Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 03:59:39 PM
Thank you.
Post by: Timberstalker on June 24, 2017, 04:02:22 PM
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 04:02:48 PM
I voted yes, but not until I draw my quality bull. I have 20 points and don't want those going away.
:chuckle:
Post by: lord grizzly on June 24, 2017, 04:04:42 PM
Post by: X-Force on June 24, 2017, 04:05:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 24, 2017, 04:06:20 PM
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 04:07:29 PM
What do you mean by only one chance per year? You mean only one species?
1 name in the hat per applicant, per species. Of course OIL remains OIL, once you draw you're out.
*I updated the poll to clarify that it is for each species.
Post by: bobcat on June 24, 2017, 04:09:57 PM
What do you mean by only one chance per year? You mean only one species?
1 name in the hat per applicant, per species. Of course OIL remains OIL, once you draw you're out.
Okay, I'd vote yes then.
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 04:10:26 PM
I'm no sure I understand the question. 1 chance per species, 1 chance per category, 1 chance period?
Yes, I updated the poll to clear things up.
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 04:11:43 PM
Questions probably a little to simple. For example if its to phase it out over time. I would say yes. Then I'd just hold on to my ten points I have as a non resident and apply years from now when that ten points is up around max. If it's just dropping the points one day guys like me probably could take it or leave it but residents with 20+ will never let go if that investment
It's meant to be simple... like the draw should be. ;)
"Completely do away with the current system" is about as clear as I could be.
If the public majority voted to do away with the current system, then those sitting on 20 points would have to accept it. :dunno: This is one of the reasons for starting this poll, just to gauge the opinion of the majority.
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 04:19:25 PM
In my opinion the points system will HAVE to change in the future. I just don't see it continuing down it's current path.
Post by: Timberstalker on June 24, 2017, 04:22:55 PM
Post by: Jpmiller on June 24, 2017, 04:25:31 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 24, 2017, 04:38:44 PM
Questions probably a little to simple. For example if its to phase it out over time. I would say yes. Then I'd just hold on to my ten points I have as a non resident and apply years from now when that ten points is up around max. If it's just dropping the points one day guys like me probably could take it or leave it but residents with 20+ will never let go if that investment
It's meant to be simple... like the draw should be. ;)
"Completely do away with the current system" is about as clear as I could be.
If the public majority voted to do away with the current system, then those sitting on 20 points would have to accept it. :dunno: This is one of the reasons for starting this poll, just to gauge the opinion of the majority.
Got it. Might add a third option "good either way"for the folks like me. May paint a fuller picture. Might be suprized the votes that one gets too
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 04:39:25 PM
It'll have to be a similar revenue based system. No way they are getting away from all the separate categories. It's just too much revenue for them to turn away from.
You could still have multi-season and doe tags. Deer/elk/etc... could be one name in the hat and list your 4 choices in order. This poll is strictly regarding the points system (at least that's what I'm trying for).
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 04:41:07 PM
Questions probably a little to simple. For example if its to phase it out over time. I would say yes. Then I'd just hold on to my ten points I have as a non resident and apply years from now when that ten points is up around max. If it's just dropping the points one day guys like me probably could take it or leave it but residents with 20+ will never let go if that investment
It's meant to be simple... like the draw should be. ;)
"Completely do away with the current system" is about as clear as I could be.
If the public majority voted to do away with the current system, then those sitting on 20 points would have to accept it. :dunno: This is one of the reasons for starting this poll, just to gauge the opinion of the majority.
Got it. Might add a third option "good either way"for the folks like me. May paint a fuller picture. Might be suprized the votes that one gets too
I appreciate the input, but I want a simple poll. Basically a "keep the points system OR do away with it".
Post by: lord grizzly on June 24, 2017, 04:44:47 PM
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 04:45:53 PM
I don't know what the people with the power to change the system would change it for. I don't think the state sees any issue with the way it's run now.
Leaving the state out of it, the reason for this poll is because of the large amount of threads that recently started regarding the WA points system. A bunch of people are complaining about it, so I figured why not see what the real majority (of HW anyway) would prefer. This poll should take the place of endless pages of threads rambling on and getting diluted to crazy ideas... It's just to get an idea on what the majority wants: Points system the way it is, OR, done away with and 1 chance per applicant.
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 04:47:17 PM
I get it. I'm just saying there's likely a very large group out there not as polarized on the issue so the poll here really won't represent the entirety of the group of participants. If you were to actually want to use a tool like this to change policy state agencies have to take into account the whole user groups temp on the issue
Ok, I see what you are saying. I will add the option. Thanks.
It should be noted, there are 13 YES and 8 NO at the time I added the "don't care either way" option.
Post by: lord grizzly on June 24, 2017, 04:55:23 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on June 24, 2017, 05:15:22 PM
What do you mean by only one chance per year? You mean only one species?
1 name in the hat per applicant, per species. Of course OIL remains OIL, once you draw you're out.
Okay, I'd vote yes then.
:yeah: If they would get back to one app per species I'd be all for it. If not, I don't think so.
Post by: Curly on June 24, 2017, 06:00:57 PM
Post by: robodad on June 24, 2017, 07:17:11 PM
I voted to do away with the points system and level the playing field !!
Post by: Brushbuster on June 24, 2017, 07:34:35 PM
Post by: buglebrush on June 24, 2017, 07:35:31 PM
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 08:14:16 PM
Points system needs to go away, but I wouldn't favor the rest of your description. The poll should be a simple yes or no on eliminating the point system. :twocents:
So if the points system went away, what do you think should happen next? A one name in the hat, per species, per year, per applicant seems logical. Other then that it seems there would have to be a "points" system, but under the disguise of a different name...
Post by: ScottE on June 24, 2017, 09:22:54 PM
Even though I keep reading that "my odds get worse every year" my chance of drawing are still better than any one person who has not applied more than me(has less points)
I think alot of the grumbling is people that feel they should have the right to hunt there local areas or people holding out for very popular tags. I also feel like the average hunter is fine with drawing a cool tag every few years or a cow/doe tag every now and then. Not to mention the fact we can always hunt the general seasons.
There might come a time when the system needs fixed but i don't think were there yet, in my opinion.
After all we do live in Washington.
Post by: jmscon on June 24, 2017, 10:05:39 PM
If it is a revenue thing, who would be willing to pay more for an application if the odds were better? I would.
Post by: ScottE on June 24, 2017, 11:13:23 PM
Post by: 7mag. on June 24, 2017, 11:15:06 PM
If you don't like the system, you don't have to be part of it. You are free to spend your money in a state that has a system you like.
Does anyone else see you much like liberals you all sound like by complaining about the system because you didn't draw?
Post by: Mfowl on June 24, 2017, 11:57:08 PM
Let's put this debate to rest and have a poll to see what the numbers are.
So far, this poll isn't putting anything to rest.
I voted no, 1 name/species/category is going to generate a whole new list of gripes about WDFW. Some guys will draw great tags back to back or 2 times in 3 years while others guys get blanked over and over. It will boil down to WDFW's screwed up draw system and they'll get blamed for changing it and being inept. Fact is they don't guarantee your points will get you a tag you play the game and take your chances.
Post by: Curly on June 25, 2017, 07:12:18 AM
They forced it upon us with very little public support and they lied to the wildlife commission about the amount of support there was for the category system. The permit system we have now is every bit as bad as I had suspected it would be.
I pleaded with the commission to not approve the system until more people had a chance to understand the proposed system and comment on it. But their answer to me was that they were going to approve the category system and that "it could be tweeked" in the future as necessary.
My biggest complaint was how Dave Ware chose to apply one's points across the board into each category of a species. I still can't believe they thought that idea was okay. I've got points sitting there in disabled, over 65, youth, etc that I don't deserve to have there since I've never applied in those categories.
The other complaint I had brought up when the category system was up as a proposal, was how draw odds were going to become much worse. I thought it was odd they were coming out with the category system when one of the biggest complaints was how so many people had max point totals and still couldn't draw. Well, the category system made it worse.
I believe the category system we have now was implemented for one main reason.......revenue to wdfw.
A secondary reason was to appease the complainers with max points. They thought they could appease them by giving points to them in all categories and allowing them to draw permits in other categories while still having a chance at that permit they covet the most.
So, here we sit 7 years after implementation of this crap system. (Crappy that is if you are applying in the system, but a great system if you are wdfw and looking for revenue.) If they were going to "tweek" anything like they claimed back then, they should have taken back all those points they distributed that were not earned, but they really would have had to do that before that first draw season........really is too late now.
Other tweeks they should do in my opinion is eliminate some categories. Combine bull/quality bull and buck/quality buck for starters.
Anyway, I'm rambling at this point. Bottom line, wdfw will never get rid of points in favor of an Idaho like system. Doesn't matter if it's the right thing to do. Doesn't matter if new hunters may not get into a system (where thousands of applicants may have dozens of points ahead of them) and feel like it's a waste to apply in that system. Doesn't matter to them that a guy turning 65 may already have 14 points sitting ther in that category. The only thing they care about is money. :twocents:
Post by: Miles on June 25, 2017, 07:37:40 AM
I started this poll simply because of all the talk about points and thought it would be neat to see the results.
Post by: Gonehuntin01 on June 25, 2017, 08:44:34 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 25, 2017, 08:59:07 AM
My recollection of discussing points systems/odds/etc with him was that he may not have passed even a remedial math course.
My biggest complaint was how Dave Ware chose to apply one's points across the board into each category of a species.
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2017, 09:04:44 AM
My recollection of discussing points systems/odds/etc with him was that he may not have passed even a remedial math course.
My biggest complaint was how Dave Ware chose to apply one's points across the board into each category of a species.
:chuckle: No doubt that's the case.
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2017, 09:05:47 AM
I vote no...don't believe we do away with the system. I believe we would be better off with a preference point system. Guys with most points would draw the units. Would take a couple years to balance out, but your odds of drawing go up with more points, not down. Doesn't matter what system we use, we will never please everyone. I think Wyoming and Colorado use preference points and you can usually figure out how many points you will need to have to draw the units you put in for.
We don't have enough special permits available in the draw versus the number of applicants for a preference point system to work here.
Post by: bearpaw on June 25, 2017, 09:16:08 AM
If there was an option for a mixed system, I would probably vote for that and it would probably offer everyone something they can live with. :twocents:
Post by: Miles on June 25, 2017, 09:17:42 AM
Only then would Washingtonians fully understand point creep...I vote no...don't believe we do away with the system. I believe we would be better off with a preference point system. Guys with most points would draw the units. Would take a couple years to balance out, but your odds of drawing go up with more points, not down. Doesn't matter what system we use, we will never please everyone. I think Wyoming and Colorado use preference points and you can usually figure out how many points you will need to have to draw the units you put in for.
We don't have enough special permits available in the draw versus the number of applicants for a preference point system to work here.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 25, 2017, 09:33:43 AM
My feeling is the category system is bad for us hunters but was brilliant for wdfw to implement as a way of raising money.have to agree, but I do think the best way to eliminate the point system is to just no longer gives points out. This way they don't have to take away points and they can keep the revenue that is their main goal. I also agree w other ideas like less catagories and picking between elk, deer apps OR OIL tags, not both in same year.
They forced it upon us with very little public support and they lied to the wildlife commission about the amount of support there was for the category system. The permit system we have now is every bit as bad as I had suspected it would be.
I pleaded with the commission to not approve the system until more people had a chance to understand the proposed system and comment on it. But their answer to me was that they were going to approve the category system and that "it could be tweeked" in the future as necessary.
My biggest complaint was how Dave Ware chose to apply one's points across the board into each category of a species. I still can't believe they thought that idea was okay. I've got points sitting there in disabled, over 65, youth, etc that I don't deserve to have there since I've never applied in those categories.
The other complaint I had brought up when the category system was up as a proposal, was how draw odds were going to become much worse. I thought it was odd they were coming out with the category system when one of the biggest complaints was how so many people had max point totals and still couldn't draw. Well, the category system made it worse.
I believe the category system we have now was implemented for one main reason.......revenue to wdfw.
A secondary reason was to appease the complainers with max points. They thought they could appease them by giving points to them in all categories and allowing them to draw permits in other categories while still having a chance at that permit they covet the most.
So, here we sit 7 years after implementation of this crap system. (Crappy that is if you are applying in the system, but a great system if you are wdfw and looking for revenue.) If they were going to "tweek" anything like they claimed back then, they should have taken back all those points they distributed that were not earned, but they really would have had to do that before that first draw season........really is too late now.
Other tweeks they should do in my opinion is eliminate some categories. Combine bull/quality bull and buck/quality buck for starters.
Anyway, I'm rambling at this point. Bottom line, wdfw will never get rid of points in favor of an Idaho like system. Doesn't matter if it's the right thing to do. Doesn't matter if new hunters may not get into a system (where thousands of applicants may have dozens of points ahead of them) and feel like it's a waste to apply in that system. Doesn't matter to them that a guy turning 65 may already have 14 points sitting ther in that category. The only thing they care about is money. :twocents:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 25, 2017, 09:39:35 AM
I vote no...don't believe we do away with the system. I believe we would be better off with a preference point system. Guys with most points would draw the units. Would take a couple years to balance out, but your odds of drawing go up with more points, not down. Doesn't matter what system we use, we will never please everyone. I think Wyoming and Colorado use preference points and you can usually figure out how many points you will need to have to draw the units you put in for.The point multiplier could be changed and it might give some results closer to a preference point system, without dedicating permits for the high rollers. Just going to ^3 instead of ^2 would likely shift permits to the upper brackets. But then it becomes further from the grasp of the low points that it might scare off future applicants.
Post by: Bob33 on June 25, 2017, 09:51:49 AM
Unless permits are increased or applicants decreased, anything that improves odds for one person decrease odds for someone else.I vote no...don't believe we do away with the system. I believe we would be better off with a preference point system. Guys with most points would draw the units. Would take a couple years to balance out, but your odds of drawing go up with more points, not down. Doesn't matter what system we use, we will never please everyone. I think Wyoming and Colorado use preference points and you can usually figure out how many points you will need to have to draw the units you put in for.The point multiplier could be changed and it might give some results closer to a preference point system, without dedicating permits for the high rollers. Just going to ^3 instead of ^2 would likely shift permits to the upper brackets. But then it becomes further from the grasp of the low points that it might scare off future applicants.
Post by: Jpmiller on June 25, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
Unless permits are increased or applicants decreased, anything that improves odds for one person decrease odds for someone else.I vote no...don't believe we do away with the system. I believe we would be better off with a preference point system. Guys with most points would draw the units. Would take a couple years to balance out, but your odds of drawing go up with more points, not down. Doesn't matter what system we use, we will never please everyone. I think Wyoming and Colorado use preference points and you can usually figure out how many points you will need to have to draw the units you put in for.The point multiplier could be changed and it might give some results closer to a preference point system, without dedicating permits for the high rollers. Just going to ^3 instead of ^2 would likely shift permits to the upper brackets. But then it becomes further from the grasp of the low points that it might scare off future applicants.
That's why I ended up voting no. I don't want to discourage new hunters or low point holders from pursuing g opportunities in the field. Honestly I think I'm ok with hunting every year and getting one or two chances at a quality tag in my lifetime.
I've also sketched out a twenty year plan for some out of state hunts though.
Post by: Mfowl on June 25, 2017, 11:53:40 AM
Post by: mburrows on June 25, 2017, 12:05:55 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 25, 2017, 12:41:33 PM
I like Idaho's system. Some controlled areas, some OTC and some quota units. Wouldnt mind seeing washington go in that direction.They sort of had that in the 80's. There were GMUs that were draw only and others were OTC. The OTC units (westside) were any bull. There were almost double the elk numbers, clearcuts stretched for miles, maybe ten times the numbers of hunters in the OTC units and nearly every camp had one or two spikes each year and a bull every three years or so.
Plenty of bear and cat then, even with hounds.
Post by: huntnnw on June 25, 2017, 01:38:09 PM
Post by: huntnnw on June 26, 2017, 12:04:11 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 26, 2017, 12:18:05 AM
I'm voting no because I feel that there are a lot of people who seem to be vested in the current point system. But, if there was a way to reasonabley compensate those people who have been applying for the same hunt every year for the last 20 some years and haven't been drawn, I would be for eliminating the current system.
If it is a revenue thing, who would be willing to pay more for an application if the odds were better? I would.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,214387.msg2854669.html#msg2854669
And if there are a few of you that don't understand the explanation, just reply and we can get you the info to help.
Post by: jmscon on June 26, 2017, 10:41:45 AM
I'm voting no because I feel that there are a lot of people who seem to be vested in the current point system. But, if there was a way to reasonabley compensate those people who have been applying for the same hunt every year for the last 20 some years and haven't been drawn, I would be for eliminating the current system.
If it is a revenue thing, who would be willing to pay more for an application if the odds were better? I would.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,214387.msg2854669.html#msg2854669
And if there are a few of you that don't understand the explanation, just reply and we can get you the info to help.
Explanation?
I've seen options, ideas, frustration, theories, anger and resentment. I don't see very many explanations.
I think that the idea you have is good and I will comment on the other thread.
Post by: Twang on June 27, 2017, 01:29:42 PM
Look at Moose and Sheep. Non residents don't need a license to apply. Guess why?
Post by: bobcat on June 27, 2017, 01:45:25 PM
Look at Moose and Sheep. Non residents don't need a license to apply. Guess why?
Probably because residents don't need a license to apply either.
Post by: Timberstalker on June 27, 2017, 01:47:56 PM
Post by: lord grizzly on June 27, 2017, 03:52:16 PM
Look at Moose and Sheep. Non residents don't need a license to apply. Guess why?
Probably because residents don't need a license to apply either.
Really? Chit, looks like I can put some of my old points to use after all
Post by: Bob33 on June 27, 2017, 04:02:18 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/help/questions/383/Do+I+need+to+buy+a+hunting+license+to+apply+for+a+special+permit%3FLook at Moose and Sheep. Non residents don't need a license to apply. Guess why?
Probably because residents don't need a license to apply either.
Really? Chit, looks like I can put some of my old points to use after all
Lots of one-year olds out there with OIL points.... ;)
Post by: Miles on June 27, 2017, 04:05:03 PM