for buck who may as well now, nothing to lose. Can't get the genie back in that bottle because of the revenue. If you go to one unit only per app, I think there'll be a shift of some pressure back to "easier" to draw units. I think if Entiat/Sawkane/Pogue/Chiwawa etc become borderline OIL permits many will look to improve their odds elsewhere. All the points out there exist so if you only disperse them rather than cut them out the pool all together, pressure simply shifts.
I have kids that apply for moose. I don't think unlicensed youth should be able to buy points. I'd be happy to see the net cost of all OIL permits go up by whatever the revenue loss is to youth point building before they are licensed hunters. It just seems obvious to me that kids with nothing invested and no time waited in line should not build equity, not on top of youth opportunity in these same species.
The math sucks. Tag #'s are fixed in relative terms. The need for revenue starts at no loss from last year's number so either the costs go up and opportunity down or it's more of what we have now.
Can't find a thing to disagree with in here. And I looked hard, 'cause I'm feeling pretty punchy today. :chuckle:
I believe 100% the splitting of permits into categories and allowing applications into all of them destroyed the draw process. It was sold to us as an "increase in opportunity" - but what was left out was the opportunity was not to actually hunt, but the opportunity to choose what to apply for. It is a sham revenue generator that the WDFW should be ashamed of forcing on us.
Both Bobcat and WACenturian are correct. As per BC, there are so many people and so many tags. It's the the Lottery mentality - "Somebody's gotta to win it!" As per WACent, there are almost 4 times the applicants as used to be in his particular hunt, dramatically lowering his actual odds, but only for that hunt. For WACent's overall odds of pulling a permit of any kind to get remotely closer to where they were before the big split (getting back to same odds can't happen because everybody's points got replicated throughout all categories of the same species), WACent has to apply for everything possible (deer, elk, OIL) and be happy with pulling whatever he can every 2-3 years instead of the one hunt he wanted every 2-3 years. Spending all that money on all those applications is the opportunity we were actually given and makes Bobcat's statement closer to accurate.
:twocents:
There are only so many animals out there and currently everyone can apply for every category relatively cheaply, unless you are like me and apply for every category then it adds up anyway. If we want increased odds in each category then we will need to limit application choices which will lower the overall application numbers, but as Colville pointed out, to do that we would need to increase the cost so that WDFW is still funded at the same level with fewer applications.
The math has to work one way or another to support the WDFW budget! I would rather pay more so that hunters/fishers fully fund WDFW and so that our hunting/fishing opportunities should be the first priority after sustaining wildlife.
Post by: bugs n bones on May 26, 2015, 12:20:25 PM
Very well said, Skillet. Especially this part::tup:I agree 100percent they sold us a bill of goodsQuoteI believe 100% the splitting of permits into categories and allowing applications into all of them destroyed the draw process. It was sold to us as an "increase in opportunity" - but what was left out was the opportunity was not to actually hunt, but the opportunity to choose what to apply for. It is a sham revenue generator that the WDFW should be ashamed of forcing on us.
:tup:
If it were up to me, we would be dumping our system entirely and adopting Idaho's. No points! Points are evil!
Post by: fishngamereaper on May 26, 2015, 12:22:55 PM
I'd like to see the draws changed back to the way they were when I was growing up. You could only apply for one hunt per species. And if you drew, there was a three year wait until you could apply again for that species. And do away with preference points. The system we have today is a scam to bring in money to the state. It doesn't help your draw odds in the long run.
:yeah:
Pretty much agree. At least stop squaring the preference points and assigning random numbers. If you have 10 points throw the name into the hat ten times.
Post by: Wacenturion on May 26, 2015, 12:31:36 PM
Time consuming yes. But PR wise it was wonderful. Always had a few who didn't hear their name doubt whether or not their card was indeed included. After an individual drawing if someone doubted the fairness of his or her card being in the barrel, we would quickly go through and find it. Never once was someone's card not in the barrel, unless of course they didn't mail it in, which we never ran into.
Saw the same local folks every year and some who traveled to witness the draw since they too put in for a specific area. All kinds of gimmicks...heavy tape on edges to help define someone's card and hopefully have the person drawing pull it out. :chuckle:
Life was better back then.....three times as many hunters, far more opportunity, and no gleaning for dollars by D.O.G (Dept. of Game). So if I seem somewhat dismayed or disgusted at the current way of doing things, it's because I'm coming from a far different perspective than most of you.
Post by: EyeTooth on May 26, 2015, 12:36:04 PM
I know the drawings are done by outdoor central, and the answer you gave as to what the witness does is exactly what I expected.
Thanks to you too, for doing your part to help!
Back to the subject at hand...........
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2015, 12:38:42 PM
I think I'd be fine with the late results if we could go back to the simplistic system we had back then.
Post by: Special T on May 26, 2015, 12:43:11 PM
My biggest beef is that the Washington system takes until June to complete the draws. I would like to see it completed by the end of February or even January. Other western states do it, why not Washington. It is very difficult to plan on an OIL hunt with only two months notice. It is even hard to plan any hunt with that kind of notice.:yeah:
Post by: Special T on May 26, 2015, 12:48:53 PM
I would like to see a set percentage of the tags going to the highest percentage of points holders. I don't think its a fair system when top point holders rarely draw in the oil tags.
I don't think it's true to say that top point holders rarely draw. I think the system is working as intended. We also don't want new hunters to be discouraged by the low odds so that they don't apply. If anything, I'd like to see them quit using points in the moose, sheep, and goat draws.
I gave up on acrewing points and the draw system they they spit it up a bunch. I let my realitilvy small ammount of point go away because its a hustle. Despite my desire to hunt certain Quality tags i have just chosen to put more time in the woods near me. So far Its paid off... I have found a few good spots and LOTS of mushrooms... Not to mention i have more time and $ to go into the woods. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2015, 12:49:51 PM
I'm fine with the timing of our draw. I actually wouldn't want it any earlier. As soon as possible after the application deadline, sure. But I wouldn't want the application period any earlier than the middle of May.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 26, 2015, 03:43:03 PM
All states don't have their draw before ours. The deadline for deer and antelope applications in Wyoming is June 1st. I think Idaho's deadline is a few days later than that.Any reason? It seems like it would benefit more people to get the longer time to submit for vacations and work out scouting plans/hunting trips.
I'm fine with the timing of our draw. I actually wouldn't want it any earlier. As soon as possible after the application deadline, sure. But I wouldn't want the application period any earlier than the middle of May.
Post by: mfswallace on May 26, 2015, 03:48:22 PM
All states don't have their draw before ours. The deadline for deer and antelope applications in Wyoming is June 1st. I think Idaho's deadline is a few days later than that.Any reason? It seems like it would benefit more people to get the longer time to submit for vacations and work out scouting plans/hunting trips.
I'm fine with the timing of our draw. I actually wouldn't want it any earlier. As soon as possible after the application deadline, sure. But I wouldn't want the application period any earlier than the middle of May.
Plus research and scouting, only seems like upsides....
Bcat what down side do u see?
Post by: trophyhunt on May 26, 2015, 03:52:59 PM
wdfw always waits for the hunter reports before setting the quotas for special permits, someone on here talked about it. They have late hunts they wait for, then they work on numbers. It seems to me they could get the permits out sooner, and if the numbers in the late hunts are so far off, they could just adjust them for the following years? Getting the permits out faster will probably be one of the questions asked.All states don't have their draw before ours. The deadline for deer and antelope applications in Wyoming is June 1st. I think Idaho's deadline is a few days later than that.Any reason? It seems like it would benefit more people to get the longer time to submit for vacations and work out scouting plans/hunting trips.
I'm fine with the timing of our draw. I actually wouldn't want it any earlier. As soon as possible after the application deadline, sure. But I wouldn't want the application period any earlier than the middle of May.
Post by: mfswallace on May 26, 2015, 03:59:32 PM
Post by: Miles on May 26, 2015, 04:01:11 PM
It seems that with these draw systems everyone wants "their tag". They dream up ideas to get tags based on how many years they've been putting in, points, point/drawing systems, etc... Everyone wants to increase their odds and at the same time shaft the "new guy who doesn't deserve the tag anyway". It all goes back to the "me, me, me" mentality. I say do away with it all, make it a simple RAFFLE/DRAWING, and be done with it. It's fair to everyone each year.
Post by: DeerThug on May 26, 2015, 04:38:30 PM
1) send someone from wdfw to Wyoming to see how they have improved their system.. for example they have implemented an application deadline and result posting date. Antelope deadline May 31 results posted June 20. That way we all know when it is coming out. would help in getting vacation time off of work and would stop all of the posts on here about the BACKDOOR... not that i dont enjoy the back door but just saying///
2) it seems to me that a good computer person and the permit system.. deadline occurs. Push a button, permits allocated and results posted. why does it take as long as it does.
3) as for points - not sure how to allocate a quality tag to those of us that are getting up there, but me for example have yet to draw a bull tag at max points and have had only one buck permit. now while i really dont' mind shooting spike/cow every year and rag horn bucks : i need a branched bull to hang on the wall... not sure what to suggest but something needs done. Like once you are 50 there is a point and age multiplier figured in so that someone like me can get drawn while i can still do it physically and have the golden years to talk about it.
Was going to go to Idaho last year for a bull but ended up here with my daughter on a deer hunt.. maybe this year... would rather get a bull here....
Post by: Wacenturion on May 26, 2015, 04:54:36 PM
I think it should be 1 or 2 hunt choices with no accrual of preference points. A simple name in the hat each year.
It seems that with these draw systems everyone wants "their tag". They dream up ideas to get tags based on how many years they've been putting in, points, point/drawing systems, etc... Everyone wants to increase their odds and at the same time shaft the "new guy who doesn't deserve the tag anyway". It all goes back to the "me, me, me" mentality. I say do away with it all, make it a simple RAFFLE/DRAWING, and be done with it. It's fair to everyone each year.
Would certainly be a whole lot better.....and as you say, fair to everyone every year. One choice though. Another 10 years of improvements by WDFW and they will mirror the IRS. :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2015, 05:12:31 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 26, 2015, 05:29:01 PM
Wacenturion, this is why I don't even want to ask for any changes to the system. Every time "improvements" have been made, it has become more complicated, less fair, and more expensive.
:yeah: Exactly!
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on May 26, 2015, 06:19:09 PM
2) it seems to me that a good computer person and the permit system.. deadline occurs. Push a button, permits allocated and results posted. why does it take as long as it does.
I don't have an answer specific to wdfw's draw on this subject but I know that I have heard the reasons results for Idaho draws take anywhere from 2-4 weeks include waiting for mailed applications(not an issue in WA, correct?) and verifying eligibility of applicants.
As for those of you who want WA to adopt a system where you can only apply for 1 OIL species like Idaho's system, I don't see it working the way it does here in idaho as the point system throws a kink into the plan. In idaho one can apply for 1 species knowing they are not falling behind in the other species draws.
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2015, 06:28:35 PM
Post by: Miles on May 26, 2015, 08:08:28 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 26, 2015, 08:11:03 PM
Post by: steeleywhopper on May 26, 2015, 08:54:41 PM
Post by: mfswallace on May 26, 2015, 09:27:25 PM
Lets say someone draws a quality Elk tag in Dayton and also draws a cow tag in the Clockum. Lets say the guy shoots his bull on the opening day of the Special hunt in Dayton, as it is now in the system he is done hunting elk for the year. I say we make it so the guy can purchase a second elk tag and go after the cow in the Clockum. What the heck is the reason for punishing people who draw special permits in two categories? Let them hunt for both animals. THe WDFW have already determined that X amount of cow tags or Bull tags for a certain area can be permitted. What the heck is the difference if a guy who draws nothing but a cow tag shoots one or a guy who has drawn a permit in two categories shoots it? We've paid for the points and played the game WDFW, Let us hunt!
:tup:
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on May 26, 2015, 10:26:32 PM
I don't have the years of experience in the draws many of you do. Went in with 12 points this Year. Personally.... I really think we have the fairest and most realistic point system available. The category split a few years back is what shot down our draw odds. I understand it's a revenue generator for the state, but why not simply combine Fees and eliminate these multiple categories? if it's working the way we are speculating most folks are applying for all applicable categories. Some of these are "wasted" tags I am sure as I personally know of at least a dozen drawn cow tags that never even got hunted on. But regardless I know I would rather pay a one flat fee of say 25 bucks rather than split those fees over three categories (cow, bull, quality).
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2015, 05:54:55 AM
Lets say someone draws a quality Elk tag in Dayton and also draws a cow tag in the Clockum. Lets say the guy shoots his bull on the opening day of the Special hunt in Dayton, as it is now in the system he is done hunting elk for the year. I say we make it so the guy can purchase a second elk tag and go after the cow in the Clockum. What the heck is the reason for punishing people who draw special permits in two categories? Let them hunt for both animals. THe WDFW have already determined that X amount of cow tags or Bull tags for a certain area can be permitted. What the heck is the difference if a guy who draws nothing but a cow tag shoots one or a guy who has drawn a permit in two categories shoots it? We've paid for the points and played the game WDFW, Let us hunt!i like this idea, I just wonder how many hunters have the time and money to fill that second tag? I wonder if most those tags would still go waisted? I do like the option though, I've recommend to mr ware before that we have a left over tag draw for the extra tags people drew that didn't want them. More revenue for them and better chance the tag gets used.
Post by: bbarnes on May 27, 2015, 07:02:01 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 27, 2015, 07:08:36 AM
:yeah:I would rather see separate categories eliminated, but as you suggest the DFW seems to like the added revenue.
I don't have the years of experience in the draws many of you do. Went in with 12 points this Year. Personally.... I really think we have the fairest and most realistic point system available. The category split a few years back is what shot down our draw odds. I understand it's a revenue generator for the state, but why not simply combine Fees and eliminate these multiple categories? if it's working the way we are speculating most folks are applying for all applicable categories. Some of these are "wasted" tags I am sure as I personally know of at least a dozen drawn cow tags that never even got hunted on. But regardless I know I would rather pay a one flat fee of say 25 bucks rather than split those fees over three categories (cow, bull, quality).
I don't see the problem in the potential to draw more than 1 permit per species. It is part of the game. Apply strategically.I look at it more as potential wasted points rather than wasted permits. People that draw more than 1 still get to hunt where they want. If a guy has lots of points in multiple categories it is probably smart to modify the categories you are putting in for to avoid multiple selections. For example if I have an archery elk tag I would put in for quality, take the points option in the bull category, and probably not put in for cow at all.
I understand feeling the need of putting in for all categories, with the draw odds on the quality hunts being what they are. Basically, what happened was when they went to the multi categories, people who normally put in for "quality" were sitting on a lot of points. People that typically put in for cow tags for example were not, since they had a good chance of getting drawn every couple years.
Then, everyone started putting in for multiple categories, the odds in all categories got much steeper, and people with more points (usually) were drawing permits in more than 1 category. I think the odds of this happening will (and have) gone down as points distribute more naturally.
Again, it really was a result of the way points were applied to all categories. It will work itself out.
As far as allowing multi harvest tags, imagine a youth hunter drawing quality, bull, cow, youth elk...do they get to kill 4 elk?
Post by: huntnphool on May 27, 2015, 08:36:41 AM
Wacenturion, this is why I don't even want to ask for any changes to the system. Every time "improvements" have been made, it has become more complicated, less fair, and more expensive.
The changes have done exactly what they were originally designed to do, "improve" the revenue stream, that is all they have ever been intended to do.....period!
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on May 27, 2015, 08:40:18 AM
Wacenturion, this is why I don't even want to ask for any changes to the system. Every time "improvements" have been made, it has become more complicated, less fair, and more expensive.
The changes have done exactly what they were originally designed to do, "improve" the revenue stream, that is all they have ever been intended to do.....period!
:yeah: That is a spot on post! :tup:
Post by: bobcat on May 27, 2015, 08:41:21 AM
Wacenturion, this is why I don't even want to ask for any changes to the system. Every time "improvements" have been made, it has become more complicated, less fair, and more expensive.
The changes have done exactly what they were originally designed to do, "improve" the revenue stream, that is all they have ever been intended to do.....period!
100% true! And they lied and said it was to improve drawing odds. I blame it all on one person- Dave Ware. Thankfully he's only in charge of the wolves now, and nothing else. :IBCOOL:
Post by: huntnphool on May 27, 2015, 08:45:57 AM
Wacenturion, this is why I don't even want to ask for any changes to the system. Every time "improvements" have been made, it has become more complicated, less fair, and more expensive.
The changes have done exactly what they were originally designed to do, "improve" the revenue stream, that is all they have ever been intended to do.....period!
Dave Ware, Thankfully he's only in charge of the wolves now, and nothing else.
:DOH:
Post by: mfswallace on May 27, 2015, 08:50:22 AM
Wacenturion, this is why I don't even want to ask for any changes to the system. Every time "improvements" have been made, it has become more complicated, less fair, and more expensive.
The changes have done exactly what they were originally designed to do, "improve" the revenue stream, that is all they have ever been intended to do.....period!
Dave Ware, Thankfully he's only in charge of the wolves now, and nothing else.
:DOH:
:yike:
Post by: Curly on May 27, 2015, 09:30:22 AM
Wacenturion, this is why I don't even want to ask for any changes to the system. Every time "improvements" have been made, it has become more complicated, less fair, and more expensive.
The changes have done exactly what they were originally designed to do, "improve" the revenue stream, that is all they have ever been intended to do.....period!
100% true! And they lied and said it was to improve drawing odds. I blame it all on one person- Dave Ware. Thankfully he's only in charge of the wolves now, and nothing else. :IBCOOL:
:o Thankfully? :(
See my post in another thread:
When it comes time for wdfw to make wolf management decisions, I can hear Dave Ware saying: "There was broad public support for this decision" (whatever decision they end up making). He will consider what is discussed in the WAG as "broad public support" just like he did with the GMAC in implementing the current special permit application system he pushed through. :twocents:
I wish D Ware would retire already. Hasn't he screwed up enough things in this state?
If he wishes to do something good, how about starting a point system for wolf permits. they could start selling ghost points right now for wolf hunting so that someday when a hunting season starts up people can start applying for permits. Guys could get a jump on point building right now.
(at least that is how he could sell the idea of people buying points now. of course hunting will likely never happen in this state, but hey.......he could make a bunch of money off of point buying fools like us). :P
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on May 27, 2015, 04:45:50 PM
I understand that the points will balance out down the road. I guess my "point" is why water down the odds to begin? No matter if you draw or not, by applying in a category you dont really care to draw your earning points and decreasing the odds of someone who may really want the tag. Example... My hunting partner has drawn 2 westside archery antlerless permits since the inception. The first was just a point burn as you suggest , but then again with a couple points? Neither were used because he shot an elk in general. I am sure thats often the case with some of these tags, but those applicants would be out of the pool and wouldnt even bother if it wasn't because "just in case, its only 6 bucks". Like I said the department could maintain teh revenue stream by simply raising the cost of a single permit application to cover what would normally be spent applying for all three anyway.:yeah:I would rather see separate categories eliminated, but as you suggest the DFW seems to like the added revenue.
I don't have the years of experience in the draws many of you do. Went in with 12 points this Year. Personally.... I really think we have the fairest and most realistic point system available. The category split a few years back is what shot down our draw odds. I understand it's a revenue generator for the state, but why not simply combine Fees and eliminate these multiple categories? if it's working the way we are speculating most folks are applying for all applicable categories. Some of these are "wasted" tags I am sure as I personally know of at least a dozen drawn cow tags that never even got hunted on. But regardless I know I would rather pay a one flat fee of say 25 bucks rather than split those fees over three categories (cow, bull, quality).
I don't see the problem in the potential to draw more than 1 permit per species. It is part of the game. Apply strategically.I look at it more as potential wasted points rather than wasted permits. People that draw more than 1 still get to hunt where they want. If a guy has lots of points in multiple categories it is probably smart to modify the categories you are putting in for to avoid multiple selections. For example if I have an archery elk tag I would put in for quality, take the points option in the bull category, and probably not put in for cow at all.
I understand feeling the need of putting in for all categories, with the draw odds on the quality hunts being what they are. Basically, what happened was when they went to the multi categories, people who normally put in for "quality" were sitting on a lot of points. People that typically put in for cow tags for example were not, since they had a good chance of getting drawn every couple years.
Then, everyone started putting in for multiple categories, the odds in all categories got much steeper, and people with more points (usually) were drawing permits in more than 1 category. I think the odds of this happening will (and have) gone down as points distribute more naturally.
Again, it really was a result of the way points were applied to all categories. It will work itself out.
As far as allowing multi harvest tags, imagine a youth hunter drawing quality, bull, cow, youth elk...do they get to kill 4 elk?
Post by: mfswallace on May 27, 2015, 05:12:22 PM
Lets say someone draws a quality Elk tag in Dayton and also draws a cow tag in the Clockum. Lets say the guy shoots his bull on the opening day of the Special hunt in Dayton, as it is now in the system he is done hunting elk for the year. I say we make it so the guy can purchase a second elk tag and go after the cow in the Clockum. What the heck is the reason for punishing people who draw special permits in two categories? Let them hunt for both animals. THe WDFW have already determined that X amount of cow tags or Bull tags for a certain area can be permitted. What the heck is the difference if a guy who draws nothing but a cow tag shoots one or a guy who has drawn a permit in two categories shoots it? We've paid for the points and played the game WDFW, Let us hunt!
Post by: trophyhunt on May 27, 2015, 06:29:22 PM
Please take this suggestion from steelywopper with you!I do think this makes sense and will try to post it on the poll. I will print out a copy and take it with me. I added this question to the poll.
Lets say someone draws a quality Elk tag in Dayton and also draws a cow tag in the Clockum. Lets say the guy shoots his bull on the opening day of the Special hunt in Dayton, as it is now in the system he is done hunting elk for the year. I say we make it so the guy can purchase a second elk tag and go after the cow in the Clockum. What the heck is the reason for punishing people who draw special permits in two categories? Let them hunt for both animals. THe WDFW have already determined that X amount of cow tags or Bull tags for a certain area can be permitted. What the heck is the difference if a guy who draws nothing but a cow tag shoots one or a guy who has drawn a permit in two categories shoots it? We've paid for the points and played the game WDFW, Let us hunt!
Post by: Bullkllr on May 27, 2015, 07:03:47 PM
I understand that the points will balance out down the road. I guess my "point" is why water down the odds to begin? No matter if you draw or not, by applying in a category you dont really care to draw your earning points and decreasing the odds of someone who may really want the tag. Example... My hunting partner has drawn 2 westside archery antlerless permits since the inception. The first was just a point burn as you suggest , but then again with a couple points? Neither were used because he shot an elk in general. I am sure thats often the case with some of these tags, but those applicants would be out of the pool and wouldnt even bother if it wasn't because "just in case, its only 6 bucks". Like I said the department could maintain teh revenue stream by simply raising the cost of a single permit application to cover what would normally be spent applying for all three anyway.:yeah:I would rather see separate categories eliminated, but as you suggest the DFW seems to like the added revenue.
I don't have the years of experience in the draws many of you do. Went in with 12 points this Year. Personally.... I really think we have the fairest and most realistic point system available. The category split a few years back is what shot down our draw odds. I understand it's a revenue generator for the state, but why not simply combine Fees and eliminate these multiple categories? if it's working the way we are speculating most folks are applying for all applicable categories. Some of these are "wasted" tags I am sure as I personally know of at least a dozen drawn cow tags that never even got hunted on. But regardless I know I would rather pay a one flat fee of say 25 bucks rather than split those fees over three categories (cow, bull, quality).
I don't see the problem in the potential to draw more than 1 permit per species. It is part of the game. Apply strategically.I look at it more as potential wasted points rather than wasted permits. People that draw more than 1 still get to hunt where they want. If a guy has lots of points in multiple categories it is probably smart to modify the categories you are putting in for to avoid multiple selections. For example if I have an archery elk tag I would put in for quality, take the points option in the bull category, and probably not put in for cow at all.
I understand feeling the need of putting in for all categories, with the draw odds on the quality hunts being what they are. Basically, what happened was when they went to the multi categories, people who normally put in for "quality" were sitting on a lot of points. People that typically put in for cow tags for example were not, since they had a good chance of getting drawn every couple years.
Then, everyone started putting in for multiple categories, the odds in all categories got much steeper, and people with more points (usually) were drawing permits in more than 1 category. I think the odds of this happening will (and have) gone down as points distribute more naturally.
Again, it really was a result of the way points were applied to all categories. It will work itself out.
As far as allowing multi harvest tags, imagine a youth hunter drawing quality, bull, cow, youth elk...do they get to kill 4 elk?
Agreed! The whole category BS is what screwed things up. I just can't imagine the DFW is anxious to go back to 1 application per species, but I support your idea of charging more per app and eliminating categories. It would theoretically give the same revenue support. And it would eliminate the double draws as well as make draw odds somewhere near realistic again.
The more I think about it, yours may be the best idea I've seen here! :tup:
Post by: Maverick on May 27, 2015, 07:38:19 PM
Post by: T Pearce on May 27, 2015, 07:58:28 PM
Post by: benhuntin on May 27, 2015, 08:00:59 PM
No points.. No tag.you have one the first year
Post by: WAPatriot on June 01, 2015, 02:51:32 PM
If multi season elk cost 75 bucks to apply how many people would apply probably about 1000 chances are it's gonna take 75 dollars worth of application fees to get drawn any ways it just takes 10 yrs
Post by: Bullkllr on June 02, 2015, 08:22:01 PM
Let anyone who wants to buy more applications at an elevated price.
Post by: stevemiller on June 02, 2015, 08:31:26 PM
I like this one lab,this one is the only change that makes sense.Example If I plan on having another kid should I start applying for him now( I know you cant) lol?no all applicants should have hunter safety card before any points can be built. :tup:Drop the license purchase requirement to apply!
I disagree. I would like to see all permit holders have a valid big game hunting license and hunter safety card before they apply for hunts. Seems a bit rigged if a kid 3 months old can start "applying" causing point creap, and longer odds for us all that have actually been putting in. Im not trying to piss off any father's here bc I see the other side of the story where they might not have a chance to draw at all if you dont. But just sucks thinking about how some kid that may never even want to go hunting and his dad putting him in every year to get his tag and take him on a "hunting trip" when he gets drawn and then gets to watch old pops use his tag. I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
Post by: Alan K on June 02, 2015, 08:35:58 PM
Please take this suggestion from steelywopper with you!
Lets say someone draws a quality Elk tag in Dayton and also draws a cow tag in the Clockum. Lets say the guy shoots his bull on the opening day of the Special hunt in Dayton, as it is now in the system he is done hunting elk for the year. I say we make it so the guy can purchase a second elk tag and go after the cow in the Clockum. What the heck is the reason for punishing people who draw special permits in two categories? Let them hunt for both animals. THe WDFW have already determined that X amount of cow tags or Bull tags for a certain area can be permitted. What the heck is the difference if a guy who draws nothing but a cow tag shoots one or a guy who has drawn a permit in two categories shoots it? We've paid for the points and played the game WDFW, Let us hunt!
Losing points in both categories and only getting to harvest one animal is supposed to be the deterrent from applying in multiple categories, and net better odds for everyone. If more people got burned by drawing multiple permits and losing both sets of points, it might deter the masses from applying for multiple. The odds of drawing a single permit for a species, let alone two are pretty long which is why so many people do it. Allowing two animals to be taken would only make more people apply for everything though. Myself and the majority of the guys and gals in my hunting party generally only apply in one category and ghost point the rest. We'd all be applying for everything and draw odds would be pushed down further.
Post by: Alan K on June 02, 2015, 08:43:02 PM
. . . . . . But just sucks thinking about how some kid that may never even want to go hunting and his dad putting him in every year to get his tag and take him on a "hunting trip" when he gets drawn and then gets to watch old pops use his tag. I see this alot and I know people who buy tags for their wives that don't hunt and have never held a gun. But somehow they sure tag out every year. Somehow this needs to stop and people need to take a little more responsibility for doing what's right and not be so greedy.
The way to stop it is to turn these people you know in for poaching. Nobody likes a rat, but the bottom line is that is what it would take to make them stop. Imagine how much better hunting in WA (and probably all states for that matter I suppose) would be if everyone played by the rules!