Post by: Skillet on June 19, 2017, 09:03:28 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on June 19, 2017, 09:07:41 PM
But....... could maybe get on board with once you draw a quality D/E permit, you would have to sit out for a specified # of years, say 5-10.
Post by: bobcat on June 19, 2017, 09:09:29 PM
Post by: steeleywhopper on June 19, 2017, 09:11:38 PM
I voted No
But....... could maybe get on board with once you draw a quality D/E permit, you would have to sit out for a specified # of years, say 5-10.
It used to be that if you got drawn for a bull elk tag in say the Dayton unit you had to sit out the draw for 4 years. I believe that was back in 1995 or 1996 if I remember correctly.
Post by: Jpmiller on June 19, 2017, 09:15:12 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 19, 2017, 09:16:44 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: rtspring on June 19, 2017, 09:18:54 PM
Post by: kentrek on June 19, 2017, 09:27:24 PM
Hell No!!!:yeah:
Post by: bobcat on June 19, 2017, 09:41:09 PM
I voted No
But....... could maybe get on board with once you draw a quality D/E permit, you would have to sit out for a specified # of years, say 5-10.
It used to be that if you got drawn for a bull elk tag in say the Dayton unit you had to sit out the draw for 4 years. I believe that was back in 1995 or 1996 if I remember correctly.
I drew the Little Naches early rifle bull elk permit in 1996 and I didn't have a waiting period before I could apply again. So are you saying it was for just the Blue Mountain permits, or what?
Post by: huntnnw on June 19, 2017, 09:41:34 PM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 19, 2017, 09:45:49 PM
Post by: kselkhunter on June 19, 2017, 09:47:29 PM
Just drew the Entiat at age 60. Pretty sure its OIL !:yeah:
Post by: Stein on June 19, 2017, 09:58:06 PM
The system we have is pretty much illogical, you put in, collect points (and a perceived advantage), yet have worse and worse chances every year. The only thing holding it together is that people collect points and either are not up on the math or haven't taken the time to look closely.
It's kind of like a reverse ponzi scheme where you have too many new people entering and not enough cashing out.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 19, 2017, 10:07:42 PM
Maybe, but I would go even further, you can only put in for one draw tag a year. One application and you pick the animal and category.Part of it goes back to when they split all the categories and gave out lots of free points. Probably should've had everyone pick one of the new categories to put all the old points into or how to split them up within the new sub-categories.
The system we have is pretty much illogical, you put in, collect points (and a perceived advantage), yet have worse and worse chances every year. The only thing holding it together is that people collect points and either are not up on the math or haven't taken the time to look closely.
It's kind of like a reverse ponzi scheme where you have too many new people entering and not enough cashing out.
Post by: Bobvernon2 on June 19, 2017, 10:10:33 PM
Post by: Stein on June 19, 2017, 10:12:10 PM
screw it lets copy AK and everyone puts and and only random non residents get drawn to pay for the states budget crisis.
More than one state plays that game. Look at the cost of nonresident elk tags a couple hours east of Spokane. WA has the double whammy of too many people and not many nonresident applicants.
We are already on a random draw, we just have points to keep people interested.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 19, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Post by: Bobvernon2 on June 19, 2017, 10:15:03 PM
screw it lets copy AK and everyone puts and and only random non residents get drawn to pay for the states budget crisis.
More than one state plays that game. Look at the cost of nonresident elk tags a couple hours east of Spokane. WA has the double whammy of too many people and not many nonresident applicants.
We are already on a random draw, we just have points to keep people interested.
not gonna lie not seeing what you're saying here. non residents don't have a limit on how many tags they can purchase in WA for elk, deer, cougar, or bear. nor do they have special rates its the same for every GMU. Am I missing something?
Post by: huntnnw on June 19, 2017, 10:16:38 PM
Post by: Jharristealth on June 19, 2017, 10:36:40 PM
Post by: Stein on June 19, 2017, 10:36:47 PM
No. As was mentioned I think overall, the OIL hunts truly offer real chances at trophy size animals, lots of them and very liberal season lengths, with low pressure.
That's a great definition, but unfortunately not reality. There are two ways to look at the problem, WA either has too few animals or too many people - or both I guess. Even for a good but not great hunt, there are too many people in line such that you mathematically can't expect to draw it 2, 3 or 4 times in your life.
It isn't just WA, I put in for an out of state hunt that went from 1/3 the first year to 1/10 the second and 1/33 this year. Next year, it will effectively be an OIL tag.
Post by: buglebrush on June 19, 2017, 11:10:22 PM
There's not a single buck or bull tag in WA worth that designation . Some states do have tags like this such as Henry mts Utah. There are LOTS of options in this state to increase draw odds and they have done absolutely nothing about it EVER! If it means less money they don't wanna hear it.
Exactly
Post by: mkcj on June 20, 2017, 12:26:31 AM
Post by: Mfowl on June 20, 2017, 12:35:00 AM
Post by: Miles on June 20, 2017, 05:52:17 AM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on June 20, 2017, 06:46:15 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 20, 2017, 07:11:00 AM
Post by: Miles on June 20, 2017, 07:23:17 AM
The good tags are oil. Even the tags you can draw are 8 years. With point creep that's oil.
Point creep in WA? It's not a true preference point state... Move somewhere that has a true preference point system, then you will understand the meaning of point creep.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 20, 2017, 07:24:57 AM
Post by: buglebrush on June 20, 2017, 07:46:38 AM
Post by: huntnnw on June 20, 2017, 08:10:03 AM
Post by: Timberstalker on June 20, 2017, 08:14:31 AM
I don't see why. Even if it takes 10-15 years, that's still 4-5 quality hunts for EACH category in a lifetime minimum. That's 8-10 quality hunts across the board. That doesn't include OTC or out of state. That makes for a pretty solid hunting career! Pretty cool! :tup:
@trophyhunt - what do you think of this theory?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 20, 2017, 08:16:59 AM
exactly! I have a buddy that has put in for quality deer since points started, he is 69 and hasn't drawn! Well I havnt drawn for that matter either! Its pretty much OIL!Just drew the Entiat at age 60. Pretty sure its OIL !:yeah:
Some definitely seem to have better luck than others :(
Post by: bobcat on June 20, 2017, 08:21:00 AM
Post by: huntnnw on June 20, 2017, 08:26:50 AM
Post by: Bushcraft on June 20, 2017, 08:32:04 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 20, 2017, 08:34:39 AM
I voted no. That said, I think they should tweak the special permit draw system to increase the odds for people that habitually put in for one particular area. Take a guy who REALLY wants to hunt a particular GMU and has religiously been putting in for 15-20 years and hoping and praying he'll one day get drawn. He's put in his dues over the years scouting it and knows the area like the back of his hand. I think he should get a better crack at it than some knucklehead with the same points who throws a dart at the game regs every year and randomly chooses where he'd like to hunt.
Like 10% of the tags go to the top 10% of point holders? Other states do that for OILs don't they?
Post by: Snakeriver10 on June 20, 2017, 08:35:49 AM
Post by: Stein on June 20, 2017, 08:43:01 AM
The very best way would be to make it so you can only draw for one special permit. You would have to choose a specific species in a specific category. WDFW will never do it because of the lost revenue, but it would definitely fix the problem
Just make the application fee match the amount the average hunter spends on applications every year, or even a tiered system like we have now where doe tag applications are $20 and OILs are $100. This would help significantly. I drew three tags this year which is awesome for me, but completely ridiculous in the current system.
There just isn't any way to increase odds without decreasing the number of people applying for a given tag.
Post by: jackelope on June 20, 2017, 08:44:07 AM
Hell No!!!
I voted no, only because there wasn't a "Hell No" option.
Post by: jackelope on June 20, 2017, 08:46:54 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 20, 2017, 08:49:27 AM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
:yeah:
Post by: Ridgerunner on June 20, 2017, 08:53:08 AM
I voted no. That said, I think they should tweak the special permit draw system to increase the odds for people that habitually put in for one particular area. Take a guy who REALLY wants to hunt a particular GMU and has religiously been putting in for 15-20 years and hoping and praying he'll one day get drawn. He's put in his dues over the years scouting it and knows the area like the back of his hand. I think he should get a better crack at it than some knucklehead with the same points who throws a dart at the game regs every year and randomly chooses where he'd like to hunt.
You should jump over to the Chiwawa thread, you'll get flamed for such ideals lol.
Post by: Ridgerunner on June 20, 2017, 08:54:06 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 20, 2017, 08:55:58 AM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
I wouldn't. You could go a lifetime and not draw a single OIL tag. Having to choose almost eliminates you from drawing all 3 in your lifetime in WA.
Post by: bobcat on June 20, 2017, 08:56:53 AM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
But that won't change anything. Unless you're already a person who only applies for deer, or only applies for elk. Then I suppose it would help your odds. But if you're like most people who apply for both deer and elk every year, how is it a benefit if you were to apply for only deer one year, and then only elk the following year? So you've got less competition for the one you applied for, but you cut your odds in half by only applying for one instead of both. In the end, it wouldn't change anything.
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 20, 2017, 09:00:46 AM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
I wouldn't. You could go a lifetime and not draw a single OIL tag. Having to choose almost eliminates you from drawing all 3 in your lifetime in WA.
You say people may not draw one and this idea eliminates you from drawing all 3??? If you cant draw one how do you get all 3. I have almost max points for Sheep and Goat and my fare share for Moose. If you forced people to pick one Oil you would see the number of applicants reduced to half if not more in each category, dramatically increasing your odds of drawing a tag. I would be happy as a clam to draw one WA Oil in my lifetime.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 20, 2017, 09:06:04 AM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
I wouldn't. You could go a lifetime and not draw a single OIL tag. Having to choose almost eliminates you from drawing all 3 in your lifetime in WA.
You say people may not draw one and this idea eliminates you from drawing all 3??? If you cant draw one how do you get all 3. I have almost max points for Sheep and Goat and my fare share for Moose. If you forced people to pick one Oil you would see the number of applicants reduced to half if not more in each category, dramatically increasing your odds of drawing a tag. I would be happy as a clam to draw one WA Oil in my lifetime.
So right now you have 3 different draws that you're involved in. You might reduce the amount of competitors in your draw by a third, but you also reduce the amount of draws you're involved in by two thirds.
I just don't see how the math is any more in your favor than it is now. There are guys who have drawn 2-3 OILs in a year. A few years ago one guy on here drew all 3 (wish I had bookmarked that thread). It pisses some guys off, but next year that could be you or me.
Curtis
Post by: bobcat on June 20, 2017, 09:09:27 AM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
I wouldn't. You could go a lifetime and not draw a single OIL tag. Having to choose almost eliminates you from drawing all 3 in your lifetime in WA.
You say people may not draw one and this idea eliminates you from drawing all 3??? If you cant draw one how do you get all 3. I have almost max points for Sheep and Goat and my fare share for Moose. If you forced people to pick one Oil you would see the number of applicants reduced to half if not more in each category, dramatically increasing your odds of drawing a tag. I would be happy as a clam to draw one WA Oil in my lifetime.
Similar to my last post, I don't see how making a person choose only one in the Bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and moose draw permits, would help odds. Yes you're reducing applicants per species, but each person is only in one draw instead of three, which reduces your odds of drawing something. Now having said that, I'd be fine with it as I only apply for moose, so it would benefit me. But overall I don't think it would be of any benefit to most people. Why try to fix what isn't broke?
Post by: jackelope on June 20, 2017, 09:11:52 AM
I guess I just feel like if folks had to choose, reducing the number of applicants in each category would improve the odds. Even if it's just a little.
With all that said, I've been pretty lucky. In 11 years of applying for permits, I've drawn a quality buck with 4 points, a buck deer permit with 6 and an OIL with 9.
Post by: Stein on June 20, 2017, 09:13:53 AM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
I wouldn't. You could go a lifetime and not draw a single OIL tag. Having to choose almost eliminates you from drawing all 3 in your lifetime in WA.
You say people may not draw one and this idea eliminates you from drawing all 3??? If you cant draw one how do you get all 3. I have almost max points for Sheep and Goat and my fare share for Moose. If you forced people to pick one Oil you would see the number of applicants reduced to half if not more in each category, dramatically increasing your odds of drawing a tag. I would be happy as a clam to draw one WA Oil in my lifetime.
So right now you have 3 different draws that you're involved in. You might reduce the amount of competitors in your draw by a third, but you also reduce the amount of draws you're involved in by two thirds.
I just don't see how the math is any more in your favor than it is now. There are guys who have drawn 2-3 OILs in a year. A few years ago one guy on here drew all 3 (wish I had bookmarked that thread). It pisses some guys off, but next year that could be you or me.
Curtis
Point creep happens when the guys with the most points don't get cleared out. (Yes, I know how our system works, you can have point creep in a random draw system when the average points it takes to draw the tag goes up every year.)
To clear those guys out, you need fewer people entering the draw. If you had to choose 1, your overall odds of drawing SOMETHING go down, but your odds of drawing ONE tag go up. It forces people to pick what they really want and then gives them better odds at that thing.
Right now, I would guess a bunch of people (like me) put in for many things if not most or even all. I put in for a goat tag, but I would much prefer a sheep or even a top elk tag. If under a new system I put in for elk but not goats and another guy puts in for goats but not elk, we are both more likely to draw our top choice.
What to do with all the points is the question, the math would be a monster, but I think you could just keep what you have since you would only be using one at a time and it would clear them out much faster since you wouldn't be accumulating them nearly as fast.
Post by: jackelope on June 20, 2017, 09:14:01 AM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
I wouldn't. You could go a lifetime and not draw a single OIL tag. Having to choose almost eliminates you from drawing all 3 in your lifetime in WA.
You say people may not draw one and this idea eliminates you from drawing all 3??? If you cant draw one how do you get all 3. I have almost max points for Sheep and Goat and my fare share for Moose. If you forced people to pick one Oil you would see the number of applicants reduced to half if not more in each category, dramatically increasing your odds of drawing a tag. I would be happy as a clam to draw one WA Oil in my lifetime.
Similar to my last post, I don't see how making a person choose only one in the Bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and moose draw permits, would help odds. Yes you're reducing applicants per species, but each person is only in one draw instead of three, which reduces your odds of drawing something. Now having said that, I'd be fine with it as I only apply for moose, so it would benefit me. But overall I don't think it would be of any benefit to most people. Why try to fix what isn't broke?
You don't think reducing applicants per species would increase a guy's odds of drawing that species?
I guess it might decrease the odds of a hail mary permit, but I can't imagine it actually would decrease the odds of drawing the permit you want.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 20, 2017, 09:22:07 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 20, 2017, 09:25:24 AM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
I wouldn't. You could go a lifetime and not draw a single OIL tag. Having to choose almost eliminates you from drawing all 3 in your lifetime in WA.
You say people may not draw one and this idea eliminates you from drawing all 3??? If you cant draw one how do you get all 3. I have almost max points for Sheep and Goat and my fare share for Moose. If you forced people to pick one Oil you would see the number of applicants reduced to half if not more in each category, dramatically increasing your odds of drawing a tag. I would be happy as a clam to draw one WA Oil in my lifetime.
Similar to my last post, I don't see how making a person choose only one in the Bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and moose draw permits, would help odds. Yes you're reducing applicants per species, but each person is only in one draw instead of three, which reduces your odds of drawing something. Now having said that, I'd be fine with it as I only apply for moose, so it would benefit me. But overall I don't think it would be of any benefit to most people. Why try to fix what isn't broke?
You don't think reducing applicants per species would increase a guy's odds of drawing that species?
I guess it might decrease the odds of a hail mary permit, but I can't imagine it actually would decrease the odds of drawing the permit you want.
Yes, it probably would increase odds for the one species but now you're only in for one instead of three, which decreases your odds. Like I said, it would be great for guys like me who only apply for one. But I feel it would be unfair to those who apply for all three.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 20, 2017, 09:33:52 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on June 20, 2017, 09:37:13 AM
So if I have goat first and sheep second and I get drawn I get a goat tag if it's left and if not sheep (and so on down my list) and once I have a permit my name is removed and it goes to the next person. It eliminates drawing multiple tags a year but you would get more people with something.
I don't know how points would work.
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2017, 09:38:43 AM
I think the point is that limiting applicants to one specie increases the odds of drawing that specie, but doesn't increase the overall odds of getting one of the three OIL permits. Today I can apply for three OIL permits which gives me three chances to draw at least one. If someone is intent on only drawing moose, goat, or sheep then limiting choices would help them. However, many hunters view them somewhat equally and would be thrilled to get any of the three.I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.
I wouldn't. You could go a lifetime and not draw a single OIL tag. Having to choose almost eliminates you from drawing all 3 in your lifetime in WA.
You say people may not draw one and this idea eliminates you from drawing all 3??? If you cant draw one how do you get all 3. I have almost max points for Sheep and Goat and my fare share for Moose. If you forced people to pick one Oil you would see the number of applicants reduced to half if not more in each category, dramatically increasing your odds of drawing a tag. I would be happy as a clam to draw one WA Oil in my lifetime.
Similar to my last post, I don't see how making a person choose only one in the Bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and moose draw permits, would help odds. Yes you're reducing applicants per species, but each person is only in one draw instead of three, which reduces your odds of drawing something. Now having said that, I'd be fine with it as I only apply for moose, so it would benefit me. But overall I don't think it would be of any benefit to most people. Why try to fix what isn't broke?
You don't think reducing applicants per species would increase a guy's odds of drawing that species?
I guess it might decrease the odds of a hail mary permit, but I can't imagine it actually would decrease the odds of drawing the permit you want.
Post by: huntnphool on June 20, 2017, 09:45:14 AM
If I could swear on this site I'd say F no to this question! 5 year waiting period sounds great.
I agree with the f-no, but what good would a 5 year wait do? For a unit with 10 tags available, it would decrease the pool by 50 applicants. Will people seriously feel better about this system if 50 less applicants were reduced from a pool that on average has 1500?
For units with 1 tag, will reducing the applicants by 5 really make you feel better about your odds? :dunno:
IMO, we need a system that dumps the points! :twocents:
Post by: Mfowl on June 20, 2017, 09:45:40 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 20, 2017, 09:50:42 AM
:yeah:If I could swear on this site I'd say F no to this question! 5 year waiting period sounds great.
I agree with the f-no, but what good would a 5 year wait do? For a unit with 10 tags available, it would decrease the pool by 50 applicants. Will people seriously feel better about this system if 50 less applicants were reduced from a pool that on average has 1500?
For units with 1 tag, will reducing the applicants by 5 really make you feel better about your odds? :dunno:
IMO, we need a system that dumps the points! :twocents:
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 20, 2017, 09:53:25 AM
If I could swear on this site I'd say F no to this question! 5 year waiting period sounds great.
I agree with the f-no, but what good would a 5 year wait do? For a unit with 10 tags available, it would decrease the pool by 50 applicants. Will people seriously feel better about this system if 50 less applicants were reduced from a pool that on average has 1500?
For units with 1 tag, will reducing the applicants by 5 really make you feel better about your odds? :dunno:
IMO, we need a system that dumps the points! :twocents:
If we dumped points do they hold a value. Are they our points or the states. Just curious. Cost of playing the game or should we get reimbursed.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2017, 10:03:22 AM
My view...points are not real property. If the state decides to change how limited resources are allocated to the public, that is within their authority...so no, I would think there would be no reimbursement required to comply with any law. Legal issues aside, I still don't think we should get reimbursed. I "use" my points every year to increase my odds of drawing...so far it hasn't worked out! :chuckle: But, I have like 81x the chance of drawing a quality elk tag than the guy who put in for the first time this year.If I could swear on this site I'd say F no to this question! 5 year waiting period sounds great.
I agree with the f-no, but what good would a 5 year wait do? For a unit with 10 tags available, it would decrease the pool by 50 applicants. Will people seriously feel better about this system if 50 less applicants were reduced from a pool that on average has 1500?
For units with 1 tag, will reducing the applicants by 5 really make you feel better about your odds? :dunno:
IMO, we need a system that dumps the points! :twocents:
If we dumped points do they hold a value. Are they our points or the states. Just curious. Cost of playing the game or should we get reimbursed.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 20, 2017, 10:09:21 AM
i agree w dumping the point system, no more points given, when you draw your done w points. 50 less applicants in the tag I go for would cut the number of applicants in half, potentially. But I realize that doesn't mean my odds go up by half. There are a few good ideas that have been thrown out there, no more points, a wait period, only one choice for quality, pick either deer/elk to apply for OR OIL permits not both and purchase Oil tags to apply. It certainly would be nice to see wdfw do something to improve odds, these examples would not stop the money flow that we know they care about more than odds.If I could swear on this site I'd say F no to this question! 5 year waiting period sounds great.
I agree with the f-no, but what good would a 5 year wait do? For a unit with 10 tags available, it would decrease the pool by 50 applicants. Will people seriously feel better about this system if 50 less applicants were reduced from a pool that on average has 1500?
For units with 1 tag, will reducing the applicants by 5 really make you feel better about your odds? :dunno:
IMO, we need a system that dumps the points! :twocents:
Post by: Stein on June 20, 2017, 10:10:33 AM
You either need to be happy with the current system or be willing to give up something to get something better.
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2017, 10:12:52 AM
WDFW advertises that "Building special permit points gives applicants a better chance in the random drawings." For that service, they charge a fee.My view...points are not real property. If the state decides to change how limited resources are allocated to the public, that is within their authority...so no, I would think there would be no reimbursement required to comply with any law. Legal issues aside, I still don't think we should get reimbursed. I "use" my points every year to increase my odds of drawing...so far it hasn't worked out! :chuckle: But, I have like 81x the chance of drawing a quality elk tag than the guy who put in for the first time this year.If I could swear on this site I'd say F no to this question! 5 year waiting period sounds great.
I agree with the f-no, but what good would a 5 year wait do? For a unit with 10 tags available, it would decrease the pool by 50 applicants. Will people seriously feel better about this system if 50 less applicants were reduced from a pool that on average has 1500?
For units with 1 tag, will reducing the applicants by 5 really make you feel better about your odds? :dunno:
IMO, we need a system that dumps the points! :twocents:
If we dumped points do they hold a value. Are they our points or the states. Just curious. Cost of playing the game or should we get reimbursed.
Taking away points eliminates the benefit accrued by those who paid the fee over a series of years.
I believe that legal actions would ensue.
Post by: huntnphool on June 20, 2017, 10:14:15 AM
If I could swear on this site I'd say F no to this question! 5 year waiting period sounds great.
I agree with the f-no, but what good would a 5 year wait do? For a unit with 10 tags available, it would decrease the pool by 50 applicants. Will people seriously feel better about this system if 50 less applicants were reduced from a pool that on average has 1500?
For units with 1 tag, will reducing the applicants by 5 really make you feel better about your odds? :dunno:
IMO, we need a system that dumps the points! :twocents:
If we dumped points do they hold a value. Are they our points or the states. Just curious. Cost of playing the game or should we get reimbursed.
That's the reason the system would be near impossible to change. People feel they have made an investment (which they have) and are more concerned with protecting that investment then moving to a new system that would likely serve them better. There is more emphasis on the sunk costs than looking forward.
You either need to be happy with the current system or be willing to give up something to get something better.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,214387.msg2854669.html#msg2854669
Post by: bobcat on June 20, 2017, 10:19:58 AM
If the antlerless elk permits were combined with the "quality elk" and the "bull elk" those who mostly hunt for meat would have better odds of drawing the antlerless permits, and those who hunt for antlers would have better odds for the quality bull permits.
Also, there's no need for separate youth, over 65, and disabled hunter categories. The only reason for having those is so the WDFW can sell more applications.
Post by: fish vacuum on June 20, 2017, 10:30:27 AM
exactly! I have a buddy that has put in for quality deer since points started, he is 69 and hasn't drawn! Well I havnt drawn for that matter either! Its pretty much OIL!Just drew the Entiat at age 60. Pretty sure its OIL !:yeah:
Your buddy had the option of applying for lots of hunts with better odds. I get drawn for a quality tag every few years because I'm not applying for the hunts everyone else is.
Post by: boneaddict on June 20, 2017, 10:33:33 AM
Post by: fish vacuum on June 20, 2017, 10:52:33 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 20, 2017, 10:54:34 AM
Maybe WDFW should require people to pass a basic math test before they can apply.
:yeah:
Post by: Timberstalker on June 20, 2017, 10:55:20 AM
Should go like idaho. You can either apply OIL or for deer and elk
This.
Post by: BoomWhop on June 20, 2017, 11:04:58 AM
For other than OIL make 50% of the tags available only for people with 10+ points
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2017, 11:08:11 AM
Post by: fish vacuum on June 20, 2017, 11:16:13 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2017, 11:16:43 AM
It is an interesting consideration...are there any examples of litigation stemming from changes to how tags are drawn? I'm sure someone could sue, but I don't think they stand a chance of being successful. The only gray area in my mind would be people who only purchased ghost points, having never applied for a permit. If you ever applied for an actual hunt, you have gotten "use" out of your points. I suspect there are very few people who have only purchased points and never applied - those folks perhaps could be eligible for a small refund if the state wanted to be really generous...but I would advise against even doing that.WDFW advertises that "Building special permit points gives applicants a better chance in the random drawings." For that service, they charge a fee.My view...points are not real property. If the state decides to change how limited resources are allocated to the public, that is within their authority...so no, I would think there would be no reimbursement required to comply with any law. Legal issues aside, I still don't think we should get reimbursed. I "use" my points every year to increase my odds of drawing...so far it hasn't worked out! :chuckle: But, I have like 81x the chance of drawing a quality elk tag than the guy who put in for the first time this year.If I could swear on this site I'd say F no to this question! 5 year waiting period sounds great.
I agree with the f-no, but what good would a 5 year wait do? For a unit with 10 tags available, it would decrease the pool by 50 applicants. Will people seriously feel better about this system if 50 less applicants were reduced from a pool that on average has 1500?
For units with 1 tag, will reducing the applicants by 5 really make you feel better about your odds? :dunno:
IMO, we need a system that dumps the points! :twocents:
If we dumped points do they hold a value. Are they our points or the states. Just curious. Cost of playing the game or should we get reimbursed.
Taking away points eliminates the benefit accrued by those who paid the fee over a series of years.
I believe that legal actions would ensue.
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2017, 11:20:12 AM
And yet in spite of reduced odds the number of special permit applications continues to grow each year. For “Quality Elk” there were 24,391 applications in 2010; by 2016 that number had grown to 29,433, an increase of 20%.
New applicants are attracted to the idea of getting better odds each year, and applicants that have been playing the game for many years are reluctant to quit and throw away their investments.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 20, 2017, 11:20:27 AM
Here's an idea OIL are really difficult. It could go similar to Wyoming, Make it that you have to buy the tag to submit for a permit, or if you just want to put in for a point bump it to 50.00 but you are not in the draw. Ya it sucks, it does make it a "rich mans" sport. But life isn't fair and if you are truly passionate to draw a OIL you will find a way to fund your tags. If you don't draw you get your money back minus the point fee.
For other than OIL make 50% of the tags available only for people with 10+ points
If the "life isn't fair" rule applies, why would we want to alienate even more people by making hunting even more unaffordable?
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2017, 11:35:42 AM
If you ever applied for an actual hunt, you have gotten "use" out of your points.It's different than a raffle ticket which has no value after not being drawn.
Points not only give you a chance to draw in the year you applied, they improve future odds of drawing as well. Applying and not drawing does not "use" the entire value of the application. It's the future value that would be eliminated if the point system is taken away.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 20, 2017, 11:37:53 AM
Here's an idea OIL are really difficult. It could go similar to Wyoming, Make it that you have to buy the tag to submit for a permit, or if you just want to put in for a point bump it to 50.00 but you are not in the draw. Ya it sucks, it does make it a "rich mans" sport. But life isn't fair and if you are truly passionate to draw a OIL you will find a way to fund your tags. If you don't draw you get your money back minus the point fee.:yeah: more good ideas that wdfw won't bother with.
For other than OIL make 50% of the tags available only for people with 10+ points
Post by: Curly on June 20, 2017, 11:40:25 AM
That's why I don't want to spend retirement living in this state. I can't wait for retirement and spending time in WY or ID. Until then, I'll have to be a non-resident hunter in those states.
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
Post by: Stein on June 20, 2017, 11:51:34 AM
Here’s why I don’t expect WDFW to make any changes. The scheme they implemented in 2010 resulted in a significant increase in special permit applications, and thus revenue. For example, in 2009 there were 36,510 total applications for “Deer”. In 2016 there were 65,310 applications for the various deer categories.
And yet in spite of reduced odds the number of special permit applications continues to grow each year. For “Quality Elk” there were 24,391 applications in 2010; by 2016 that number had grown to 29,433, an increase of 20%.
New applicants are attracted to the idea of getting better odds each year, and applicants that have been playing the game for many years are reluctant to quit and throw away their investments.
Bingo.
The state was open about it, they said the #1 reason they did it was to increase revenue for access to private land. I'm all for that.
The second reason was that people didn't want to blow their elk points on a cow hunt.
Looking at it that way, the system works pretty well. You just have to ignore the odds and point creep and remember that wasn't the driving force in the change.
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2017, 11:54:35 AM
Post by: Bushcraft on June 20, 2017, 11:57:55 AM
It's a numbers game, you can change the system all you want but no matter what system is used to distribut tags there are only so many animals can be taken in Washington. The only way to truly increase hunter opportunity is to have more game animals available to hunt. As long as we have growing predator numbers and decreasing herds that means fewer animals for hunters regardless of the system used to distribute tags!
:yeah: Nailed it.
Post by: Roperfive88 on June 20, 2017, 12:00:09 PM
Like that will help. 14 tags in a unit that 1400 people put in for. That's 1.4 tags go to 140 does that really look like a benefit. Can't change the problem of to many people not enough animals. Most of the units that are being complained about are this kind of pool.I voted no. That said, I think they should tweak the special permit draw system to increase the odds for people that habitually put in for one particular area. Take a guy who REALLY wants to hunt a particular GMU and has religiously been putting in for 15-20 years and hoping and praying he'll one day get drawn. He's put in his dues over the years scouting it and knows the area like the back of his hand. I think he should get a better crack at it than some knucklehead with the same points who throws a dart at the game regs every year and randomly chooses where he'd like to hunt.
Like 10% of the tags go to the top 10% of point holders? Other states do that for OILs don't they?
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2017, 12:01:21 PM
Here’s why I don’t expect WDFW to make any changes. The scheme they implemented in 2010 resulted in a significant increase in special permit applications, and thus revenue. For example, in 2009 there were 36,510 total applications for “Deer”. In 2016 there were 65,310 applications for the various deer categories.
And yet in spite of reduced odds the number of special permit applications continues to grow each year. For “Quality Elk” there were 24,391 applications in 2010; by 2016 that number had grown to 29,433, an increase of 20%.
New applicants are attracted to the idea of getting better odds each year, and applicants that have been playing the game for many years are reluctant to quit and throw away their investments.
WDFW has a big budget that requires a lot of money, and they are controlled by green groups, so two issues are probably not negotiable:
1. Predator hunting will not be increased
2. Nothing else will be done that reduces revenue
Post by: Gringo31 on June 20, 2017, 12:03:14 PM
Quote
IMO, we need a system that dumps the points!
I think there are some draw that do this. Archery Observatory is an example. 130 tags given where everyone drawn thinks they've cut a fat hog and then have single digit success rates. It "dumps" points....
That being said, predators, poaching and "other" things out there remove more opportunity than any permit process/program we have.... :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2017, 12:08:24 PM
Simple math indicates that is one permit for every 767 applications. Cut the number of applications 90%, and overall odds improve to 1 in 77. When that happens, 76 of 77 applications won’t be drawn. Who do you blame then?
Post by: huntnphool on June 20, 2017, 12:14:30 PM
Here’s why I don’t expect WDFW to make any changes. The scheme they implemented in 2010 resulted in a significant increase in special permit applications, and thus revenue. For example, in 2009 there were 36,510 total applications for “Deer”. In 2016 there were 65,310 applications for the various deer categories.
A system like I proposed slowly eliminates the point system while maintaining the states thirst for revenue. ;)
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2017, 12:21:01 PM
A change that phases out points could work, but whatever change is suggested or implemented will almost certainly meet resistance from some parties that will be hard to overcome.Here’s why I don’t expect WDFW to make any changes. The scheme they implemented in 2010 resulted in a significant increase in special permit applications, and thus revenue. For example, in 2009 there were 36,510 total applications for “Deer”. In 2016 there were 65,310 applications for the various deer categories.
A system like I proposed slowly eliminates the point system while maintaining the states thirst for revenue. ;)
I'm sure other states are questioning their point systems as well. It will be interesting to see which one if any of them drops points first.
Post by: kentrek on June 20, 2017, 12:36:09 PM
How about doing Idaho's system for the regular bull and buck permits and then doing a points system with a 5 year wait for the quality permits
Same amount of money, just less people and better odds....i don't see why need to have a blanket style system that covers all the tags
Post by: Jpmiller on June 20, 2017, 12:53:46 PM
Post by: NRA4LIFE on June 20, 2017, 01:01:08 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on June 20, 2017, 01:39:11 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: fish vacuum on June 20, 2017, 03:15:34 PM
It's a numbers game, you can change the system all you want but no matter what system is used to distribut tags there are only so many animals can be taken in Washington. The only way to truly increase hunter opportunity is to have more game animals available to hunt. As long as we have growing predator numbers and decreasing herds that means fewer animals for hunters regardless of the system used to distribute tags!Ding ding ding!
Post by: fish vacuum on June 20, 2017, 03:19:42 PM
One factor that tend to aggravate this is the decline in small game and upland bird hunting in Washington. When I was a youth I did far more duck and pheasant hunting than big game. The declines in those opportunities puts increased emphasis and attention on big game.
Add reduced fishing opportunities to that thought. Reduced fall salmon and winter steelhead fisheries have many of us looking for other ways to fill our time. I've been doing a lot more grouse hunting the last few years and applying for multiseason deer. Just waiting for the state to introduce a new grouse hunting fee.
Post by: winshooter88 on June 20, 2017, 04:47:59 PM
Post by: JLS on June 20, 2017, 05:58:38 PM
Here’s why I don’t expect WDFW to make any changes. The scheme they implemented in 2010 resulted in a significant increase in special permit applications, and thus revenue. For example, in 2009 there were 36,510 total applications for “Deer”. In 2016 there were 65,310 applications for the various deer categories.
And yet in spite of reduced odds the number of special permit applications continues to grow each year. For “Quality Elk” there were 24,391 applications in 2010; by 2016 that number had grown to 29,433, an increase of 20%.
New applicants are attracted to the idea of getting better odds each year, and applicants that have been playing the game for many years are reluctant to quit and throw away their investments.
WDFW has a big budget that requires a lot of money, and they are controlled by green groups, so two issues are probably not negotiable:
1. Predator hunting will not be increased
2. Nothing else will be done that reduces revenue
Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to this.
Post by: Bullkllr on June 20, 2017, 07:00:50 PM
Until something is done about the multiple categories, the complaining will continue. The problem is not "points"-vs- "no points". The problem is there is nothing to make people pick which hunts they really want. Getting rid of applying for multiple choices in multiple categories would make odds considerably better across the board, but that ain't likely to happen.
I typically apply for "lesser" hunts in the quality category. I drew 3 Quality Elk permits in 12 years. Killed a nice bull each time; not once-in-a-lifetime-bulls- but had great uncrowded hunts and I was more than happy. I've been doing points since then because of little time off in the fall. :twocents:
Post by: Jpmiller on June 20, 2017, 07:20:09 PM
I bought sayleans book on bear hunting and hope to be putting my first one on the ground this year. Maybe more of us should be successful bear cougar and coyote hunters.
Post by: Jpmiller on June 20, 2017, 07:22:46 PM
I'm certainly not doing my part so don't take this as me looking down my nose at anyone but it seems better than listing all the reasons the system is flawed online.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2017, 07:28:54 PM
Until something is done about the multiple categories, the complaining will continue. The problem is not "points"-vs- "no points". The problem is there is nothing to make people pick which hunts they really want. Getting rid of applying for multiple choices in multiple categories would make odds considerably better across the board, but that ain't likely to happen.:yeah:
The multiple categories and 2-4 choices per category is what really kills things IMO. High demand, quality permits are always going to be hard to draw...what I think really sucks in this state is how hard it is to draw antlerless or other mediocre permits.
Post by: buglebrush on June 21, 2017, 02:00:09 PM
I would strongly support us being able to apply for deer or elk, and not both, yearly and only one OIL choice per year.YES! Stein mentioned above that he wishes there would be a way to increase draw odds. Well, this would help immensely.
Post by: huntnnw on June 22, 2017, 06:38:11 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on June 22, 2017, 07:18:09 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 22, 2017, 07:21:55 AM
Wanting to hunt a oil tag but not having the same "passion" as someone else shouldn't disqualify you.:yeah:
I don't mind doing it to nonresidents, but to expect a resident to front $1,000 to apply for the OIL tags for animals that are in their state is a bit much.
We shouldn't be trying to eliminate hunting opportunity.
Post by: huntnnw on June 22, 2017, 07:58:57 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on June 22, 2017, 10:50:05 AM
Gotta front in a lot of states. Not just oil , but deer and elk
But why is trying to price hunters out of opportunities the way you want to go? Why limit the chances for everyone? What makes my chances of drawing a tag any more important than someone else's chances?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 22, 2017, 11:11:23 AM
:tup:
Post by: SkookumHntr on June 22, 2017, 11:35:02 AM
:bash:Gotta front in a lot of states. Not just oil , but deer and elk
But why is trying to price hunters out of opportunities the way you want to go? Why limit the chances for everyone? What makes my chances of drawing a tag any more important than someone else's chances?
Post by: Biggerhammer on June 24, 2017, 05:19:33 PM
Brilliant! Let's put more restrictions on a already restricted system.
Post by: Jimmy33 on June 25, 2017, 09:37:15 AM
There's not a single buck or bull tag in WA worth that designation . Some states do have tags like this such as Henry mts Utah. There are LOTS of options in this state to increase draw odds and they have done absolutely nothing about it EVER! If it means less money they don't wanna hear it.My point exactly...the reason that there are so many differing opinions for the way Washington should be managed is because there are so many different levels of what people perceive as good quality Hunts and the amount of money and time people are willing to put up with to get those hunts. If I didn't live here and have been stupidly hoarding points over 14 years for perceived "great" hunts then this would not be a state worth saving points for. The best tags this state has to offer are general season OTC tags. We as Washington hunters are feeding WDFWs fire when it comes to this system. We won't do anything about it. I think it's pretty simple. We have option 1 that says we go down to one choice per category. I hate this option but I'm afraid it's all they may actually agree too. Or option 2 get rid of everything and go to idahos system. I also think that if you draw a tag, you should only be able to hunt that season, not a general tag. In short, there are no OIL elk or deer tags in this state. OTC mule deer and elk in other states are equal to our 1% draw odd tags...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk