Post by: elkspert on April 13, 2018, 12:20:10 PM
Post by: SkookumHntr on April 13, 2018, 12:42:26 PM
Post by: johnnyaustin44 on April 13, 2018, 12:47:03 PM
I couldn't even draw peaches ridge with 21 points! 12 points is just getting into the game man! Tell him good luck! :chuckle:Unfortunately the that’s the truth. Luck is more important than points, even with max odds are slim for most quality permits.
Post by: bobcat on April 13, 2018, 12:52:24 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 13, 2018, 01:08:51 PM
Best way to use elk points strictly by the numbers is an archery tag.
Post by: Opportunist on April 13, 2018, 04:06:31 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on April 13, 2018, 04:17:56 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 13, 2018, 04:19:34 PM
It’s just another chance to have a good bull hunt or a otc hunt to me.
Post by: jackelope on April 13, 2018, 06:14:42 PM
Maybe just quit applying if you want to be done in wa? :dunno:
It’s just another chance to have a good bull hunt or a otc hunt to me.
Agreed. It’s like $6 a year. If guys really don’t want to hunt here because they’re pissed off, just quit buying applications. It’s not a ton of $$ and folks who feel this way have really strong feelings about it. Just be done. It’s probably not worth the heartache.
Post by: SteelheadTed on April 13, 2018, 06:19:00 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on April 13, 2018, 07:35:02 PM
Post by: elkspert on April 16, 2018, 07:47:13 AM
Post by: M_ray on April 16, 2018, 08:14:30 AM
I couldn't even draw peaches ridge with 21 points! 12 points is just getting into the game man! Tell him good luck! :chuckle:
This is why I would support a change in the way Wa does the point system. We are past the sweet spot of drawing quality tags and now there are more poeple coming in to most draws then the one point squared you are going to receive so really your odds are going down every year now. It should be like Idaho were you get to pick one and that’s it. It would eliminate hundreds of applications and improve odds in each category. :twocents:
To answer your question? If he feels that strongly then just don’t put in!
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 16, 2018, 08:39:31 AM
^^^^This. :tup:I couldn't even draw peaches ridge with 21 points! 12 points is just getting into the game man! Tell him good luck! :chuckle:
This is why I would support a change in the way Wa does the point system. We are past the sweet spot of drawing quality tags and now there are more poeple coming in to most draws then the one point squared you are going to receive so really your odds are going down every year now. It should be like Idaho were you get to pick one and that’s it. It would eliminate hundreds of applications and improve odds in each category. :twocents:
To answer your question? If he feels that strongly then just don’t put in!
Post by: buglebrush on April 16, 2018, 09:01:15 AM
I couldn't even draw peaches ridge with 21 points! 12 points is just getting into the game man! Tell him good luck! :chuckle:
This is why I would support a change in the way Wa does the point system. We are past the sweet spot of drawing quality tags and now there are more poeple coming in to most draws then the one point squared you are going to receive so really your odds are going down every year now. It should be like Idaho were you get to pick one and that’s it. It would eliminate hundreds of applications and improve odds in each category. :twocents:
To answer your question? If he feels that strongly then just don’t put in!
Couldn't agree more. WDFW's draw system is an unabashed money grab.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 16, 2018, 09:08:45 AM
That said.... If you do get drawn, it's still the least expensive quality tag you'll draw.
Post by: Stein on April 16, 2018, 09:43:21 AM
Too many people, too few animals and both seem to be going in the wrong direction.
Post by: elkspert on April 16, 2018, 10:03:25 AM
Not much to add other than I also wish we would go to a system where you can only enter for one permit. Jack the price up to make it revenue neutral and the system would at least limp along for another few years before even that broke down.
Too many people, too few animals and both seem to be going in the wrong direction.
Agree 100%..
Post by: Skillet on April 16, 2018, 10:21:40 AM
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
Post by: Ridgeratt on April 16, 2018, 10:24:40 AM
That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
:yeah:
Eliminate the points. Everyone is at zero. Make it so you can't Gamble on credit. If you choose to put in for the tag it's money up front.
Post by: Bob33 on April 16, 2018, 10:40:58 AM
That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.The odds do decrease for an individual with points near the upper end. For those at the bottom they increase: going from one year to two years increases "names in the hat" from one to four. (That's why those at the upper levels suffer.)
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
Although the odds may still be small, someone with 20 points has a much better chance of drawing than someone with one point.
I can understand people walking away, but their odds at that point get really low. ;)
Post by: gee_unit360 on April 16, 2018, 11:16:50 AM
^^^^This. :tup:I couldn't even draw peaches ridge with 21 points! 12 points is just getting into the game man! Tell him good luck! :chuckle:
This is why I would support a change in the way Wa does the point system. We are past the sweet spot of drawing quality tags and now there are more poeple coming in to most draws then the one point squared you are going to receive so really your odds are going down every year now. It should be like Idaho were you get to pick one and that’s it. It would eliminate hundreds of applications and improve odds in each category. :twocents:
To answer your question? If he feels that strongly then just don’t put in!
Agreed!!!
Post by: Skillet on April 16, 2018, 11:35:15 AM
That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.The odds do decrease for an individual with points near the upper end. For those at the bottom they increase: going from one year to two years increases "names in the hat" from one to four. (That's why those at the upper levels suffer.)
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
Although the odds may still be small, someone with 20 points has a much better chance of drawing than someone with one point.
I can understand people walking away, but their odds at that point get really low. ;)
All true points, technically. For each draw, there's a different point at which your annual improvement in odds starts going negative.
But it seems to me this discussion is more about a guy who has probably passed that point and just wants a way out. How a person sees the solution to their diminishing odds depends on what they value, I suppose. I see too often people who say something like "I'm going out of state once I cash these points in." If hunting out of state is really the goal, they would do well to just start planning those out of state hunts and forget about trying to make something out of all of the years of not drawing in WA. We only have so many hard charging huntable years in our bodies, unfortunately.
Good luck to all who are still hanging in there, WDFW appreciates your dedication! :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on April 16, 2018, 11:54:12 AM
That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.That is th reason why I don't currently put in for the draw system.
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on April 16, 2018, 12:04:58 PM
Post by: Timberstalker on April 16, 2018, 12:19:49 PM
I'm hoping someday they will either eliminate points or go to a system like Wyoming.
You and I need to burn our 21 Q-Points first. :tup:
Post by: jackelope on April 16, 2018, 12:38:01 PM
Then you might as well plan on never putting in again.That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.That is th reason why I don't currently put in for the draw system.
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on April 16, 2018, 12:40:20 PM
Agreed. I hunt in several other states and don't count on drawing Washington permits, although I still apply in several categories. For instance, the vast majority of Washington applicants for OIL (NOIL?) permits will never draw. If you really want to hunt moose in your lifetime, apply in Idaho. Maybe you'll also get lucky and draw in Washington but don't count on it. :twocents:That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.The odds do decrease for an individual with points near the upper end. For those at the bottom they increase: going from one year to two years increases "names in the hat" from one to four. (That's why those at the upper levels suffer.)
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
Although the odds may still be small, someone with 20 points has a much better chance of drawing than someone with one point.
I can understand people walking away, but their odds at that point get really low. ;)
All true points, technically. For each draw, there's a different point at which your annual improvement in odds starts going negative.
But it seems to me this discussion is more about a guy who has probably passed that point and just wants a way out. How a person sees the solution to their diminishing odds depends on what they value, I suppose. I see too often people who say something like "I'm going out of state once I cash these points in." If hunting out of state is really the goal, they would do well to just start planning those out of state hunts and forget about trying to make something out of all of the years of not drawing in WA. We only have so many hard charging huntable years in our bodies, unfortunately.
Good luck to all who are still hanging in there, WDFW appreciates your dedication! :chuckle:
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 12:42:21 PM
Not much to add other than I also wish we would go to a system where you can only enter for one permit. Jack the price up to make it revenue neutral and the system would at least limp along for another few years before even that broke down.Good idea,Which one would you put in for?Oh and what makes it so everyone else doesn't pic that same one making odds much worse than they already are? :bash: Same same every year,i want,me me me.NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR.
Too many people, too few animals and both seem to be going in the wrong direction.
Post by: trophyhunt on April 16, 2018, 12:57:05 PM
tru dat!!!! 23 this year 😬I'm hoping someday they will either eliminate points or go to a system like Wyoming.
You and I need to burn our 21 Q-Points first. :tup:
Post by: Stein on April 16, 2018, 01:01:07 PM
Not much to add other than I also wish we would go to a system where you can only enter for one permit. Jack the price up to make it revenue neutral and the system would at least limp along for another few years before even that broke down.Good idea,Which one would you put in for?Oh and what makes it so everyone else doesn't pic that same one making odds much worse than they already are? :bash: Same same every year,i want,me me me.NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR.
Too many people, too few animals and both seem to be going in the wrong direction.
I would likely put in for elk. If everyone else put in for elk, all the moose, goat, bear, sheep and deer tags would have nobody applying and they wouldn't get assigned to anyone. I would guess that the second year it wouldn't be a problem.
There is only one main way "fix" the system, you have to remove opportunity or it won't make any difference. Points or no points won't change the math, too many names in all the hats come draw time.
Pick your favorite:
Only apply for one permit a year
Every buck and bull tag is OIL
Only apply every other or every third year
Raise the price until X% drop out
Bail and hunt another state until the problem happens there too
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 01:06:51 PM
example if you draw a cow tag no reapply for draw or points for 2 maybe 3 years.
Post by: buglebrush on April 16, 2018, 05:50:11 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 16, 2018, 06:22:56 PM
On another subject I wish they would split the deer into species options. You choose Whitetail tag you get Whitetail seasons and permit choices, same for Muley and blacktail.
Oh and quit charging for turkey tags, just make them small game under the small game license
I’ll always apply in wa and hunt deer as long as I live here. There’s a chance of a good tag every year
Post by: Mtnwalker on April 16, 2018, 06:55:33 PM
I say one choice per species, either one oil species or deer/elk. And if you draw a deer or elk tag that is your hunt, your tag is no longer valid in General season hunts. And a wait after drawing before you can apply again. :twocents:
And we shall call it... Utahntanadaho :tup:
Post by: M_ray on April 16, 2018, 07:21:22 PM
Not much to add other than I also wish we would go to a system where you can only enter for one permit. Jack the price up to make it revenue neutral and the system would at least limp along for another few years before even that broke down.Good idea,Which one would you put in for?Oh and what makes it so everyone else doesn't pic that same one making odds much worse than they already are? :bash: Same same every year,i want,me me me.NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR.
Too many people, too few animals and both seem to be going in the wrong direction.
It would be impossible to have everyone put in for the same thing. Examine Idaho’s System this is the way they are doing it currently and they don’t have that problem. You are never going to get everyone to agree if you tried.
When you are forced to pick one spiecies that takes hundreds of applicants out of all the categories thus increasing odds in each one. If this system existed the OP’s buddy wouldn’t be in the position of trying to get out in the first place ;)
I would rather draw a good tag every few years and plan what it is I’d like to hunt.
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 07:31:15 PM
Multi season tags prove this in this state anyway.
Post by: snake on April 16, 2018, 07:35:36 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 07:42:25 PM
Post by: meatwhack on April 16, 2018, 07:47:40 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 08:03:08 PM
Post by: Skillet on April 16, 2018, 08:40:47 PM
it did not thin out the highly sought after tags
I do not believe this is accurate. It blew up the quality tags, as well as all of the "lesser" tags. Before, people were forced to choose and so chose based on what they truly valued. Now, those folks still put in for the same tags they wanted before - and all of the other tags, as "it's only $6 and I might get drawn."
Worst thing that ever happened to the draw in terms of odds, best thing that ever happened to the WDFW's coffers. I don't think for a second they predicted how fat of a hog they cut with this one.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 16, 2018, 08:42:23 PM
:yeah:it did not thin out the highly sought after tags
I do not believe this is accurate. It blew up the quality tags, as well as all of the "lesser" tags. Before, people were forced to choose and so chose based on what they truly valued. Now, those folks still put in for the same tags they wanted before - and all of the other tags, as "it's only $6 and I might get drawn."
Worst thing that ever happened to the draw in terms of odds, best thing that ever happened to the WDFW's coffers. I don't think for a second they predicted how fat of a hog they cut with this one.
Post by: Stein on April 16, 2018, 08:42:36 PM
M-RAY could you explain this better?How does Idaho do it?elk elk elk its almost all about the elk so try this again please.
Multi season tags prove this in this state anyway.
In Idaho, you can only apply for one species for their controlled (draw) hunts which includes deer, elk, bear, both sheep, moose and goat. Thus, if you apply for moose, you can't apply for any other draw hunt that year. You have to pick the species you want to apply for. The result is much better odds across the board for any given tag, but a zero chance of drawing more than one tag any year or a tag for all but one species.
I think it's a much better system, admittedly they also don't have the people/animal ratio problem we have here.
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 08:46:57 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 16, 2018, 08:47:11 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 08:48:48 PM
Post by: jjhunter on April 16, 2018, 08:50:00 PM
Idaho offers so many quality hunts that it really spreads the applications.
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 08:57:08 PM
Our hunting sucks there's no argument there from me.
My issue is what will work change for the best in our state?
Limit who can put in for the draw.
Our tags are also spread out very far.Every area to chose from.
The hunters that complain every year must all be putting in the same few areas.
Not many tag areas have these 20 point numbers in them.If you don't like the system fine quit putting in for them in WA.,Or The same highly sought after areas. Put in for a diff. area that everyone else isn't with only 2 or whatever tags coming out of them.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM YOU DON'T LIKE,IT'S THAT YOUR NOT GETTING DRAWN IN THE AREA YOU WANT FAST ENOUGH THAT BOTHERS THE COMPLAINERS. :twocents:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 16, 2018, 09:02:35 PM
Ok.I am pretty sure I don’t like the system in wa... but who knows maybe you know better what’s going through my mind...
Our hunting sucks there's no argument there from me.
My issue is what will work change for the best in our state?
Limit who can put in for the draw.
Our tags are also spread out very far.Every area to chose from.
The hunters that complain every year must all be putting in the same few areas.
Not many tag areas have these 20 point numbers in them.If you don't like the system fine quit putting in for them in WA.,Or The same highly sought after areas. Put in for a diff. area that everyone else isn't with only 2 or whatever tags coming out of them.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM YOU DON'T LIKE,IT'S THAT YOUR NOT GETTING DRAWN IN THE AREA YOU WANT FAST ENOUGH THAT BOTHERS THE COMPLAINERS. :twocents:
This coming from a guy who drew elk permits in 2014, 2015, and 2016
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 09:04:57 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 09:06:13 PM
Did i say that everyone likes the system somewhere?where does this statement even come from?Ok.I am pretty sure I don’t like the system in wa... but who knows maybe you know better what’s going through my mind...
Our hunting sucks there's no argument there from me.
My issue is what will work change for the best in our state?
Limit who can put in for the draw.
Our tags are also spread out very far.Every area to chose from.
The hunters that complain every year must all be putting in the same few areas.
Not many tag areas have these 20 point numbers in them.If you don't like the system fine quit putting in for them in WA.,Or The same highly sought after areas. Put in for a diff. area that everyone else isn't with only 2 or whatever tags coming out of them.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM YOU DON'T LIKE,IT'S THAT YOUR NOT GETTING DRAWN IN THE AREA YOU WANT FAST ENOUGH THAT BOTHERS THE COMPLAINERS. :twocents:
This coming from a guy who drew elk permits in 2014, 2015, and 2016
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 16, 2018, 09:07:12 PM
Read your very own capslocked portion...Did i say that everyone likes the system somewhere?where does this statement even come from?Ok.I am pretty sure I don’t like the system in wa... but who knows maybe you know better what’s going through my mind...
Our hunting sucks there's no argument there from me.
My issue is what will work change for the best in our state?
Limit who can put in for the draw.
Our tags are also spread out very far.Every area to chose from.
The hunters that complain every year must all be putting in the same few areas.
Not many tag areas have these 20 point numbers in them.If you don't like the system fine quit putting in for them in WA.,Or The same highly sought after areas. Put in for a diff. area that everyone else isn't with only 2 or whatever tags coming out of them.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM YOU DON'T LIKE,IT'S THAT YOUR NOT GETTING DRAWN IN THE AREA YOU WANT FAST ENOUGH THAT BOTHERS THE COMPLAINERS. :twocents:
This coming from a guy who drew elk permits in 2014, 2015, and 2016
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 09:09:01 PM
Comprehension really is lost.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 16, 2018, 09:09:21 PM
What is it you don't like about the system?Is it that you can put in every year and draw elk without having to wait 2 or 3 years?I don’t like that I apply and water down the system in the bull and antlerless category only because I can... same goes for the buck category for deer. If I couldn’t apply for them all I would only apply for the buck or bull tags that I really want. Right now I’ll always throw an app at the cow or bull category draws because I can. Works the same in the opposite direction with guys that only care about a cow tag but they apply for quality because they can with zero affect on their cow app.
Post by: Bob33 on April 16, 2018, 09:09:48 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 16, 2018, 09:10:41 PM
Bullblaster or everyone is not in any of it.:dunno:
Comprehension really is lost.
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 09:11:07 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 16, 2018, 09:12:19 PM
This is completely on you,If you don't like it because you can do it,Don't do it then. :bash:Why would I not? I’ll reduce other people’s odds because I can and draw tags I don’t care about just because I can.
Post by: Oh Mah on April 16, 2018, 09:13:13 PM
You are arguing with the member that says we should do what you are arguing that we need to do.Stop letting hunters that draw put in for same draw every year,make them wait 2 3 years.What is it you don't like about the system?Is it that you can put in every year and draw elk without having to wait 2 or 3 years?I don’t like that I apply and water down the system in the bull and antlerless category only because I can... same goes for the buck category for deer. If I couldn’t apply for them all I would only apply for the buck or bull tags that I really want. Right now I’ll always throw an app at the cow or bull category draws because I can. Works the same in the opposite direction with guys that only care about a cow tag but they apply for quality because they can with zero affect on their cow app.
Post by: buglebrush on April 16, 2018, 09:17:58 PM
I say one choice per species, either one oil species or deer/elk. And if you draw a deer or elk tag that is your hunt, your tag is no longer valid in General season hunts. And a wait after drawing before you can apply again. :twocents:
On another subject I wish they would split the deer into species options. You choose Whitetail tag you get Whitetail seasons and permit choices, same for Muley and blacktail.
Oh and quit charging for turkey tags, just make them small game under the small game license
I’ll always apply in wa and hunt deer as long as I live here. There’s a chance of a good tag every year
That would definitely help
Post by: bobcat on April 16, 2018, 09:23:13 PM
Post by: buglebrush on April 16, 2018, 09:24:22 PM
Ok.
Our hunting sucks there's no argument there from me.
My issue is what will work change for the best in our state?
Limit who can put in for the draw.
Our tags are also spread out very far.Every area to chose from.
The hunters that complain every year must all be putting in the same few areas.
Not many tag areas have these 20 point numbers in them.If you don't like the system fine quit putting in for them in WA.,Or The same highly sought after areas. Put in for a diff. area that everyone else isn't with only 2 or whatever tags coming out of them.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM YOU DON'T LIKE,IT'S THAT YOUR NOT GETTING DRAWN IN THE AREA YOU WANT FAST ENOUGH THAT BOTHERS THE COMPLAINERS. :twocents:
Of course it's the bloody system we don't like. I've never drawn a good tag in Idaho, but you never heart me complain because I like the system. If WA limited entries like Idaho does all our odds would go way up. I would then have no complaint whether I personally drew or not. :twocents:
Post by: Roperfive88 on April 17, 2018, 09:37:55 AM
That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
:yeah:
Eliminate the points. Everyone is at zero. Make it so you can't Gamble on credit. If you choose to put in for the tag it's money up front.
Its already pay up front for everything except Moose, Sheep, and Goats.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 17, 2018, 09:45:57 AM
I strongly believe moose sheep and goat should be up front money to apply with a refund if unsuccessful. Also I think you should only be able to apply for one of those species at a time with options to point it for the other two.That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
:yeah:
Eliminate the points. Everyone is at zero. Make it so you can't Gamble on credit. If you choose to put in for the tag it's money up front.
Its already pay up front for everything except Moose, Sheep, and Goats.
Post by: Stein on April 17, 2018, 10:16:43 AM
Even jacking prices up doesn't have a ton of impact, at least for NR applications. Montana pushed a huge increase a couple years ago and Wyoming did one for this year.
My opinion is you have to physically limit what people can enter for or you won't move the needle. Actually remove opportunity to apply in exchange for more opportunity for what you do get to apply for.
I think I apply for 9 or 10 things in WA. I would gladly trade what we have now for a system where you can send in only one application and no points for anything else. I would much prefer a system with a 10% draw chance for one tag then ten 1% draw chances for 10 different tags. That's not actual math obviously, but the general idea. The odds still won't be great, but right now you essentially are playing Powerball. Someone has to draw that sheep, goat, moose, Dayton tag, but it just won't be you.
If we do it now, there is some hope, if we wait 10 years, it will be too broke and people will have too many points to accept any change - we are probably there now that I think about it.
Post by: Duckhunter14 on April 17, 2018, 11:19:31 AM
I haven't seen where the pay up front makes much difference, several states have that now and they still have point creep. 99% of the people are putting it on a credit card and then getting a refund after the draw without any real pain.
Even jacking prices up doesn't have a ton of impact, at least for NR applications. Montana pushed a huge increase a couple years ago and Wyoming did one for this year.
My opinion is you have to physically limit what people can enter for or you won't move the needle. Actually remove opportunity to apply in exchange for more opportunity for what you do get to apply for.
I think I apply for 9 or 10 things in WA. I would gladly trade what we have now for a system where you can send in only one application and no points for anything else. I would much prefer a system with a 10% draw chance for one tag then ten 1% draw chances for 10 different tags. That's not actual math obviously, but the general idea. The odds still won't be great, but right now you essentially are playing Powerball. Someone has to draw that sheep, goat, moose, Dayton tag, but it just won't be you.
If we do it now, there is some hope, if we wait 10 years, it will be too broke and people will have too many points to accept any change - we are probably there now that I think about it.
People would lose their minds if the state came out and said that all points were now void and we were going to a no bonus point system like Idaho or New Mexico. I think a system more like Utah would be more effective at cycling out the max bonus point guys in each category, while also providing a "chance" for people with only a few points. So reserve a percentage of tags in each category to top bonus point holders to reward people who have put in year after year for many years. But also have a percentage that is completely random to the whole application pool. It will never happen unfortunately, but I do agree the system is broken. I don't put much, if any hope in drawing any WA tags and plan my year on OTC and out of state hunts. I figure I'll adjust accordingly if I do win the jackpot and draw a "quality" WA tag. But no matter how many points I accumulate, I don't get very excited during the draw because I know how screwed up our current system is.
Post by: bullcanyon on April 17, 2018, 11:23:34 AM
You think they'd get more people applying if there were less options? They will sell less applications and that's not something they're willing to let happen.
Post by: buglebrush on April 17, 2018, 06:14:52 PM
I haven't seen where the pay up front makes much difference, several states have that now and they still have point creep. 99% of the people are putting it on a credit card and then getting a refund after the draw without any real pain.
Even jacking prices up doesn't have a ton of impact, at least for NR applications. Montana pushed a huge increase a couple years ago and Wyoming did one for this year.
My opinion is you have to physically limit what people can enter for or you won't move the needle. Actually remove opportunity to apply in exchange for more opportunity for what you do get to apply for.
I think I apply for 9 or 10 things in WA. I would gladly trade what we have now for a system where you can send in only one application and no points for anything else. I would much prefer a system with a 10% draw chance for one tag then ten 1% draw chances for 10 different tags. That's not actual math obviously, but the general idea. The odds still won't be great, but right now you essentially are playing Powerball. Someone has to draw that sheep, goat, moose, Dayton tag, but it just won't be you.
If we do it now, there is some hope, if we wait 10 years, it will be too broke and people will have too many points to accept any change - we are probably there now that I think about it.
I completely agree with this, and people shouldn't be upset. If they have points they're way more valuable after this change than before because it'll be so hard to accumulate them after.
Post by: meatwhack on April 17, 2018, 06:34:04 PM
Or you could make app fees $50 and you can only apply for one species with no option of buying points in the other species. Again F&G revenue should be similar but draw odds would be significantly better.
Whatever way you cut it the options for applications has to be drastically cut to improve draw odds.
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2018, 07:37:41 PM
Post by: buglebrush on April 17, 2018, 07:46:03 PM
No matter what is changed, draw odds will not improve much. There will still be the same number of hunters applying for the same number of permits. It's a lot of wishful thinking, in my opinion, that any particular change will help increase a person's odds of drawing a permit.
This is pure bologna.
the number of hunters will be the same, and the number of permits will be the same, but the number of applications will be way way less. I really don't have the patience to explain the math right now. :sry:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 17, 2018, 07:48:39 PM
:yeah:No matter what is changed, draw odds will not improve much. There will still be the same number of hunters applying for the same number of permits. It's a lot of wishful thinking, in my opinion, that any particular change will help increase a person's odds of drawing a permit.
This is pure bologna.
the number of hunters will be the same, and the number of permits will be the same, but the number of applications will be way way less. I really don't have the patience to explain the math right now. :sry:
Post by: M_ray on April 17, 2018, 07:59:11 PM
No matter what is changed, draw odds will not improve much. There will still be the same number of hunters applying for the same number of permits. It's a lot of wishful thinking, in my opinion, that any particular change will help increase a person's odds of drawing a permit.
Bob I don’t get how you and others don’t understand this simple principle. There won’t be the same odds because if you can only choose one animal it takes you OUT of all other categories thus increasing the odds in all of them. The only way your odds would be the same is if you were still allowed to make 18 choices.
Post by: Stein on April 17, 2018, 08:01:13 PM
Another way to look at it is that you are very unlikely to draw with a 1% odds for your entire hunting life. Likewise, you have an excellent chance of drawing a 10% tag if you put in your entire hunting life.
I would gladly trade my 9-10 entries for a system where everyone was limited to one entry. You are trading a slim to grim chance at a bunch of tags for a much, much better chance at one tag.
The main problem is that people think they are getting ahead by accumulating a ton of points but their odds are actually going down each year. Math can be a real bummer sometimes.
Post by: M_ray on April 17, 2018, 08:11:35 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2018, 08:22:42 PM
No matter what is changed, draw odds will not improve much. There will still be the same number of hunters applying for the same number of permits. It's a lot of wishful thinking, in my opinion, that any particular change will help increase a person's odds of drawing a permit.
Bob I don’t get how you and others don’t understand this simple principle. There won’t be the same odds because if you can only choose one animal it takes you OUT of all other categories thus increasing the odds in all of them. The only way your odds would be the same is if you were still allowed to make 18 choices.
Because, if my odds go up in one category of permits, but I can only apply in ONE category, then my odds also go down (to zero) in the others. So the increase of odds of drawing in the one, are offset by the decrease of odds in all the others, since now I'm not allowed to apply in those. Overall, odds of drawing A permit, would be the same, averaged out over all the hunters and all the special permits available.
Post by: Stein on April 17, 2018, 08:29:43 PM
Here is another way to think about it. Say we both put in for both goat and sheep. I'm not that jacked about goats but really want to hunt sheep. You are the opposite, so we strike a bargain - I won't put in for goat if you don't put in for sheep. Both our odds of drawing the tag we really want goes up in exchange for no chance for the one we don't care for as much.
Doing that on a massive scale would chance things by a very large margin. You trade your chances at something you don't want as much for something you want more.
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2018, 08:39:58 PM
Exactly right. But personally I want to apply for everything, and I think most other people do too. The only change I'd really like to see is a two or three year waiting period for those who draw a deer or elk permit.
Oh, actually one more change- get rid of the "bull" and "buck" categories.
Post by: Bob33 on April 17, 2018, 08:41:11 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2018, 08:43:27 PM
What happens if you make that deal but two thirds of the applicants apply for sheep? You gave up a chance to draw another OIL permit for little gain. The goat applicants are happy but you lost ground overall.
That's a good point too. You don't know if your odds will increase or decrease. It all depends on where the majority of applicants decide to put their one and only application. Your odds may get better, but they also may get worse.
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on April 17, 2018, 08:46:15 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 17, 2018, 08:48:21 PM
Most will apply for that ONE permit they really want..........Most have the SAME ONE permit they really want, We'll end up with worse odds on the permits we all want. :twocents:
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 17, 2018, 08:56:01 PM
To many options for to cheap a price. I've been playing the oil game for over 20 years, I would rather increase my odds of drawing just one than have a small chance at all three.
Post by: Stein on April 17, 2018, 09:03:23 PM
What happens if you make that deal but two thirds of the applicants apply for sheep? You gave up a chance to draw another OIL permit for little gain. The goat applicants are happy but you lost ground overall.
You are still better off as there is zero chance 10,000 people are all going to make the same choice. Every person that chooses a deer, elk, moose goat or bear tag increases your odds. Your odds really can't get worse.
Look at it like this. Say you add up all your points across all species and you have 40 total points. If WDFW called you up and said congrats, you win the magic draw and you have the option of either putting your points in like everyone else or you can take some from X and put them in Y. Would you do that? I think most people would, meaning that if given the choice, they would gladly trade opportunity.
Maybe not, I am assuming most people think like me which is scary at some level.
If you want to put in for everything, then you have to look at another way of dramatically decreasing the applicants, say making everything OIL? Or, live with what we have. I guess the point is there is no real awesome solution that will give everyone what they want. I look at it like lottery tickets vs. "it's my turn". I assume I will never draw the quality or OIL tag I put in for and maybe a couple antlerless here or there.
Post by: Bob33 on April 17, 2018, 09:08:09 PM
I would, but when I put all my points in sheep you'd be ticked. ;)What happens if you make that deal but two thirds of the applicants apply for sheep? You gave up a chance to draw another OIL permit for little gain. The goat applicants are happy but you lost ground overall.
You are still better off as there is zero chance 10,000 people are all going to make the same choice. Every person that chooses a deer, elk, moose goat or bear tag increases your odds.
Look at it like this. Say you add up all your points across all species and you have 40 total points. If WDFW called you up and said congrats, you win the magic draw and you have the option of either putting your points in like everyone else or you can take some from X and put them in Y. Would you do that? I think most people would, meaning that if given the choice, they would gladly trade opportunity.
Maybe not, I am assuming most people think like me which is scary at some level.
Post by: Stein on April 17, 2018, 09:10:33 PM
I would, but when I put all my points in sheep you'd be ticked. ;)What happens if you make that deal but two thirds of the applicants apply for sheep? You gave up a chance to draw another OIL permit for little gain. The goat applicants are happy but you lost ground overall.
You are still better off as there is zero chance 10,000 people are all going to make the same choice. Every person that chooses a deer, elk, moose goat or bear tag increases your odds.
Look at it like this. Say you add up all your points across all species and you have 40 total points. If WDFW called you up and said congrats, you win the magic draw and you have the option of either putting your points in like everyone else or you can take some from X and put them in Y. Would you do that? I think most people would, meaning that if given the choice, they would gladly trade opportunity.
Maybe not, I am assuming most people think like me which is scary at some level.
Yeah, but next year she would be all mine.
Averaging everything out, there are about 1,000 entries for every goat tag issued, so even Yoda would have a hard time drawing in his lifetime.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on April 17, 2018, 09:11:52 PM
Maybe not, I am assuming most people think like me which is scary atUh yea ! :chuckle:someALL levels.
Post by: High Climber on April 17, 2018, 09:15:58 PM
Post by: M_ray on April 17, 2018, 09:26:00 PM
Post by: M_ray on April 17, 2018, 09:29:58 PM
My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement. If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years :dunno: Not enough tags to go around
That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! ;)
Post by: idaho guy on April 17, 2018, 09:33:08 PM
We could do like Idaho... and only allow X amount of NR tags to be drawn! That seems fair since they did that right? lol!
[/quote)
I think very few nr hunters put in for Washington you already made it a terrible deal for any non resident who is not a youth. I’m pretty sure most out of state hunters don’t even consider applying
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2018, 09:46:14 PM
My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement. If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years :dunno: Not enough tags to go around
That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! ;)
Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on April 17, 2018, 09:48:59 PM
We could do like Idaho... and only allow X amount of NR tags to be drawn! That seems fair since they did that right? lol!Keep talking like that and I'll start applying for the Idaho tags! BAHAHAHA!
[/quote)
I think very few nr hunters put in for Washington you already made it a terrible deal for any non resident who is not a youth. I’m pretty sure most out of state hunters don’t even consider applying
Post by: buglebrush on April 17, 2018, 10:32:38 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on April 17, 2018, 11:05:30 PM
What happens if you make that deal but two thirds of the applicants apply for sheep? You gave up a chance to draw another OIL permit for little gain. The goat applicants are happy but you lost ground overall.This is what i have been saying for 2 years now..
What makes these others think that if you could only put in for 1 app that 2/3 or more wouldnt put in for the same app because most want that one.IF THEY DON'T GET IT NOW THEY NEVER WILL. these guys act like they are gathering around the same camp.Lets see you hunters that want only one app per hunter,this year you only put in for 2nd deer only,that will surely raise the antler less odds for others.Next year only put in for spring bear so on
Post by: buglebrush on April 17, 2018, 11:12:43 PM
What happens if you make that deal but two thirds of the applicants apply for sheep? You gave up a chance to draw another OIL permit for little gain. The goat applicants are happy but you lost ground overall.This is what i have been saying for 2 years now..
What makes these others think that if you could only put in for 1 app that 2/3 or more wouldnt put in for the same app because most want that one.IF THEY DON'T GET IT NOW THEY NEVER WILL. these guys act like they are gathering around the same camp.Lets see you hunters that want only one app per hunter,this year you only put in for 2nd deer only,that will surely raise the antler less odds for others.Next year only put in for spring bear so on
See my post above. Also, 2/3 of the sheep applicants would still be better than all of them as they are currently. You guys are just getting ridiculous now.
Post by: Oh Mah on April 17, 2018, 11:18:13 PM
you see if you put in for cow and i put in for cow and almost everyone else puts in for cow because they can only do one then there you go.
You should re evaluate who's being ridiculous.
Post by: Mudman on April 17, 2018, 11:22:57 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on April 17, 2018, 11:28:52 PM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on April 18, 2018, 06:30:36 AM
Post by: Skillet on April 18, 2018, 06:43:38 AM
Stand by what you said man,put in for 1 app only and only put in for second deer.No antler less elk,no bull,only 2nd deer.
you see if you put in for cow and i put in for cow and almost everyone else puts in for cow because they can only do one then there you go.
You should re evaluate who's being ridiculous.
I took your comment a little out of context in the bold, but it illustrates the point that that everybody having access to all of the draw categories at the same time does lower overall odds in each category - by encouraging participation at a very low price point.
There is no way the WDFW will go back to single category application limits. They've already monetized the individual category points points by allowing people to buy points, and to choose either a cash reward or points in the draws for turning in poachers.
The only way out of this is to increase the application price until people start choosing less categories to apply for, and are more rationally selecting hunts based on their own cost - benefit analysis. Be it odds, trophy of a lifetime, or just whatever is available in the family's traditional hunting grounds.
:twocents:
Reality- Odds are so long that even if they improve a bunch its still the lottery so enter everything and just hope to get lucky. Forget all the science - its all about luck. Points mean little, luck is luck. 15-20 points and you only need to be really really really lucky vs 5 points and you have to be impossibly lucky.
:yeah:
Post by: meatwhack on April 18, 2018, 07:54:41 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 18, 2018, 07:58:54 AM
If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,
Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?
Post by: teanawayslayer on April 18, 2018, 08:14:14 AM
how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,
Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?
Post by: bobcat on April 18, 2018, 08:28:25 AM
how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,
Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?
The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.
Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.
Same, same.
Post by: meatwhack on April 18, 2018, 08:44:01 AM
Post by: Stein on April 18, 2018, 08:46:11 AM
That is where the odds are very hard to calculate, multiple choices for each category of points really muddies up the math. I believe Gohunt actually has to do millions of computer simulations to get the actual odds instead of a simple formula for states with similar programs.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 18, 2018, 09:23:49 AM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,226503.0.html
Post by: emac on April 18, 2018, 09:43:24 AM
For example under the current system say 1000 people put in for peaches, goose, observatory and rimrock. You are up against 1000 applicants in each category.
Now lets say you could only select 1 hunt. To make it easy out those 1000, 250 now only apply for each of those 4 hunts equally. No you are only apply against 250 other applications.
So it seems to me your odds would improve.
The numbers i used were just to make it easy
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: M_ray on April 18, 2018, 09:47:51 AM
My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement. If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years :dunno: Not enough tags to go around
That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! ;)
Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.
Bobcat, it can’t be any more simple than this. As stein said it’s a trade off. It’s impossible to have less odds if you eliminate applicants from a category so technically no one has less odds. It’s a mathematical fact that if less people are in the pool you choose then your odds will be higher. The only way Someone has less odds as you are describing is if we are still allowed to put in for EVERYTHING the way it is now.
Post by: huntnphool on April 18, 2018, 10:10:25 AM
You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.
how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,
Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?
The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.
Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.
Same, same.
...carry on. :chuckle:
Post by: M_ray on April 18, 2018, 12:07:29 PM
:chuckle: You guys are hilarious. You keep :bash: trying to get Bobcat to see your logic, yet you can't see his.
You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.
how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,
Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?
The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.
Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.
Same, same.
...carry on. :chuckle:
Not saying you get one choice in each category we are saying one choice period. Bob’s math works if you get one Choice in each category but I’m suggesting one choice which eliminates applicants in each category or basically for each species.
Post by: huntnphool on April 18, 2018, 12:16:50 PM
:chuckle: You guys are hilarious. You keep :bash: trying to get Bobcat to see your logic, yet you can't see his.
You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.
how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,
Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?
The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.
Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.
Same, same.
...carry on. :chuckle:
Not saying you get one choice in each category we are saying one choice period. Bob’s math works if you get one Choice in each category but I’m suggesting one choice which eliminates applicants in each category or basically for each species.
Understood, but he's arguing his odds of drawing a permit.....not a specific permit....just ANY permit.
So he's looking at it as 971 in 24,064.....in total number, not specifically one unit.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 18, 2018, 12:28:53 PM
The problem with looking at it that way is that we don’t apply for any permit. We choose what specific permits we would like to draw. Some better odds than others.:chuckle: You guys are hilarious. You keep :bash: trying to get Bobcat to see your logic, yet you can't see his.
You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.
how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,
Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?
The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.
Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.
Same, same.
...carry on. :chuckle:
Not saying you get one choice in each category we are saying one choice period. Bob’s math works if you get one Choice in each category but I’m suggesting one choice which eliminates applicants in each category or basically for each species.
Understood, but he's arguing his odds of drawing a permit.....not a specific permit....just ANY permit.
So he's looking at it as 971 in 24,064.....in total number, not specifically one unit.
Post by: huntnphool on April 18, 2018, 12:35:11 PM
The problem with looking at it that way is that we don’t apply for any permit. We choose what specific permits we would like to draw. Some better odds than others.:chuckle: You guys are hilarious. You keep :bash: trying to get Bobcat to see your logic, yet you can't see his.
You guys are arguing specific draws, as in odds of drawing the one unit you apply in and want to hunt......while Bobcat is arguing overall odds of simply drawing a tag.
how would it not makes your odds better? Less applicants = bedder odds. You do the math!If they would at least limit it to 1 choice per category that would improve odds also. Same revenue, same amount of categories so everyone can have all these options they feel they need but just make everyone pick 1 choice.,
Overall it wouldn't make odds better in the category, but yes some permits would probably be a little easier to draw, but others might be harder. Think about it. Same number of applicants for the same number of permits, how does that change the odds?
The math, okay. Let's use Quality deer, 971 permits available last year, 24,064 applicants. For odds of 1 in 25.
Change it so each applicant can only apply for 1 hunt instead of 2. The new math- 971 permits, 24,064 applicants. Odds of 1 in 25.
Same, same.
...carry on. :chuckle:
Not saying you get one choice in each category we are saying one choice period. Bob’s math works if you get one Choice in each category but I’m suggesting one choice which eliminates applicants in each category or basically for each species.
Understood, but he's arguing his odds of drawing a permit.....not a specific permit....just ANY permit.
So he's looking at it as 971 in 24,064.....in total number, not specifically one unit.
I'm not saying I agree either way, I'm simply pointing out the different way they are looking at it.
Post by: buglebrush on April 18, 2018, 12:41:17 PM
My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement. If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years :dunno: Not enough tags to go around
That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! ;)
Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.
Are you purposely being obtuse? Honest question. Of course they would go up for everybody. Do you mean to tell me that if you went to a system that you could only draw for a single species that there would somehow be a draw where the same or more people would put in for the same draw? Of course not! Don't be ridiculous! As the system stands now people are putting in for Quality Bull, Quality Buck, Moose, Spring Bear, etc... When they have to choose only one of the species the odds for everything will improve! Drastically! Either you're completely a troll, simply cannot grasp this simple concept, or are such a WDFW fan-boy you can't help defend them. :sry:
Post by: bobcat on April 18, 2018, 12:55:04 PM
My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement. If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years :dunno: Not enough tags to go around
That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! ;)
Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.
Are you purposely being obtuse? Honest question. Of course they would go up for everybody. Do you mean to tell me that if you went to a system that you could only draw for a single species that there would somehow be a draw where the same or more people would put in for the same draw? Of course not! Don't be ridiculous! As the system stands now people are putting in for Quality Bull, Quality Buck, Moose, Spring Bear, etc... When they have to choose only one of the species the odds for everything will improve! Drastically! Either you're completely a troll, simply cannot grasp this simple concept, or are such a WDFW fan-boy you can't help defend them. :sry:
:chuckle:
I'm certainly not "defending" anybody. The system is dumb because of all the unnecessary categories. Do away with quality, youth, over 65, and disabled. All that's really needed is antlered and antlerless. But then we'd be almost going back to what we had before. It's not going to happen because of the wdfw's desire to sell as many applications as possible.
I've said this before and I'll say it one more time. If you are limited to only one species then your odds of drawing that one permit might increase slightly but at the same time your odds of drawing all the others just dropped to zero. I'd rather have a chance of drawing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, just so I can hunt. I prefer to hunt rather than sitting at home. So anything that decreases my odds of being drawn I won't be in favor of. All this discussion is meaningless anyway, as the WDFW will not change anything that will cause a decrease in revenue.
Post by: buglebrush on April 18, 2018, 01:00:00 PM
My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement. If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years :dunno: Not enough tags to go around
That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! ;)
Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.
Are you purposely being obtuse? Honest question. Of course they would go up for everybody. Do you mean to tell me that if you went to a system that you could only draw for a single species that there would somehow be a draw where the same or more people would put in for the same draw? Of course not! Don't be ridiculous! As the system stands now people are putting in for Quality Bull, Quality Buck, Moose, Spring Bear, etc... When they have to choose only one of the species the odds for everything will improve! Drastically! Either you're completely a troll, simply cannot grasp this simple concept, or are such a WDFW fan-boy you can't help defend them. :sry:
:chuckle:
I'm certainly not "defending" anybody. The system is dumb because of all the unnecessary categories. Do away with quality, youth, over 65, and disabled. All that's really needed is antlered and antlerless. But then we'd be almost going back to what we had before. It's not going to happen because of the wdfw's desire to sell as many applications as possible.
I've said this before and I'll say it one more time. If you are limited to only one species then your odds of drawing that one permit might increase slightly but at the same time your odds of drawing all the others just dropped to zero. I'd rather have a chance of drawing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, just so I can hunt. I prefer to hunt rather than sitting at home. So anything that decreases my odds of being drawn I won't be in favor of. All this discussion is meaningless anyway, as the WDFW will not change anything that will cause a decrease in revenue.
But I'm replying to your comment that odds cannot go up for everybody. They can and would.
And, you say you just want to hunt and increase your odds of being drawn. If that's really true switching to a system like Idaho that limits how many species you can apply for( we could keep points )would drastically improve those odds. Peroid. Guaranteed. You keep saying that isn't true, but it is.
Post by: bobcat on April 18, 2018, 01:15:48 PM
My vote is for the status quo. Hunt OTC every year and pay a small fee to have a slim chance of drawing a great unit or OIL species. It’s a lottery, there should be no feeling of entitlement. If you don’t like it, don’t play. If you want out, get out... your only out a few hundred bucks over 20 years :dunno: Not enough tags to go around
That would make sense if what we are proposing was just an idea but the reality is it works in other states and the odds do increase for each species. So stay status quo and have a slim chance or start checking off bucket list hunts! ;)
Odds can't go up for everybody. If odds go up for you, for whatever reason, then odds went down for somebody else.
Are you purposely being obtuse? Honest question. Of course they would go up for everybody. Do you mean to tell me that if you went to a system that you could only draw for a single species that there would somehow be a draw where the same or more people would put in for the same draw? Of course not! Don't be ridiculous! As the system stands now people are putting in for Quality Bull, Quality Buck, Moose, Spring Bear, etc... When they have to choose only one of the species the odds for everything will improve! Drastically! Either you're completely a troll, simply cannot grasp this simple concept, or are such a WDFW fan-boy you can't help defend them. :sry:
:chuckle:
I'm certainly not "defending" anybody. The system is dumb because of all the unnecessary categories. Do away with quality, youth, over 65, and disabled. All that's really needed is antlered and antlerless. But then we'd be almost going back to what we had before. It's not going to happen because of the wdfw's desire to sell as many applications as possible.
I've said this before and I'll say it one more time. If you are limited to only one species then your odds of drawing that one permit might increase slightly but at the same time your odds of drawing all the others just dropped to zero. I'd rather have a chance of drawing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, just so I can hunt. I prefer to hunt rather than sitting at home. So anything that decreases my odds of being drawn I won't be in favor of. All this discussion is meaningless anyway, as the WDFW will not change anything that will cause a decrease in revenue.
But I'm replying to your comment that odds cannot go up for everybody. They can and would.
And, you say you just want to hunt and increase your odds of being drawn. If that's really true switching to a system like Idaho that limits how many species you can apply for( we could keep points )would drastically improve those odds. Peroid. Guaranteed. You keep saying that isn't true, but it is.
Same number of hunters, same number of permits = same odds no matter what.
Yes, perhaps the one particular hunt you are most interested in might be easier time draw. But overall for everyone there's no way odds would suddenly increase with a change in the way the application process works. (IN MY OPINION)
I like the flexibility and the options we have now. If I was restricted to only one I'd be forced to apply for only moose, as that is where I have the most points. But then if I want to partner up with my brother, or my daughter, on a deer hunt, maybe just antlerless, I wouldn't be able to do so.
If you want to go to Idaho's system I could go along with that as long as we go all the way- no more point system. The point system is a terrible thing, bad for the recruitment of new hunters. So the very best change if we're going to change would be to eliminate points.
Another option that I like is make people choose deer or elk. You can buy one license or the other, but not both. I think this has been discussed on here in the past.
Post by: Duckhunter14 on April 18, 2018, 01:26:02 PM
Obviously you are just being a troll now, I hope. If you cant comprehend that it would not be the same number of hunters because causing everyone to only choose one category would significantly decrease the amount of individuals in each category then its not worth continuing the conversation.
Post by: SkookumHntr on April 18, 2018, 02:16:41 PM
"Same number of hunters, same number of permits = same odds no matter what."He doesn't comprehend it, I stopped commenting on the points threads years ago,, its a pretty tough read :chuckle:
Obviously you are just being a troll now, I hope. If you cant comprehend that it would not be the same number of hunters because causing everyone to only choose one category would significantly decrease the amount of individuals in each category then its not worth continuing the conversation.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 18, 2018, 08:44:10 PM
When a person can only choose 1, more than likely that 1 will be a very popular permit, (sheep, moose, rut elk, Entiat quality deer, etc.)
In theory, it could take years for an individual to draw the 1 permit they really want, all the while they have had zero chance at anything else.
For those like myself who have drawn an OIL, and several quality permits, it would be an advantage, but not a welcomed one.
The way it stands now, a person can draw more than 1 high quaility permit in the same year(happens every year)
IMHO, this is not the change we need.....I'll take my chances with status quo over 1 choice only.
Post by: Stein on April 18, 2018, 09:59:41 PM
So.....If this "choose 1 permit only" to apply for idea happened, How long do ya'll figure it would take to get drawn for say a Any Ram permit?
Far less than it does today. I don't think that most people truly comprehend how bad the draw odds are. I put in for Chelan which is 2 permits for 4,757 applicants. Do the math on that one, it will take somewhere around 2,300 years on average to draw the tag if you start today. Actually, it will probably take far longer than that on average as it gets worse every year.
Over a lifetime, you are looking at similar odds to being struck by lightning and about 3 times better odds of drowning than pulling a sheep tag.
Post by: buglebrush on April 18, 2018, 10:02:41 PM
So.....If this "choose 1 permit only" to apply for idea happened, How long do ya'll figure it would take to get drawn for say a Any Ram permit?
Far less than it does today. I don't think that most people truly comprehend how bad the draw odds are. I put in for Chelan which is 2 permits for 4,757 applicants. Do the math on that one, it will take somewhere around 2,300 years on average to draw the tag if you start today. Actually, it will probably take far longer than that on average as it gets worse every year.
Over a lifetime, you are looking at similar odds to being struck by lightning and about 3 times better odds of drowning than pulling a sheep tag.
:yeah:
Post by: Oh Mah on April 18, 2018, 10:07:11 PM
Post by: High Climber on April 18, 2018, 10:09:58 PM
So.....If this "choose 1 permit only" to apply for idea happened, How long do ya'll figure it would take to get drawn for say a Any Ram permit?
Far less than it does today. I don't think that most people truly comprehend how bad the draw odds are. I put in for Chelan which is 2 permits for 4,757 applicants. Do the math on that one, it will take somewhere around 2,300 years on average to draw the tag if you start today. Actually, it will probably take far longer than that on average as it gets worse every year.
Over a lifetime, you are looking at similar odds to being struck by lightning and about 3 times better odds of drowning than pulling a sheep tag.
:yeah:
It will go from drowning 3 times to drowning 1 time :chuckle: however a quality elk or deer permit will have zero chance of falling out of the sky onto your head
Post by: dreamingbig on April 18, 2018, 10:42:47 PM
That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.I have been preaching on point #2 for many years now but folks don’t want to believe the math!
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: RB on April 19, 2018, 08:18:33 AM
That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.I have been preaching on point #2 for many years now but folks don’t want to believe the math!
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Branched out this year and applied for Idaho Moose because of the second bullet point!
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 19, 2018, 08:27:12 AM
:tup:That's the big problem with points - people feel like they are valuable, like they are an investment they would like to eventually cash out.I have been preaching on point #2 for many years now but folks don’t want to believe the math!
1. Points in WA are nothing other than a tally of how many years you paid for a lottery ticket and didn't win.
2. The odds of drawing the most popular hunts are going down every year at a faster rate than the increase of squaring your additional point improves it.
Once people realize these two things, it becomes easier to walk away from the system and put energy into hunting out of state.
:twocents:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Branched out this year and applied for Idaho Moose because of the second bullet point!
I wish I could apply for Idaho Moose!
Post by: OltHunter on April 19, 2018, 08:53:28 AM
I do like the idea of Idaho's draw, but I think something that drastic would never fly and application fees would have to go up to around $50-$60 to keep revenue the same.
I like the idea of having all species to apply for, but combining then into 1 species would be a good start, like other western states. Elk for example, combine quality/bull/antlerless into 1 application, same for deer. Most would put first choices quality, but those that might not care or would want a high % for anterless, they would put those first and get better odds.
Since WDFW would not approve a decrease in revenue, increase application cost to $20-$25.
I'm not sure if it's been brought up yet in the multiple other points threads, but I would like to see something similar to the way Wyoming applies points to applicants - give the top certain % point holders a certain % allocation of tags, with the rest random.
Post by: Roperfive88 on April 19, 2018, 09:58:32 AM
I don't think bobcat is being a troll - he's just saying, he wants a chance to draw all species, and if we go to 1, technically his odds would go down overall since they would be 0 for other species, though they would go up for the 1 specific species.
This is the problem no matter how many times you cut a Pie its still the same size. Ya a few will have a better odds for someone hunts but at the end of the day the same amount of people are drawn and the same amount are not and complain they can't draw a permit. If you want better odds put in for the permits with a lower number of applicants but everyone wants the get rich quick better odds at thier coveted tag.
People that want to change everything refuse to realize the problem is not enough animals for the number of hunters. They need to realize that drawing a Permit is not their right and is just a lottery. No one deserves a permit more than another whether it be a hardcore hunter or the person that likes to hunt but is not super serious about it. It is impossible for everyone to draw a tag In both our system and the purposed one. There is no silver bullet unless we could drastically change our animal numbers, but I doubt that will happen, or you pay the big bucks to buy a governer tag or a hunt out of state.
I may never draw a sheep tag, Moose tag, or quality elk permit but would much rather have a really long shot at all 3 rather than have a long shot to draw one. As well as a chance at the other categories.
The one thing I would like to see is a second draw for unsold OIL tags and for those people who pull multiple permits and want to choose just one of them and return the others for that species.
Post by: Oh Mah on April 19, 2018, 10:07:43 AM
Post by: Roperfive88 on April 19, 2018, 10:08:40 AM
"Same number of hunters, same number of permits = same odds no matter what."
Obviously you are just being a troll now, I hope. If you cant comprehend that it would not be the same number of hunters because causing everyone to only choose one category would significantly decrease the amount of individuals in each category then its not worth continuing the conversation.
Taking opportunity away does not change the number of hunters. It just hides the number of people that didn't draw because they had to choose to be guaranteed not to draw now even though they really want that tag. Makes the numbers look better but the same amount of people can't draw. It would be hard for me to choose between all my apps. I really want to draw all the tags I put in for.
Post by: Roperfive88 on April 19, 2018, 10:16:28 AM
go look at my last thread in the other poll and see the size of pie taken out. :tup:
Just because you take away pie dosen't mean that it never existed. Just hiding the disappointment :tup:.
Post by: bullcanyon on April 19, 2018, 12:11:10 PM
Yes you don't have as many options to not get selected for, but you do have a better opportunity at the permit you'd really like to have.
Post by: SkookumHntr on April 19, 2018, 12:32:43 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 19, 2018, 12:59:16 PM
Post by: Roperfive88 on April 19, 2018, 01:36:55 PM
Arguments for each side:
Doesn't really help your odds that much.
The quality tag I want has 14 tags 1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.
Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to a whole whopping 2%. Oh and I have a 0% chance to draw in all those other categories.
For all 700 to draw would take 50 years. But wait new people come in, people jump categories, People draw twice, and tag numbers change. So people will still not draw in their lifetime and some will draw multiple. Life is still not fair.
Yes, your odds doubled to 2% but is that really a beneficial gain to lose the chance in the other categories you put in for. I feel you are overvaluing the points increase. I still would not bet the farm on those odds.
Improves your odds a bunch.
The quality tag I want has 14 tags 1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.
Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to me be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to 2%. I have now doubled my odds to draw
Yes you doubled your odds.
So both arguments using the same data different ways.
I feel that the for one choice side is overvaluing the odds increase. Of the one choice vs. the chance in all the categories. All taking away chance is not worth the small increase for one. The only tags that drastically improve odds are the lesser tags. So some get a benefit but not all There is no way to make it fair or better so I choose to have multiple choices. Still comes down to what bobcat said. 1 in 25 hunters who apply will draw a tag. Any change with all the app choices will not change that. Actually may go down because there will be tags that no one puts in for.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on April 19, 2018, 02:00:57 PM
Post by: buglebrush on April 19, 2018, 02:02:00 PM
So, I guess the question is do you really want to draw those tags or are you happy simply applying?
I'm done. The insanity in this thread is draining.
Post by: M_ray on April 19, 2018, 02:17:48 PM
The funny thing about statistics is that they can be used to make any point. For example, 100% of adults die after drinking water.
Arguments for each side:
Doesn't really help your odds that much.
The quality tag I want has 14 tags 1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.
Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to a whole whopping 2%. Oh and I have a 0% chance to draw in all those other categories.
For all 700 to draw would take 50 years. But wait new people come in, people jump categories, People draw twice, and tag numbers change. So people will still not draw in their lifetime and some will draw multiple. Life is still not fair.
Yes, your odds doubled to 2% but is that really a beneficial gain to lose the chance in the other categories you put in for. I feel you are overvaluing the points increase. I still would not bet the farm on those odds.
Improves your odds a bunch.
The quality tag I want has 14 tags 1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.
Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to me be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to 2%. I have now doubled my odds to draw
Yes you doubled your odds.
So both arguments using the same data different ways.
I feel that the for one choice side is overvaluing the odds increase. Of the one choice vs. the chance in all the categories. All taking away chance is not worth the small increase for one. The only tags that drastically improve odds are the lesser tags. So some get a benefit but not all There is no way to make it fair or better so I choose to have multiple choices. Still comes down to what bobcat said. 1 in 25 hunters who apply will draw a tag. Any change with all the app choices will not change that. Actually may go down because there will be tags that no one puts in for.
Your looking at it the wrong way and so are a couple others. You say you have a 1-100 chance and what that really means is you will draw it 1 in 100 years.
I and others aren’t trying to hide numbers we are well aware what these numbers mean which is why we are suggesting a system like that the other states are using which increase your odds of drawing to more like 1-10 1-7 and in some cases there are good quality hunts that you can draw in 3-5 years.
So you stay status quo and die before you draw but it makes you feel good every year that you have a minuscule chance OR take a little time each year to plan what it is you want to knock off your list first and get 7-10 good hunts in before you kick it!
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 19, 2018, 02:34:07 PM
I don't think bobcat is being a troll - he's just saying, he wants a chance to draw all species, and if we go to 1, technically his odds would go down overall since they would be 0 for other species, though they would go up for the 1 specific species.
This is the problem no matter how many times you cut a Pie its still the same size. Ya a few will have a better odds for someone hunts but at the end of the day the same amount of people are drawn and the same amount are not and complain they can't draw a permit. If you want better odds put in for the permits with a lower number of applicants but everyone wants the get rich quick better odds at thier coveted tag.
People that want to change everything refuse to realize the problem is not enough animals for the number of hunters. They need to realize that drawing a Permit is not their right and is just a lottery. No one deserves a permit more than another whether it be a hardcore hunter or the person that likes to hunt but is not super serious about it. It is impossible for everyone to draw a tag In both our system and the purposed one. There is no silver bullet unless we could drastically change our animal numbers, but I doubt that will happen, or you pay the big bucks to buy a governer tag or a hunt out of state.
I may never draw a sheep tag, Moose tag, or quality elk permit but would much rather have a really long shot at all 3 rather than have a long shot to draw one. As well as a chance at the other categories.
The one thing I would like to see is a second draw for unsold OIL tags and for those people who pull multiple permits and want to choose just one of them and return the others for that species.
The funny thing about statistics is that they can be used to make any point. For example, 100% of adults die after drinking water.
Arguments for each side:
Doesn't really help your odds that much.
The quality tag I want has 14 tags 1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.
Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to a whole whopping 2%. Oh and I have a 0% chance to draw in all those other categories.
For all 700 to draw would take 50 years. But wait new people come in, people jump categories, People draw twice, and tag numbers change. So people will still not draw in their lifetime and some will draw multiple. Life is still not fair.
Yes, your odds doubled to 2% but is that really a beneficial gain to lose the chance in the other categories you put in for. I feel you are overvaluing the points increase. I still would not bet the farm on those odds.
Improves your odds a bunch.
The quality tag I want has 14 tags 1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.
Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to me be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to 2%. I have now doubled my odds to draw
Yes you doubled your odds.
So both arguments using the same data different ways.
I feel that the for one choice side is overvaluing the odds increase. Of the one choice vs. the chance in all the categories. All taking away chance is not worth the small increase for one. The only tags that drastically improve odds are the lesser tags. So some get a benefit but not all There is no way to make it fair or better so I choose to have multiple choices. Still comes down to what bobcat said. 1 in 25 hunters who apply will draw a tag. Any change with all the app choices will not change that. Actually may go down because there will be tags that no one puts in for.
:yeah:
Well said Roperfive88.
No one is ever guaranteed to draw anything. even if your odds go from 1/1000 to 1/10, a person could go for 10+ years and never get drawn. Its a lottery.
X amount of permits, and X amount of hunters, divide it however you want there will always only be as many successful applicants as there are permits available.
Post by: SkookumHntr on April 19, 2018, 02:38:41 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 19, 2018, 02:46:50 PM
Both views make valid points........depending on what your particular goal is.
Some just refuse to look at both views and really analyze them IMO
Post by: Roperfive88 on April 19, 2018, 02:59:01 PM
The funny thing about statistics is that they can be used to make any point. For example, 100% of adults die after drinking water.
Arguments for each side:
Doesn't really help your odds that much.
The quality tag I want has 14 tags 1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.
Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to a whole whopping 2%. Oh and I have a 0% chance to draw in all those other categories.
For all 700 to draw would take 50 years. But wait new people come in, people jump categories, People draw twice, and tag numbers change. So people will still not draw in their lifetime and some will draw multiple. Life is still not fair.
Yes, your odds doubled to 2% but is that really a beneficial gain to lose the chance in the other categories you put in for. I feel you are overvaluing the points increase. I still would not bet the farm on those odds.
Improves your odds a bunch.
The quality tag I want has 14 tags 1400 put in for the tag. Take away the points. So I have a 1 in 100 chance to draw the tag or 1% chance.
Now you only get one choice so let's say half the people go elsewhere because it's not going to me be an even disbursement through the tags. The Coveted tags will attract more applicants. So now 14 tags for 700 applicants so now you doubled your odds to 2%. I have now doubled my odds to draw
Yes you doubled your odds.
So both arguments using the same data different ways.
I feel that the for one choice side is overvaluing the odds increase. Of the one choice vs. the chance in all the categories. All taking away chance is not worth the small increase for one. The only tags that drastically improve odds are the lesser tags. So some get a benefit but not all There is no way to make it fair or better so I choose to have multiple choices. Still comes down to what bobcat said. 1 in 25 hunters who apply will draw a tag. Any change with all the app choices will not change that. Actually may go down because there will be tags that no one puts in for.
Your looking at it the wrong way and so are a couple others. You say you have a 1-100 chance and what that really means is you will draw it 1 in 100 years.
I and others aren’t trying to hide numbers we are well aware what these numbers mean which is why we are suggesting a system like that the other states are using which increase your odds of drawing to more like 1-10 1-7 and in some cases there are good quality hunts that you can draw in 3-5 years.
So you stay status quo and die before you draw but it makes you feel good every year that you have a minuscule chance OR take a little time each year to plan what it is you want to knock off your list first and get 7-10 good hunts in before you kick it!
[/quote]1-100 chance and what that really means is you will draw it 1 in 100 years.[/quote]
Really? Your chance to draw is 1 in 100 years. Not you will draw it 1 in 100 years. The "will" in your statement makes it false. There is no guarantee when you might draw if ever.
Your last statement is the is based on hope. You can't guarantee I will draw with the one choice system In the proposed system you can't say everyone is going to get 7 to 10 good hunts it's still luck of the draw. In the current system I have drawn 1 quality deer, 3 buck deer, 1 antlerless elk. So in the one choice system, I only draw one tag. Even in the system we have, there are hunts that you can put in for and draw more than others. With the multiple categories, you can be strategic to make your odds better.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on April 19, 2018, 03:01:39 PM
Yes you don't have as many options to not get selected for, but you do have a better opportunity at the permit you'd really like to have.
That's really the punch line for the one choice crew. And it's true. Your overall odds of drawing ANY tag might not get better, and in fact they might get worse depending on what you choose for your one choice. But if you're a single species guy, or you just want a "quality" tag and don't put in for the other categories, your odds for that single species or quality tag WILL get better.
For those like Bobcat, who just like to hunt and are happy with an antlerless tag, but still want a chance at a moose tag, going the one choice route would really suck. And I think there's more people like him than not.
Personally, would I rather sit on the sideline for 10 years waiting for a quality tag but have no other tags and no chance of drawing OIL? Or would I rather the current system, and pull some form of draw tag every few years (buck tag one year, antlerless another, rare occasion something great), but wait longer for the quality tag and maybe forever for an OIL tag? Personally, I'd take the latter. But I understand that the folks that are OIL or Quality or BUST are frustrated with that.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 19, 2018, 03:13:04 PM
Yes you don't have as many options to not get selected for, but you do have a better opportunity at the permit you'd really like to have.
That's really the punch line for the one choice crew. And it's true. Your overall odds of drawing ANY tag might not get better, and in fact they might get worse depending on what you choose for your one choice. But if you're a single species guy, or you just want a "quality" tag and don't put in for the other categories, your odds for that single species or quality tag WILL get better.
For those like Bobcat, who just like to hunt and are happy with an antlerless tag, but still want a chance at a moose tag, going the one choice route would really suck. And I think there's more people like him than not.
Personally, would I rather sit on the sideline for 10 years waiting for a quality tag but have no other tags and no chance of drawing OIL? Or would I rather the current system, and pull some form of draw tag every few years (buck tag one year, antlerless another, rare occasion something great), but wait longer for the quality tag and maybe forever for an OIL tag? Personally, I'd take the latter. But I understand that the folks that are OIL or Quality or BUST are frustrated with that.
THIS. :yeah:
and.....
Roper makes great points in all his replies :tup: :tup: to you sir
Post by: Roperfive88 on April 19, 2018, 03:23:04 PM
Believe what you want, but if you ever want to draw that moose, elk, or deer tag your odds would drastically increase by not being permitted to apply for all of them every year.
So, I guess the question is do you really want to draw those tags or are you happy simply applying?
I'm done. The insanity in this thread is draining.
Just because you get one choice doesn't mean that you will draw one of those tags. A doubling or tripling of your odds that are 1% or 2% is not a drastic increase in chance. You are still not likely to be drawn. Ya, some will have great odds but those are the ones with already better odds. With moose goat and sheep those are so few tags it's not going to guarantee anything.
Post by: Bob33 on April 19, 2018, 03:47:59 PM
A preference point system allocates permits to applicants with the most points first. If there is a hunt that has two applicants with the maximum of ten points, and there are two permits available then both of the ten point applicants get a permit. Applicants with less than ten points have no chance (0%) of being drawn. The beauty of a preference point system is that when you get to a certain points level, you are guaranteed to get a permit. One of the primary drawbacks to a preference point system is “points creep” where the number of points required to draw continues to get higher. You have nine points to draw a permit but it takes ten; next year you have ten points but it takes 11. Another drawback is that you have no chance to draw until you reach the upper levels. As the point level required to draw many hunts continues to climb into the teens and higher, the appeal of getting into that pool becomes less and less. Most point systems started in the last 30 years, so the number of points required to draw the best permits still seems achievable to many. That will change. Why get into a raffle and pay a fee for 30 years that you have zero chance of drawing during that period of time? The Ponzi schemes will eventually unravel.
Washington has a bonus point system which gives unsuccessful applicants a point for applying and not drawing. More points means more names in the hat. What it can never due is guarantee a permit; the statistics just work that way. Some believe that if you apply for something with a 1 in 10 chance of winning and do it 10 years in a row you’re guaranteed to win, but you’re not. In this example of 1 in 10 odds for ten years the chance of winning at least once in the ten years isn’t 100%; it’s 65%. Even after 20 years it’s still only 87%.
There are hybrids, and they have pros and cons as well.
No system is perfect.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on April 19, 2018, 04:10:39 PM
Believe what you want, but if you ever want to draw that moose, elk, or deer tag your odds would drastically increase by not being permitted to apply for all of them every year.
So, I guess the question is do you really want to draw those tags or are you happy simply applying?
I'm done. The insanity in this thread is draining.
Just because you get one choice doesn't mean that you will draw one of those tags. A doubling or tripling of your odds that are 1% or 2% is not a drastic increase in chance. You are still not likely to be drawn. Ya, some will have great odds but those are the ones with already better odds. With moose goat and sheep those are so few tags it's not going to guarantee anything.
It would be interesting to see how it shakes out here. Obviously it depends on the particular system. But take an extreme example - you only get one special tag application and there is no OTC deer or elk - how many people would fully sit on the sideline and not hunt WA big game at all waiting for their favorite goat tag (for example)? Or a late archery Entiat tag? Or an Observatory archery bull tag? You could imagine the Observatory tag getting pretty easy to draw. It would be interesting to see how many sit on the sidelines and wait for their dream OIL or quality tag versus choose to hunt more often. At some level it would favor the rich guy who could afford to not hunt at all in WA while he travels to other States to get his fix.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 19, 2018, 04:26:03 PM
Post by: buglebuster on April 19, 2018, 04:30:22 PM
You don't have to be rich to hunt out of state, you just have to prioritize what's important. I'm as far from rich as you can get and I hunt 4 states a year on average.
Thats a great point! Following your lead im hunting 3 this year... FAR from rich lol
Post by: bobcat on April 19, 2018, 04:42:08 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 19, 2018, 04:53:05 PM
If you drive to Wyoming for Antelope you can drive to Wyoming for deer or elk. The tag difference is only a few hundred dollars and if you can scrounge up a few hundred dollars in 12 months and I don't know what to tell you. I would work a second job or sell firewood or whatever I could do to get an extra tag but that's just me.
Post by: bobcat on April 19, 2018, 05:17:13 PM
And it's not just the money, it's time off work. I get quite a bit of paid vacation compared to lots of people but still not enough to go on four out of state hunts every year. Heck our antelope hunts in Wyoming take 4 days just driving there and back.
So whatever line of work you're in, I'd say your fortunate and definitely not typical. I know of lots of people who have a hard time taking off even just one week to go hunting.
But it does now make more sense to me why some would gladly let the WDFW limit us to only applying for one species per year.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 19, 2018, 05:39:11 PM
You don't need preference points to hunt elk in the West. One elk would yield more meat than a truck full of antelope. Granted it's tougher to tag out on an elk than antelope.
You literally just buy a tag in CO, MT, ID, OR, and lots of other permits in various states that can be had basically otc. I spend less on hunting every year than I'd bet 90% of guys pay on a truck payment a year. I've made it a priority. But I guess there's always an excuse for everything.
Once again, out of state hunting has nothing to do with Washington's broken permit aystem. We have Otc tags so LITERALLY anyone can hunt them regardless of draws.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 19, 2018, 05:49:02 PM
Post by: Bob33 on April 19, 2018, 06:44:07 PM
There is good OTC hunting for those willing to work at it. I have a good friend who averages close to 50% on bull elk in Western Washington, all on public land.
One of the best ways to acquire quality hunting opportunities is to develop relationships with private landowners. During the 40 year spell of waiting to draw a quality tag, meet some landowners and earn the privilege of accessing their land.
Finally, without a doubt many of the most memorable experiences I’ve had hunting in Washington didn’t result in any harvest. :twocents:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on April 19, 2018, 06:51:12 PM
I never hunted out of state until I was in my early 40s, and probably haven’t missed a year since. That said, I think it’s a shame to conclude the only way a Washington hunter can have a quality hunt experience is to go out of state. If you’re looking for book trophies, it is pretty hard to do in Washington unless you are lucky or rich enough to buy a governor’s tag.I completely agree. Everyone has a different definition of what a quality hunt experience is. Some want meat, some want bone, some want a scenic landscape. Moat I feel would prefer all three. One thing is certain, if you don't go seek it out you'll never find it.
There is good OTC hunting for those willing to work at it. I have a good friend who averages close to 50% on bull elk in Western Washington, all on public land.
One of the best ways to acquire quality hunting opportunities is to develop relationships with private landowners. During the 40 year spell of waiting to draw a quality tag, meet some landowners and earn the privilege of accessing their land.
Finally, without a doubt many of the most memorable experiences I’ve had hunting in Washington didn’t result in any harvest. :twocents:
Post by: PlateauNDN on April 19, 2018, 07:09:18 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on April 19, 2018, 08:18:47 PM
Everyone seems to want better odds at drawing their dream hunt/permit, I get that, but i'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of WA hunters idea of a dream hunt/permit is not for an antlerless critter.
Sure, like Karl's Dad, there are some who would be more than tickled to draw a cow/doe permit every couple of years, but that is not the majority. I am far from a trophy hunter, if its legal I'm killing it, but if I only had 1 choice to apply for it would definitely not be an antlerless permit.
PS: I am in no way trying to pick on those who are after trophys only, to each their own.