Post by: argali on June 11, 2016, 10:04:43 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on June 11, 2016, 10:09:33 AM
How do we fix this ? Seems very unfair?any ideas?
Two words, Idaho
Post by: argali on June 11, 2016, 10:12:48 AM
Post by: argali on June 11, 2016, 10:19:07 AM
Post by: X-Force on June 11, 2016, 10:25:12 AM
If fair is what your looking for it looks pretty straight forward.. Been in the system longer =have better odds
Post by: vandeman17 on June 11, 2016, 10:29:49 AM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 11, 2016, 10:32:39 AM
I do think it would be nice if there was a tag swap type option. There is a couple older gents with max points i would gladly swap a tag for points or even donate the tag if i were to draw myself.
Post by: bobcat on June 11, 2016, 10:34:49 AM
If you gave the high point holders even more preference, new hunters would have no reason to apply at all, their odds would be so low.
Post by: Bigshooter on June 11, 2016, 10:37:37 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 11, 2016, 10:38:12 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 11, 2016, 10:42:10 AM
My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does. This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue. The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application. This way the state will consider it. You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet. Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.
The only question is whether you can accumulate points on a species while applying for another. Not sure about that yet. Also, can you apply for all 3 OIL species or are you limited to one? This will likely depend on what the statistic look like but I believe selecting only one you really want will significantly improve your odds, likely over double.
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2016, 10:47:48 AM
It's as fair as it can be. There are just too many people and not enough permits. The only better system would be no points, like Idaho.:yeah:
If you gave the high point holders even more preference, new hunters would have no reason to apply at all, their odds would be so low.
15,920 applications for 20 Any Ram sheep permits. More than 500 of the applications had 20+ points. Is seems to me the "problem" is obvious. The solution? More sheep, fewer hunters, win the Lotto and buy the auction tag, or apply in more places than Washington.:yeah:
There are simply too many hunters and too few OIL animals. I recently made a post in another topic, this was part of that post:
One big thing, WDFW can't satisfy everyone and some people will always complain. The biggest problem I see is lack of trying to maximize fish and herd numbers, too many predators in the water and on land, loss of winter range and spawning area, failure to utilize the full potential of existing WDFW and other public lands and waters.
We are the smallest western state with nearly the largest population, we must maximize our resources.
Post by: argali on June 11, 2016, 10:52:54 AM
Post by: carbide on June 11, 2016, 10:58:48 AM
Post by: argali on June 11, 2016, 11:06:35 AM
Post by: argali on June 11, 2016, 11:13:06 AM
Post by: X-Force on June 11, 2016, 11:16:23 AM
There is no fix. There isn't as many tags as there is demand. The only thing you can do is increase tags or reduce applicants.
My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does. This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue. The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application. This way the state will consider it. You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet. Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.
The only question is whether you can accumulate points on a species while applying for another. Not sure about that yet. Also, can you apply for all 3 OIL species or are you limited to one? This will likely depend on what the statistic look like but I believe selecting only one you really want will significantly improve your odds, likely over double.
This makes sense! Hopefully WDFW will listen.
Post by: huntnphool on June 11, 2016, 11:34:50 AM
There is no fix. Sure there is, $$$$$$$$
My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does. This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue.... The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application. This way the state will consider it. You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet. Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.
There it is folks, WDFW management in a bold nutshell!
No changes to anything unless it translates to revenue for the state, outdoorsman, hunters, fisherman and wildlife be damned! :twocents:
Absolutely pathetic that the state will not consider anything without the prerequisite of revenue, appalling actually.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 11, 2016, 11:35:33 AM
If folks were allowed to buy points in all categories though, I think it would minimize reductions in revenue for wdfw and be more supportable.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on June 11, 2016, 11:39:22 AM
I agree...revenue reduction should not be a factor if sportsmen support changes to the draw system. I bet we could cut the entire app fee revenue from the budget and sportsmen would never notice a thing...anybody know where the first 850k could come from? :chuckle:There is no fix. Sure there is, $$$$$$$$
My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does. This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue.... The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application. This way the state will consider it. You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet. Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.
There it is folks, WDFW management in a bold nutshell!
No changes to anything unless it translates to revenue for the state, outdoorsman, hunters, fisherman and wildlife be damned! :twocents:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on June 11, 2016, 11:50:53 AM
Easy.
If 99% of the people that do nothing but bitch and whine about the perceived unfairness of the auction/raffle/permit draw system(s) simply got off their backsides and contributed meaningfully in terms of time, energy and money to the conservation of WA's OIL species populations, we'd rapidly find a solution set that would dramatically increase some or all of the OIL species.
Take wild sheep for example, there could very easily be thousands more wild sheep in this state. Everyone wants a OIL crack at a nice ram, but when it comes down to it there are just a few handfuls of non-GO people that are putting in the effort.
So, in summary....Stop bitching! Get involved!
Post by: Bullkllr on June 11, 2016, 11:56:23 AM
:yeah:There is no fix. There isn't as many tags as there is demand. The only thing you can do is increase tags or reduce applicants.
My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does. This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue. The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application. This way the state will consider it. You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet. Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.
The only question is whether you can accumulate points on a species while applying for another. Not sure about that yet. Also, can you apply for all 3 OIL species or are you limited to one? This will likely depend on what the statistic look like but I believe selecting only one you really want will significantly improve your odds, likely over double.
This makes sense! Hopefully WDFW will listen.
In my opinion the system is "fair". The problem with the OILs is that the app fee is cheap enough so anyone with an interest has an incentive to throw in for the low odds of getting drawn. This has created a large number of long-term appliers with 20+ points (myself included) who still have very low odds of being drawn because of the sheer number of apps vs tags. With the management paradigm, I think the state likes the status quo.
I guess the issue I have is the "end game" with the current system. It doesn't bother me much personally to be sitting on 20 points, but I'm sure down the road we'll be seeing people with 50/60 points who still can't get drawn. Maybe it is time to consider a "fix" such as this.
Post by: X-Force on June 11, 2016, 12:07:29 PM
There is no fix. Sure there is, $$$$$$$$
My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does. This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue.... The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application. This way the state will consider it. You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet. Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.
There it is folks, WDFW management in a bold nutshell!
No changes to anything unless it translates to revenue for the state, outdoorsman, hunters, fisherman and wildlife be damned! :twocents:
Absolutely pathetic that the state will not consider anything without the prerequisite of revenue, appalling actually.
I agree with you but I've estimated that WDFW had a gross of roughly $700,000 in special permit fees in 2009 and last year their gross was over $2.5 million so money will be an issue.
Post by: huntnphool on June 11, 2016, 12:14:14 PM
Our system is not "the bees knees" but IMO it's one of the best systems out there, allowing everyone, even those just starting out, a decent chance of drawing, weighted toward the top holders without allocation. With allocation comes politics, favors, corruption, and I'm completely against any change that allows anyone within the state to manipulate the outcome!
Post by: NRA4LIFE on June 11, 2016, 12:18:43 PM
Post by: X-Force on June 11, 2016, 12:22:24 PM
One thing I am dead set against is setting a portion of the tags aside for only the highest point holders.
Our system is not "the bees knees" but IMO it's one of the best systems out there, allowing everyone, even those just starting out, a decent chance of drawing, weighted toward the top holders without allocation. With allocation comes politics, favors, corruption, and I'm completely against any change that allows anyone within the state to manipulate the outcome!
Amen to that!
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 11, 2016, 12:27:00 PM
One thing I am dead set against is setting a portion of the tags aside for only the highest point holders.
Our system is not "the bees knees" but IMO it's one of the best systems out there, allowing everyone, even those just starting out, a decent chance of drawing, weighted toward the top holders without allocation. With allocation comes politics, favors, corruption, and I'm completely against any change that allows anyone within the state to manipulate the outcome!
:yeah: and I have 15 points across the board. Give everyone a chance. Hate Colorado where you have zero chance for 15 years til you reach draw threshold except with pointcreep you never get there - perpetual loser with zero chance except to pay.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on June 11, 2016, 12:32:49 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 11, 2016, 12:42:45 PM
Post by: benhuntin on June 11, 2016, 12:45:41 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Blcktaildreamer on June 11, 2016, 12:57:37 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 11, 2016, 01:07:52 PM
One thing I am dead set against is setting a portion of the tags aside for only the highest point holders.
Our system is not "the bees knees" but IMO it's one of the best systems out there, allowing everyone, even those just starting out, a decent chance of drawing, weighted toward the top holders without allocation. With allocation comes politics, favors, corruption, and I'm completely against any change that allows anyone within the state to manipulate the outcome!
We already ran the numbers on this and it was a joke. Those in the highest pool had a lower chance than those in the general pool...lol. This idea is dead and won't be looked at for a long while. The only viable idea is the one I've been working on where we limit applicants to deer/elk or OIL. Once I've run the numbers I'm going to make a proposal with fee increases to keep the money the same. While I like the idea Huntnphool of them eating the loss, I know the chance of success if I don't account for that is zero. I'm more interested in what the odds will be after the change, how many applicants will be in each species, and how to price it so the money doesn't get them more revenue. The essential question we can't predict is how many will choose deer/elk and how many will choose an OIL and which one? I'd imagine goat odds will increase quite a bit... We may have to look at Idaho's percentages to see what their applicants apply for and estimate what ours will apply for.
Post by: DoubleJ on June 11, 2016, 01:17:11 PM
Post by: NRA4LIFE on June 11, 2016, 01:19:30 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 11, 2016, 01:20:51 PM
Why not split the tags in thirds? 1/3 only for those with 20+ points, 1/3 for those with 10-20 points and 1/3 for <10 points. Everyone still has a chance and those with 20+ points have better odds since they're only competing with others in their status
It's been looked at over and over by WDFW. It just doesn't make sense overall. You pool the highest people together and they are competing against each other so statistically, unless you reserve a large number for the higher point people, they usually have less or not much of an advantage. Then you offer a lot less permits for the majority of people and will participation/$ drop off...
Post by: RC3 on June 11, 2016, 01:37:20 PM
Post by: bullfisher on June 11, 2016, 01:40:35 PM
How is it that having more points decreases your odds?One thing I am dead set against is setting a portion of the tags aside for only the highest point holders.
Our system is not "the bees knees" but IMO it's one of the best systems out there, allowing everyone, even those just starting out, a decent chance of drawing, weighted toward the top holders without allocation. With allocation comes politics, favors, corruption, and I'm completely against any change that allows anyone within the state to manipulate the outcome!
We already ran the numbers on this and it was a joke. Those in the highest pool had a lower chance than those in the general pool...lol. This idea is dead and won't be looked at for a long while. The only viable idea is the one I've been working on where we limit applicants to deer/elk or OIL. Once I've run the numbers I'm going to make a proposal with fee increases to keep the money the same. While I like the idea Huntnphool of them eating the loss, I know the chance of success if I don't account for that is zero. I'm more interested in what the odds will be after the change, how many applicants will be in each species, and how to price it so the money doesn't get them more revenue. The essential question we can't predict is how many will choose deer/elk and how many will choose an OIL and which one? I'd imagine goat odds will increase quite a bit... We may have to look at Idaho's percentages to see what their applicants apply for and estimate what ours will apply for.
The only way to increase odds accross the board is to increase herds, habitat and draw areas. What if our money went to that? Why did we have to invent a raffle system? Those animals could be in the oil tag system regardless of what foundation they "belong" to. True rocky mt bighorn used to be in the oil system but the indians would mow em down as soon as they got big enough and crossed the territory, and thats straight from the biologists mouth! Oil tag problems are deeper then the point system, a system that is fine in my opinion.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 11, 2016, 01:42:02 PM
I like the idea of picking only 1 species and 1 unit, I also like it where 50% is preference points and 50% is random draw and a non-resident cap would be nice.I don't see nonresidents as being an issue. It is already ridiculously expensive to apply and doesn't seem like nr get many of our tags. Maybe oil since they don't need a license to apply. Is there stats that show how many oil tags go to nr?
Post by: RC3 on June 11, 2016, 02:04:44 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 11, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
I think there are more non-residents than you think that put in for OIL.Could be. I wish Wdfw would publish that. I'd like to see how many actually draw tags if that's the case.
Post by: AlpineMuley on June 11, 2016, 02:31:50 PM
Post by: jmscon on June 11, 2016, 02:56:58 PM
For the oil tags we should pay the full amount up front. This would weed out 50%.
Turns into a rich mans game
Post by: RC3 on June 11, 2016, 03:00:00 PM
Post by: jmscon on June 11, 2016, 03:01:48 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 11, 2016, 03:11:44 PM
If you have to pay for the multiple tags up front instead of just the one you get drawn for, yea it'll cost you
This is always a interesting discussion, I'm okay with fronting all the tag money but can see that some would be challenged to do this.
I believe the majority of hunters are in favor of increasing draw odds, but only if changes do not effect them. Limiting the number of applicants, in some form or another, is never going to be a popular choice, but it's likely the only viable option.........assuming you actually believe a change is needed. :dunno:
Post by: RC3 on June 11, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Post by: elkaholic123 on June 11, 2016, 03:51:00 PM
Use a credit card :dunno:For the oil tags we should pay the full amount up front. This would weed out 50%.
Turns into a rich mans game
Post by: lhrbull on June 11, 2016, 04:46:44 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 11, 2016, 05:22:07 PM
How is it that having more points decreases your odds?One thing I am dead set against is setting a portion of the tags aside for only the highest point holders.
Our system is not "the bees knees" but IMO it's one of the best systems out there, allowing everyone, even those just starting out, a decent chance of drawing, weighted toward the top holders without allocation. With allocation comes politics, favors, corruption, and I'm completely against any change that allows anyone within the state to manipulate the outcome!
We already ran the numbers on this and it was a joke. Those in the highest pool had a lower chance than those in the general pool...lol. This idea is dead and won't be looked at for a long while. The only viable idea is the one I've been working on where we limit applicants to deer/elk or OIL. Once I've run the numbers I'm going to make a proposal with fee increases to keep the money the same. While I like the idea Huntnphool of them eating the loss, I know the chance of success if I don't account for that is zero. I'm more interested in what the odds will be after the change, how many applicants will be in each species, and how to price it so the money doesn't get them more revenue. The essential question we can't predict is how many will choose deer/elk and how many will choose an OIL and which one? I'd imagine goat odds will increase quite a bit... We may have to look at Idaho's percentages to see what their applicants apply for and estimate what ours will apply for.
The only way to increase odds accross the board is to increase herds, habitat and draw areas. What if our money went to that? Why did we have to invent a raffle system? Those animals could be in the oil tag system regardless of what foundation they "belong" to. True rocky mt bighorn used to be in the oil system but the indians would mow em down as soon as they got big enough and crossed the territory, and thats straight from the biologists mouth! Oil tag problems are deeper then the point system, a system that is fine in my opinion.
It actually gets pretty technical. There is a whole slideshow on it that I have somewhere. There are a lot of max or high number of point holders. Right now you are competing for 100% of the tags against a lot of people that don't have max points. By keeping 1/3rd or whatever for only the top point holders you are pooling all the guys with the most points together to compete for a smaller pool of tags. You might get it to a point where it's about the same odds as it is now but there are tradeoffs. That and it would be a big change for not much of a percentage difference. They were not willing to guarantee tags to max point holders like some other states do.
The fronting of the money is out of the question. We should not talk about that as it's not viable.
Those of you that want to hunt Dayton elk, Entiat deer, 49 degree moose, and goats should be all for my proposal. I would not be competing with you for those tags anymore. I'd be putting in for sheep which I most covet. It's cheap so I'll take a chance at the elk tag as the system is currently set up but that I really don't care for as much as most other people, but I'd be ok with the elk/deer/moose/goat tag if I had a cheap chance to get it like I currently do. That lowers the odds for those of you that really want those other tags I'm applying for though. And in the future if I want that tag I can then apply once I've filled my sheep tag. It's really the only viable way I've found to increase draw odds dramatically.
Post by: crabcreekhunter on June 11, 2016, 05:47:21 PM
Post by: splitshot on June 11, 2016, 05:53:02 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 11, 2016, 06:12:19 PM
Should....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: stew pidasso on June 11, 2016, 06:38:12 PM
Example.
I have 20 pts in q deer. 20 pts in q bull. 4 pts in antlerless cow. 9 in bull elk. 7 in buck deer. I really want to hunt my q elk so I add all of them to my submission in q elk which would be 60 pts. I may or may not get drawn. But if I did there would be a lot less pts in the system the next year. I know the number of applicants stays relatively the same but you could up your chances with names in the hat.
Post by: Wea300mag on June 11, 2016, 08:06:08 PM
Since I will have 22 points in 5 different categories next year, I would like to see some changes. Why not reprogram the computer to cube (instead of square) the points for everyone with 20 or above? That would make me happy :)
Post by: huntnphool on June 11, 2016, 08:56:32 PM
Post by: opdinkslayer on June 12, 2016, 08:29:38 AM
There is no easy way to fix it or even fix it at all. Two many people and too few tags. As it is its a lottery, and lotteries are luck. This system everyone has a chance which is "fair", some people seem to be luckier than others. So be it. Been putting in for 20 years and have drawn one quality deer tag and one cow tag this year. Im not complaining, everyone wont be happy, if yall dont realize its a lottery and you arent entitled to a tag no matter how many years you apply you wont be happy with any system in this state. With any changes to the system there will be trade offs and be careful what you wish for.
:yeah: there is no fix to satisfy everyone's pursuit of the "very limited" tags they covet. It's a weighted lottery and we have two choices, play or don't. :twocents:
Post by: MtnMuley on June 12, 2016, 08:36:14 AM
There is no easy way to fix it or even fix it at all. Two many people and too few tags. As it is its a lottery, and lotteries are luck. This system everyone has a chance which is "fair", some people seem to be luckier than others. So be it. Been putting in for 20 years and have drawn one quality deer tag and one cow tag this year. Im not complaining, everyone wont be happy, if yall dont realize its a lottery and you arent entitled to a tag no matter how many years you apply you wont be happy with any system in this state. With any changes to the system there will be trade offs and be careful what you wish for.
Best post yet. I've never complained as I've watched most of my point categories grow and grow over the years. I'm not a gambler, so the more I acquire the better. :chuckle:
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 12, 2016, 08:40:02 AM
I think our system works about as well as it can under the circumstances. Any change in our system (or any system, for that matter) will create winners and losers, and some group will think it's unfair.
Post by: Antlershed on June 12, 2016, 09:50:58 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 12, 2016, 09:53:23 AM
There is no fix. There isn't as many tags as there is demand. The only thing you can do is increase tags or reduce applicants.I think your proposal is the best way to improve odds, and it will improve them! You can also make the state happy by letting people buy their ghost points for the species that they can't draw for, keep their points going and money flowing. Are you going to propose this to fish and game soon?? Bryon had a good idea for you, let's get signatures to support your idea. Maybe run a poll first to see where the majority stand? I think it's a no brainier, you choose oil draw or deer/elk, and still be able to buy your ghost points. I bet the odds would greatly increase.
My proposal in the next 3 year cycle will be to select if you want to apply for an OIL species or Deer/Elk as Idaho does. This would reduce the applicants in all areas but would also reduce revenue. The individual tag application fees would need to be raised to offset this but overall, a person would spend the same on their application. This way the state will consider it. You will then be forced to apply for the tag/species you most covet. Once you fill that tag, you can apply your points to other species, retaining your points of course.
The only question is whether you can accumulate points on a species while applying for another. Not sure about that yet. Also, can you apply for all 3 OIL species or are you limited to one? This will likely depend on what the statistic look like but I believe selecting only one you really want will significantly improve your odds, likely over double.
Post by: Bob33 on June 12, 2016, 09:57:04 AM
Post by: ramslam on June 12, 2016, 10:09:35 AM
I 'll use sheep as an example. I'm going to assume 2000 of the sheep applicants stay in the game (a higher percentage than in Idaho because our harvest success is considerably higher and the vast majority of our sheep areas are not as physical). With ~25 ram tags a year it would take 80 years to fulfill those 2000 assuming there are no new applicants. In the mean time their odds of drawing quality elk = 0, bull elk = 0, antlerless elk = 0, quality deer = 0, buck deer = 0, antlerless deer = 0, 2nd deer = 0, etc. How many will stick it out the 80 years to draw sheep? Will Pope and other max guys that love sheep draw the next ten years or so? Likely, but a drastic change like this will still mean the majority of applicants will still never draw sheep and consequently no other special permit as well for any other species.
I can't offer a fair solution that will drastically increase odds. The system currently favors those with the most points yet offers hope for the newbies. I think the special categories need to go and I think every category of OIL should be OIL for that species.
For the record I only need moose for all three OIL tags so logic says I would support Pope's plan. I do not want to focus on what's best for me, however, I want to look at all applicants as a whole.
Great discussion!
Post by: trophyhunt on June 12, 2016, 10:52:49 AM
Changing the system mid stream to make it easier for certain individuals to draw will make it more difficult or costly for others to draw. More winners means more losers unless permit numbers are increased.Im surely no spokesman for Shawns proposal, but my idea involved NO increase in costs, you simply buy your ghost points for the species you can't draw for. The odds would most definitely increase for OIL tags, most hunters will choose to apply for deer/elk permits, only the serious oil hunters will choose oil over deer/elk. I bet, without any scientific facts, that 75% of hunters would choose deer/elk draws over the big three oil's. Just my 2cents
Post by: trophyhunt on June 12, 2016, 10:56:44 AM
Post by: WAPatriot on June 12, 2016, 10:58:21 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 12, 2016, 11:17:55 AM
Get rid of points system and increase the fee to apply and make people float money for tags. That would increase oddsThat will just not happen, the state will never give up this machine that prints money.
Post by: 180-GRAIN on June 12, 2016, 12:00:29 PM
Post by: X-Force on June 12, 2016, 12:38:32 PM
I like that it is a truly random system and allows a first time applicant a chance to draw a tag. However I would like to see a certain percent of tags go to people with max points. Also put a limit on non resident tags awarded like a lot of other states.
Delegating permits for Max points holders has been proven to be a bad idea. But, I am all for finding out how many non residence put in for our draw and if they are drawing more than 10% of the tags I am all for putting a cap on it.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 12, 2016, 12:56:32 PM
I like that it is a truly random system and allows a first time applicant a chance to draw a tag. However I would like to see a certain percent of tags go to people with max points. Also put a limit on non resident tags awarded like a lot of other states.yes, limited non resident tags! I will email Wdfw on Monday to see if I can get some numbers on non residents.
Post by: crabcreekhunter on June 12, 2016, 01:00:29 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 12, 2016, 01:11:34 PM
Heres some simple math so big horn sheep for example, lets say 30 tags a year (more than we currently have now) and 15000 applicants (less than we have now) so 500 years for everyone applying now to draw. I dont know about ya'll but im not planning on hiking the swakane in 500 years and there will not be any sheep in this state in 500years, washington will not be a state in 500 years and hunting will not be around in 500 years. Sooooooooo im assuming myself and thousands of others will never get to harvest a sheep and goat in our lifetimes. Simple truth. Considering all that, I feel that my odds are as fair as can be with the system now. Other states have other systems that are far from perfect also, work for their population/animal densities which are different than Washingtons. The world has always revolved around money and the WDFW is no different. If you have the money there is plenty of options for sheep and goat in North America with price tags that arent as astronomical as Govenors tags here. Even though Ill have 20 points next year doesnt give me any more entitlement to a tag than bigfoots stepsister henrietta littlefoot.I'm hoping Ridgrunner will chime in with some real stats on how much better our odds will be if far less people apply. And I guess I differ with you on the whole entitlement comment, cause I do feel a guy with 20 points is way more entitled to that tag than bigfoots step sister who just decided to put in this year with 1 point.
Post by: bobcat on June 12, 2016, 01:16:01 PM
I like that it is a truly random system and allows a first time applicant a chance to draw a tag. However I would like to see a certain percent of tags go to people with max points. Also put a limit on non resident tags awarded like a lot of other states.yes, limited non resident tags! I will email Wdfw on Monday to see if I can get some numbers on non residents.
They won't give you that information. I asked last year and was told no.
Post by: ramslam on June 12, 2016, 01:25:33 PM
Post by: X-Force on June 12, 2016, 01:28:04 PM
WDFW requires us to be discerning in or license and tag purchases, weapon selection, side of the state etc.. So how is it that making the same discerning requirements for special permit applications that big of a stretch or a negative? I don't thin this has anything to do with someone deserving a permit more than another..In this state everyone has a chance, a change would mean that people would have a greater likelihood of drawing the permits most important to them.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 12, 2016, 01:29:22 PM
really? That is strange, why the secret? Seems like it would be public info.I like that it is a truly random system and allows a first time applicant a chance to draw a tag. However I would like to see a certain percent of tags go to people with max points. Also put a limit on non resident tags awarded like a lot of other states.yes, limited non resident tags! I will email Wdfw on Monday to see if I can get some numbers on non residents.
They won't give you that information. I asked last year and was told no.
Post by: bobcat on June 12, 2016, 01:31:07 PM
really? That is strange, why the secret? Seems like it would be public info.I like that it is a truly random system and allows a first time applicant a chance to draw a tag. However I would like to see a certain percent of tags go to people with max points. Also put a limit on non resident tags awarded like a lot of other states.yes, limited non resident tags! I will email Wdfw on Monday to see if I can get some numbers on non residents.
They won't give you that information. I asked last year and was told no.
They said I had to file a public disclosure request (I think that's what it's called).
So you actually can get the information, it just takes more time than I was willing to spend.
Post by: jmscon on June 12, 2016, 02:21:42 PM
I agree with putting in for deer/elk OR OIL. BUT being able to buy a points option for OIL.
The revenue might go down a little bit but this is basically what I feel like I'm doing right now anyway, with how few points I have, except I have a sliver of a chance to get tag.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 12, 2016, 03:08:35 PM
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: JJB11B on June 12, 2016, 03:59:47 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 12, 2016, 04:14:51 PM
They could start by putting wolves into extinction and giving the Moose, Sheep, Deer, Elk a chance of growing to maturity100% agree
Post by: Jonathan_S on June 12, 2016, 04:15:44 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 12, 2016, 04:25:47 PM
Want to make it fairer? Only allow hunters to draw one OIL permit in a lifetime, rather than per species - draw moose? no goat or sheep for you in this state!
Increase permits by reducing quality - impose minimum harvest limitations (billy only, 4" minimum horn length; 1/2 curl ram; ear width moose antler minimum spread) and increase permits by 1000%. Or, eliminate permits and just let hunters kill 98% or more of the males as soon as they are legal, like the Colockum was for many years under any bull general seasons.
Increase opportunity AND maintain trophy quality? Make harvest incredibly difficult and give large numbers of permits: Season dates August 28-30, no sights of any kind allowed, hunting hours 4-5pm. Legal game 11"+ billies, curl and a quarter or better rams, 58" minimum spread bull moose.
Increase game populations so we can have more high quality permits like currently? That may happen with goats, IMHO, with warming climate and forest health issues - for a while anyway. Even better, close the high country to recreation access except for OIL hunters.
Lots of possible but improbable measures to increase goats, sheep and moose. Criminalize possession of domestic sheep and goats, we'd get more bighorns. Put the hammer on large carnivores, especially wolf and bear, we'd see bigger moose populations and a bigger distribution. Mandatory 10 year jail terms for illegally killing an OIL, and reward tipsters with a permit for the same species. Close any roads where OILs are hit by vehicles. Move people out of the countryside into cities ...
Increase odds for the mostest dedicatedest deservingest hunters? Auction them all. If you really want an OIL, you'll cash out the kids' college fund, take out another mortgage and get a 2nd and third job.
Post by: Miles on June 12, 2016, 05:03:34 PM
The problem is people cried just like they are now and a point system was created. Now people still aren't getting what they want, so what's the answer? Fix the point "problem" that hunter requests created. The only difference is now we have suggestions to increase odds by allocating a percentage to the "max point" holders. No one is or ever will be guaranteed an OIL tag. It's a drawing.
I'm not sure if some of you saw the title of this thread, but it is titled HOW TO FIX THE OIL DRAW SYSTEM. It didn't say how do we make it worse.
My two cents.
Post by: Falcon on June 12, 2016, 08:48:40 PM
If you are young and really want to hunt sheep, start saving and put in for state lotteries, apply for other states and maybe even buy a hunt.
With 15,000 people applying for sheep with 21 tags, do the math. Nobody wins.
I do like the idea of only being able to apply for 1 species per year, but it's still an
Uphill battle.
Post by: Stein on June 12, 2016, 10:14:52 PM
The WA OIL hunts are more like winning the lottery but some still see them as just waiting until you are due. Most of us will never draw in any of the hard categories and it only gets worse every year.
Post by: steeleywhopper on June 13, 2016, 12:55:19 AM
Post by: Buckjunkie on June 13, 2016, 06:39:25 AM
Pretty sure that by mirroring Idaho's draw system there would be no "losers" and that everybody would be happier with odds and results.
No losers? How about everyone with a lot of points?
I like the system even though I've never draw an OIL tag. My son drew moose with two points when he was 11. I sit here with 20 and no tag. I didn't like the change when they split the cow, bull and quality and gave everyone the same points before for all three because I drew elk the year before.
I say, leave the system alone. There are too many people and not enough tags. Any change will just be favoring one group over another.
Post by: Katmai Guy on June 13, 2016, 06:42:01 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 13, 2016, 10:05:24 AM
Quote
I like the system even though I've never draw an OIL tag. My son drew moose with two points when he was 11. I sit here with 20 and no tag. I didn't like the change when they split the cow, bull and quality and gave everyone the same points before for all three because I drew elk the year before.
I say, leave the system alone. There are too many people and not enough tags. Any change will just be favoring one group over another.
Almost exactly the situation I'm in....and I agree with you.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 13, 2016, 10:12:34 AM
:yeah: It's lotto for hunters. Play or don't play.Exactly right! And, too many mathematically challenged people believe they WILL win the lottery eventually! Play it for fun, enjoy it if you win, but expecting to win (draw) is a cruel illusion unsupportable by fact.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 13, 2016, 10:18:16 AM
Pretty sure that by mirroring Idaho's draw system there would be no "losers" and that everybody would be happier with odds and results.
No losers? How about everyone with a lot of points?
I say, leave the system alone. There are too many people and not enough tags. Any change will just be favoring one group over another.
Exactly. How about the guy sitting on max in moose and quality elk. What does he do if he has to choose between applying between OIL and non-OIL? His overall odds of drawing a premium tag in any given year diminishes significantly if everyone has to choose one or the other.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 13, 2016, 11:39:09 AM
:yeah: It's lotto for hunters. Play or don't play.Exactly right! And, too many mathematically challenged people believe they WILL win the lottery eventually! Play it for fun, enjoy it if you win, but expecting to win (draw) is a cruel illusion unsupportable by fact.
Maybe they should change the name of it, from "draw" to "lottery". Seriously, might help change peoples expectations to bring them more in line with reality. I don't post one of these :bash: every time my powerball number doesn't come up.
Post by: shanevg on June 13, 2016, 12:43:35 PM
Pretty sure that by mirroring Idaho's draw system there would be no "losers" and that everybody would be happier with odds and results.
No losers? How about everyone with a lot of points?
I say, leave the system alone. There are too many people and not enough tags. Any change will just be favoring one group over another.
Exactly. How about the guy sitting on max in moose and quality elk. What does he do if he has to choose between applying between OIL and non-OIL? His overall odds of drawing a premium tag in any given year diminishes significantly if everyone has to choose one or the other.
That's where you are completely wrong. If you have to choose only one option, your odds of drawing that one option will be roughly 5x higher than drawing any of 5 options. Basically what Pope's proposal would do is change the system from giving you 1/100 odds of drawing 1 of 5 possible quality tag to 1/20 odds of drawing a single quality tag. Every single hunter should want those improved odds. It is a true win win for everyone.
Also for everyone saying quit complaining about the system I ask why? Why would we not try to make changes that are literally beneficial for every single person?
To make it is simplistic as possible I would ask everyone to choose between one of the following 2 options.
1. 1:100 odds of drawing a single "quality" tag and also 1:1000 odds of drawing multiple "quality" tags.
Or
2. 1:20 odds of drawing a single quality tag (species of your choice) and no odds of multiple quality tags.
I can't see any reason why any logical person would not choose option 2.
Post by: X-Force on June 13, 2016, 12:48:44 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 13, 2016, 12:53:42 PM
Pretty sure that by mirroring Idaho's draw system there would be no "losers" and that everybody would be happier with odds and results.
No losers? How about everyone with a lot of points?
I say, leave the system alone. There are too many people and not enough tags. Any change will just be favoring one group over another.
Exactly. How about the guy sitting on max in moose and quality elk. What does he do if he has to choose between applying between OIL and non-OIL? His overall odds of drawing a premium tag in any given year diminishes significantly if everyone has to choose one or the other.
That's where you are completely wrong. If you have to choose only one option, your odds of drawing that one option will be roughly 5x higher than drawing any of 5 options. Basically what Pope's proposal would do is change the system from giving you 1/100 odds of drawing 1 of 5 possible quality tag to 1/20 odds of drawing a single quality tag. Every single hunter should want those improved odds. It is a true win win for everyone.
Also for everyone saying quit complaining about the system I ask why? Why would we not try to make changes that are literally beneficial for every single person?
To make it is simplistic as possible I would ask everyone to choose between one of the following 2 options.
1. 1:100 odds of drawing a single "quality" tag and also 1:1000 odds of drawing multiple "quality" tags.
Or
2. 1:20 odds of drawing a single quality tag (species of your choice) and no odds of multiple quality tags.
I can't see any reason why any logical person would not choose option 2.
Can you explain how you came up with those numbers please?
Post by: LabChamp on June 13, 2016, 12:59:33 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 13, 2016, 01:08:59 PM
:yeah: :tup:Pretty sure that by mirroring Idaho's draw system there would be no "losers" and that everybody would be happier with odds and results.
No losers? How about everyone with a lot of points?
I say, leave the system alone. There are too many people and not enough tags. Any change will just be favoring one group over another.
Exactly. How about the guy sitting on max in moose and quality elk. What does he do if he has to choose between applying between OIL and non-OIL? His overall odds of drawing a premium tag in any given year diminishes significantly if everyone has to choose one or the other.
That's where you are completely wrong. If you have to choose only one option, your odds of drawing that one option will be roughly 5x higher than drawing any of 5 options. Basically what Pope's proposal would do is change the system from giving you 1/100 odds of drawing 1 of 5 possible quality tag to 1/20 odds of drawing a single quality tag. Every single hunter should want those improved odds. It is a true win win for everyone.
Also for everyone saying quit complaining about the system I ask why? Why would we not try to make changes that are literally beneficial for every single person?
To make it is simplistic as possible I would ask everyone to choose between one of the following 2 options.
1. 1:100 odds of drawing a single "quality" tag and also 1:1000 odds of drawing multiple "quality" tags.
Or
2. 1:20 odds of drawing a single quality tag (species of your choice) and no odds of multiple quality tags.
I can't see any reason why any logical person would not choose option 2.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 13, 2016, 01:26:06 PM
That's where you are completely wrong. If you have to choose only one option, your odds of drawing that one option will be roughly 5x higher than drawing any of 5 options. Basically what Pope's proposal would do is change the system from giving you 1/100 odds of drawing 1 of 5 possible quality tag to 1/20 odds of drawing a single quality tag. Every single hunter should want those improved odds. It is a true win win for everyone.
No offense man, but those are the exact same odds. 1/100 five times is the same as 1/20 one time. Yes, if you only want a goat tag, your odds just went from 1/100 to 1/20. But for those that just want a quality hunt and are not so single species focused, they lose out by not building points across all the species.
Do the math - same number of hunters, same number of tags, no possible way for overall odds of drawing a quality tag to change. It just makes you focus your chances in one species versus the others.
Post by: LabChamp on June 13, 2016, 01:50:41 PM
Goat 1/100
Sheep 1/100
Moose 1/100
Your odds are 3/300
You can't make those other two groups of people disappear bc you want better odds on your end. They were all still in the draw and thats the reason not many of us get drawn, and why everyone is so upset with the system. When the math is done correctly we all have horrible odds here in WA. Sucks for all of us.
Only way to better your odds is decrease the applicants
Post by: Stein on June 13, 2016, 02:09:39 PM
Say you buy 5 Poweball tickets? Do you have 5x the chance of winning? Yes. Are you going to win? No.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 13, 2016, 02:22:18 PM
Wow, lots of math problems here.What about if you have max points in the powerball category? Does that help any?
Say you buy 5 Poweball tickets? Do you have 5x the chance of winning? Yes. Are you going to win? No.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 13, 2016, 02:34:32 PM
Not really... You start of each draw at 1/100. This is where people don't get how statistics work gambling wise and why people loose so much money bc they believe if they COMBINE their different draws/lotteries that they have better odds. You dont. Is still 1/100 no matter how you twist it. So I can twist it this way for you too.... so you understand. You have 1/100 for each
Goat 1/100
Sheep 1/100
Moose 1/100
Your odds are 3/300
You can't make those other two groups of people disappear bc you want better odds on your end. They were all still in the draw and thats the reason not many of us get drawn, and why everyone is so upset with the system. When the math is done correctly we all have horrible odds here in WA. Sucks for all of us.
Only way to better your odds is decrease the applicants
Sorry, just not the way you add probabilities. Here's a pretty basic explanation that spells it out:
http://www.ehow.com/how_8087361_add-probabilities.html
If you want to make it super simple, your odds of flipping heads (versus tails) is 1:2. Agreed? If you flip 1,000 pennies at the same time, your odds of pulling heads in just one of those thousand "draws" is not 1,000/2,000.
Post by: X-Force on June 13, 2016, 02:46:13 PM
That's where you are completely wrong. If you have to choose only one option, your odds of drawing that one option will be roughly 5x higher than drawing any of 5 options. Basically what Pope's proposal would do is change the system from giving you 1/100 odds of drawing 1 of 5 possible quality tag to 1/20 odds of drawing a single quality tag. Every single hunter should want those improved odds. It is a true win win for everyone.
No offense man, but those are the exact same odds. 1/100 five times is the same as 1/20 one time. Yes, if you only want a goat tag, your odds just went from 1/100 to 1/20. But for those that just want a quality hunt and are not so single species focused, they lose out by not building points across all the species.
Do the math - same number of hunters, same number of tags, no possible way for overall odds of drawing a quality tag to change. It just makes you focus your chances in one species versus the others.
So the question is is it more important to have mediocre odds across every categories and species or to be able to focus on 1 or 2 permits and have basically guaranteed odds of antlerless hunts or highly improved odds of that 1 or 2 quality hunts.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 13, 2016, 02:47:50 PM
Post by: LabChamp on June 13, 2016, 03:00:29 PM
The 5 times with a probability of 1:100 are not connected at all. You still only have a 1:100 chance to win anything. If those 100 people could only apply in one of the 5 and evenly distributed you would have 1 tag for 20 apps. Therefore a drastic increase in oddsBingo
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 13, 2016, 03:25:04 PM
The 5 times with a probability of 1:100 are not connected at all. You still only have a 1:100 chance to win anything. If those 100 people could only apply in one of the 5 and evenly distributed you would have 1 tag for 20 apps. Therefore a drastic increase in odds
If you only want the goat tag, your odds indeed go from 1:100 to 1:20. But if you are happy with any of the five, your current odds of drawing any one of the five (without getting to choose which) are already 1:20. When you make people choose which of the five to apply for, the overall odds of drawing a quality tag stay at 1:20, but you essentially get to choose that species with the downside being that you're giving up on the rest.
Think of it this way - right now, it's the same 100 people in each of the five draws. Five tags, 100 total people, odds of drawing any of the five tags are 1:20. If those 100 people are divided up by species, with 20 people applying in each of the five categories, odds are still 1:20.
Take that a step further, and if you're sitting on max points for the five categories, and you've got 1:20 combined odds right now, you might draw moose 10 years from now (or 1 or 30). Cross moose off after you draw, and you're still sitting on max for the other four. Now go the Idaho route and force that guy to just pick moose. His 1:20 odds might still produce a tag in Year 10. Problem is, in Year 11, he's now WAY behind in the other draws. He's the loser in the Idaho system.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 13, 2016, 03:32:02 PM
Still 1:100 it is 1;100 5 times but that is not the same as 5:100. It is 5:500.
If the pool stayed the same and draw was pulled from the same pool it would be 5:100.
Each of the 1:100 draws are completely separate and unrelated to one another. The odds of any have zero affect on any other.
https://www.quora.com/If-I-have-a-1-100-chance-of-something-happening-when-I-do-something-and-I-do-that-thing-3-times-does-it-mean-a-3-100-chance-of-that-outcome
This explains it Better. It is close to the same for a small sample of 5 draws... But the real benefit would be to clear out all the "I'll apply because I can" apps. For example I really don't care if I draw goat or sheep but I still apply in WA because I can and what the hell why not. Not I really want a moose or elk tag. I'd rather have the "because I can" apps out of the moose or elk pool to increase my odds there. And I'm sure the die hard sheep and goat guys would rather I didn't apply "because I can" in the draws they really want....
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 13, 2016, 03:44:48 PM
so let him keep buying points in the other categories he isn't applying for. :twocents: but only one he could actually apply for a hunt. The rest... Points only.The 5 times with a probability of 1:100 are not connected at all. You still only have a 1:100 chance to win anything. If those 100 people could only apply in one of the 5 and evenly distributed you would have 1 tag for 20 apps. Therefore a drastic increase in odds
If you only want the goat tag, your odds indeed go from 1:100 to 1:20. But if you are happy with any of the five, your current odds of drawing any one of the five (without getting to choose which) are already 1:20. When you make people choose which of the five to apply for, the overall odds of drawing a quality tag stay at 1:20, but you essentially get to choose that species with the downside being that you're giving up on the rest.
Think of it this way - right now, it's the same 100 people in each of the five draws. Five tags, 100 total people, odds of drawing any of the five tags are 1:20. If those 100 people are divided up by species, with 20 people applying in each of the five categories, odds are still 1:20.
Take that a step further, and if you're sitting on max points for the five categories, and you've got 1:20 combined odds right now, you might draw moose 10 years from now (or 1 or 30). Cross moose off after you draw, and you're still sitting on max for the other four. Now go the Idaho route and force that guy to just pick moose. His 1:20 odds might still produce a tag in Year 10. Problem is, in Year 11, he's now WAY behind in the other draws. He's the loser in the Idaho system.
Post by: stew pidasso on June 13, 2016, 03:46:16 PM
My thought is let us do what we want with our pts. Keep all permit categories for the revenue. But allow me to combine my deer, elk, ect. To whatever categories I want, like an oil category or quality. I figure within a few years there would be a lot less pts in the system.
Example.
I have 20 pts in q deer. 20 pts in q bull. 4 pts in antlerless cow. 9 in bull elk. 7 in buck deer. I really want to hunt my q elk so I add all of them to my submission in q elk which would be 60 pts. I may or may not get drawn. But if I did there would be a lot less pts in the system the next year. I know the number of applicants stays relatively the same but you could up your chances with names in the hat.
Anybody giving this any thoughts?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 13, 2016, 03:49:48 PM
absolutely no way!My thought is let us do what we want with our pts. Keep all permit categories for the revenue. But allow me to combine my deer, elk, ect. To whatever categories I want, like an oil category or quality. I figure within a few years there would be a lot less pts in the system.
Example.
I have 20 pts in q deer. 20 pts in q bull. 4 pts in antlerless cow. 9 in bull elk. 7 in buck deer. I really want to hunt my q elk so I add all of them to my submission in q elk which would be 60 pts. I may or may not get drawn. But if I did there would be a lot less pts in the system the next year. I know the number of applicants stays relatively the same but you could up your chances with names in the hat.
Anybody giving this any thoughts?
I already got screwed once by drawing a elk permit in 2008. Had I known my points would go into every category I would have ghost pointed that year. Essentially people got 20-40 free points that I didn't.... They have already completely screwed it all up...
Post by: 87Ford on June 13, 2016, 04:21:19 PM
absolutely no way!I also got screwed by drawing that year. People got free points that I didn't because my points had gone to zero. Think it was 2009 though..
I already got screwed once by drawing a elk permit in 2008. Had I known my points would go into every category I would have ghost pointed that year. Essentially people got 20-40 free points that I didn't.... They have already completely screwed it all up...
Post by: stew pidasso on June 13, 2016, 04:31:11 PM
absolutely no way!My thought is let us do what we want with our pts. Keep all permit categories for the revenue. But allow me to combine my deer, elk, ect. To whatever categories I want, like an oil category or quality. I figure within a few years there would be a lot less pts in the system.
Example.
I have 20 pts in q deer. 20 pts in q bull. 4 pts in antlerless cow. 9 in bull elk. 7 in buck deer. I really want to hunt my q elk so I add all of them to my submission in q elk which would be 60 pts. I may or may not get drawn. But if I did there would be a lot less pts in the system the next year. I know the number of applicants stays relatively the same but you could up your chances with names in the hat.
Anybody giving this any thoughts?
I already got screwed once by drawing a elk permit in 2008. Had I known my points would go into every category I would have ghost pointed that year. Essentially people got 20-40 free points that I didn't.... They have already completely screwed it all up...
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 13, 2016, 04:57:56 PM
Mostly I despise points systems anyhow. Idaho has the ideal system.
Oh and for the record they should implement a 5 year waiting period in any category after drawing. :twocents:
Post by: brew on June 13, 2016, 06:12:54 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 13, 2016, 07:43:51 PM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 13, 2016, 08:33:42 PM
I'd be just fine with what brew said. Let people buy a preference point only for any category or species without a license. Then to apply for a hunt they need a license
Your newborn can apply for OIL points. You only need hunter ed to buy a license, which is required for deer and elk.
Post by: WAPatriot on June 13, 2016, 08:46:56 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 13, 2016, 08:48:16 PM
Eliminate youth, disabled and over 65 hunts:yike: :yike:
Post by: 3boys on June 13, 2016, 08:56:03 PM
Eliminate youth, disabled and over 65 huntsThere is nothing better then youth hunts to get our youth into the sport. Disabled and 65 and over hunts make me proud to be part of the sport. if nothing else provide more opportunity for the youth. Both my sons took a couple deer when they were youth and it was some of the best times of my hunting career. If I could gift my moose tag for this season to my son I would in a minute.
Post by: danderson on June 13, 2016, 09:02:45 PM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 13, 2016, 09:55:27 PM
It is 1;100 5 times but that is not the same as 5:100. It is 5:500.
https://www.quora.com/If-I-have-a-1-100-chance-of-something-happening-when-I-do-something-and-I-do-that-thing-3-times-does-it-mean-a-3-100-chance-of-that-outcome
It's not 5:500. Not sure what I'm missing, did you read your link? The conclusion in the link is 1:100 + 1:100 + 1:100 = 2.97%, or close enough to 3:100 for our purposes.
Post by: shanevg on June 13, 2016, 09:56:41 PM
Wow, lots of math problems here.
Say you buy 5 Poweball tickets? Do you have 5x the chance of winning? Yes. Are you going to win? No.
Except you aren't buying 5 powerball tickets to the same powerball, you are buying 5x powerball tickets to 5 different powerball lotteries. If the odds of drawing in each lotter is 1:1,000,000 and you bought 5 tickets, you would have 5:5,000,000 odds of drawing any one of the tickets. Granted you would also have 1:1,000,000,000,000 of drawing two winning tickets but those odds are so long that it is not even worth considering.
Sorry, just not the way you add probabilities. Here's a pretty basic explanation that spells it out:
http://www.ehow.com/how_8087361_add-probabilities.html
If you want to make it super simple, your odds of flipping heads (versus tails) is 1:2. Agreed? If you flip 1,000 pennies at the same time, your odds of pulling heads in just one of those thousand "draws" is not 1,000/2,000.
Actually that's exactly what would happen. You would have 1000/2000 odds (or 1:2 odds) of flipping a heads. Since each event (coin flip) is mutually exclusive from the prior event, your odds of flipping a heads every single time you flip the coin is still 1:2. it will never be worse than 1:2 and it will never be better. +
Problem is supply and Demand lots of folks want one, only a few given out.
Of course the problem is supply and demand, that is exactly why some of us are trying to discuss a realistic way to improve odds. We have two options - increase number of tags or decrease number of applicants in a given category. Since the increase in tags isn't going to happen, the only other option is decrease applicants by limiting number of applicants people can apply for. By doing that, everyone's odds of drawing a tag in the category of their choice will actually increase. In some categories, the odds will increase SIGNIFICANTLY!
Post by: shanevg on June 13, 2016, 10:02:21 PM
It's not 5:500. Not sure what I'm missing, did you read your link? The conclusion in the link is 1:100 + 1:100 + 1:100 = 2.97%, or close enough to 3:100 for our purposes.
I haven't read the article so I can't comment on the specific article you are mentioning, but let me try to create a visualization for you.
In the WA draws as they currently stand, you have 5 different pots you are putting your name into. (Let's forget about antlerless,etc. and just focus on quality.) You have deer, elk, moose, goat, and sheep.
Again for simplicity sake, let's say that there are 99 names in each pot and your name will be the 100th name therefore giving you 1:100 odds of drawing any one of those 5 tags.
The way the draw works is that a name is first picked out of pot 1 (deer). There is a 1:100 chance that your name is drawn from that pot. Once that draw is done they move on to pot number 2 (elk.) Since no names have been drawn from that pot, there are still 100 names in the pot (one of which is yours) giving you 1:100 odds of drawing an elk tag. Then pot 3 (moose) - still 1:100 odds. Then pot 4 (goat) - still 1:100 odds. Then pot 5 (sheep) - still 1:100 odds. Once it's all said and done, you had 1:100 odds of drawing 5 different tags or 5:500 overall odds. That is because each pot is "mutually exclusive" from the prior. Your success or lack of success in drawing in Pot 1 has no impact whatsoever on your odds of drawing in pots 2,3,4,or 5.
By implementing Pope's proposal you would be making all 100 applicants pick a specific pot to put their name into. For arguments sake, let's assume everyone divides evenly. Now there are 5 pots with 20 names each. You can pick any one of those pots to put your name into therefore giving you 1:21 odds of drawing the single tag of the category of your choice. By going with this system, you are forgoing the potential to draw two tags (which would have 1:1000 odds of happening) in order to get a significantly better chance of drawing a single tag.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 13, 2016, 10:05:46 PM
It's not 5:500. Not sure what I'm missing, did you read your link? The conclusion in the link is 1:100 + 1:100 + 1:100 = 2.97%, or close enough to 3:100 for our purposes.
I haven't read the article so I can't comment on the specific article you are mentioning, but let me try to create a visualization for you.
In the WA draws as they currently stand, you have 5 different pots you are putting your name into. (Let's forget about antlerless,etc. and just focus on quality.) You have deer, elk, moose, goat, and sheep.
Again for simplicity sake, let's say that there are 99 names in each pot and your name will be the 100th name therefore giving you 1:100 odds of drawing any one of those 5 tags.
The way the draw works is that a name is first picked out of pot 1 (deer). There is a 1:100 chance that your name is drawn from that pot. Once that draw is done they move on to pot number 2 (elk.) Since no names have been drawn from that pot, there are still 100 names in the pot (one of which is yours) giving you 1:100 odds of drawing an elk tag. Then pot 3 (moose) - still 1:100 odds. Then pot 4 (goat) - still 1:100 odds. Then pot 5 (sheep) - still 1:100 odds. Once it's all said and done, you had 1:100 odds of drawing 5 different tags or 5:500 overall odds. That is because each pot is "mutually exclusive" from the prior.
Sorry man, that's not how the math works. Read the link I posted, or read the link from Bullblaster.
Post by: shanevg on June 13, 2016, 10:07:31 PM
Why don't you try to use a comparable analogy to explain how math "actually" works?
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 13, 2016, 10:11:47 PM
LOL, go test it out WAcoueshunter, I guarantee you that is exactly how math works.
Why don't you try to use a comparable analogy to explain how math "actually" works?
I did, with the pennies example, and you completely missed the point, and somehow concluded that odds of flipping tails just one time out of 1,000 penny flips remains 1:2. In other words, you're also saying that your odds of flipping heads 1,000 times in a row is 1:2. Try it out.
Maybe you're missing that the combined odds are for pulling ANY of the five tags, not one in particular. Your odds in any single draw (e.g. goat) are not affected by the others. Your moose odds don't help you pull a goat tag. But your odds of pulling ANY of the five are roughly 5:100, just like your odds of flipping tails at least once out of 1,000 (or 4) coin flips is pretty close to 1:1.
Post by: shanevg on June 13, 2016, 10:18:49 PM
If you ask what are the odds of flipping a coin 5 times and getting a heads only once then you are making the event mutually inclusive because the desired results of flip number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all dependent on each other.
If on the other hand you ask what are my odds of flipping a heads each time I flip the coin, then the events are mutually exclusive. Because the odds of flipping a heads in flip 1 is 1:2. Regardless of whether you got heads or tails in flip 1, your odds in flip 2 of getting a heads is still 1:2 and so on.
When we are talking about the draws, we are talking about the second of the above examples, not the first. We can simplify my example even further and you can test it for yourself. Take 5 pots and put 9 black marbles and 1 white marble in each pot. Then pick one marble from each pot. Whether or not you pick out a white marble in pot number 1, you still have 1:10 odds of picking out a white marble in pot 2, 3, 4, and 5. If you'd like you can even add all the pots together into a single pot and give yourself 5 chances to draw a white marble. Now you will have 5:50 odds (or 1:10) of drawing a marble.
Post by: Falcon on June 13, 2016, 10:23:58 PM
It's not 5:500. Not sure what I'm missing, did you read your link? The conclusion in the link is 1:100 + 1:100 + 1:100 = 2.97%, or close enough to 3:100 for our purposes.
I haven't read the article so I can't comment on the specific article you are mentioning, but let me try to create a visualization for you.
In the WA draws as they currently stand, you have 5 different pots you are putting your name into. (Let's forget about antlerless,etc. and just focus on quality.) You have deer, elk, moose, goat, and sheep.
Again for simplicity sake, let's say that there are 99 names in each pot and your name will be the 100th name therefore giving you 1:100 odds of drawing any one of those 5 tags.
The way the draw works is that a name is first picked out of pot 1 (deer). There is a 1:100 chance that your name is drawn from that pot. Once that draw is done they move on to pot number 2 (elk.) Since no names have been drawn from that pot, there are still 100 names in the pot (one of which is yours) giving you 1:100 odds of drawing an elk tag. Then pot 3 (moose) - still 1:100 odds. Then pot 4 (goat) - still 1:100 odds. Then pot 5 (sheep) - still 1:100 odds. Once it's all said and done, you had 1:100 odds of drawing 5 different tags or 5:500 overall odds. That is because each pot is "mutually exclusive" from the prior. Your success or lack of success in drawing in Pot 1 has no impact whatsoever on your odds of drawing in pots 2,3,4,or 5.
By implementing Pope's proposal you would be making all 100 applicants pick a specific pot to put their name into. For arguments sake, let's assume everyone divides evenly. Now there are 5 pots with 20 names each. You can pick any one of those pots to put your name into therefore giving you 1:21 odds of drawing the single tag of the category of your choice. By going with this system, you are forgoing the potential to draw two tags (which would have 1:1000 odds of happening) in order to get a significantly better chance of drawing a single tag.
Shane
After reading your post thru 2 times, I now totally get it. Couple of questions.
1. Do you let people build points in the other categories that are not in their 1 chosen pick.
2. Do you continue to let applicants pick up to 4 choices, or limit it to 1 or 2?
Also, in some states they require you to sit out 2 to 3 years after drawing a quality tag. That also
May help the odds for the majority of guys putting in.
Post by: shanevg on June 13, 2016, 10:28:41 PM
Shane
After reading your post thru 2 times, I now totally get it. Couple of questions.
1. Do you let people build points in the other categories that are not in their 1 chosen pick.
2. Do you continue to let applicants pick up to 4 choices, or limit it to 1 or 2?
Also, in some states they require you to sit out 2 to 3 years after drawing a quality tag. That also
May help the odds for the majority of guys putting in.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to those questions. Personally I would like to see people continue to build points in all categories for a couple reasons.
1. It makes people more psychologically likely to accept the new system as they won't feel like they are completely "losing" their points in all those other categories.
2. It allows people to jump from category to category in a given year without falling out of the game.
Ultimately allowing people to continue applying for points in all categories eats up some of the advantages of splitting up the categories as it allows the current max point holders essentially remain max point holders in all categories until they draw for the rest of their life. Ideally you'd want to allow other hunters "catch up" in their chosen category by not allowing others to stay in the game. On the flip side, it will certainly help WDFW maintain revenue as people will just continue applying for points.
I'm also a huge fan of limiting everyone to a single choice in every category. Also, in my opinion you should have to choose when you apply for deer/elk whether you want to apply for antlerless or buck/bull categories, not both.
One option I've heard floated is allowing elk/deer applicants to apply for the buck/bull permits and the OIL applicants apply for the antlerless permits therefore giving those OIL applicants a chance of actually drawing something.
I also don't mind having successful applicants sit out 2 or 3 years.
Post by: kentrek on June 13, 2016, 10:53:26 PM
Post by: Stein on June 13, 2016, 11:14:18 PM
The only people that would benefit are the ones that only want to hunt a single species. If you put in for them all every year it won't matter.
The problem is still numbers. It isn't 100 people, it is 15,000 and counting. If there isn't enough tags to clear the top points, point creep will continue to get worse. Limiting it to one category only delays the inevitable truth and it doesn't even fix it in the short term.
There would still be about 3,000 people in each draw with a bunch over 20 points. Me sitting here with 6 won't ever have any reasonable chance of drawing. Too few tags.
The only realistic fix is to combine all points into one category. You can only put in for one including cow and doe tags. Guys like me will bail on OIL and get our points cleared out frequently. Guys staying with OIL will have better odds with the downside of not ever drawing any deer/elk/bear tags. You would have to pick what you want and stick with it. Incentivize hunters to pull out of the oil draw with easier to draw regular tags.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on June 14, 2016, 01:01:04 AM
I think they just need to add more goat tags....lol
In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653
Post by: kentrek on June 14, 2016, 01:07:05 AM
I think they just need to add more goat tags....lol
In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653
I'm not a goat bio or expert but im pretty confident there could be more tags available...my experience is from around st hellens and there's no way that area couldn't support at least a couple
So just between mine and your area we could nearly double the odds !!!
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 04:50:04 AM
Eliminate youth, disabled and over 65 huntsThere is nothing better then youth hunts to get our youth into the sport. Disabled and 65 and over hunts make me proud to be part of the sport. if nothing else provide more opportunity for the youth. Both my sons took a couple deer when they were youth and it was some of the best times of my hunting career. If I could gift my moose tag for this season to my son I would in a minute.
A deer is one thing but a moose. Society is too entitled these days if anything it probably ruins kids from hunting. Kids should be thrilled to get the opportunity to sit in the duck blind with there old man. When they get to shoot moose when there 11 what more do they have to look forward to in the sport.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 14, 2016, 04:58:10 AM
I seem to remember ready somewhere that washington has the highest goat population in the lower 48 states, but hands down has the fewest tags than any state and by a large margin. Can't remember for the life of me where I read it thoughI think they just need to add more goat tags....lol
In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653
I'm not a goat bio or expert but im pretty confident there could be more tags available...my experience is from around st hellens and there's no way that area couldn't support at least a couple
So just between mine and your area we could nearly double the odds !!!
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 14, 2016, 06:02:32 AM
Post by: shanevg on June 14, 2016, 06:33:28 AM
If you limit it to one category, your odds of drawing THAT tag go up, but your odds of drawing A tag are the same. Just think about it, same number of tags and same number of hunters. Divide total tags by total hunters and the odds simply cannot change unless you reduce hunters or increase tags. It's just playing games.
The only people that would benefit are the ones that only want to hunt a single species. If you put in for them all every year it won't matter.
The problem is still numbers. It isn't 100 people, it is 15,000 and counting. If there isn't enough tags to clear the top points, point creep will continue to get worse. Limiting it to one category only delays the inevitable truth and it doesn't even fix it in the short term.
There would still be about 3,000 people in each draw with a bunch over 20 points. Me sitting here with 6 won't ever have any reasonable chance of drawing. Too few tags.
The only realistic fix is to combine all points into one category. You can only put in for one including cow and doe tags. Guys like me will bail on OIL and get our points cleared out frequently. Guys staying with OIL will have better odds with the downside of not ever drawing any deer/elk/bear tags. You would have to pick what you want and stick with it. Incentivize hunters to pull out of the oil draw with easier to draw regular tags.
That's not correct. Because essentially every hunter applies in each of the 5 categories you are essentially multiplying the number of hunters by 5. Say there are 15k applicants for 200 tags but each applicant gets to apply 5 different times, you are actually getting 75,0000 applicants for 200 tags. By making everyone pick a category you are again reducing the pool back down to 15,000 applicants and GREATLY increasing everyone's odds of actually drawing a tag.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 14, 2016, 06:36:05 AM
Agree, I heard somewhere that wdfw wants 100 goats to have 1 permit? That area I have seen them has a very nice billy, I want him bad!! Maybe with these pierce county prosecutors I should just go harvest him, probably just get off?? I'm just kidding Huntwa, don't get your panties in a bunch.I think they just need to add more goat tags....lol
In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653
Post by: shanevg on June 14, 2016, 06:36:58 AM
I seem to remember ready somewhere that washington has the highest goat population in the lower 48 states, but hands down has the fewest tags than any state and by a large margin. Can't remember for the life of me where I read it thoughI think they just need to add more goat tags....lol
In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653
I'm not a goat bio or expert but im pretty confident there could be more tags available...my experience is from around st hellens and there's no way that area couldn't support at least a couple
So just between mine and your area we could nearly double the odds !!!
You are correct. WA's goat population is the largest in the lower 48. There are more factors that go into tag numbers than you'd think though. Part of the reason for low tag numbers is conservative management. But also, introduced herds like those in CO, UT, NV, OR and some in MT (Crazy Mountain) herd reproduce at a much higher rate than native herds do (WA and ID.) As a result,states with native herds need to be more conservative in their tag numbers like WA and ID are.
With that said, WA state is obviously VERY conservative and I think a big reason for that is tribal harvest of goats. They simply don't know how many are harvested in a given year for a lot of these herds.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 14, 2016, 06:50:44 AM
Good info, thank you. I do know the Yakamas take more goats than we do here in central washington.I seem to remember ready somewhere that washington has the highest goat population in the lower 48 states, but hands down has the fewest tags than any state and by a large margin. Can't remember for the life of me where I read it thoughI think they just need to add more goat tags....lol
In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653
I'm not a goat bio or expert but im pretty confident there could be more tags available...my experience is from around st hellens and there's no way that area couldn't support at least a couple
So just between mine and your area we could nearly double the odds !!!
You are correct. WA's goat population is the largest in the lower 48. There are more factors that go into tag numbers than you'd think though. Part of the reason for low tag numbers is conservative management. But also, introduced herds like those in CO, UT, NV, OR and some in MT (Crazy Mountain) herd reproduce at a much higher rate than native herds do (WA and ID.) As a result,states with native herds need to be more conservative in their tag numbers like WA and ID are.
With that said, WA state is obviously VERY conservative and I think a big reason for that is tribal harvest of goats. They simply don't know how many are harvested in a given year for a lot of these herds.
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 14, 2016, 07:15:43 AM
I think they just need to add more goat tags....lol
In an area I frequent during summer time bear hunting there is a ton of goats I see large groups frequently and there is no permit for that area from what I have researched. I know Trophyhunt goes to the same area and has posted pics of goats he has seen. There should be at least one permit up there and it's in Western WA 653
I'm not a goat bio or expert but im pretty confident there could be more tags available...my experience is from around st hellens and there's no way that area couldn't support at least a couple
So just between mine and your area we could nearly double the odds !!!
I know the Alpine Lks could easily handle 2-3 tags. Ton of goats up there, always has been.
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 07:36:26 AM
If you limit it to one category, your odds of drawing THAT tag go up, but your odds of drawing A tag are the same. Just think about it, same number of tags and same number of hunters. Divide total tags by total hunters and the odds simply cannot change unless you reduce hunters or increase tags. It's just playing games.
The only people that would benefit are the ones that only want to hunt a single species. If you put in for them all every year it won't matter.
The problem is still numbers. It isn't 100 people, it is 15,000 and counting. If there isn't enough tags to clear the top points, point creep will continue to get worse. Limiting it to one category only delays the inevitable truth and it doesn't even fix it in the short term.
There would still be about 3,000 people in each draw with a bunch over 20 points. Me sitting here with 6 won't ever have any reasonable chance of drawing. Too few tags.
The only realistic fix is to combine all points into one category. You can only put in for one including cow and doe tags. Guys like me will bail on OIL and get our points cleared out frequently. Guys staying with OIL will have better odds with the downside of not ever drawing any deer/elk/bear tags. You would have to pick what you want and stick with it. Incentivize hunters to pull out of the oil draw with easier to draw regular tags.
That's not correct. Because essentially every hunter applies in each of the 5 categories you are essentially multiplying the number of hunters by 5. Say there are 15k applicants for 200 tags but each applicant gets to apply 5 different times, you are actually getting 75,0000 applicants for 200 tags. By making everyone pick a category you are again reducing the pool back down to 15,000 applicants and GREATLY increasing everyone's odds of actually drawing a tag.
I'm saying that 1/15,000 and 1/75,000 both round to a 0% chance of drawing a tag.
1/75000 = .000133%
1/15,000 = .00067%
Mathematically, the odds went up. Practically, it made zero difference - you didn't move the needle. The number of tags is pretty much fixed, the only solution is to remove TONS hunters from the pool - lots and lots of them. Forcing a choice among only oil tags simply doesn't remove enough hunters. To make any sort of difference you need to get the odds up to at least single digit % without a 25 year wait to collect points.
There are only a few ways to do this:
Make it a rich man's sport - charge $500 to apply and you won't have 15,000.
Incentivize them to not apply - only have one choice (for all draw tags) and many won't chose to apply for oil.
Don't let them apply - pick birth month and you can only apply once every 12 years.
I hold the only way that is palatable is to force a choice - do you want to draw often, hold out for a great deer tag, hold out for a great elk tag, or hold out for an oil tag - pick one. The wildlife can't support more than one choice.
Post by: 3boys on June 14, 2016, 07:55:53 AM
The youth only get cow moose and there is a very slim chance to be drawn. I love the pics of youth hunters with animals. You can bet they are hooked for life. Now that my sons are 17 and 20 with only a few moose points there chance of getting drawn are slim to none. If they were entitled they would be going on guided moose trips in Canada or Alaska.Eliminate youth, disabled and over 65 huntsThere is nothing better then youth hunts to get our youth into the sport. Disabled and 65 and over hunts make me proud to be part of the sport. if nothing else provide more opportunity for the youth. Both my sons took a couple deer when they were youth and it was some of the best times of my hunting career. If I could gift my moose tag for this season to my son I would in a minute.
A deer is one thing but a moose. Society is too entitled these days if anything it probably ruins kids from hunting. Kids should be thrilled to get the opportunity to sit in the duck blind with there old man. When they get to shoot moose when there 11 what more do they have to look forward to in the sport.
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 08:05:58 AM
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 08:10:20 AM
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 08:12:15 AM
If you put your kids in from the time they were born they are just about garenteed a moose or two. Under the current youth regs. Last year there was a kid that drew two moose tags in three years. I just think it's ridiculous to have so many moose tags for youth. It it was one of two tags fine but there are like 50 or something. I'd love the chance to harvest a cow moose but will propably never draw a tag.
There are 18 youth moose tags this year.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 14, 2016, 08:14:35 AM
If you put your kids in from the time they were born they are just about garenteed a moose or two. Under the current youth regs. Last year there was a kid that drew two moose tags in three years. I just think it's ridiculous to have so many moose tags for youth. It it was one of two tags fine but there are like 50 or something. I'd love the chance to harvest a cow moose but will propably never draw a tag.
These are all cow tags. I don't think most people are thinking about cow moose when they talk about the terrible moose odds.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 14, 2016, 08:19:17 AM
Draw from one bucket with 20 tickets in it or draw from each of 5 buckets with 100 tickets in each your odds are essentially the same. With a single bucket Your odds increase for that one bucket but are no higher overall. No the odds do not remain at 100:1 regardless of the number of buckets - thats just odds per bucket not odds overall.
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 08:21:02 AM
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 08:24:53 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 14, 2016, 08:37:16 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 14, 2016, 08:40:56 AM
It sounds like a good number of you understand that the only viable way to improve draw odds is to increase the number of tags (not going to happen without decimating the herds) or reducing the number of participants.
So if they (WDFW) can't increase the tags/herd numbers, how do they go about reducing the participants without people noticing what they are doing?
You start by putting your frog in a pot of room temp water.... http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,196635.msg2609684.html#msg2609684 :rolleyes:
Post by: shanevg on June 14, 2016, 08:49:51 AM
I'm saying that 1/15,000 and 1/75,000 both round to a 0% chance of drawing a tag.
1/75000 = .000133%
1/15,000 = .00067%
Mathematically, the odds went up. Practically, it made zero difference - you didn't move the needle. The number of tags is pretty much fixed, the only solution is to remove TONS hunters from the pool - lots and lots of them. Forcing a choice among only oil tags simply doesn't remove enough hunters. To make any sort of difference you need to get the odds up to at least single digit % without a 25 year wait to collect points.
There are only a few ways to do this:
Make it a rich man's sport - charge $500 to apply and you won't have 15,000.
Incentivize them to not apply - only have one choice (for all draw tags) and many won't chose to apply for oil.
Don't let them apply - pick birth month and you can only apply once every 12 years.
I hold the only way that is palatable is to force a choice - do you want to draw often, hold out for a great deer tag, hold out for a great elk tag, or hold out for an oil tag - pick one. The wildlife can't support more than one choice.
That's just a pessimist viewpoint of it. There are goat and moose tags with odds around 1:300. The archery/muzzie moose tags are 1:100 I believe. Improve those by 20% and you are looking at 1:20 to 1:60 draw odds. Those odds actually give you a statistical chance of drawing a tag in your lifetime which makes this discussion well worth while.
Stein had it right the first time: If you limit it to one category, your odds of drawing THAT tag go up, but your odds of drawing A tag are the same. Just think about it, same number of tags and same number of hunters. Divide total tags by total hunters and the odds simply cannot change unless you reduce hunters or increase tags. It's just playing games.
Draw from one bucket with 20 tickets in it or draw from each of 5 buckets with 100 tickets in each your odds are essentially the same. With a single bucket Your odds increase for that one bucket but are no higher overall. No the odds do not remain at 100:1 regardless of the number of buckets - thats just odds per bucket not odds overall.
I don't know how many different ways I can illustrate this but your math is just plain incorrect. The best thing I can tell you to do is test it out for yourself. Go get 5 pots with 10 marbles each (9 black and 1 white.) Pick one marble from each pot 10 different times and see how many times you actually draw a white marble. Then go to 1 pot with 2 marbles (1 white and 1 black). Pick from that pot 10 different times and see how often you get your white marble. Statistically you will draw WAY more white marbles in scenario 2 (1 pot) than scenario 1 (2 pots).
Maybe another way that can help you understand is to look at it this way. I'll use simple numbers for illustration purpose. Lets say there are 100 quality permits (in 5 different categories) and 10000 hunters applying. That would give you 20 tags per category. If every single hunter is allowed to apply for every single category, then there are 50000 applications for those 100 tags. Yes you get 5 applications, but your application only gives you 20:10,000 or 1:500 odds. Every single bucket gives you the same odds of drawing, 1:500. When a name is selected from pot 1, you have 1 name in the pot with 500 other names giving you 1:500 odds. When a name is selected from pot 2, you still only have 1 name in the pot with 500 other names, still giving you only 1:500 odds. It continues the same way through all of the pots.
But if you limit each hunter to applying for only one category, you now have 10,000 applications for 100 tags. You pick the pot you put your name in and now get 20:2,000 odds or 1:100 odds of drawing. In pot 1 you have no name, so no chance of drawing. Same in pots 2, 3, and 4. But in pot 5 (your chosen pot) you have 1:100 odds of drawing since there are 100 names in the pot and one of them is yours. Therefore you have improved your odds by 5x from the previous example.
I do think it should be "one moose tag in a lifetime." Not one bull moose tag and as many cow moose tags as you can draw. If you draw a cow moose tag, even as a youth, that's it, you should no longer be able to apply for a moose tag, period. It wouldn't change the odds much, but it doesn't seem right that some people get to hunt moose more than once in Washington, while most other people never get to hunt moose at all. There should only be one moose category, not an "any moose" and an "antlerless" category. Odds for a cow moose tag used to be reasonable, before they created the separate categories. Now it's easier to draw a bull tag than a cow tag.
I 100% agree with you. Any moose should be an OIL moose.
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 08:52:59 AM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 14, 2016, 09:00:16 AM
I do think it should be "one moose tag in a lifetime." Not one bull moose tag and as many cow moose tags as you can draw. If you draw a cow moose tag, even as a youth, that's it, you should no longer be able to apply for a moose tag, period. It wouldn't change the odds much, but it doesn't seem right that some people get to hunt moose more than once in Washington, while most other people never get to hunt moose at all. There should only be one moose category, not an "any moose" and an "antlerless" category. Odds for a cow moose tag used to be reasonable, before they created the separate categories. Now it's easier to draw a bull tag than a cow tag.
Sorry disagree on youth:
So your dad starts putting you in for a youth moose tag when you are 3, you draw a cow permit in the fourth grade as 9 year old. What excitement. Flash forward 10 years - " Sorry son, you can't ever apply to hunt bull moose in this state, dad messed you up with that cow in the 4th grade".
We need more youth opportunities not less - youth should Not be penalized for hunting as a youth imo.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 14, 2016, 09:02:51 AM
I don't know how many different ways I can illustrate this but your math is just plain incorrect.
Go get 5 pots with 10 marbles each (9 black and 1 white.) Pick one marble from each pot 10 different times and see how many times you actually draw a white marble. Then go to 1 pot with 2 marbles (1 white and 1 black).
Shane, that's what Stein, Magnum, me, and others are all trying to explain to you. :chuckle:
The pots are a great example.
Each of the 5 pots, after 10 draws, should average 1 white marble per pot. Each marble should get its turn, on average. Some will have zero, some will have 2, but you'll average 1 white marble per pot after 10 tries in each. Add them up, and white got drawn 5 times in aggregate.
In the single pot, after 10 draws, you should also get white 5 times.
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 09:05:23 AM
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 09:12:30 AM
Quote
That's just a pessimist viewpoint of it. There are goat and moose tags with odds around 1:300. The archery/muzzie moose tags are 1:100 I believe. Improve those by 20% and you are looking at 1:20 to 1:60 draw odds. Those odds actually give you a statistical chance of drawing a tag in your lifetime which makes this discussion well worth while.
Sorry man, your math just isn't right. If you have odds of 1:300 and improve them 20% you get 1:250 odds. You are simply calculating the odds wrong.
Make it even more simple, two buckets and two guys. If both put in for both draws, you have the following outcomes:
I draw both (1 way possible)
You draw both (1 way possible)
We each draw one tag (two ways possible)
There are 4 outcomes and you draw a tag in 3 of those outcomes so your chance of drawing A tag is 75%.
Now, change it to a rule where you can only put in for one bucket. Here are the outcomes:
You apply for A, I apply for B - you draw
You apply for A, I apply for A - you draw or I draw
You apply for B, I apply for A - you draw
You apply for B, I apply for B - you draw or I draw
So, there are 6 outcomes and you draw a tag in 4 which is 66%. Your odds actually go down because you lost the option of drawing two tags.
Post by: bobcat on June 14, 2016, 09:19:14 AM
I do think it should be "one moose tag in a lifetime." Not one bull moose tag and as many cow moose tags as you can draw. If you draw a cow moose tag, even as a youth, that's it, you should no longer be able to apply for a moose tag, period. It wouldn't change the odds much, but it doesn't seem right that some people get to hunt moose more than once in Washington, while most other people never get to hunt moose at all. There should only be one moose category, not an "any moose" and an "antlerless" category. Odds for a cow moose tag used to be reasonable, before they created the separate categories. Now it's easier to draw a bull tag than a cow tag.
Sorry disagree on youth:
So your dad starts putting you in for a youth moose tag when you are 3, you draw a cow permit in the fourth grade as 9 year old. What excitement. Flash forward 10 years - " Sorry son, you can't ever apply to hunt bull moose in this state, dad messed you up with that cow in the 4th grade".
We need more youth opportunities not less - youth should Not be penalized for hunting as a youth imo.
Okay, I'll give you that. The youth moose tag should not count.
Post by: Curly on June 14, 2016, 09:19:45 AM
Let the youth have cow elk and doe permits. That will be good enough to get them excited about hunting. :twocents: (Probably the first and only time I've ever agreed with WApatriot). :)
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 14, 2016, 09:23:17 AM
But if you limit each hunter to applying for only one category, you now have 10,000 applications for 100 tags. You pick the pot you put your name in and now get 20:2,000 odds or 1:100 odds of drawing.
You forgot there are only 20 tags in that single category not 100.
Post by: bobcat on June 14, 2016, 09:24:41 AM
Youth can apply along with everyone else for OIL. They don't need a separate category. There is just too few OIL permits to go around trying to add several categories to the limited amount of permits.
Let the youth have cow elk and doe permits. That will be good enough to get them excited about hunting. :twocents: (Probably the first and only time I've ever agreed with WApatriot). :)
I could go along with that too. I'm not sure there needs to be a separate youth category for moose. But I'm sure building up points for my daughters in that category! So I'm not sure how they could just do away with it, after people have money invested in the system. Same with all the other categories. I don't like it but I really don't want the system to be changed again. The only change I favor is a waiting period after drawing a permit.
Post by: Katmai Guy on June 14, 2016, 09:27:07 AM
Post by: Curly on June 14, 2016, 09:31:13 AM
Youth can apply along with everyone else for OIL. They don't need a separate category. There is just too few OIL permits to go around trying to add several categories to the limited amount of permits.
Let the youth have cow elk and doe permits. That will be good enough to get them excited about hunting. :twocents: (Probably the first and only time I've ever agreed with WApatriot). :)
I could go along with that too. I'm not sure there needs to be a separate youth category for moose. But I'm sure building up points for my daughters in that category! So I'm not sure how they could just do away with it, after people have money invested in the system. Same with all the other categories. I don't like it but I really don't want the system to be changed again. The only change I favor is a waiting period after drawing a permit.
Yeah. No going back now. They implemented the category system and it is here to stay. Can't really get rid of the categories or points now without a huge backlash. I'd be buying points for my kids too if I had any.
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 09:31:46 AM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 14, 2016, 09:34:33 AM
WAcoueshunter, what everybody is forgetting is that the draw is completely RANDOM, you could pull black marbles 5000 times before a white comes up or you could pull white 7 times before a black is pulled. RANDOM. The scenario you portrait is in a perfect world, not random.
I don't think anyone is forgetting that. That's why we reference "on average" over and over again. We're talking odds, not a guaranteed outcome. Over a large enough sample size, the actual results will get closer and closer to the calculated odds. But in a small sample size, there's a reason why the guy with 1 point occasionally draws a sheep tag.
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 09:46:41 AM
Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year. What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?
Post by: kentrek on June 14, 2016, 09:56:59 AM
Here is something depressing...
Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year. What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?
60 people if its only one tag...lots of people in idaho never draw
I've always thought giving out more tags would help out the most....make more elk and deer areas....give out a single tag per deer area for an early rifle hunt (especially westside) same with archery during the rut...make some of these elk areas smaller and open more areas that cant be hunted for both deer an elk
Divide the oils into weapon choices and apply tags accordingly with how many critters need to be killed and success rates of the weapon/area
How many here would put in for sheep with a bow :dunno:
Seems something along this would have a pretty decent impact on things with out destroying what people have been saving up for half there life
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 14, 2016, 09:58:41 AM
Here is something depressing...
Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year. What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?
44
Post by: Slow-1 on June 14, 2016, 10:01:29 AM
30+ years with out drawing changes a point of view.
$13 per application x 5 = $65 you purchase one application for 65$ that has one hunt slot for what every you want and, 4 ghost point slots for what every you want.
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 10:04:38 AM
Here is something depressing...
Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year. What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?
60 people of its only one tag
Yep, so if you want a 50/50 chance at the tag in your life, the question is how do we reduce the number of people that apply to 60?
For goats, the least popular tag has 996 applicants. You need to reduce that by 94%. That's the whole point, you need absolutely brutal reductions in applicants.
Same tag, if you want a 25% chance in your life you still need to reduce applicants by 87%.
If you only want a 10% chance in your life, you need to reduce applicants by 70%
And that is the least popular goat tag.
Post by: Curly on June 14, 2016, 10:05:16 AM
1. Revise the state wolf plan to delist wolves where the feds allow delisting.
2. Encourage coyote hunting tournaments.
3. Bring back baiting and hunting with hounds for bears.
4. Start a general spring bear season for the entire state.
5. Increase cougar quotas in all GMU's.
The above should help reduce predators and thus increase the amount of OIL species and thus increase the number of permits allocated.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 14, 2016, 10:11:40 AM
:yeah:Here is something depressing...
Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year. What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?
44
Post by: kentrek on June 14, 2016, 10:14:50 AM
Here is something depressing...
Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year. What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?
60 people of its only one tag
Yep, so if you want a 50/50 chance at the tag in your life, the question is how do we reduce the number of people that apply to 60?
For goats, the least popular tag has 996 applicants. You need to reduce that by 94%. That's the whole point, you need absolutely brutal reductions in applicants.
Same tag, if you want a 25% chance in your life you still need to reduce applicants by 87%.
If you only want a 10% chance in your life, you need to reduce applicants by 70%
And that is the least popular goat tag.
This is why we have a bonus points and square the additional point
I think going to an idaho system now is a mute point...people with 20 pluss points would never wana go for it...
I do kind of like the idea of splitting the categorys up tho....i really don't wana draw more then one tag in a year ! Between that and more tags we could get somewhere
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 10:26:20 AM
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 10:31:10 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 14, 2016, 10:33:00 AM
No more point creep you got what you got. If anything it would be beneficial to people with more points. It would essential make the cost be 250 for new applicant and pro rated for people who have already been applying. And still square the points
Your solution is to price people out of the competition?
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 10:35:38 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 14, 2016, 10:38:28 AM
Yup in a way that is fair to people who have been applying for a long time.
Why stop at $250 then?
Why not make it $1000 per category, or maybe $2500, that would surely eliminate all but the most deserving yes?
Post by: shanevg on June 14, 2016, 10:41:22 AM
I don't know how many different ways I can illustrate this but your math is just plain incorrect.
Go get 5 pots with 10 marbles each (9 black and 1 white.) Pick one marble from each pot 10 different times and see how many times you actually draw a white marble. Then go to 1 pot with 2 marbles (1 white and 1 black).
Shane, that's what Stein, Magnum, me, and others are all trying to explain to you. :chuckle:
The pots are a great example.
Each of the 5 pots, after 10 draws, should average 1 white marble per pot. Each marble should get its turn, on average. Some will have zero, some will have 2, but you'll average 1 white marble per pot after 10 tries in each. Add them up, and white got drawn 5 times in aggregate.
In the single pot, after 10 draws, you should also get white 5 times.
I'm going to keep trying on this but I'm starting to think I won't be able to convince you unless I'm sitting in front of you actually showing you concrete examples. :chuckle:
Let's just do the map. We have 10 hunters, each of them with 1 marble. Each hunter puts a marble in each of the pots. That gives you five pots each with 10 marbles (1 white, 9 black.) That means 5 white marbles, 45 black marbles. That means 5:50 chance of drawing a white marble. 5/50 = 1:10.
Now make everyone choose which pot to put their marble in. Hunter A&B put their marbles in pot 1. Hunters C&D in pot 2. Hunters E&F in pot 3. Hunters G&H in pot 4. You and hunter I in pot 5. Even though there is only 1 white marble out of 10 total marbles, each pot only has 2 marbles. You no longer care what happens in pots 1-4, you only care about pot 5 where there is 1 white marble and 1 black. You have a 1:2 odd of getting drawn as opposed to a 5/50 odd in the current system.
But if you limit each hunter to applying for only one category, you now have 10,000 applications for 100 tags. You pick the pot you put your name in and now get 20:2,000 odds or 1:100 odds of drawing.
You forgot there are only 20 tags in that single category not 100.
My math directly accounts for that in the 20/2,000 (one fifth the total number of tags divided by one fifth the total number of applicants.) 20/2,000 = 1:100 odds.
Here is something depressing...
Say you want a 50% chance of drawing a tag in 30 years of applying and the draw is totally random with no bonus points and the same number of people apply every year. What is the maximum amount of people that could apply for the tag and still give you 50% chance of drawing at least once in 30 years of trying?
60 people of its only one tag
Yep, so if you want a 50/50 chance at the tag in your life, the question is how do we reduce the number of people that apply to 60?
For goats, the least popular tag has 996 applicants. You need to reduce that by 94%. That's the whole point, you need absolutely brutal reductions in applicants.
Same tag, if you want a 25% chance in your life you still need to reduce applicants by 87%.
If you only want a 10% chance in your life, you need to reduce applicants by 70%
And that is the least popular goat tag.
That's actually not depressing at all because that is exactly what the system Pope proposed is trying to achieve.
Keep in mind that when we apply for an OIL hunt, we each get 4 choices. If we limited everyone to a single hunt choice within their species of choice, you would cut down the number of applicants for each hunt to roughly 25% of that or roughly 250 applicants for the goat tag you referred to. Then by limiting everyone to choosing one of 5 categories (elk/deer/sheep/moose/goat), you reduce that number to 20% of the 250 which would leave 50 applicants for that particular tag. Combine that with the fact that the hunt you are referring to (Avalanche Gorge) has 3 tags and you are giving 3 tags to 50 applicants. Which is EXACTLY the entire point of refining the draw system.
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 10:41:36 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 14, 2016, 10:45:28 AM
I think 250 would be the sweet spot for the state maximizing revenue. I'd depends on the odds but I can spend 250 for a 1 in 10 chance in Idaho for moose.
So basically it should be based on what you are comfortable and can afford paying, those that can't afford $250 are simply left out, got it. :tup:
Post by: WAPatriot on June 14, 2016, 10:48:06 AM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 14, 2016, 11:18:12 AM
However that isn't the case. Why? Because your odds of winning at the first bucket are 10%. But wait - you aren't done, you get to keep playing four more times so your odds of winning increase. Yes its 10% per bucket but there is actually a 41% chance you will draw a white marble overall from five buckets.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 14, 2016, 11:35:50 AM
Lets just skip the whole draw thing - open up online bidding for every single tag. Let supply and demand work out what people are actually willing to pay. :chuckle:I think 250 would be the sweet spot for the state maximizing revenue. I'd depends on the odds but I can spend 250 for a 1 in 10 chance in Idaho for moose.
So basically it should be based on what you are comfortable and can afford paying, those that can't afford $250 are simply left out, got it. :tup:
While I loathe the actual idea of just selling off all the hunting opportunities in the state - it would be kind of interesting to see what tags would sell for...could I pick up a cow tag for $300? Oh look - a Dayton quality bull tag for $2800 and the auction ends in 3 minutes :yike:
Post by: 724wd on June 14, 2016, 11:37:57 AM
You are not guaranteed a tag! bummer you don't draw, but you have the opportunity every year!
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 14, 2016, 11:38:46 AM
Shane - I get your point, it seems reasonable that if you put one white marble and 9 black marbles in each of five buckets that the odds of drawing the white marble should be the same from each bucket, and from the total of each of the buckets just as if they were all dumped in one bucket - 5:50 or 10%.willys has it right. The odds stack a bit but not to the extent of just adding together. My other post wasn't quite correct. Doesn't change my opinion tho. I still say one oil or deer/elk. And one choice each. :twocents:
However that isn't the case. Why? Because your odds of winning at the first bucket are 10%. But wait - you aren't done, you get to keep playing four more times so your odds of winning increase. Yes its 10% per bucket but there is actually a 41% chance you will draw a white marble overall from five buckets.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 14, 2016, 11:39:54 AM
IT'S. A. LOTTERY.:tup:
You are not guaranteed a tag! bummer you don't draw, but you have the opportunity every year!
Post by: shanevg on June 14, 2016, 11:55:12 AM
Shane - I get your point, it seems reasonable that if you put one white marble and 9 black marbles in each of five buckets that the odds of drawing the white marble should be the same from each bucket, and from the total of each of the buckets just as if they were all dumped in one bucket - 5:50 or 10%.willys has it right. The odds stack a bit but not to the extent of just adding together. My other post wasn't quite correct. Doesn't change my opinion tho. I still say one oil or deer/elk. And one choice each. :twocents:
However that isn't the case. Why? Because your odds of winning at the first bucket are 10%. But wait - you aren't done, you get to keep playing four more times so your odds of winning increase. Yes its 10% per bucket but there is actually a 41% chance you will draw a white marble overall from five buckets.
Willy would be partially right if all the pots were added together into one giant pot. You would have 5 marbles out of 50 (10% draw odds.) If the first marble picked is a black marble, you would then have 5/49 (10.2% draw odds). If the second marble picked is also black you would now have 5/48 (10.42% draw odds). If the third marble picked is also black you would now have 5/47 (10.64% draw odds.) If the fourth marble picked is also black, you would now have 5/46 (10.87% draw odds).
In no situation can you create 41% draw odds with 5 out of 50 marbles unless you eliminate 39 of the black marbles altogether giving you 5/11 (45.45% draw odds.)
But the 5 pots are not all added together. They are mutually exclusive. The drawing results in pot one have no impact in the drawing results in pot 2. So you have a 10% chance of drawing in pot 1. Whether you draw or don't draw does not change the fact that you still have a 10% chance of drawing again in pot 2.
Post by: NoBark on June 14, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 12:08:34 PM
Quote
Let's just do the map. We have 10 hunters, each of them with 1 marble. Each hunter puts a marble in each of the pots. That gives you five pots each with 10 marbles (1 white, 9 black.) That means 5 white marbles, 45 black marbles. That means 5:50 chance of drawing a white marble. 5/50 = 1:10.
Man, I'll try one more time. Your math is simply wrong.
10 guys, 5 pots, each enters every pot. Draw pot 1, you have a 10% chance. Draw pot 2, you have a 10% chance. .... .... Draw pot 10, you have a 10% chance. Add them all up and you have a 50% chance of drawing at least once. You ran the math for dumping all marbles into one pot and drawing once. Totally different scenario.
According to your math, if you had 1,000,000 pots each with 10 names, the chance of getting drawn from any of the pots would be 10%!? It is simply not mathematically correct the way you are calculating the odds.
Back to the goat tags, there are 18 regular tags and 20,440 people applied (2015). Say you trim that by 80% if you have to pick one of 5. You then would have 4088 apply for the same 18 tags. Your odds would go from 0.09% to 0.44% each year. Again, I hold that doesn't move the needle even if you ignore you had to give up a chance at the other 4 tags for your entire life.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 14, 2016, 12:18:27 PM
Gotta go with Shane on this one. Pot 1 has ) impact on the others and Stats don't add as you go. you're stuck with 1:10 for every single pot even if there were 100 pots.
Assume Two guys - 100 pots. First guy gets one chance. Second guy gets to pick from each of the 100 pots. You think both guys have same chance of drawing a white marble ?
( Its just the probablility formula: percent odds of losing on one bucket raised to the power of number of buckets equals total odds of losing overall. i.e. 90% to the 5th power = 59% chance losing. 100-59% = 41% chance of winning overall)
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 12:22:39 PM
Gotta go with Shane on this one. Pot 1 has ) impact on the others and Stats don't add as you go. you're stuck with 1:10 for every single pot even if there were 100 pots.
So, if you flip a coin 1,000,000 times, the odds of coming up with at least one tail in any of those flips is only 50%? The odds absolutely add as you go, if not, the odds of getting a tails any time in a billion flips would still be 50%.
You guys are forgetting about all the other draws. If you draw in only one, you give up four other draws. Your odds for the one go up and the odds for the other 4 go to zero. On average, you haven't improved your odds of drawing a tag.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 14, 2016, 12:36:04 PM
No one is questioning that they are mutually exclusive. My draw here in WA has no effect on my odds in Montana. But I have much better total odds of drawing a single tag anywhere in any given year if I'm entered in 25 draws versus just one.
Here's another way to look at it. Let's again say I just want a single tag, don't care which one. First draw is goat, odds are 1:100. Second draw is a second deer tag on Decatur Island, and there are more tags available than applicants, meaning my odds are 100%. So what are my odds of drawing a single tag between the two of them? Don't the odds in the second draw impact the aggregate odds of all my applications when you combine them together?
Post by: shanevg on June 14, 2016, 12:40:58 PM
Gotta go with Shane on this one. Pot 1 has ) impact on the others and Stats don't add as you go. you're stuck with 1:10 for every single pot even if there were 100 pots.
So, if you flip a coin 1,000,000 times, the odds of coming up with at least one tail in any of those flips is only 50%? The odds absolutely add as you go, if not, the odds of getting a tails any time in a billion flips would still be 50%.
You guys are forgetting about all the other draws. If you draw in only one, you give up four other draws. Your odds for the one go up and the odds for the other 4 go to zero. On average, you haven't improved your odds of drawing a tag.
Gotta go with Shane on this one. Pot 1 has ) impact on the others and Stats don't add as you go. you're stuck with 1:10 for every single pot even if there were 100 pots.
Assume Two guys - 100 pots. First guy gets one chance. Second guy gets to pick from each of the 100 pots. You think both guys have same chance of drawing a white marble ?
( Its just the probablility formula: percent odds of losing on one bucket raised to the power of number of buckets equals total odds of losing overall. i.e. 90% to the 5th power = 59% chance losing. 100-59% = 41% chance of winning overall)
You are both right of course the odds of the same event happening 5 times in a row are not the same as that event happening one time. That is the problem with using small numbers to simplify something that happens with big numbers.
In the 10 marbles in one pot scenario, the chance of drawing a black marble in pot 1 is 90%. Same for pots 2-5. But the odds of having the same result (a black marble) on all 5 instances is 90% to the fifth power or 59%. (No I see where you go the 41% chance we draw a white marble from.)
Even in that instance, my scenario of choosing a single pot is better for you as each pot would only have 2 marbles. The pot with your white marble would have 1 black and 1 white marble. Ultimately you get a 9% swing by being forced to choose a pot as opposed to allowing everyone to play all 5 pots.
Let's just do the math. We have 10 hunters, each of them with 1 marble. Each hunter puts a marble in each of the pots. That gives you five pots each with 10 marbles (1 white, 9 black.) That means 5 white marbles, 45 black marbles. That means 5:50 chance of drawing a white marble. 5/50 = 1:10.
Now make everyone choose which pot to put their marble in. Hunter A&B put their marbles in pot 1. Hunters C&D in pot 2. Hunters E&F in pot 3. Hunters G&H in pot 4. You and hunter I in pot 5. Even though there is only 1 white marble out of 10 total marbles, each pot only has 2 marbles. You no longer care what happens in pots 1-4, you only care about pot 5 where there is 1 white marble and 1 black. You have a 1:2 odd of getting drawn as opposed to a 5/50 odd in the current system.
The problem is we aren't dealing with 10% odds of getting drawn, we are dealing with 0.01% odds (or worse) of getting drawn. As the numbers get bigger, the advantage of fewer applicants is exponentially larger since we are no longer asking "what are the chances that the 90% probability happens 5 times in a row? We are asking: "what are the chances that the 99.99% probability happens 5 times in a row?" The end result is even more dramatic in the statistical advantage to every individual by limiting the number of pots.
Post by: bobcat on June 14, 2016, 12:42:52 PM
One of the only things I've seen mentioned that would work is to increase the cost. If it was $100 to apply, instead of $13.70, I guarantee that wouid decrease the number of applicants.
Post by: shanevg on June 14, 2016, 12:44:49 PM
Like has already been said- if the number of applicants and the number of tags stays the same, the odds will stay the same, no matter how you manipulate the process.
I agree entirely. Popes proposal would reduce the number of applicants by 80% (by not allowing each hunter to apply 5 times) and keep the tag numbers the same.
Post by: Curly on June 14, 2016, 12:49:33 PM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 14, 2016, 01:00:09 PM
Like has already been said- if the number of applicants and the number of tags stays the same, the odds will stay the same, no matter how you manipulate the process.
I agree entirely. Popes proposal would reduce the number of applicants by 80% (by not allowing each hunter to apply 5 times) and keep the tag numbers the same.
For one species, that is true. You get better odds for one species, and zero odds for the rest. Works great for guys that have already drawn one or two OILs and/or those guys that are single species focused.
Increased odds for some come out of someone else's pocket, it's a zero sum game.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 14, 2016, 01:09:30 PM
thats the point. Increase odds for what a person really wants to hunt. I would most likely stick with deer and elk in WA until I draw and kill a good bull elk. Then re evaluate. Only oil I really care about is moose but I still apply for and worsen everyone's odds in sheep and goat because I can. Thus taking chances away from guys that really want sheep and goat.Like has already been said- if the number of applicants and the number of tags stays the same, the odds will stay the same, no matter how you manipulate the process.
I agree entirely. Popes proposal would reduce the number of applicants by 80% (by not allowing each hunter to apply 5 times) and keep the tag numbers the same.
For one species, that is true. You get better odds for one species, and zero odds for the rest. Works great for guys that have already drawn one or two OILs and/or those guys that are single species focused.
Increased odds for some come out of someone else's pocket, it's a zero sum game.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 14, 2016, 01:27:27 PM
BOOM!!!! Exactly!thats the point. Increase odds for what a person really wants to hunt. I would most likely stick with deer and elk in WA until I draw and kill a good bull elk. Then re evaluate. Only oil I really care about is moose but I still apply for and worsen everyone's odds in sheep and goat because I can. Thus taking chances away from guys that really want sheep and goat.Like has already been said- if the number of applicants and the number of tags stays the same, the odds will stay the same, no matter how you manipulate the process.
I agree entirely. Popes proposal would reduce the number of applicants by 80% (by not allowing each hunter to apply 5 times) and keep the tag numbers the same.
For one species, that is true. You get better odds for one species, and zero odds for the rest. Works great for guys that have already drawn one or two OILs and/or those guys that are single species focused.
Increased odds for some come out of someone else's pocket, it's a zero sum game.
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 01:37:36 PM
10,000 hunters. Scenario A is pick one bucket and Scenario B is enter all 5 drawings. Assume even spread in Scenario A (2,000 per bucket)
Scenario A is easy, you enter your bucket where there are 2,000 total names. You have 1/2,000 chance of drawing which is .05%.
In Scenario B, you have your name in each of five buckets with each bucket having 10,000 names. There are five potential outcomes:
You win 0 tags
You win 1 tag
You win 2 tags
You win 3 tags
You win 4 tags
You win 5 tags
The chance of winning zero tags is pretty easy to calculate, you have to lose draw 1, then lose draw 2, then lose draw 3, then lose draw 4, then lose draw 5 (something I have expertise in). The odds of this are 9,999/10,000^5, everyone should agree here. So, you have 99.95% chance of losing all 5 draws.
Then, it is straight forward to see that if you don't lose every draw, you have won at least one. So, 1-99.95% = 0.05% chance of winning at least one draw. Same odds of winning with the one bucket draw.
Make it even simpler, there are 5 tags / 10,000 hunters = 0.05% will draw.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 14, 2016, 01:40:24 PM
Sure would be interesting to see how that plays out initially, and how it might change over time. Sheep are the most expensive to get elsewhere, my guess is those odds would still be very long. Goat odds would be better, but still long enough with the limited number of tags that you'd still be lucky to draw in your lifetime. I think most folks would quickly give up deer, there's enough good OTC and out of state options. Probably enough moose tags that I bet you could count on drawing a moose at some point.
Post by: Stein on June 14, 2016, 02:13:23 PM
Enter all draws scenario:
Chance of winning Moose Draw: 1/10,000 = 0.01%
Chance of winning Goat Draw: 1/10,000 = 0.01%
Chance of winning Sheep Draw: 1/10,000 = 0.01%
Chance of winning Elk Draw: 1/10,000 = 0.01%
Chance of winning Deer Draw: 1/10,000 = 0.01%
Enter one draw scenario:
Chance of Winning Moose Draw: 1/2,000 = 0.05%
So, it's only good if you really want a moose and don't care about the rest.
But, the odds aren't equal. Here is a more realistic scenario. Say there are three draws, Moose with a 1% chance, Bull with a 5% chance and a doe tag with a 30% chance.
If you enter all three:
Moose 1%
Bull 5%
Doe 30%
Odds of drawing at least 1 would be 34% (using my previous post method)
Say you have to pick one and it evenly splits. Here would be your odds (again, you only get one of the tags below):
Moose 5%
Bull 25%
Doe 100%
Your odds would go up if you entered the doe draw, but down if you entered either of the two harder to draw ones. It is fairly safe to say if this happened, it wouldn't split evenly. Say the split for applications is 50% doe, 35% bull and 15% moose, then the odds for each group would be:
Moose 7%
Bull 14%
Doe 60%
Again, similar result. This method works better for those that have a preference on what tag they draw (I think most of us do). The moose guy would be happy his odds went up 700% and I'm happy my doe odds doubled. It isn't a free lunch though, we both give up any chance of drawing the other two tags.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 14, 2016, 03:30:03 PM
Post by: 724wd on June 14, 2016, 04:12:16 PM
We will do like we always do when fur and feathers puts it to us......complain on huntwa and continue to pay up :chuckle: :twocents:
I always wonder if the same people are urinated and moaning because they haven't won the Powerball? I mean, they REALLY want it, and have bought tickets forever. Surely they DESERVE to win, right? :rolleyes: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on June 14, 2016, 04:15:18 PM
We will do like we always do when fur and feathers puts it to us......complain on huntwa and continue to pay up :chuckle: :twocents:
I always wonder if the same people are urinated and moaning because they haven't won the Powerball? I mean, they REALLY want it, and have bought tickets forever. Surely they DESERVE to win, right? :rolleyes: :chuckle: :chuckle:
They need to increase the cost of the tickets to eliminate participants.
Post by: Bushcraft on June 14, 2016, 04:32:11 PM
I would love to see the system modified such that anyone can buy a point for each of the existing categories, but only apply for one specific permit. Nearly everyone would continue to buy hamburger-cost points for each species, but it dramatically increases the odds for those that REALLY want to hunt a particular species in a particular unit with a particular weapon. People would still pay to play (or pay to eventually play vis a vis points), WDFW would get their money, and the people that really want to go after a particular species in a particular area with a particular weapon aren’t competing odds-wise for somebody that – until they are actually confronted with an OIL or quality draw tag, really don’t give a rat’s backside.
For example, it’s no great secret that I want to go goat hunting, and I want the opportunity to go after a nice representative billy here in WA bad enough to make it a priority in my hunting life, and I devote a considerable amount of time, money and energy towards the conservation of their species (and all the others), and I try to stay in shape enough year around to go after them thereby leaving nothing to chance should I get the green light. I think about that opportunity every single day. Contrast that level of desire and interest with a couch potato lard-ass who doesn’t do a damn thing for mountain goats (or any other species for that matter!) but blindly throws his $6 in the kitty every year. If he does win a special permit for a goat he’s just going to stagger out to the easiest vantage and gut shoot the first nanny he sees off a cliff, thereby screwing the rest of us that want more goat tags for years to come. From my perspective, the lard-ass that doesn't really care up until the point that he wins the OIL $6 draw absolutely doesn’t deserve it. Myself and other guys absolutely deserve a chance.
WDFW needs to put a system in place to award those that really want it vs. those that don’t. Heck, I’d be all for an additional layer of points granted to those that step up and contribute their time and energy to species centric conservation projects. That way, more people would be incentivized to get involved do something constructive for our wild places and wild things. We are incentivized to turn in poachers after the damage is done and animals are dead, why not incentivize people to take an active part in growing our living big game populations?
Regards,
Allen
Post by: trophyhunt on June 14, 2016, 04:40:32 PM
For starters, WDFW isn’t going to change anything if it decreases their special permit cash cow.excluding your volunteer points, this is basically what Shawn is proposing. Except he's saying you can pick the oil draws or the deer/elk draws. I like your idea of narrowing it down to a single choice in the oil tags!
I would love to see the system modified such that anyone can buy a point for each of the existing categories, but only apply for one specific permit. Nearly everyone would continue to buy hamburger-cost points for each species, but it dramatically increases the odds for those that REALLY want to hunt a particular species in a particular unit with a particular weapon. People would still pay to play (or pay to eventually play vis a vis points), WDFW would get their money, and the people that really want to go after a particular species in a particular area with a particular weapon aren’t competing odds-wise for somebody that – until they are actually confronted with an OIL or quality draw tag, really don’t give a rat’s backside.
For example, it’s no great secret that I want to go goat hunting, and I want the opportunity to go after a nice representative billy here in WA bad enough to make it a priority in my hunting life, and I devote a considerable amount of time, money and energy towards the conservation of their species (and all the others), and I try to stay in shape enough year around to go after them thereby leaving nothing to chance should I get the green light. I think about that opportunity every single day. Contrast that level of desire and interest with a couch potato lard-ass who doesn’t do a damn thing for mountain goats (or any other species for that matter!) but blindly throws his $6 in the kitty every year. If he does win a special permit for a goat he’s just going to stagger out to the easiest vantage and gut shoot the first nanny he sees off a cliff, thereby screwing the rest of us that want more goat tags for years to come. From my perspective, the lard-ass that doesn't really care up until the point that he wins the OIL $6 draw absolutely doesn’t deserve it. Myself and other guys absolutely deserve a chance.
WDFW needs to put a system in place to award those that really want it vs. those that don’t. Heck, I’d be all for an additional layer of points granted to those that step up and contribute their time and energy to species centric conservation projects. That way, more people would be incentivized to get involved do something constructive for our wild places and wild things.
Regards,
Allen
Post by: idahohuntr on June 14, 2016, 05:19:13 PM
From my perspective, the lard-ass that doesn't really care up until the point that he wins the OIL $6 draw absolutely doesn’t deserve it. Myself and other guys absolutely deserve a chance.Perhaps you could send wdfw a list of people you feel deserve OIL tags...everybody needs something to wipe their backside with. :rolleyes:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 14, 2016, 05:49:49 PM
This would increase wdfw revenues keeping them happy, Still give Everyone a chance to draw ( albeit at 25% worse odds but 1:100 or 1:133 so what) and those that really want to pony up can increase their odds at a cost. :dunno: Maybe just another way to raise costs?
Post by: Duckslayer89 on June 14, 2016, 05:53:30 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 14, 2016, 06:04:15 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 14, 2016, 06:05:06 PM
:bdid: raising prices for everything? How about increasing permit numbersYou can't increase tag numbers enough to affect the draw odds in any significant way without critically diminishing herd populations.
Post by: deerdog on June 14, 2016, 06:10:58 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 14, 2016, 06:14:27 PM
Perhaps reserve 20% of the permits for raffle at say $89 per species/area ( i.e huckleberry Any Moose)No more raffles! Keep it in random draws.
This would increase wdfw revenues keeping them happy, Still give Everyone a chance to draw ( albeit at 25% worse odds but 1:100 or 1:133 so what) and those that really want to pony up can increase their odds at a cost. :dunno: Maybe just another way to raise costs?
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 14, 2016, 06:30:10 PM
Perhaps reserve 20% of the permits for raffle at say $89 per species/area ( i.e huckleberry Any Moose)No more raffles! Keep it in random draws.
This would increase wdfw revenues keeping them happy, Still give Everyone a chance to draw ( albeit at 25% worse odds but 1:100 or 1:133 so what) and those that really want to pony up can increase their odds at a cost. :dunno: Maybe just another way to raise costs?
U sure? I heard there was a big raffle bull taken by yakima this year.... :chuckle:
Post by: lhrbull on June 14, 2016, 06:33:46 PM
moose
sheep
elk
goat
deer
if you took away four species that would cut down on compotation for the few tags available
Post by: kentrek on June 14, 2016, 06:35:09 PM
:bdid: raising prices for everything? How about increasing permit numbersYou can't increase tag numbers enough to affect the draw odds in any significant way without critically diminishing herd populations.
That's where I respectfully disagree and think theres room for improvement....not with all species or areas obviously but every tag helps ! Even if it's something like a traditional archery tag (super low success rates) I think it's worth it to get creative and get more tags out there that the animals can support
Post by: X-Force on June 14, 2016, 06:50:10 PM
Post by: 724wd on June 14, 2016, 07:48:34 PM
How about just leaving it how it is? Why try to fix what isn't broken?
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: JJB11B on June 14, 2016, 07:50:28 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on June 14, 2016, 08:04:21 PM
From my perspective, the lard-ass that doesn't really care up until the point that he wins the OIL $6 draw absolutely doesn’t deserve it. Myself and other guys absolutely deserve a chance.Perhaps you could send wdfw a list of people you feel deserve OIL tags...everybody needs something to wipe their backside with. :rolleyes:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Given the fact that you selectively quoted what I said, I'm guessing you entirely missed my point.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 17, 2016, 09:43:21 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 17, 2016, 09:46:56 AM
When the state takes into account permits I know they consider lots of variables herd health, weapon, season, etc. But do they take into account permit participation?Yes
Post by: Miles on June 17, 2016, 11:30:08 AM
Lol... Thick sarcasm above for the slower folks.
Post by: KDB on June 18, 2016, 09:21:25 AM
Post by: msg on June 20, 2016, 04:45:30 PM
Post by: Miles on June 20, 2016, 04:58:15 PM
I just laughed and continued on with what I was doing. What some people believe just amazes me.
Post by: msg on June 22, 2016, 10:15:48 AM
Post by: white121 on June 22, 2016, 03:39:37 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 22, 2016, 05:38:42 PM
Post by: stew pidasso on June 22, 2016, 07:31:53 PM
"The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
I like having a chance at both oil and quality draws at the same time. I agree that the odds would be better. But look at it from the prospective of applicants with fewer pts than you. They would still have to draw against guys with max pts and probably not switch categories until they drew their favorite. It would benefit guys like you more though in my opinion. Trophy how many times have you chosen pts option if you don't mind answering, in quality bull only?
Post by: trophyhunt on June 22, 2016, 07:38:50 PM
I don't mind, last year was the first time I ghost pointed quality elk. I had 20 points for the bull permit and thought it was a slam dunk. I only put in for quality elk other than that when it comes to the elk category. I always put in for oil and quality deer, ghost point cow and buck. To add, I also like having the option to put in for all permits each year, but I'd be willing to try the other option if it helps the odds of drawing over all."The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
I like having a chance at both oil and quality draws at the same time. I agree that the odds would be better. But look at it from the prospective of applicants with fewer pts than you. They would still have to draw against guys with max pts and probably not switch categories until they drew their favorite. It would benefit guys like you more though in my opinion. Trophy how many times have you chosen pts option if you don't mind answering, in quality bull only?
Post by: stew pidasso on June 22, 2016, 08:26:32 PM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 23, 2016, 09:38:42 AM
"The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
I can read it slowly, or backwards, or in pig latin...I still don't see how it's a no brainer. You're forcing those who have been patient and built significant points in all categories to choose. They didn't get lucky along the way, they didn't cave and apply for something middle of the road. They stuck it out across the board for 20+ years. Right now, they CAN expect to draw a high end deer and/or elk tag at some point, AND still have a decent chance at an OIL. But the change would be forcing them to choose a deer/elk tag in exchange for 0% chance at OIL. Or keep their OIL dreams, but give up that eventual Dayton or Entiat tag. More or less, all to benefit the single species guys and guys who already cashed in their deer/elk quality points (for full disclosure, I'm in the latter camp). That may be an okay trade off on the whole, but no question there will be winners and losers. Just no way to change mid-stream and make things fair for everyone.
Post by: kentrek on June 23, 2016, 09:42:56 AM
"The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
I can read it slowly, or backwards, or in pig latin...I still don't see how it's a no brainer. You're forcing those who have been patient and built significant points in all categories to choose. They didn't get lucky along the way, they didn't cave and apply for something middle of the road. They stuck it out across the board for 20+ years. Right now, they CAN expect to draw a high end deer and/or elk tag at some point, AND still have a decent chance at an OIL. But the change would be forcing them to choose a deer/elk tag in exchange for 0% chance at OIL. Or keep their OIL dreams, but give up that eventual Dayton or Entiat tag. More or less, all to benefit the single species guys and guys who already cashed in their deer/elk quality points (for full disclosure, I'm in the latter camp). That may be an okay trade off on the whole, but no question there will be winners and losers. Just no way to change mid-stream and make things fair for everyone.
:yeah:
Post by: trophyhunt on June 23, 2016, 10:11:10 AM
Post by: msg on June 23, 2016, 10:51:02 AM
Post by: Katmai Guy on June 23, 2016, 11:19:57 AM
Post by: Katmai Guy on June 23, 2016, 11:28:03 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 23, 2016, 11:53:12 AM
THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN COVERED IN SOME OF THE PAST PAGES BUT DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK. WHAT IF INSTEAD OF THE ONE LOW NUMBER PER PERSON, USE THE NUMBER OF SQUARED POINTS TO BE DRAWN FOR THE PERMIT?WHAT! WE CANNOT HEAR YOU! :chuckle: I like that idea a lot and I think it would make way more sense then using a ridiculous amount to draw from. :tup:
Post by: Bullkllr on June 23, 2016, 11:56:11 AM
THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN COVERED IN SOME OF THE PAST PAGES BUT DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK. WHAT IF INSTEAD OF THE ONE LOW NUMBER PER PERSON, USE THE NUMBER OF SQUARED POINTS TO BE DRAWN FOR THE PERMIT?That is already happening. Points are squared, so 10 points = 100 chances in the hat. 100 random numbers are generated, but only the lowest of those numbers is used for tag allotment (it's the only one that would matter). More points = more chance for a low number.
Post by: bobcat on June 23, 2016, 11:56:27 AM
THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN COVERED IN SOME OF THE PAST PAGES BUT DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK. WHAT IF INSTEAD OF THE ONE LOW NUMBER PER PERSON, USE THE NUMBER OF SQUARED POINTS TO BE DRAWN FOR THE PERMIT?WHAT! WE CANNOT HEAR YOU! :chuckle: I like that idea a lot and I think it would make way more sense then using a ridiculous amount to draw from. :tup:
What are you talking about? The points ARE squared. That's how it works. So someone with 20 points has 400 chances of getting a low number and a person with 1 point only has 1 chance.
Post by: Katmai Guy on June 23, 2016, 08:26:08 PM
Post by: Slow-1 on June 27, 2016, 10:14:48 AM
I can hunt deer and elk every year, maybe not monster bulls behind every tree but the potential is still there, but I can't hunt the "big three" with out a tag. I want a sheep tag so bad. I used to mow lawns and send in the money when you had to pay up front (my dad would look at me like I was from another planet doing that).
30+ years with out drawing changes a point of view.
So how about this:
$13 per application x 5 = $65 you purchase one application for 65$ that has one hunt slot/number for what every you want and, 4 ghost point slots for what every you want.
I also believe the worst your math skills the more you think your going to draw a quality tag or a OIL tag.
Another thought if a tags has more that a one in a hundred chance (IE 2000 guys put in for 15 tags) it should be a OIL too.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 27, 2016, 11:10:15 AM
"The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
I can read it slowly, or backwards, or in pig latin...I still don't see how it's a no brainer. You're forcing those who have been patient and built significant points in all categories to choose. They didn't get lucky along the way, they didn't cave and apply for something middle of the road. They stuck it out across the board for 20+ years. Right now, they CAN expect to draw a high end deer and/or elk tag at some point, AND still have a decent chance at an OIL. But the change would be forcing them to choose a deer/elk tag in exchange for 0% chance at OIL. Or keep their OIL dreams, but give up that eventual Dayton or Entiat tag. More or less, all to benefit the single species guys and guys who already cashed in their deer/elk quality points (for full disclosure, I'm in the latter camp). That may be an okay trade off on the whole, but no question there will be winners and losers. Just no way to change mid-stream and make things fair for everyone.
There would be winners and losers under a modified system. The winners would be those that have higher odds of drawing the tags they want and the losers would be those that inadvertently got lucky and drew a tag they didn't value as much as the others. It is the reason why odds are so good in Idaho. If not this, then we might as well resign ourselves that most of us will never draw an oil and we will draw a quality bull/deer every 20-30 years. Awesome...
Post by: 724wd on June 27, 2016, 11:34:11 AM
we might as well resign ourselves that most of us will never draw an oil and we will draw a quality bull/deer every 20-30 years. Awesome...
IT'S. A. LOTTERY.
YOU. ARE. NOT. GUARANTEED. A. TAG.
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
Post by: trophyhunt on June 27, 2016, 12:06:12 PM
I really hope you take your plan to the right people Shawn, let's get those odd's up a bit more! Do you have any plans on going to the wdfw board about this soon? Please do."The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
I can read it slowly, or backwards, or in pig latin...I still don't see how it's a no brainer. You're forcing those who have been patient and built significant points in all categories to choose. They didn't get lucky along the way, they didn't cave and apply for something middle of the road. They stuck it out across the board for 20+ years. Right now, they CAN expect to draw a high end deer and/or elk tag at some point, AND still have a decent chance at an OIL. But the change would be forcing them to choose a deer/elk tag in exchange for 0% chance at OIL. Or keep their OIL dreams, but give up that eventual Dayton or Entiat tag. More or less, all to benefit the single species guys and guys who already cashed in their deer/elk quality points (for full disclosure, I'm in the latter camp). That may be an okay trade off on the whole, but no question there will be winners and losers. Just no way to change mid-stream and make things fair for everyone.
There would be winners and losers under a modified system. The winners would be those that have higher odds of drawing the tags they want and the losers would be those that inadvertently got lucky and drew a tag they didn't value as much as the others. It is the reason why odds are so good in Idaho. If not this, then we might as well resign ourselves that most of us will never draw an oil and we will draw a quality bull/deer every 20-30 years. Awesome...
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 27, 2016, 12:32:59 PM
we might as well resign ourselves that most of us will never draw an oil and we will draw a quality bull/deer every 20-30 years. Awesome...
IT'S. A. LOTTERY.
YOU. ARE. NOT. GUARANTEED. A. TAG.
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
Jeez condescending... we are not stupid. I never said anyone is guaranteed a tag and we know it's a lottery. I venture I'm more educated on the subject than you are so beat your horse elsewhere. We are talking about bettering the odds in the "lottery". If you can up your odds, then statistically one might be expected to draw at some point unless they are unlucky. What I said was if you have 20-30 points under our current system, your odds are good to draw a quality elk/deer tag within that time period. Yes, it's still a "lottery" if that makes you happy and nobody is guaranteed a tad captain obvious. Yes, someone could have great odds and not draw or you could draw. Some don't care the odds and buy Powerball tickets despite the one in a trillion chance of winning. Some of us like to know the odds before investing in a "lottery" ticket. Some on here don't think it matters if you have 1 or 20 points even though that flies in the face of statistical logic.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 27, 2016, 12:35:15 PM
Post by: notsosneaky on June 27, 2016, 12:39:08 PM
"The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
No
I'd rather have a .0013 percent chance against your .003, than have no chance so you can have a .007 chance.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 27, 2016, 01:41:21 PM
We don't know what the odds would be if you had to choose between putting in for oil or deer/elk. But I'd be willing to bet half the number of applications drop if not more! Again, read it slowly and you should start to see how your odds could go way up."The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
No
I'd rather have a .0013 percent chance against your .003, than have no chance so you can have a .007 chance.
Post by: 724wd on June 27, 2016, 02:22:48 PM
I venture I'm more educated on the subject than you are so beat your horse elsewhere.
You don't know a thing about me, hotshot. You all keep stroking that horse :mor:
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 27, 2016, 02:30:26 PM
There would be winners and losers under a modified system. The winners would be those that have higher odds of drawing the tags they want and the losers would be those that inadvertently got lucky and drew a tag they didn't value as much as the others.
Yes, those are some of the winners and losers. Other winners would be those that have already drawn quality elk, deer and/or an OIL or two. Like they need more help. Other losers include the most fanatical huntaholic who happens to be unlucky and sitting on max points in all categories. Helping your pool to the detriment of those you want to leave behind will have collateral damage.
It is the reason why odds are so good in Idaho.
Is it? Or is it because Idaho hands out 9x the antlered moose tags, 4x the ram tags and 2x the goat tags, with 1/4 the population?
We all understand that odds for a single species go up if everyone can only apply for one. But the point is, the same number of total OIL applicants for the same number of total OIL tags doesn't affect your overall OIL odds. It just focuses your overall odds into a single species. Someone applying for sheep in Idaho doesn't have very good (zero) sheep odds. And Idaho doesn't have 20 years of built up points to complicate the winners and losers.
Post by: notsosneaky on June 27, 2016, 03:34:42 PM
We don't know what the odds would be if you had to choose between putting in for oil or deer/elk. But I'd be willing to bet half the number of applications drop if not more! Again, read it slowly and you should start to see how your odds could go way up."The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
No
I'd rather have a .0013 percent chance against your .003, than have no chance so you can have a .007 chance.
That's just not true.
My odds may go up in a single category but overall it's the same over a lifetime of hunting.
I say increase the tag numbers and go straight lottery no general seasons.
It's fair and it doesn't leave anyone feeling like they have a "better", "more fair" whatever way. The truth is you want the changes that you percieve will benefit you.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 27, 2016, 04:07:11 PM
Im not thinking of just my odds, I'm thinking over all odds. If 13,000 people put in for 49 degrees ( the way it is now) and if 3,000 put in for it ( if you had to choose oil or deer/elk) wouldn't your odds increase quite a bit?We don't know what the odds would be if you had to choose between putting in for oil or deer/elk. But I'd be willing to bet half the number of applications drop if not more! Again, read it slowly and you should start to see how your odds could go way up."The system is fine, the system is fair, we can't make it better ". Read this slow and try to absorb the info. Ok, it actually can be improved :yike: Have people choose between putting in for deer/elk special permits OR OIL permits, still let them buy ghost points if they choose to!!! Those guys that just put in for OIL because they can, will most likely just buy points and put in for deer/elk. :yeah: so, it can be improved because thousands of apps will drop from the oil draws. Read it again slowly please...... Now of course this doesn't mean everyone will Draw the tag they want, it will still be tough but it will be better odds. No brainier guys.......... Now go back and read it again! :chuckle:
No
I'd rather have a .0013 percent chance against your .003, than have no chance so you can have a .007 chance.
That's just not true.
My odds may go up in a single category but overall it's the same over a lifetime of hunting.
I say increase the tag numbers and go straight lottery no general seasons.
It's fair and it doesn't leave anyone feeling like they have a "better", "more fair" whatever way. The truth is you want the changes that you percieve will benefit you.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 28, 2016, 04:59:20 AM
I venture I'm more educated on the subject than you are so beat your horse elsewhere.
You don't know a thing about me, hotshot. You all keep stroking that horse :mor:
I know you like to post dumb emoticons in replies that are out of context and add nothing to the discussion...
Post by: bearpaw on June 28, 2016, 08:16:11 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 28, 2016, 08:25:35 AM
Post by: kentrek on June 28, 2016, 08:35:49 AM
I pretty much favor idahos system, until they go to bonus points. Which may or may not have happened as I didn't pay to play this year.
beings the politics need the publics vote hopefully the majority cam make it clear they are not in favor of a bonus point system.
Post by: boneaddict on June 28, 2016, 08:49:01 AM
Post by: Matth on June 28, 2016, 10:32:33 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 28, 2016, 10:54:06 AM
I'm not poking the bear, but those who are in favor of the bonus point system, and view it as some sort of guaranty are very simply uneducated to the way the system works. It's no fault of there own, they apply every year for extended periods of time and think that they are owed something. :sry:you obviously haven't read this thread.
Post by: Bob33 on June 28, 2016, 11:09:30 AM
I sure shake my head at how many folks think bonus points are good. :rolleyes:They increase draw odds, but the odds are still long.
Post by: Curly on June 28, 2016, 11:26:50 AM
Post by: Falcon on June 28, 2016, 11:32:48 AM
I sure shake my head at how many folks think bonus points are good. :rolleyes:They increase draw odds, but the odds are still long.
Bob,
That graph makes sense. Can you please do one for sheep??
Post by: bobcat on June 28, 2016, 11:33:33 AM
Post by: Curly on June 28, 2016, 11:40:11 AM
With bonus points, the guys with few points still have a chance but with preference points the guys behind are going to have a hard time ever catching up.
Post by: Bob33 on June 28, 2016, 11:50:32 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/permits/results/points/2015.phpI sure shake my head at how many folks think bonus points are good. :rolleyes:They increase draw odds, but the odds are still long.
Bob,
That graph makes sense. Can you please do one for sheep??
There were 6 applications with 22 points; 1 drew so it's off the chart.
Post by: Falcon on June 28, 2016, 01:01:48 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 28, 2016, 01:10:34 PM
Thanks Bob. With max points I can only dream😁
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 30, 2016, 10:16:50 AM
They break down as follows:
Elk - 52.6%
Deer - 30.3%
Moose - 6.4%
Rocky Sheep - 5.7%
Cali Bighorns - 2.1%
Goat - 2.8%
Post by: trophyhunt on June 30, 2016, 10:22:49 AM
In Idaho, where you must pick your OIL or deer/elk, the percentages of where apply are interesting. The percentages include residents and non-residents. How would WA differ if we adopted a different system? How would you expect to see our percentages be different?In my mind it would be better odds.
They break down as follows:
Elk - 52.6%
Deer - 30.3%
Moose - 6.4%
Rocky Sheep - 5.7%
Cali Bighorns - 2.1%
Goat - 2.8%
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 30, 2016, 10:48:27 AM
In Idaho, where you must pick your OIL or deer/elk, the percentages of where apply are interesting. The percentages include residents and non-residents. How would WA differ if we adopted a different system? How would you expect to see our percentages be different?
They break down as follows:
Elk - 52.6%
Deer - 30.3%
Moose - 6.4%
Rocky Sheep - 5.7%
Cali Bighorns - 2.1%
Goat - 2.8%
In WA you are not restricted to Deer/Elk/OIL. Our percentage of where people apply are difficult to calculate. Here is our breakdown if you take the total applications for that species divided by the total applicants for all 5 categories. For this number, antlerless, bull/buck, >65, disabled, youth, quality, and conflict are all put together like they were for the Idaho percentages above.
Elk - 36.6% (63,994 applications)
Deer - 27.8% (48,557 applications)
Moose - 16.7% (29179 applications)
Rocky Sheep - 0%
Cali Bighorns - 10.4% (18,111 applications)
Goat - 8.6% (15,020 applications)
The problem with the above numbers are people can apply accross the board to any species they want. In Idaho, about 5% of the applicants apply for sheep. In WA, we can only say that of all the applications received for all species, 10% are sheep. We would need further data to indicate how many unique applicants applied for sheep, for example.
IF, and it's a big assumption, our applicants chose to apply similarly when constricted as they do in Idaho, your percentage of drawing a tag would go up significantly. How signifcantly will depend on how many apply for all 5, how many apply for just deer/elk, and how many apply for just OIL. If we knew those numbers, we could get a good estimate on the final numbers.
Again, I'm not saying this is something that needs to be adopted. I'm just running the numbers so we have a viable basis to estimate what the draw odds will be with our current system and under a modified Idaho type system utilizing our current points we have all paid in and accumulated. I'm more interested in figuring out the numbers than broad summary responses, "I don't like it" or "cool".
Post by: trophyhunt on June 30, 2016, 10:56:28 AM
Post by: stw on June 30, 2016, 11:06:06 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 30, 2016, 11:16:32 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 30, 2016, 11:28:33 AM
Our thoughts are not to change the entire system, just an idea to improve draw odds for oil tags, nothing else.
$250-$500 per application would have the same result.
I bet 75% of those who apply for oil tags would drop out and only apply for points, that's a large number of apps leaving the pool.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 30, 2016, 11:32:30 AM
I agree, but then the state would lose lots of money in app fee's from people not picking up just points. Pope's way would satisfy the state and increase the odds. But I agree that option would definitely make sense.Our thoughts are not to change the entire system, just an idea to improve draw odds for oil tags, nothing else.
$250-$500 per application would have the same result.I bet 75% of those who apply for oil tags would drop out and only apply for points, that's a large number of apps leaving the pool.
Post by: bobcat on June 30, 2016, 11:42:02 AM
It's impossible to increase EVERYONE'S odds. So no matter what, if changes are made, some will see it as being unfair.
Which is why the best thing to do is leave it alone. I don't like the idea of changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 30, 2016, 12:21:10 PM
That said I agree it is impossible to improve odds across the board. Only adjust them to cater to the specific user group bringing the issues up.
I myself like the idea of picking your pot. I like options, but have no problem making a choice and sticking with it.
Post by: Bob33 on June 30, 2016, 12:39:33 PM
Typically I agree with your take on the draw odds Bobcat, but I disagree here. The rules changed midstream for many of us in 2010, with the implementation of the category system. If odds can be improved for the user group bringing the issues forward without significant monetary impact, I think the department would take a look at it.The game did change in 2010, and it caused havoc and quite a few disgruntled hunters. It was sold as being supported by hunters, but the obvious primary objective was to increase revenue.
That said I agree it is impossible to improve odds across the board. Only adjust them to cater to the specific user group bringing the issues up.
I myself like the idea of picking your pot. I like options, but have no problem making a choice and sticking with it.
Before 2010, individuals were allowed to apply for all species: OIL, and all others. Some hunters started accumulating points for multiple species as early as 1996. A proposal that would require applicants to choose would essentially disenfranchise points for some of the species that hunters were accumulating them for. It would increase draw odds for the OIL species, but would also make the accumulated points for the other species essentially worthless.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 30, 2016, 12:52:59 PM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 30, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
If we just wanted to change OIL, I could support being able to accumulate your points into one species. As has been hashed out at length, going from three species to one doesn't affect your overall draw odds. Same number of total tags, same number of total applicants. But what if you could take your 20 moose points (400 names in the hat) and 20 goat points (400 names in the hat), and apply those in the sheep draw with your 20 sheep points, giving you 1200 total names in the hat for sheep. You shouldn't get to square them, just 400 + 400 + 400. Or, you could stay in all three draws, or choose two of the three. You choose how to use your OIL points. Revenue stays the same; guys that are hell bent on a single species are more likely to draw; guys with points in all three still get to use them; guys that have already drawn OIL will have fewer total points and lower odds (which seems fair), etc.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 30, 2016, 01:33:02 PM
What I don't like about it is making people choose between OIL or deer/elk. I don't think it's fair that someone should have to give up their OIL hopes so a single species guy can have better goat odds.Thats an idea I've wanted done for years, I think you should be able to chose how many points you want from your balance to the tag your applying for. Example, I don't think the water shed tag in the blues is worth my 21 points, but if I could put 10 points one year toward that tag and 11 the next year, I'd do that for sure! I hear what your saying.
If we just wanted to change OIL, I could support being able to accumulate your points into one species. As has been hashed out at length, going from three species to one doesn't affect your overall draw odds. Same number of total tags, same number of total applicants. But what if you could take your 20 moose points (400 names in the hat) and 20 goat points (400 names in the hat), and apply those in the sheep draw with your 20 sheep points, giving you 1200 total names in the hat for sheep. You shouldn't get to square them, just 400 + 400 + 400. Or, you could stay in all three draws, or choose two of the three. You choose how to use your OIL points. Revenue stays the same; guys that are hell bent on a single species are more likely to draw; guys with points in all three still get to use them; guys that have already drawn OIL will have fewer total points and lower odds (which seems fair), etc.
Post by: huntnphool on June 30, 2016, 01:48:46 PM
I agree, but then the state would lose lots of money in app fee's from people not picking up just points. Pope's way would satisfy the state and increase the odds. But I agree that option would definitely make sense.Our thoughts are not to change the entire system, just an idea to improve draw odds for oil tags, nothing else.
$250-$500 per application would have the same result.I bet 75% of those who apply for oil tags would drop out and only apply for points, that's a large number of apps leaving the pool.
The significant increase in individual app fees would more than make up for anyone dropping out at $6/ea.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 30, 2016, 02:00:08 PM
I agree, but then the state would lose lots of money in app fee's from people not picking up just points. Pope's way would satisfy the state and increase the odds. But I agree that option would definitely make sense.Our thoughts are not to change the entire system, just an idea to improve draw odds for oil tags, nothing else.
$250-$500 per application would have the same result.I bet 75% of those who apply for oil tags would drop out and only apply for points, that's a large number of apps leaving the pool.
The significant increase in individual app fees would more than make up for anyone dropping out at $6/ea.
Can you imagine!
Pay 100x the current application fee, you'd need only 1% the number of applicants to stay revenue neutral. There's something like 50,000 OIL applications currently, so we'd only need 500 to pony up. About 125 OIL tags, pretty sure we'd get there easy enough with 1:4 odds! With odds like that, we could probably charge $2K or more for out of state applicants.
Post by: warthog on July 01, 2016, 01:12:25 AM
of course i 'll still purchase a raffle tag or 2.
i just don't want to be selfish !
Post by: Toad on July 01, 2016, 01:05:51 PM
Post by: KDB on July 03, 2016, 09:55:53 AM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on July 05, 2016, 09:03:28 AM
Seems to me after reading a large number of posts, people want to price the common man out of hunting altogether. SMH
I don't think anyone is actually promoting this, just citing it as one way to increase odds. There's only so many variables to increase odds, and price is one of them.
Post by: msg on July 05, 2016, 10:03:41 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 05, 2016, 10:12:38 AM
I would simply like to run the numbers and see what the odds are for each species. We could then sit down and see if this is something that should be pursued or not. If the odds don't significantly go up, then there would be no benefits to a change. I'm already seeing in the numbers that the majority of people apply for elk and then deer. There is a large portion that does not apply for OIL which lessens the odds one might expect to have if the system were tweaked. Once I have the numbers ready, we can start to have an intelligent conversation about the subject without conjecture or speculation.
Post by: Falcon on July 05, 2016, 02:42:20 PM
I don't know we want to price out people. I would like to run the numbers and see what the odds would be if the system were tweaked. For all those that are happy with the one in a million odds, that's fine but I can tell you that we look at tweaking the draw system nearly every year on the GMAC. The number of complaints about the odds and way it is run is constant and voluminous. Just like how baiting comes up every year by a very vocal percentage of hunters. Sooner or later, experience tells me they will do something to address the complaints and it may be something as disastrous as the last few times it was tweaked.
I would simply like to run the numbers and see what the odds are for each species. We could then sit down and see if this is something that should be pursued or not. If the odds don't significantly go up, then there would be no benefits to a change. I'm already seeing in the numbers that the majority of people apply for elk and then deer. There is a large portion that does not apply for OIL which lessens the odds one might expect to have if the system were tweaked. Once I have the numbers ready, we can start to have an intelligent conversation about the subject without conjecture or speculation.
:yeah:
I'm ready to see the numbers. Lots of options to consider and nothing to lose... win win :tup:
Post by: stw on July 06, 2016, 07:13:31 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 06, 2016, 07:49:29 AM
:yeah:x2. I'm guessing the odds go up quite a bit. And raising the prices doesn't have to be done.I don't know we want to price out people. I would like to run the numbers and see what the odds would be if the system were tweaked. For all those that are happy with the one in a million odds, that's fine but I can tell you that we look at tweaking the draw system nearly every year on the GMAC. The number of complaints about the odds and way it is run is constant and voluminous. Just like how baiting comes up every year by a very vocal percentage of hunters. Sooner or later, experience tells me they will do something to address the complaints and it may be something as disastrous as the last few times it was tweaked.
I would simply like to run the numbers and see what the odds are for each species. We could then sit down and see if this is something that should be pursued or not. If the odds don't significantly go up, then there would be no benefits to a change. I'm already seeing in the numbers that the majority of people apply for elk and then deer. There is a large portion that does not apply for OIL which lessens the odds one might expect to have if the system were tweaked. Once I have the numbers ready, we can start to have an intelligent conversation about the subject without conjecture or speculation.
:yeah:
I'm ready to see the numbers. Lots of options to consider and nothing to lose... win win :tup:
Post by: Jpmiller on July 07, 2016, 07:26:40 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 07, 2016, 07:51:44 PM
I'm not 100 percent sure I am following. Is the main gripe that people aren't drawing with a lot of points that may never draw and don't like the rules? I may be over simplifying and I apologize if I am missing something but I don't think the system can or even should be set up so everyone can always draw every tag they want at some point in there life.Its not about the guys with the most points thinking they should draw, it's only about improving draw odds. The idea is, to improve draw odds, period. It's that simple, and the best way to improve odds is to have people decide whether they want to apply for deer/elk permits or OIL tags. One or the other, and if they go with deer/elk, they can get points for the OIL. And vise versa
Post by: Jonathan_S on July 07, 2016, 08:16:54 PM
Seems to me after reading a large number of posts, people want to price the common man out of hunting altogether. SMH
Talking about OIL draws here, not a OTC license
Post by: chester on July 08, 2016, 01:56:21 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: coachcw on July 08, 2016, 06:30:07 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on July 08, 2016, 06:48:45 AM
Post by: NRA4LIFE on July 08, 2016, 07:09:00 AM
Post by: kentrek on July 08, 2016, 07:14:23 AM
. another way would be to pull your name out of the hat once you draw any tag in a year
:yeah: seems like an easy thing to do.....I'd think/hope most people would like to only draw one tag a given year...maybe aside from antlerless
Post by: Jpmiller on July 08, 2016, 08:37:52 AM
I know this year the only tag I was expecting was my antlerless elk and so I may have selected points instead for most everything else. Although with the unlikeliness of ever drawing a oil tag I can't really see ever just putting in points for those.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on July 08, 2016, 08:52:51 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 08, 2016, 11:10:53 AM
I'd like to know how many elk tags get wasted on people drawing 2 in the same year. That is a bit irritating when people post that. I almost never put in for both the bull and cow tag in the same year for fear of drawing both, essentially throwing all my points away in one category. I do put in for quality tags every year because those are essentially OIL. It would be nice if those tags could be given back, get your points back and then have some kind of supplemental drawing for them. But that would be too complicated for the WDFW I guess.Ive been wanting a second draw for those permits that don't get used, Wdfw would make more money on a second round of draws. Either that or kick the applicant out of the draw after they draw their first quality tag, no more multiple tags allowed.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on July 08, 2016, 11:42:57 AM
Post by: whacker1 on July 08, 2016, 11:43:52 AM
An article written by Western Hunter's Ryan Hatfield.
He brings up some interesting points.
Post by: msg on July 09, 2016, 06:47:37 AM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on July 09, 2016, 07:23:58 AM
Ghost points for OIL. Why would you want to eliminate yourself for what might be your lucky year? Like buying a Ghost point for Power BallHate to waste an OIL in a year you cant really get the time to do it justice. Sons ghosting his til outa college. One thing worse then no tag is winning one and not using it fully.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on July 09, 2016, 08:32:58 AM
less hunters equal better odds , figure that out and you have fixed it . I would like to see a certain number of tags be allocated to those with max points and scale it down so forth . the problem lies with hunts that only have one or two tags. making people pre buy the tags would lesson the pool . another way would be to pull your name out of the hat once you draw any tag in a year that way guys wouldn't have multiple tags draw the oils last so theres risk .
The max point allocation idea has been looked at over and over and statistically it can't be feasibly done in WA. The attorney general says it's illegal in WA to pre-buy the tags so that is out. I think so few people draw multiple tags that's an ok idea but it won't significantly help odds.
As many have said, you can increase tags. You can decrease applicants by various methods. Or you can make people choose more selectively what they want to apply for. It's really that simple.
Post by: msg on July 09, 2016, 09:46:27 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 09, 2016, 09:51:42 AM
With the chances of drawing so low. For me personally, I would still put in every year and let the chips fall where they may. If I drew I would make the adjustments needed. If I was in school, I would take the time off and go hunting. You don't know what cards you will be dealt after school. New job, lousy boss, new wife and baby maybe, financial pressures. Moose hunting last fall left me with memories for a lifetime. You can go to school forever but you get one chance at an OIL. The chances of never drawing are very apparent with the apps versus tags. That is the reason I would want every chance I could get. I am opposed to stacking the deck even more for the max point guys just because they have not been lucky enough to draw.If you had to decide between elk/deer permits or oil permits, which would you choose to apply for? I'm just curious.
Post by: msg on July 09, 2016, 10:05:12 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on July 09, 2016, 10:30:32 AM
Post by: Bob33 on July 09, 2016, 10:43:40 AM
Could someone explain to me what a WA. OIL tag is. I thought I had an idea but this seems a bit confusing on a definition here.Any Moose (if successful), Mountain Goat (if successful), and Ram Sheep (if successful) permits may only be drawn Once In a Lifetime.
Post by: Ridgeratt on July 09, 2016, 10:48:11 AM
Could someone explain to me what a WA. OIL tag is. I thought I had an idea but this seems a bit confusing on a definition here.Any Moose (if successful), Mountain Goat (if successful), and Ram Sheep (if successful) permits may only be drawn Once In a Lifetime.
That was my understanding. So how does Quality Bull Elk, Deer/ Elk Permits play into the equation. Thought I had missed some rule changes.
Post by: Bob33 on July 09, 2016, 10:49:46 AM
They're technically not OIL permits, but they've crept into the discussion about OIL permits. However, the best ones are so difficult to draw that odds of getting more than one in a lifetime are very small.Could someone explain to me what a WA. OIL tag is. I thought I had an idea but this seems a bit confusing on a definition here.Any Moose (if successful), Mountain Goat (if successful), and Ram Sheep (if successful) permits may only be drawn Once In a Lifetime.
That was my understanding. So how does Quality Bull Elk, Deer/ Elk Permits play into the equation. Thought I had missed some rule changes.
Post by: trophyhunt on July 09, 2016, 10:52:38 AM
They only play into this equation as an example of how to improve draw odds for oil tags. Some of us believe if a change was made to have you choose between applying for quality deer/elk OR oil draws, not both. With you still being able to get your ghost points.Could someone explain to me what a WA. OIL tag is. I thought I had an idea but this seems a bit confusing on a definition here.Any Moose (if successful), Mountain Goat (if successful), and Ram Sheep (if successful) permits may only be drawn Once In a Lifetime.
That was my understanding. So how does Quality Bull Elk, Deer/ Elk Permits play into the equation. Thought I had missed some rule changes.
Post by: Ridgeratt on July 09, 2016, 10:56:34 AM
Post by: Bob33 on July 09, 2016, 11:00:56 AM
If they are forced to choose which permits they may apply for, it is likely they will never draw a permit for the specie(s) they choose not to apply for. In essence they will be throwing away 15+ years of applying for some species, for the sake of improved but still very small odds of drawing another.
I am strongly opposed to that idea.
Post by: Ridgeratt on July 09, 2016, 11:02:18 AM
Bob
Post by: Bob33 on July 09, 2016, 11:08:14 AM
The only way I could see this being viable is to apply it to new applicants only. If you have points, you are grandfathered and can continue to apply for all species.
Post by: Jpmiller on July 09, 2016, 12:56:21 PM
Post by: JDHasty on August 06, 2016, 11:20:25 PM
It's as fair as it can be. There are just too many people and not enough permits. The only better system would be no points, like Idaho.
If you gave the high point holders even more preference, new hunters would have no reason to apply at all, their odds would be so low.
:yeah: