Post by: nitro on April 06, 2016, 11:21:57 PM
Post by: Naches Sportsman on April 06, 2016, 11:30:54 PM
I just got my newest Eastman's and was reading on Washington sheep hunt overview and seen they said to apply for sheep in Washington is going to be $110 and it is nonrefundable? Is this true does any one here anything on this. I hope not I have 13 points and was getting close on drawing a tag soon but my god now it will cost me $110 just to apply I don't know now.
Costs around $110 to apply for non residents
Post by: X-Force on April 06, 2016, 11:40:16 PM
I just got my newest Eastman's and was reading on Washington sheep hunt overview and seen they said to apply for sheep in Washington is going to be $110 and it is nonrefundable? Is this true does any one here anything on this. I hope not I have 13 points and was getting close on drawing a tag soon but my god now it will cost me $110 just to apply I don't know now.
Not to make light.... Drawing soon with 13 points? In this state you have a less than %.25 in every unit.
Post by: huntnphool on April 06, 2016, 11:51:20 PM
I just got my newest Eastman's and was reading on Washington sheep hunt overview and seen they said to apply for sheep in Washington is going to be $110 and it is nonrefundable? Is this true does any one here anything on this. I hope not I have 13 points and was getting close on drawing a tag soon but my god now it will cost me $110 just to apply I don't know now.
Not to make light.... Drawing soon with 13 points? In this state you have a less than %.25 in every unit.
Bring on the $110 app fee. :chuckle:
Post by: lokidog on April 06, 2016, 11:55:53 PM
Post by: X-Force on April 07, 2016, 12:22:11 AM
:chuckle: :yeah: I'm done..... :rolleyes: JK
:chuckle: :chuckle: but seriously... Great RAM.
Bring on the $110 app fee. :chuckle:
Wouldn't it be nice... An increase in fees would raise the odds a little bit.
Post by: steeleywhopper on April 07, 2016, 12:26:48 AM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on April 07, 2016, 06:00:46 AM
Post by: JoeE on April 07, 2016, 09:46:34 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 07, 2016, 09:55:03 AM
The only way to increase odds is to lower the applicant base. Period. No other system will work and make it "fair".
Post by: trophyhunt on April 07, 2016, 09:58:16 AM
The AG believes there are legal issues with them holding money when it's fronted so that won't happen. In the next 3 year cycle, we are going to propose that you pick whether you would like to apply for an OIL species or deer/elk, much like Idaho. You would keep your points in every category but the odds will theoretically almost double although many people don't apply for OIL species and just deer/elk or vice versa. You would only have to choose what you would like to prioritize on what you are applying for. If you don't care about sheep but it's cheap and easy to apply so you do, you might likely keep applying for the Blues elk or coveted deer tag instead. Those that really want a sheep/goat/moose would have a higher chance of drawing.if they can't go to making people front the money to apply, I agree 100%
The only way to increase odds is to lower the applicant base. Period. No other system will work and make it "fair".
Post by: Jonathan_S on April 07, 2016, 10:00:26 AM
I just got my newest Eastman's and was reading on Washington sheep hunt overview and seen they said to apply for sheep in Washington is going to be $110 and it is nonrefundable? Is this true does any one here anything on this. I hope not I have 13 points and was getting close on drawing a tag soon but my god now it will cost me $110 just to apply I don't know now.
Not to make light.... Drawing soon with 13 points? In this state you have a less than %.25 in every unit.
:chuckle: :yeah: sorry man but you have about the same chance with 2 points :sry:
Post by: mburrows on April 07, 2016, 10:09:49 AM
The AG believes there are legal issues with them holding money when it's fronted so that won't happen. In the next 3 year cycle, we are going to propose that you pick whether you would like to apply for an OIL species or deer/elk, much like Idaho. You would keep your points in every category but the odds will theoretically almost double although many people don't apply for OIL species and just deer/elk or vice versa. You would only have to choose what you would like to prioritize on what you are applying for. If you don't care about sheep but it's cheap and easy to apply so you do, you might likely keep applying for the Blues elk or coveted deer tag instead. Those that really want a sheep/goat/moose would have a higher chance of drawing.
The only way to increase odds is to lower the applicant base. Period. No other system will work and make it "fair".
I would be all in for this
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 07, 2016, 12:55:14 PM
The AG believes there are legal issues with them holding money when it's fronted so that won't happen. In the next 3 year cycle, we are going to propose that you pick whether you would like to apply for an OIL species or deer/elk, much like Idaho. You would keep your points in every category but the odds will theoretically almost double although many people don't apply for OIL species and just deer/elk or vice versa. You would only have to choose what you would like to prioritize on what you are applying for. If you don't care about sheep but it's cheap and easy to apply so you do, you might likely keep applying for the Blues elk or coveted deer tag instead. Those that really want a sheep/goat/moose would have a higher chance of drawing.:yeah:
The only way to increase odds is to lower the applicant base. Period. No other system will work and make it "fair".
I'm all for this!
Post by: Ridgerunner on April 07, 2016, 01:00:28 PM
Did I say, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Post by: shanevg on April 07, 2016, 01:12:38 PM
The AG believes there are legal issues with them holding money when it's fronted so that won't happen. In the next 3 year cycle, we are going to propose that you pick whether you would like to apply for an OIL species or deer/elk, much like Idaho. You would keep your points in every category but the odds will theoretically almost double although many people don't apply for OIL species and just deer/elk or vice versa. You would only have to choose what you would like to prioritize on what you are applying for. If you don't care about sheep but it's cheap and easy to apply so you do, you might likely keep applying for the Blues elk or coveted deer tag instead. Those that really want a sheep/goat/moose would have a higher chance of drawing.
The only way to increase odds is to lower the applicant base. Period. No other system will work and make it "fair".
The only way to increase odds is to lower the applicant base. Period. No other system will work and make it "fair".
:yeah: Absolutely true and I'm glad people are finally realizing it!
I really like going to the Idaho system as you mentioned, especially if we can still apply for points in all categories. (Seriously, why would WDFW not allow that as they continue to make money?) I sure hope this gets pushed through!
Post by: X-Force on April 07, 2016, 01:38:56 PM
Wouldn't this change necessitate allowing people to keep there points they have acquired so far but from here on limiting them to build points only in species they are applying for?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 07, 2016, 01:57:57 PM
I may be a simpleton but how would building points in all categories but only applying for 1 change the odds? Across the board odds would remain the same correct? The goal is to lower the applicant base. If everyone was acquiring points across the board the applicant base would remain the same.I personally say you should only accrue points in applied species. But either way would increase odds because there would be less names in the hat for everything.
Wouldn't this change necessitate allowing people to keep there points they have acquired so far but from here on limiting them to build points only in species they are applying for?
If I applied for deer and not moose. My name being out of the moose draw increases your odds.
Post by: Dhoey07 on April 07, 2016, 02:10:22 PM
Dual system.
A hunter can only apply for 1 system per hunting year.
60% of the tags will be allocated to "The Points" system. Meaning the system in place now, points squared plus one = names in the hat.
40% of the tags go to a "Idaho Style" system. No point accumulation, 1 permit app = 1 name in the hat.
There will be a point when people stop applying for special draws because they know that the percentage is so low, there is and never will be a chance to draw.
Post by: shanevg on April 07, 2016, 02:13:45 PM
I may be a simpleton but how would building points in all categories but only applying for 1 change the odds? Across the board odds would remain the same correct? The goal is to lower the applicant base. If everyone was acquiring points across the board the applicant base would remain the same.
Wouldn't this change necessitate allowing people to keep there points they have acquired so far but from here on limiting them to build points only in species they are applying for?
If you assumed everyone would evenly distribute between the 4 categories (1. Deer/Elk 2. Sheep 3. Moose 4. Goat) and for simplicity assume there are 1000 applicants that would either a. apply for all 4 categories, or 4. evenly distribute between the 4 categories. When everyone applies in all 4 categories, you get 1/1000+1/1000+1/1000+1/1000 = 4/4000 (since each category is mutually exclusive, not drawing in one category does nothing to hurt or help your odds in the other category.) When everyone can only apply in one category your odds in that one category would be 1/250 so your odds of drawing a tag actually improves dramatically!
(What you lose by allowing hunters to apply in only one category is the potential to draw in multiple categories in a given year. But by simple math, the odds of that happening is only 1/1000*1/1000 or 1/100,000 so I'm not really concerned with that possibility. I'd rather have a 1/250 odd of drawing a single tag than have 1/1000 odds of drawing a tag+1/100000 odds of drawing two tags.)
That's keeping math simple, the reality is that things would not be evenly distributed. If you look at Idaho, deer/elk/pronghorn tags get about 80-90% of the total applicants. The OIL tags see odds improve dramatically. Furthermore, in WA you would actually have a chance of starting to cycle through the top point holders in a given category (particularly in moose where there are enough tags every year to actually make a significant impact on the total number of applicants.) My guess is we would see goat odds in the ballpark of 1/25 - 1/50 (as goats are generally not considered as good of a "trophy" animal as moose/sheep). Moose odds in the range of 1/40 - 1/60 (a lot of people want to hunt moose but there are also enough tags that odds wont' look so terrible). Sheep odds in the range of 1/50 - 1/100 (sheep is still considered the pinnacle of trophy hunting and we have some really good units in our state.) I think deer/elk odds would probably improve by 20-30% overall.
The real advantage of this is that a hunter can get in the game and say: "I really want to hunt sheep in my life in WA" and keep applying for sheep his/her whole life and statistically have a realistic chance of that happening. The way it stands now with sheep odds in the 1/3000 to 1/7000 range, statistically 99.99% of us will never sniff a sheep tag in our life.
Post by: X-Force on April 07, 2016, 02:14:02 PM
I may be a simpleton but how would building points in all categories but only applying for 1 change the odds? Across the board odds would remain the same correct? The goal is to lower the applicant base. If everyone was acquiring points across the board the applicant base would remain the same.I personally say you should only accrue points in applied species. But either way would increase odds because there would be less names in the hat for everything.
Wouldn't this change necessitate allowing people to keep there points they have acquired so far but from here on limiting them to build points only in species they are applying for?
If I applied for deer and not moose. My name being out of the moose draw increases your odds.
But the points you acquire would negate any increase in draw odds because people with high points would clog the top every time the moved from species to species and there wouldn't be any direct reduction in applicants to permit. Its like pressure. You have the same volume just going through a smaller hole.
Post by: bobcat on April 07, 2016, 02:15:49 PM
I may be a simpleton but how would building points in all categories but only applying for 1 change the odds? Across the board odds would remain the same correct? The goal is to lower the applicant base. If everyone was acquiring points across the board the applicant base would remain the same.
Wouldn't this change necessitate allowing people to keep there points they have acquired so far but from here on limiting them to build points only in species they are applying for?
:yeah:
If the goal is to increase odds of drawing, building points in multiple categories is not helpful. Especially when it comes to the recruitment of new hunters.
Post by: X-Force on April 07, 2016, 02:19:35 PM
There will be a point when people stop applying for special draws because they know that the percentage is so low, there is and never will be a chance to draw.
I don't agree with you. Look at how bad the odds are right now and look at the state and federal lottery system. Basically all of the western states are banking on people not doing math. Look at the articles on what it takes to draw coveted out of state tags. You are better off investing in your livelihood and going on outfitted hunts in many circumstances, when you consider the years invested and money spent.
Post by: shanevg on April 07, 2016, 02:21:44 PM
If the goal is to increase odds of drawing, building points in multiple categories is not helpful. Especially when it comes to the recruitment of new hunters.
That's actually not correct, take a look at my earlier post. Everyone's odds of drawing a tag will actually go up. You just don't have a chance at drawing more than 1 tag in a year (well maybe 1 deer+1 elk tag.)
The reason WDFW should allow people to continue to build points is:
1. WDFW won't agree to a system that will reduce their revenue.
2. Hunters in general are less likely to "buy in" to a system where they feel their hard earned points in all the categories are going to be "lost" forever. By allowing hunters to continue to build points in all categories they could jump from category to category in a given year and not get "behind." (I.e. apply for goat this year, deer/elk next year, sheep the following year, and then back to goat.)
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 07, 2016, 02:24:19 PM
but all those points are not in the draw in every year. My 14 moose points won't be in the moose draw while I apply for deer and elk.I may be a simpleton but how would building points in all categories but only applying for 1 change the odds? Across the board odds would remain the same correct? The goal is to lower the applicant base. If everyone was acquiring points across the board the applicant base would remain the same.I personally say you should only accrue points in applied species. But either way would increase odds because there would be less names in the hat for everything.
Wouldn't this change necessitate allowing people to keep there points they have acquired so far but from here on limiting them to build points only in species they are applying for?
If I applied for deer and not moose. My name being out of the moose draw increases your odds.
But the points you acquire would negate any increase in draw odds because people with high points would clog the top every time the moved from species to species and there wouldn't be any direct reduction in applicants to permit. Its like pressure. You have the same volume just going through a smaller hole.
Besides as it is now the points in the oil categories are essentially meaningless anyhow. Bottom line less names in the hat = higher odds.
Like I said I'd personally rather see only points accrued in active category for that year
Post by: shanevg on April 07, 2016, 02:26:58 PM
but all those points are not in the draw in every year. My 14 moose points won't be in the moose draw while I apply for deer and elk.
Besides as it is now the points in the oil categories are essentially meaningless anyhow. Bottom line less names in the hat = higher odds.
Like I said I'd personally rather see only points accrued in active category for that year
I'm actually with you. I think that's the most fair system and would not mind seeing it set up that way at all. I'm just afraid that's a harder sell to both the hunters and to WDFW.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 07, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
i hear ya. People and their sacred points. :chuckle: either way would work wonders for draw odds.but all those points are not in the draw in every year. My 14 moose points won't be in the moose draw while I apply for deer and elk.
Besides as it is now the points in the oil categories are essentially meaningless anyhow. Bottom line less names in the hat = higher odds.
Like I said I'd personally rather see only points accrued in active category for that year
I'm actually with you. I think that's the most fair system and would not mind seeing it set up that way at all. I'm just afraid that's a harder sell to both the hunters and to WDFW.
Post by: bearpaw on April 07, 2016, 02:34:18 PM
Post by: X-Force on April 07, 2016, 02:35:15 PM
If we had 30000 permits and 61500 applicants with 61500 applications we would have a meaningful change.
To make my point: now until 10 years
1) current system : 30,000 permits, 61,500 applicants, 245,000 applications (total points accumulated)
2) your system you can get points for all categories like today but only put in for 1 species: 30,000 permits, 61,500 applicants, 61,500 applications, 245,000 total points (application point and category points)
3) my system you only receive a point for the single category you put in for 30,000 permits, 61,500 applicants, 61,500 applications (total points)
After ten years the total points accumulated from now until then is as follows
1) current system 2,350,000
2) your system 2,350,000
3) my system 315,000
Post by: bearpaw on April 07, 2016, 02:39:39 PM
Post by: Falcon on April 07, 2016, 02:42:41 PM
If you have a lot of points it's a big investment, I don't see them going away!
:yeah:
Post by: X-Force on April 07, 2016, 02:43:25 PM
The best way to increase odds is buy a lot of raffle tickets or a governor tag! :dunno:
I cant the goat raffle got flooded :'(
Post by: bearpaw on April 07, 2016, 02:45:14 PM
The best way to increase odds is buy a lot of raffle tickets or a governor tag! :dunno:
I cant the goat raffle got flooded :'(
A bigger flood could work! :chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 07, 2016, 03:33:21 PM
If you have a lot of points it's a big investment, I don't see them going away! :dunno:I agree. They aren't going anywhere unfortunately. But for a points state I actually like how wa does points.
I don't look at the points as an investment unless I can cash them in for a guaranteed tag like wyo or Utah. For wa I just look at them like a count of years. :chuckle:
Post by: shanevg on April 07, 2016, 03:58:08 PM
I can see what you guys are saying but what I'm saying is that having everyone acquiring a point for everything across the board and only applying for just 1 is just a gimmick with the same results. Meaning we have 30,000 permits each year and 61,500 applicants with 245,000 applications whether you apply for only 1 species or you apply for every single permit your odds would remain the same because those numbers arent changing. The only thing changing is the preciseness of an individuals application.
If we had 30000 permits and 61500 applicants with 61500 applications we would have a meaningful change.
To make my point: now until 10 years
1) current system : 30,000 permits, 61,500 applicants, 245,000 applications (total points accumulated)
2) your system you can get points for all categories like today but only put in for 1 species: 30,000 permits, 61,500 applicants, 61,500 applications, 245,000 total points (application point and category points)
3) my system you only receive a point for the single category you put in for 30,000 permits, 61,500 applicants, 61,500 applications (total points)
After ten years the total points accumulated from now until then is as follows
1) current system 2,350,000
2) your system 2,350,000
3) my system 315,000
Your math is off on my system vs yours. (2 vs 3). The odds would be the same in scenario 2 as they would be in 3 because the max number of points that could actually be used in a given year would be reduced to 315k (based on your numbers.)
You are right that there would still be another 2 million points floating around in the system but they are "useless points" as they would not be capable of affecting draw odds in any given year.
Where system 2 changes things is for new applicants compared to established applicants. By only allowing people to accumulate points in one category at a time you are allowing new applicants to "catch up" to people who already have points but don't apply for that species for a number of years. By allowing everyone to continue to gain points in all categories hunters like myself who have 20 points per category would be at an advantage forever, even if we jump from category to category in a given year. That is why I said I would be completely fine with system 3 as it is more fair for those new hunters, it would also incentivize picking one category to apply for and not jump around. I just think it will be a really hard sell to convince people to essentially abandon their points accumulated in 4 categories to just focus on one species. They would be more willing if they had the ability to continue to accumulate in all categories and jump category to category in various years.
Post by: Bigshooter on April 07, 2016, 04:38:19 PM
Post by: shanevg on April 07, 2016, 04:45:35 PM
First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds. More tags will also increase odds. Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for. That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.
Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.
Post by: mfswallace on April 07, 2016, 04:49:38 PM
Post by: shanevg on April 07, 2016, 04:58:27 PM
The best and simplest solution would be to increase game populations!!! Predator management is the only way we get more permits!
That may be the best way but certainly not the simplest way. WDFW has to deal with our liberal state when passing any legislation. For example the only reason we can't hunt cougars with hounds or bait bears is because of people led initiatives. Wolf populations as well as most other predators are closely monitored by anti-hunting "conservation" groups so any effort to reduce predators has way too many hoops to jump through. Balance that part of WDFW's commissioned duty is to maintain healthy populations of all animals, so complete reduction or elimination of predators would be impossible.
Ultimately, any predator management and subsequent game population increase is a VERY slow and difficult process to achieve in this state. Would better game populations allow for more tags and better odds? Of course? But I'm not satisfied with the status quo of our point system and if we can take an immediate (2017 season) change that will increase odds across the board then why would we not take advantage of that?
Post by: idahohuntr on April 07, 2016, 05:33:42 PM
The best and simplest solution would be to increase game populations!!! Predator management is the only way we get more permits!I'd say for bighorn sheep tag numbers the easiest thing to do would be a ban on grazing domestic sheep and goats in any bighorn habitat.
Post by: X-Force on April 13, 2016, 04:40:14 PM
First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds. More tags will also increase odds. Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for. That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.
Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.
To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.
Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.
Post by: Antlershed on April 13, 2016, 05:32:10 PM
The problem is, you are saying points and applications like they are interchangeable. In the system Shane is talking about, they are not.First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds. More tags will also increase odds. Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for. That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.
Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.
To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.
Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.
Let's say, hypothetically, that in the current system we have 15,000 people who apply for moose, sheep and goat, and 100,000 that apply for deer/elk. Now, I would guess it's pretty safe to assume that there is some cross pollination in each group, there aren't 115,000 unique ID's in this. Therefore, by making them choose between OIL or Deer/Elk, you will be lowering one/both of the applicant bases. If someone chooses to apply for deer/elk, and we allow them to still by OIL points, the objective is still achieved. For that one individual, we have lowered the OIL applicant base by 1 for that year. :twocents:
Post by: shanevg on April 13, 2016, 08:55:50 PM
First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds. More tags will also increase odds. Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for. That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.
Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.
To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.
Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.
While that concept would marginally improve odds it would be a very minor improvement at best. There aren't enough tags to actually draw to actually cut down on the number of applicants in subsequent categories. By that system anyone with a lick of sense would just out the oil tags as their top priority. There are only roughly 100 total oil tags so that would really not improve oil odds at all and only remove about 100 people from the deer/elk draws.
Post by: X-Force on April 15, 2016, 11:29:22 AM
The problem is, you are saying points and applications like they are interchangeable. In the system Shane is talking about, they are not.First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds. More tags will also increase odds. Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for. That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.
Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.
To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.
Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.
Let's say, hypothetically, that in the current system we have 15,000 people who apply for moose, sheep and goat, and 100,000 that apply for deer/elk. Now, I would guess it's pretty safe to assume that there is some cross pollination in each group, there aren't 115,000 unique ID's in this. Therefore, by making them choose between OIL or Deer/Elk, you will be lowering one/both of the applicant bases. If someone chooses to apply for deer/elk, and we allow them to still by OIL points, the objective is still achieved. For that one individual, we have lowered the OIL applicant base by 1 for that year. :twocents:
They are interchangeable if you are able to acquire points while not actually applying for the permit because while you may be sitting out of a particular category for 1-20 years once that applicant jumps into that permit the points they acquired give them an advantage. It is the same issue many western states are having where people are ghosting point until they hit the magical number to draw a particular tag and once a new round of high points applicants jump in from no where that tag is pushed farther down the line.
The math also works out the same whether you go from a tiered system like I mentioned or whether you have to select only a species or 2 and still acquire points across all species because in the end you have 2 numbers that matter; the number of permits and the number of points. Individual hunts may show better odds in a select 1 or 2 species system but across the board the lost opportunity to draw other permits makes up that difference.
Post by: X-Force on April 15, 2016, 11:38:36 AM
First decreasing applications is not the only way to improve odds. More tags will also increase odds. Second I believe there is a 0% chance of wdfw ever limiting the numbers of different categories you can apply for. That results in them brining in less revenue which I don't think they will ever agree too.
Again, that's why I suggest they allow people to continue to accrue points in all categories.
To beat a dead horse... Instead of limiting people to 1 category, have everyone apply for categories as they are and have them order categories into list of importance and once a permit is drawn they are done for that year. It would give you the same theoretical 1/250 odds a that you discussed earlier and people wouldn't be discouraged from applying to all permits.
Again, I think any change that doesn't actually decrease points/applicantions is still a gimmick.
While that concept would marginally improve odds it would be a very minor improvement at best. There aren't enough tags to actually draw to actually cut down on the number of applicants in subsequent categories. By that system anyone with a lick of sense would just out the oil tags as their top priority. There are only roughly 100 total oil tags so that would really not improve oil odds at all and only remove about 100 people from the deer/elk draws.
Bingo. That's why having applicants acquire points across the board doesn't work. Because, whether they apply for 1 category (with points in 9) or 9 categories at once there aren't enough tags to cut down the number permits to points ratio.
The exponential growth in points either way is enough to diminish odds across the board.
Post by: luvmystang67 on April 15, 2016, 12:05:46 PM
If you think about it, if you can only enter and accrue points in one OIL species per year, it cuts the competition in essentially thirds for any individual species. What that means is that the one that matters most to you might actually be drawn by you before you die. If you do draw, you can move onto the next one. In a persons lifetime they might draw 1 or 2 of these OIL tags and they might be spaced 10 or 15 years apart.
With the current system the only people who will eventually really stand a chance are those with 20 tags who have never drawn for anything. It essentially keeps younger people out, you may die without drawing ANYTHING, and when you're at the top of the pack you might draw all 3 at once when your knees are shot at 70 years old.
I can see a reasonable draw cycle with the way shane has proposed looking something like:
Starting at age 20:
Apply for goat for 15 years because I really want to draw it. At 35 after 15 years applying I finally get drawn. Awesome, now I move onto the next species and try for sheep. Even if its 20 years before I draw sheep, if I get that at 55, I'm still able. If I want to try for moose after that, power to me.
Today it more realistically looks like:
Starting at age 20:
Apply for all 3, starting at bottom of pool. Average points for draws now are at 15 points per species, I have 1. In 10 years, average draw will be probably darn close to 25 points and I'll have 10. My only hope is other people dying, quitting or finally drawing one of the few tags a year. If I do draw, I'm at best chance to do so at age 60 or 70 when I finally catch up, having wasted years of my life on a prayer. Its not a sustainable solution.
If you kept the points you have now, but only accrued points in the OIL category you entered in every year, you could at least have hope of drawing the one OIL closest to you before you die. Maybe even two. As it is now, I could die without drawing any of them and I'm 29.
Post by: huntnphool on April 15, 2016, 12:19:39 PM
At this point, any change would result in those that have been applying for years, get screwed, maybe some more than others, but screwed none the less. = change won't happen without pissing several off.
Secondly, any change like suggested above would mean a loss in revenue for the state, unless they put the screws to those that continue to apply by significantly increasing the fees. = change won't happen without pissing several off.
The only way the state could "thin the herd" and not lose revenue, would be to systematically, over a number of years, increase the cost to apply and increase the tag fee, basically pricing people out until they reach what WDFW feels is a acceptable pool.
Kind of like boiling the frog, turning up the temp so slowly, over such a long period of time, that people just die off and new hunters never start due to the investment, just like happens in politics. :twocents:
Post by: Buzz2401 on April 15, 2016, 01:34:19 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on April 18, 2016, 06:59:04 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ramslam on April 18, 2016, 03:10:40 PM
I'm not in favor of dropping my odds of drawing all but one species to zero in exchange for upping the one remaining species to say 1%.
Anyone have an idea of total Idaho applicants compared to Washington? I'd be interested in the estimate of how many would go towards deer/elk versus how many would go to each OIL species?? My guess is they have fewer applicants and way more elk permits, deer permits, sheep permits, goat permits and moose permits. Just a hunch....
Post by: shanevg on April 18, 2016, 03:37:08 PM
Our odds are not that much worse then any other state. To many people with to few animals. Most will never get a OIL permit no matter what system they go to.
Actually the odds are worst than almost any state in the west that has comparable population sizes. Montana goat odds range from 1:17 to 1:100. Their goat population is almost identical to WA's yet WA's odds range from 1:400 to 1:4500.
Sheep odds in OR are in the range of 1:400, WA's are 1:4000.
Sheep odds in AZ, NV, MT can be as low as 1:20 all the way to 1:4000. Again, our best odds are 1:4000.
The only state with truly comparable odds is CA which has a population I believe 5x or 6x greater than WA's.
The system works as its intended guys. Each year you don't draw,you have additional chances, the state does allocate all the tags and does maximize the money brought in. When states set up draw systems those are their guidelines. It's not to make sure everyone gets a chance to hunt that species. Is it frustrating, heck ya, especially if you don't draw. But it's like a lottery, someone will pull the tags, you just gotta decide if you want to play or not.
Says the guy who has already drawn 2x OIL permits! :chuckle:
Honestly though, regardless what mandate the F&G agencies receive, their primary motivation should NOT be revenue maximization. F&G agencies are government organizations that are entirely in place to help maximize the benefit of our publicly owned natural resource (big game animals in this case) for the public consumption. I will never let this issue rest when there is a better alternative available that literally improves the odds of EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE STATE INCLUDING YOUNGER HUNTERS opportunities to draw a future tag.
What I don't get, is how anyone on here is arguing between the two options below. The preferred option is obvious and statistically easy to achieve. (Situations below are using simple math to help illustrate the statistical difference.):
Which would you prefer?
Option A: You have a 1:1000 odds of drawing one of 5 potential tags and also 1:10,000 odds of drawing 2 or more of the 5 available tags.
Option B: You have 1:200 odds of drawing a single tag and no potential of drawing 2 tags.
I simply cannot see how anyone would prefer 5x worst draw odds simply to gain the statistically insignificant odds of potentially drawing 2 tags. It makes no sense at all.
In my opinion, the problem is that most hunters simply don't understand how a change would affect them. I blame a lot of that on WDFW and how they word surveys (a science in and of itself.) WDFW would ask: Would you be in support of limiting your application to only one species if it meant you would significantly increase your draw odds? Unfortunately, most hunters would say no because they don't want to lose the opportunity to apply for whichever they prefer. If instead they asked: Would you support a change to the draw system that would increase draw odds on average by 5x if it meant eliminating the potential of drawing two tags in the same year? I believe most hunters would support that option.
I still think limiting to either 1. Deer/Elk 2. Moose 3. Sheep 4. Goat in a given year is the best option. I also think allowing hunters to continue to pay to build points in all categories if they choose (while only allowing them to apply for an actual hunt option in a single category) is the best option to continue to build revenue for WDFW and help hunters get over the psychological hurdle of the new system by allowing them to switch from species to species in a given year without getting behind in the point game.
When I get a chance I'm going to go add up total number of applicants in deer/elk/goat/sheep/moose categories in ID to get a rough idea of how hunters actually distribute themselves to get a more realistic idea of what odds would look like.
Post by: Ridgerunner on April 18, 2016, 04:06:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on April 18, 2016, 04:48:11 PM
Moose 6,498
Sheep 2,530
Goat 830
Total: 9,858
Elk 70,437
Deer 65,282
Pronghorn 25,521
Total:161,240
So... at least 86% of applicants go to the Deer/Elk/Pronghorn draw - not sure what the actual value is because applicants can apply for elk, deer, and pronghorn in the same year.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 18, 2016, 06:40:35 PM
Idaho 2015 first choice applicants::yeah:
Moose 6,498
Sheep 2,530
Goat 830
Total: 9,858
Elk 70,437
Deer 65,282
Pronghorn 25,521
Total:161,240
So... at least 86% of applicants go to the Deer/Elk/Pronghorn draw - not sure what the actual value is because applicants can apply for elk, deer, and pronghorn in the same year.
Post by: X-Force on April 18, 2016, 06:47:10 PM
Deer - 45,385
Elk - 51,621
Moose - 25,964
Goat - 12,249
Sheep - 16,807
Total Including Turkey and bear - 157,059
I thought Washington had so many more people/hunters etc.?
How many total tags are their per species? and yes I know they will have more.
Post by: KNOPHISH on April 19, 2016, 07:52:48 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 19, 2016, 08:12:47 AM
Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better :chuckle:
But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.
Post by: notsosneaky on April 19, 2016, 08:34:55 AM
YupTake one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better :chuckle:
But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.
Post by: LabChamp on April 19, 2016, 08:40:46 AM
Take one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better :chuckle:
But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.
This is laughable. So you want to make sure the new guys get better odds of drawing tags in a point system made to benefit people who have been putting in the longest. At the same time your saying the guys who havent drawn for 10+ years don't need anymore of an advantage? If they didnt need the points advantage, they would have already drawn. So how does that make sense. Seems like you just want everyone on an equal playing field no matter what. Mine as well just drop points all together if that's your point of view.
I totally agree with setting 25% of the tags to the top point holders. They deserve it. Kind of like getting in line for concert tickets. Did you get there early or not? It's always the people at the back of the line that have something to whine about being not fair. It IS fair. People who have been in the draw longer than you have a better chance, that's fair. They spent more time, money, and effort in doing so than someone who just walks up to the front of the line feeling entitled to a tag.
Heck, even with 25% going to the top point holders 75% of the tags still go out randomly. That's about as fair as I could imagine. Points will still have their effect on the remaining 75% but hey it is what it is. You get however many points you've applied for and received in the past. Can't blame someone else for your lack of points. And it's no one's fault that one guy is 65 with 30 points and he's is the same draw as a 16 year old with 1. I'm sorry but the old guy deserves his advantage and by the time the 16 year old is 36, that old guy will be dead or no longer applying. So blame life, blame your neighbor, but most of all blame YOURSELF when you wonder why you haven't drawn a tag. No one is entitled to anything and this is a DRAW shame on you for expecting a tag in a lottery and even more shame on you for being jealous enough to want to change the system to see more fit to YOUR perfect idea of how a draw should be ran.
Post by: Katmai Guy on April 19, 2016, 08:51:06 AM
Post by: Antlershed on April 19, 2016, 08:53:23 AM
My 19 points don't give me much better odds than the guy with 1 point. Sure I have more chances to get a low number in the hat, but that is irrelevant if the system assigns me 361 numbers that are higher than the one number assigned to the guy with one point. I just did a mock draw using Excel to generate numbers for me. Four hunters with 10, 5, 2 and 1 points each. The draw order came out at 10, 1, 5, 2.YupTake one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better :chuckle:
But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 19, 2016, 09:04:42 AM
19 points would have 361x greater chance of drawing than the guy with 1 pt.My 19 points don't give me much better odds than the guy with 1 point. Sure I have more chances to get a low number in the hat, but that is irrelevant if the system assigns me 361 numbers that are higher than the one number assigned to the guy with one point. I just did a mock draw using Excel to generate numbers for me. Four hunters with 10, 5, 2 and 1 points each. The draw order came out at 10, 1, 5, 2.YupTake one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better :chuckle:
But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.
Post by: notsosneaky on April 19, 2016, 09:13:47 AM
Not exactly19 points would have 361x greater chance of drawing than the guy with 1 pt.My 19 points don't give me much better odds than the guy with 1 point. Sure I have more chances to get a low number in the hat, but that is irrelevant if the system assigns me 361 numbers that are higher than the one number assigned to the guy with one point. I just did a mock draw using Excel to generate numbers for me. Four hunters with 10, 5, 2 and 1 points each. The draw order came out at 10, 1, 5, 2.YupTake one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better :chuckle:
But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.
The "double draw" is much more complex than that
Post by: idahohuntr on April 19, 2016, 09:20:11 AM
Not exactly19 points would have 361x greater chance of drawing than the guy with 1 pt.My 19 points don't give me much better odds than the guy with 1 point. Sure I have more chances to get a low number in the hat, but that is irrelevant if the system assigns me 361 numbers that are higher than the one number assigned to the guy with one point. I just did a mock draw using Excel to generate numbers for me. Four hunters with 10, 5, 2 and 1 points each. The draw order came out at 10, 1, 5, 2.YupTake one of those scenarios then top it off with a percentage of tags to the top points holders. say 25%, 50% would be better :chuckle:
But that would make it even more impossible for those just getting into hunting to have even the slightest chance of ever drawing a tag. If you look at the points report, you'll see that the people who have less than about 10 points, draw very few tags, in fact almost zero. (talking only moose, goat, and sheep) So the people at the lower end of the points scale are already at a huge disadvantage. I don't see a need to make it worse for them, so they would have even less reason to even bother applying. Honestly what should happen is they need to do away with the point system entirely with the O.I.L. tags.
All lottery, 1 ticket per person per year. Then folks will lose the entitlement mentality of the points system.
The "double draw" is much more complex than that
19x19 = 361. 1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?
Post by: notsosneaky on April 19, 2016, 09:28:01 AM
19x19 = 361. 1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?
Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16
Post by: Katmai Guy on April 19, 2016, 09:30:35 AM
Post by: LabChamp on April 19, 2016, 09:36:26 AM
Where is this "lower number" coming from? My understanding is that the first draw is just to assign numbers to each of your points/applications and then the actual draw picks from those numbers. They are not all picked at once and then the guy with the lower number for each hunt wins. Please explain if I'm wrong and provide where I can find this info. I've looked.
All hunters go into a big draw for overall "placement" for example in Quality deer everyone is grouped together, all hunt choices, and your points are assigned and then the "draw" happens. Everyone is assigned however many numbers that they have points squared, and they keep their lowest number. Starting with the lowest number applicant, their first hunt choice is brought up and if there are tags left they are awarded that tag. If no tags are left with their first choice, they move to your second choice and if there are any tags left you are awarded that choice, and so on until you're out of choices.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 19, 2016, 10:04:33 AM
ok...then show your work. If its not 361 times better as I calculate above - what is it?
19x19 = 361. 1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?
Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16
Post by: notsosneaky on April 19, 2016, 10:24:41 AM
ok...then show your work. If its not 361 times better as I calculate above - what is it?
19x19 = 361. 1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?
Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16
There is no way to assign an absolute statistical value to a process in which randomness is the basis.
But all data suggests you have terrible odds of drawing an oil tag made slightly less terrible by having more points, but still statistically terrible
Post by: idahohuntr on April 19, 2016, 10:37:58 AM
:chuckle: You are making this far more complicated than it actually is.ok...then show your work. If its not 361 times better as I calculate above - what is it?
19x19 = 361. 1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?
Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16
There is no way to assign an absolute statistical value to a process in which randomness is the basis.
But all data suggests you have terrible odds of drawing an oil tag made slightly less terrible by having more points
Post by: Katmai Guy on April 19, 2016, 10:41:43 AM
Yep, you are correct. Found after digging deeper. So realistically, everybody has 1 chance in every draw they put in for.
Post by: Antlershed on April 19, 2016, 10:46:28 AM
This nails it.ok...then show your work. If its not 361 times better as I calculate above - what is it?
19x19 = 361. 1x1 = 1. If I get 361 random numbers and you get 1 random number what are the odds I will get a lower number in the draw than you?
Better
But not by 361 times
See random is random
And we're not talking 2digit or even ten digit numbers but 16
There is no way to assign an absolute statistical value to a process in which randomness is the basis.
But all data suggests you have terrible odds of drawing an oil tag made slightly less terrible by having more points, but still statistically terrible
I get 361 numbers, but there is no way to put an actual value/odds on the chances of me getting relatively low numbers. I only get to keep my lowest number. I don't get to go to the draw with 361 "chances" of drawing. :twocents:
Post by: Katmai Guy on April 19, 2016, 10:49:47 AM
Post by: notsosneaky on April 19, 2016, 11:02:41 AM
Which blows, you should get 361 chances in the bucket for the final draw. That would bring the benefit of putting for longer where it should be.Correct
A model like that would really add statistical weight to having high points. But it would be a nightmare for recruitment of new or low point holders. Which is why for all the bitching we do, the system in place does actually "work", though I'd still like to see OIL tags go to a lottery because they statistically already are. Except issuing people points makes them feel like they deserve a tag.
Post by: bobcat on April 19, 2016, 11:06:09 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/214/How+does+the+special+permit+drawing+work%3F+I+heard+you+square+points.+Does+that+improve+my+drawing+odds%3F
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 19, 2016, 11:13:58 AM
with 1 point you have 1 chance to get a low number. With 19 points you have 361 chances to get a low number. 361 chances is way more than one chance I think... :chuckle:
Post by: Katmai Guy on April 19, 2016, 11:16:57 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 19, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Correct, but you still only use the lowest(1) number you've been assigned. Hence the 1 chance per category.Well you can't draw any more than one permit per category. So not sure why you'd want more than one number. :dunno:
Post by: WAcoueshunter on April 19, 2016, 11:20:15 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 19, 2016, 11:21:44 AM
Not sure why the confusion. If you have 361 numbers in the draw, your odds of getting a very low number are 361 times better than someone with 1 point.:yeah: I don't know if there are any other ways to explain it. :chuckle:
Post by: Katmai Guy on April 19, 2016, 11:49:04 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 19, 2016, 11:59:34 AM
I'm Norwegian, you have to hit me more than once before I'll understand. ;)Norwegians are big aren't they? I don't think I'll try and hit any of them. :chuckle:
Post by: Antlershed on April 19, 2016, 12:19:55 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on April 19, 2016, 12:22:28 PM
:chuckle: I quit trying.Not sure why the confusion. If you have 361 numbers in the draw, your odds of getting a very low number are 361 times better than someone with 1 point.:yeah: I don't know if there are any other ways to explain it. :chuckle:
Post by: Katmai Guy on April 19, 2016, 12:33:59 PM
:chuckle: I quit trying.Not sure why the confusion. If you have 361 numbers in the draw, your odds of getting a very low number are 361 times better than someone with 1 point.:yeah: I don't know if there are any other ways to explain it. :chuckle:
yeah, yeah. Antlershed, you and I were under the same impression.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 19, 2016, 12:55:52 PM
im sure if you wait a while (maybe short while) I'll be wrong about something and you can slam me with the :chuckle: and the :dunno: and maybe even the :bash: .:chuckle: I quit trying.Not sure why the confusion. If you have 361 numbers in the draw, your odds of getting a very low number are 361 times better than someone with 1 point.:yeah: I don't know if there are any other ways to explain it. :chuckle:
yeah, yeah. Antlershed, you and I were under the same impression.
Post by: Katmai Guy on April 19, 2016, 01:04:30 PM
Post by: Falcon on April 19, 2016, 02:45:23 PM
Not sure why the confusion. If you have 361 numbers in the draw, your odds of getting a very low number are 361 times better than someone with 1 point.
:yeah: