Post by: Todd_ID on May 17, 2011, 08:27:52 AM
Here's the math from the Dayton Rifle Quality Elk Tag: 30 permits with 1577 applicants.
2010
Points, Applicants, % Chance of Drawing
18, 1, 21.1
17, 3, 18.8
15, 17, 14.6
14, 19, 12.8
13, 18, 11.0
12, 21, 9.4
11, 33, 7.9
10, 32, 6.5
9, 44, 5.2
8, 47, 4.1
7, 85, 3.2
6, 115, 2.3
5, 121, 1.6
4, 174, 1.0
3, 194, 0.5
2, 292, 0.2
1, 342, 0.07
2011 Drawing Projected
Points, Applicants, % Chance of Drawing
18, 2, 17.6
16, 12, 13.9
15, 14, 12.2
14, 13, 10.6
13, 16, 9.2
12, 29, 7.8
11, 32, 6.6
10, 43, 5.4
9, 45, 4.4
8, 84, 3.4
7, 115, 2.6
6, 121, 1.9
5, 174, 1.3
4, 194, 0.8
3, 292, 0.4
2, 342, 0.2
1, 340, 0.05
So an applicant with 12 points in last years drawing had a 9.4% chance of drawing the tag; this year that applicant will have 13 points and will have a 9.2% chance.
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 17, 2011, 09:26:07 AM
That brings the total applicants in Dayton to 1874 in 2010 for total applications of 56,562.
The 18 point person had a 1:5.8 chance in 2010.
The 12 point people had a 1:13 chance.
Yeah, the truth hurts........ :chuckle:
30 tags for 56,000+ apps in the barrel in '10.
And the hardest elk tag of 'em all to pull?
Yup, it's the Colockum rifle rut tag, where there is no elk.
The 18 point holder there in 2010 had a whopping 1:134 chance of being the winner.
Whoever it was that pulled that tag last year with 10 points should have bought a Mega Lotto ticket since they did that with a 1:434 chance.
Post by: bucklucky on May 17, 2011, 09:30:04 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 17, 2011, 09:33:54 AM
You cant figure odds unless you know how many people have certain amounts of points. Come on guys, just apply and hope to get lucky, the more points you have the better chance you have of drawing.The data for points and the draw from last year is available. It shows all the detail of who had how many points and for each draw in all categories. The 2011 stuff he posted is just a guess.
But the rest of what you said is absolutely correct. :)
Post by: bucklucky on May 17, 2011, 09:37:14 AM
Post by: Todd_ID on May 17, 2011, 09:38:59 AM
That's the link to where the points were used by how many people. I think the info counts a 1st choice or a 2nd choice application as the same, so it shouldn't throw the numbers off; meaning that the 2nd choice apps are accounted for in the math.
My main point is that our odds of drawing a tag each year go down even though our points are going up.
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 17, 2011, 09:43:24 AM
Here's the link for everything.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/category_points.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/category_points.php)
Just click on the PDF below each category and you got it all the data.
Post by: bucklucky on May 17, 2011, 09:44:14 AM
Post by: NRA4LIFE on May 17, 2011, 09:48:45 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 17, 2011, 09:49:16 AM
Nice, I didnt know they had that. Just put in and cross your fingers, its like winning the lotto!I think it's worse than the lotto. :chuckle:
Post by: bucklucky on May 17, 2011, 09:52:56 AM
Nice, I didnt know they had that. Just put in and cross your fingers, its like winning the lotto!I think it's worse than the lotto. :chuckle:
I won the elk lotto once :chuckle: Its nice to get lucky I guess.
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 17, 2011, 09:54:28 AM
But I ain't talking about it, until after the 18th out of respect for those who know this.
It's the lurkers, ya know.....
Post by: bucklucky on May 17, 2011, 09:58:38 AM
I think a lot of people would be surprised as to what is the top 3 most likely to draw a Quality elk tag are.
But I ain't talking about it, until after the 18th out of respect for those who know this.
It's the lurkers, ya know.....
You can PM me what you know :chuckle:
Post by: cmiller85 on May 17, 2011, 10:01:21 AM
Quote
I think the info counts a 1st choice or a 2nd choice application as the same, so it shouldn't throw the numbers off
How many people actually draw on a 2nd choice? You would have to remove all 2nd choice applications in order to get your approximate actual odds. I don't see how there is any way that a 2nd choice applicant has the same exact odds as a 1st choice applicant, therefore your odds would seem actually worse than they are.
Right? :dunno:
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 17, 2011, 10:13:36 AM
1st or 2nd choice winners are on the above links.QuoteI think the info counts a 1st choice or a 2nd choice application as the same, so it shouldn't throw the numbers off
How many people actually draw on a 2nd choice? You would have to remove all 2nd choice applications in order to get your approximate actual odds. I don't see how there is any way that a 2nd choice applicant has the same exact odds as a 1st choice applicant, therefore your odds would seem actually worse than they are.
Right? :dunno:
Far right column is combined 1st and 2nd choice winners.
3rd column from right is just the 1st choice winners.
Post by: Alan K on May 17, 2011, 10:25:38 AM
1st or 2nd choice winners are on the above links.QuoteI think the info counts a 1st choice or a 2nd choice application as the same, so it shouldn't throw the numbers off
How many people actually draw on a 2nd choice? You would have to remove all 2nd choice applications in order to get your approximate actual odds. I don't see how there is any way that a 2nd choice applicant has the same exact odds as a 1st choice applicant, therefore your odds would seem actually worse than they are.
Right? :dunno:
Far right column is combined 1st and 2nd choice winners.
3rd column from right is just the 1st choice winners.
Thanks, I always wondered that. Sort of figured it was along those lines but wasn't sure.
Post by: dreamingbig on May 17, 2011, 10:39:45 AM
Todd, question, did you deduct the successful applicants from the previous year in your forecast and did you make any attempt to quantify how many have dropped out (illness, death, or economy) of the pool?
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 17, 2011, 10:54:44 AM
There is one unit I want to draw for archery elk. It isn't the best unit but it is sentimental. I am hoping to get lucky in the lottery.
Todd, question, did you deduct the successful applicants from the previous year in your forecast and did you make any attempt to quantify how many have dropped out (illness, death, or economy) of the pool?
I'm not going to answer for Todd, but I think he will concur since I think he's been tracking this like I have for many years now.
The winners and removing their points from the projected like Todd did does not equal the projected future applicants. This is courtesy of the squaring of the points.
Like Todd said, your odds get worse every year.
The only things that can make your odds get better is less applicants and more tags available in a given hunt choice. Less applicants really is the biggest factor in possible odds increase, again squaring. Unless it's a significant increase in tags (like more than double) it does not have much to do with it in the big picture.
We are all going backwards folks.
Post by: seth30 on May 17, 2011, 11:00:30 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on May 17, 2011, 11:01:56 AM
Post by: Dry creek on May 17, 2011, 11:15:57 AM
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 17, 2011, 11:29:04 AM
To have 50% chance in drawing in 2010:
Dayton #2006 - 31 points.
Colockum #2019 - Over 400 points. Yes, over 400 or 160,000 of your applications in that drawing.
:chuckle:
Post by: shanevg on May 17, 2011, 11:53:38 AM
Post by: cmiller85 on May 17, 2011, 11:53:56 AM
That makes sense... the squaring of the points is an exponential increase in the number of applications. Okay, after I draw, lets blow the system up and start over with straight preference points and limited non-resident like NM did. ;)
I better idea would be to go with no points system at all. Look at Idaho. They know how to do it when it comes to improving draw odds. No point system = way better odds. Period.
Post by: CamoDup on May 17, 2011, 12:01:49 PM
You cant figure odds unless you know how many people have certain amounts of points. Come on guys, just apply and hope to get lucky
:yeah: there are way too many guys that think way too hard about this...
Post by: shanevg on May 17, 2011, 12:03:30 PM
You cant figure odds unless you know how many people have certain amounts of points. Come on guys, just apply and hope to get lucky
:yeah: there are way too many guys that think way too hard about this...
WDFW tells us exactly how many people had how many points.
Post by: fair-chase on May 17, 2011, 12:04:21 PM
Post by: shanevg on May 17, 2011, 12:05:42 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on May 17, 2011, 12:15:26 PM
Post by: bowsandhose on May 17, 2011, 12:26:55 PM
Most depressing thread ever. :'(
:yeah:
Post by: rasbo on May 17, 2011, 12:32:56 PM
Post by: 338_Thumper on May 17, 2011, 03:21:03 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on May 17, 2011, 04:09:31 PM
That makes sense... the squaring of the points is an exponential increase in the number of applications. Okay, after I draw, lets blow the system up and start over with straight preference points and limited non-resident like NM did. ;)
I better idea would be to go with no points system at all. Look at Idaho. They know how to do it when it comes to improving draw odds. No point system = way better odds. Period.
:yeah:
Post by: greenhead_killer on May 17, 2011, 04:28:10 PM
Post by: Lowedog on May 17, 2011, 04:53:25 PM
Post by: teanawayslayer on May 17, 2011, 05:06:17 PM
I think the only fair thing to do is to have all those that complain about our system just stop applying! That way the rest of us have better odds. It's a win-win for everyone!now your talking. I totally agree with you on this one.
Post by: Ridgerunner on May 17, 2011, 05:38:39 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 17, 2011, 06:16:20 PM
Post by: Todd_ID on May 17, 2011, 06:57:04 PM
Yeah I have know faith in the system .. just pray and hope you get something....Worked for Osama and Obama!
Post by: willapawapiti on May 17, 2011, 07:18:29 PM
I'm gonna push legislation to pass points on to my heirs, maybe they will draw,lol
I will vote for that!
Post by: bobcat on May 17, 2011, 07:21:27 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 17, 2011, 07:30:11 PM
The year (08) after Ridgerunner and I had drawn the coveted OIL Moose tag. He was contacted by a gentleman from North Carolina who drew the tag. He put the fella in contact with me. Since I was on this side of the state I agreed to see if we could get him a Moose.
That would really throw a wrinkle to many folks.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,35598.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,35598.0.html)
Not trying to jack the thread but when it was learned a nonresident had drawn some folks were looking for a rope.
Post by: Hilltop123 on May 17, 2011, 07:52:51 PM
What if the state went to a odds and evens for deer and elk hunting, everyone in WA is issued a Wild ID#. Lets take me for instance, mine ends with a even#, I hunt deer only one even years, I can apply for special deer permits for that year. Now on odd years I can hunt elk, and apply for those hunts. Just sitting here pondering and drinking beer, and I aready know the state will bitch about revenue lost. But your odds would improve, less people in the woods. Outa staters would be less likely to apply. And if you don't think permit drawing, to hunt anything in this state ain't coming, just look around. :twocents:
Post by: shanevg on May 17, 2011, 11:11:34 PM
I'm not condoning a true preference point system, I am just suggesting limiting choices to one choice only (or if it makes you feel any better look at everyones first choice before any second or third choices). Also maybe require tag fees up front for OIL tags. Any way to decrease the number of applicants for a given hunt would be a good thing as far as odds go.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 17, 2011, 11:42:05 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 17, 2011, 11:46:04 PM
The reason odds get worse every year IS because of the point system. And the reason why is that it encourages people to apply, every single year. Nobody wants to miss out on a point, they need to stay in the game. If it wasn't for the point system, a lot of people might only apply every other year, or just whenever they remembered to do it, or when they felt they had the time or money to go on a special hunt. Another thing that had decreased odds is the internet and message boards like this one.
Discouraging people from applying is the only thing that will make permits easier to draw. The best way to do that is to increase the cost. Which, I believe they are doing that next year. Quality applications will be double the cost. And, moose, sheep, and goat tags will be $300 instead of $100.
Post by: hughjorgan on May 18, 2011, 12:06:33 AM
Just my opinion, but I don't think going to only one choice will make any difference at all in odds. Sure odds will get better for certain hunts, but it will get worse for others, depending on what people choose to apply for. Overall, the odds will stay the same. There's no getting around it- when you have "x" number of people applying for "x" number of permits every year, there's nothing that can be done to make odds any better. It's just like how they went from 4 choices to 2 choices, for the quality hunts. I sure don't see it being any easier to draw most of those hunts.
The reason odds get worse every year IS because of the point system. And the reason why is that it encourages people to apply, every single year. Nobody wants to miss out on a point, they need to stay in the game. If it wasn't for the point system, a lot of people might only apply every other year, or just whenever they remembered to do it, or when they felt they had the time or money to go on a special hunt. Another thing that had decreased odds is the internet and message boards like this one.
Discouraging people from applying is the only thing that will make permits easier to draw. The best way to do that is to increase the cost. Which, I believe they are doing that next year. Quality applications will be double the cost. And, moose, sheep, and goat tags will be $300 instead of $100.
Going from 4 choices to 2 increased odds for archery IMO. If it went to 1 choice it would increase the odds that much more.
If you rifle hunt you are screwed because they screwed that up big time. They need to make it so people only can choose one category rather than applying for a cow tag, quality elk tag and a bull tag.
Post by: bobcat on May 18, 2011, 12:28:41 AM
Going from 4 choices to 2 increased odds for archery IMO. If it went to 1 choice it would increase the odds that much more.
If you rifle hunt you are screwed because they screwed that up big time. They need to make it so people only can choose one category rather than applying for a cow tag, quality elk tag and a bull tag.
How is it possible? I really don't understand how odds can get better when the number of permits stays the same and the number of people applying for those permits stays the same. :dunno:
I agree people should have to choose just one category per species to apply in. :dunno:
Post by: hughjorgan on May 18, 2011, 02:18:12 AM
Going from 4 choices to 2 increased odds for archery IMO. If it went to 1 choice it would increase the odds that much more.
If you rifle hunt you are screwed because they screwed that up big time. They need to make it so people only can choose one category rather than applying for a cow tag, quality elk tag and a bull tag.
How is it possible? I really don't understand how odds can get better when the number of permits stays the same and the number of people applying for those permits stays the same. :dunno:
I agree people should have to choose just one category per species to apply in. :dunno:
Well the number of permits allocated each year is going to vary due to biologists recommendations and they are down from a few years ago in some units that I have applied for but in some units they have stayed relatively stable. By limiting the choices to two the number of applicants in certain GMUs has gone down significantly. Less applicants means and about the same amount of tags from year to year means better odds. It doesn't hold true to every GMU. Keep in mind I am talking about archery elk in central Wa is what I am basing my observation off.
Post by: Little Dave on May 18, 2011, 02:53:17 AM
I'm gonna push legislation to pass points on to my heirs, maybe they will draw,lol
Buy a puppy and license it with the county with the name "January 1, 1972." It's kind of a strange name, but all of your heirs will then be born before January 1, 1972 and you can start racking up points for them.
Post by: shanevg on May 18, 2011, 06:08:05 AM
I would like to see the state go so far as saying you can only actually aly for one OIL tag and one category type (quality, doe, second deer, etc) only for deer and elk. Still allow everyone to apply points only in any category the wish just cut down the total number of applicants. At this poor, anything to increase draw odds while still maintaining opportunity formhunters and income for WDFW would be amgood thing.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 18, 2011, 06:34:07 AM
Post by: bobcat on May 18, 2011, 06:34:28 AM
I understand it APPEARS to improve odds, but does it really? If you think about it in more basic terms- odds are number of overall permits divided by overall number of people applying for those permits. It shouldn't make a difference how many each person applies for. Yes, the least popular hunts (if there is one) may become easier to draw. But the most popular hunts, should then in turn become harder to draw. Just the way I see it. I've heard the same thing for many years, that decreasing the number of choices will increase odds, but I just don't see it working that way.
Still, I wouldn't have a problem with them only allowing one choice. If nothing else, it would at least make it much easier for us to calculate odds of drawing.
What would really help would be to only allow a person to apply for one species per year. :yike:
Post by: bobcat on May 18, 2011, 06:36:04 AM
I like what someone else said earlier, we should be like Idaho with no points! The same odds everyear.
I agree. Idaho has the perfect point system- NONE!
Post by: GoldTip on May 18, 2011, 06:57:26 AM
There is just no "perfect" system, but in this state with high hunter numbers and low number of quality animal tags or OIL tags, the only way they can improve the system is to decrease the number of applicants in the pool. There are two ways to do this and they should do both imho. They should go to a every other year system much like Hilltop suggested, and they need to increase the cost to apply. This would decrease the number of people playing the "special permit" game substantially and increase the odds of drawing, but everyone still gets to hunt each year, maybe not a special unit or elk every year, or deer every year, but everyone still gets to hunt. There are just too many people in this state and too few animals.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on May 18, 2011, 07:00:29 AM
Quote
There are just too many people in this state and too few animals.
Couldn't have said it any better.
Post by: FWilliams on May 18, 2011, 07:10:39 AM
There is no "perfect" system, trust me. If it went to the Idaho system with no points, people would still be bellyaching cuz they've never drawn an OIL tag and others have drawn all three. If you leave it like it is, people will bellyache cuz they still haven't drawn with 27 bajillion points and some 8 year old drew on his first application. Increase the COST of applying to lower the number of applicants and improve draw odds and revenue, and everyone will scream that it's becoming a rich mans game.
There is just no "perfect" system, but in this state with high hunter numbers and low number of quality animal tags or OIL tags, the only way they can improve the system is to decrease the number of applicants in the pool. There are two ways to do this and they should do both imho. They should go to a every other year system much like Hilltop suggested, and they need to increase the cost to apply. This would decrease the number of people playing the "special permit" game substantially and increase the odds of drawing, but everyone still gets to hunt each year, maybe not a special unit or elk every year, or deer every year, but everyone still gets to hunt. There are just too many people in this state and too few animals.
well said.
Post by: shanevg on May 18, 2011, 08:30:59 AM
Shane,
I understand it APPEARS to improve odds, but does it really? If you think about it in more basic terms- odds are number of overall permits divided by overall number of people applying for those permits. It shouldn't make a difference how many each person applies for. Yes, the least popular hunts (if there is one) may become easier to draw. But the most popular hunts, should then in turn become harder to draw. Just the way I see it. I've heard the same thing for many years, that decreasing the number of choices will increase odds, but I just don't see it working that way.
Still, I wouldn't have a problem with them only allowing one choice. If nothing else, it would at least make it much easier for us to calculate odds of drawing.
What would really help would be to only allow a person to apply for one species per year. :yike:
Ultimately decreasing the number of choices doesn't do a whole lot to overall odds but it would dramatically increase odds on the less popular hunts like Dillard Creek for goat or Hangman for moose.
The best option is make people choose one species/category that they can actually apply for every year while still allowing them to apply for points in every category. Hat way hunters won't feel conned out of their points, WDFW gets their revenue, and number of applicants for a given species would dramatically increase.
Post by: Romulus on May 18, 2011, 08:36:44 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on May 18, 2011, 08:51:08 AM
That said, deadline is today to submit and purchase. Open that checkbook! :IBCOOL:
Post by: HoofsandWings on May 18, 2011, 10:24:25 AM
If you look at the stats for goat, sheep and moose where almost everyone has the same number of points,
there still are people drawing the second, third or fourth choice.
Also, after today, we still have the raffles we can put in for.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 18, 2011, 10:32:38 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on May 18, 2011, 10:54:27 AM
This is really getting old, what all those who complain about the "Draw" need to understand, IT IS A LOTTERY !!
One point, ten points, sixteen points, twenty six points, it does not matter.
it is chance, and only chance. If you buy a lottery ticket, play the slots, any sort of game of chance, you only win if you get lucky.
the odds are against you !
This state will never have enough "special permits" to make it so everyone gets an opportunity, so they have the "Special permit drawings"
the only real way to improve odds, will reduce not only $$$$, but reduce opportunity for the majority, and cause even more complaining.
So, I say, live with it, you don't have to like it, but that is what we have, you cannot win if you don't play, and yes, the chances of you drawing is slim to none, but somebody wins every year, it could be you !
Complaining about it, lets off steam, but is just complaining still.
It is like saying, I want to win $1,000,000 but the lottery system sucks because you have to get all the numbers right, how unfair. :'( I will never win because they don't limit the number of tickets they sell.
So, if you don't like the way the permit system is, too bad !, it is, what it is.
The truth is, you will probably NEVER get drawn for an OIL permit, and neither will one of your friends, but if you do get lucky and get drawn, or one of your friends does, CONGRATULATIONS !! YOU ARE LUCKY !!
Unfortunately that is the way it is, you can hunt almost all of the species that are OIL somewhere else, for a reasonable expense, with guaranteed tags.
Or you can complain about something you have no control over,
Quote
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know a good hiding place for the bodies of those who pissed me off.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on May 18, 2011, 11:15:23 AM
Post by: AndyCAK on May 18, 2011, 11:16:04 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on May 18, 2011, 11:23:21 AM
Quote
No offense Ridgerunner but it's pretty easy to be happy with the system when you've drawn a moose and sheep tag. What about the people who are just getting into hunting now and have no points? They are so far behind in the game that their chances of ever drawing are almost zero. Additionally if you look at the original post, the chance of drawing actually decreased every year for every point level.
I'm not condoning a true preference point system, I am just suggesting limiting choices to one choice only (or if it makes you feel any better look at everyones first choice before any second or third choices). Also maybe require tag fees up front for OIL tags. Any way to decrease the number of applicants for a given hunt would be a good thing as far as odds go.
Shane, no offense taken, but go back and read my posts on this subject prior to drawing my OIL tags, I felt the same way before I drew the tags, have I been lucky, heck ya, especially considering I didn’t apply for OIL tags until you didn’t have to not front the money so I was always 3 points below max, at the time when you did need to front the money I was broke and wouldn’t have been able to do it anyway. The reason I like the system is that everyone has a chance of drawing and those who faithfully apply have a better chance each year. I don’t like true preference point states as with low tag numbers it essentially becomes a once in a lifetime hunt even for deer or elk.
The reason why Idaho’s system has better draw odds is because you have to choose one species to put in for each year, here we can put in for all 5 species. I wouldn’t want to have to choose only one species, but that would really make the odds better.
I’d like to see the application fees for the OIL tags to go up to $25 or $30 to keep those individuals out who aren’t serious about wanting to hunt those creatures. I’ve always been in favor of making folks choose one OIL species to put in for (like Idaho) as well as drop the number of choices to 2. I like that change for the quality hunts but it does make choosing units much more difficult as there are probably about 10 I’d like to put in for on an annual basis. Any OIL tag is going to give a guy a great experience.
In the end its all about supply and demand, there is just too much demand and not enough supply in this state for quality hunts.
Post by: 6x6in6 on May 18, 2011, 11:47:37 AM
"A weighted-point permit drawing system is used, which gives applicants who have failed to be selected in the past a better chance to be awarded a permit in the future. It is based on the application history of each applicant" and in particular, this one "Everyone has a chance to be selected, but those with more points have a better chance of being awarded a permit."
That is absolutely not the case for any OIL tag, and a Quality Bull tag. Your chances DO NOT get better!!! They get significantly worse every year!
And, courtesy of last years permit application category change, every other deer and elk permit is now that way too. It may take a few years for your 2009 chances of winning one of these to come back to where they used to be, and then truly get better each year. It may take a very long time for the Bull Tag chances to get back to where you were in 2009. All depends on applicants and quantity of tags for the hunt choice in the coming year(s).
Selkirk and 49DN Bull moose for example.
2007 a 12 point holder had a 1:104 and a 1:112 chance, respectively.
2008 a 13 point holder had a 1:111 and a 1:123 chance.
2009 a 14 point holder had a 1:116 and 1:138 chance.
2010 a 15 point holder went to 1:124 and 1:151 chance.
Goat and sheep are backsliding even worse!!!
Effectively, what SticknString said is absolutely correct. Keep playing the lotto, somebody's got to get it.
Post by: Little Dave on May 18, 2011, 11:57:38 AM
In 2011 there are about 8973, that's down 25 percent in just three years.
Page 10 in the reg book offers some explanations why:
Lack of budget control: "we now have a real chance to secure funding"
non-essential spending: "other responsibilities"
new-spending: "started implementing an integrated management that considers prey-predator dynamics"
future obligations for taxpayers: "with a $837,000 federal grant"
loss of access: "after losing thousands of acres of prime hunting land"
soliciting tax increase support from least affected stakeholders: "together with campers, birdwatchers and others to support fees"
The truth about the draw odds is that chances will decrease as the denominator approaches zero. The price will increase as supply exceeds demand. If the denominator reaches zero points won't matter.
If you want better odds, method of draw is not going to solve anything. It's like arguing with the grocer about the way he sells and labels fruit when what you really would like is more fruit or better quality fruit. Don't waste your time focused on the wrong thing.
Post by: shanevg on May 18, 2011, 01:53:26 PM
As for tag numbers, deer tags may have gone down but I believe overall numbers for all OIL tags have gone up since 2008.
If you don't like bouncing around new ideas than don't read this topic. The whole point of an online forum like this is discussions like this. And believe it or not, we can change things with WDFW. They do have public input periods. Ultimately for them it is all about revenue so any suggestions we come up with need to keep revenue up while hopefully improving odds overall for hunters.
And Ridgerunner, I have no problem with everyone having a chance to draw as in our existing system, I am just trying to suggest changes that will increase our odds within the confines of the existing system. Again, let's find a solution that can be beneficial to both sides.
Post by: Ridgerunner on May 18, 2011, 02:31:44 PM
Post by: Bob33 on May 18, 2011, 02:41:58 PM
I wrote letters last year to the Wildlife Program and the Commission regarding the proposed permit changes. WDFW specifically advertised the changes as being meant to increase draw odds.
I personally know of at least ten individuals who also wrote letters of dissent about the proposed changes.
After the changes were approved and implemented, Dave Ware made several public comments how the changes were overwhelmingly supported by the hunting public, and how very few letters of dissent were received.
Perhaps it's not completely pointless to complain about the system and suggest changes, but to date most of those efforts have been futile.
The state made about $500K more in 2010 on the changes because the number of special permit applications essentially doubled. It should be somewhat evident that doubling the number of permit applications does not enhance draw odds.
Could the state have raised $500K in other ways without drastically changing the draw system? I think so. Had they increased the permit application fee by $10, they could have sustained over a 50% decline in applications and still made another $500K. If also would have reduced the number of applications, which would have improved rather than degraded the draw odds.
Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
There is no "perfect" system, trust me. If it went to the Idaho system with no points, people would still be bellyaching cuz they've never drawn an OIL tag and others have drawn all three. If you leave it like it is, people will bellyache cuz they still haven't drawn with 27 bajillion points and some 8 year old drew on his first application. Increase the COST of applying to lower the number of applicants and improve draw odds and revenue, and everyone will scream that it's becoming a rich mans game.
There is just no "perfect" system, but in this state with high hunter numbers and low number of quality animal tags or OIL tags, the only way they can improve the system is to decrease the number of applicants in the pool. There are two ways to do this and they should do both imho. They should go to a every other year system much like Hilltop suggested, and they need to increase the cost to apply. This would decrease the number of people playing the "special permit" game substantially and increase the odds of drawing, but everyone still gets to hunt each year, maybe not a special unit or elk every year, or deer every year, but everyone still gets to hunt. There are just too many people in this state and too few animals.
I agree, there are many hunters and only so many animals, and no system is perfect. But rather than make it more restrictive to try and increase odds, how about we try to increase the number of animals to try and increase odds. :twocents:
Post by: dreamingbig on May 18, 2011, 02:57:14 PM
Post by: GoldTip on May 18, 2011, 03:11:48 PM
There is no "perfect" system, trust me. If it went to the Idaho system with no points, people would still be bellyaching cuz they've never drawn an OIL tag and others have drawn all three. If you leave it like it is, people will bellyache cuz they still haven't drawn with 27 bajillion points and some 8 year old drew on his first application. Increase the COST of applying to lower the number of applicants and improve draw odds and revenue, and everyone will scream that it's becoming a rich mans game.
There is just no "perfect" system, but in this state with high hunter numbers and low number of quality animal tags or OIL tags, the only way they can improve the system is to decrease the number of applicants in the pool. There are two ways to do this and they should do both imho. They should go to a every other year system much like Hilltop suggested, and they need to increase the cost to apply. This would decrease the number of people playing the "special permit" game substantially and increase the odds of drawing, but everyone still gets to hunt each year, maybe not a special unit or elk every year, or deer every year, but everyone still gets to hunt. There are just too many people in this state and too few animals.
I agree, there are many hunters and only so many animals, and no system is perfect. But rather than make it more restrictive to try and increase odds, how about we try to increase the number of animals to try and increase odds. :twocents:
Dale,
I fully agree. My idea would increase the number of animals and would truly be easy to try. Simply take the number elk tags purchased this year and divide it in half. Let's say that half is 40,000 general elk tags. Now next year they are only gonna sell 40,000 tags on a first come first served basis, double the price for an elk tag. It's all on computer now, so they can keep track of who did and didn't get an elk tag, those 40,000 who didn't get a tag, they get one in 2013, the 2012 tag holders get one again in 2014 and so on and so forth. Now because you doubled tag price there is no loss in revenue. You have 50% less hunters in the woods pushing animals around so there is higher "escapement" on animals and an overall decreased harvest of elk, total. Let's say there is a 30% decrease in harvest, thats 30% more that got bred and made it through the winter for the next year.
This system also increases drawing odds, as you can only apply for a "quality bull tag" on the years you yourself have a tag, decreasing the number of applicants by 50% each year as well. Same thing, make a elk app $10. Anyone here who wouldn't start paying $10 for a quality elk tag app with a 50% reduction in people applying for that tag?
I agree 100% Dale, we can have our cake and eat it to, we get to hunt elk every other year, and we have more elk and better drawing odds. We're only paying the price for a license every other year, so it truly costs us no more. And if you compare our state to say Nevada or Arizona hunting elk every other year as a resident is actually pretty darn good.
Post by: Lowedog on May 18, 2011, 05:40:43 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 18, 2011, 06:26:24 PM
I agree it is a lotto, but your odds keeping getting worse each year. Similar to Powerball when the pot is $10 million vs $300 million.The odds for a lottery based on selecting fixed numbers (Powerball) will stay the same regardless of prize size. To be the only winner, your odds will drop because more people have a chance to co-win and share the prize.
The odds do go down for winning a fixed number of permits, similar to the raffles---more people, more competition. Here, the prize can't be divided and winners are already guaranteed for the selection.
Post by: AndyCAK on May 18, 2011, 06:47:25 PM
Points Odds in 2010 Cumulative Odds
18 0.76% 4.83%
17 0.68% 4.11%
16 0.60% 3.45%
15 0.53% 2.87%
14 0.46% 2.35%
13 0.40% 1.90%
12 0.34% 1.51%
11 0.28% 1.18%
10 0.23% 0.90%
9 0.19% 0.67%
8 0.15% 0.48%
7 0.11% 0.33%
6 0.08% 0.21%
5 0.06% 0.13%
4 0.04% 0.07%
3 0.02% 0.03%
2 0.01% 0.01%
1 0.00% 0.00%
* I'm too lazy to go back years and years to get the actual numbers so I'm going to assume that the 2010 figures are consistent from year to year - though we know the numbers are growing. This actually makes the cumulative odds MUCH worse than in reality. I also only used the 1st choice figures...
What does all this mean in reality? Not much... It's just to say that with 18 points you have had a 4.83% chance of drawing at some point for this tag.
Personally, I'll take the 4.83% chance versus overhunting... Though I do like the idea of limiting the number of categories one can enter and/or increasing the cost of the permit lottery.
PS This is the most ridiculous post. I'm in graduate school right now and recently took statistics. And I thought it would never come in useful...
Post by: HoofsandWings on May 19, 2011, 08:54:58 AM
If you look at the points of the winner, sometimes you see numbers that are higher than the number of years we have had a point system.
Also, sometimes you are awarded points for mistakes made by WDFW. A case in point. A friend of mine put in for a disabled hunt permit and
somehow the department lost the app. He was awarded 5 points due to the screw up.
Post by: dreamingbig on May 19, 2011, 11:53:46 AM
Post by: Little Dave on May 20, 2011, 11:18:42 PM
There are three doors and a prize is behind one. You are asked to pick a door. The host knowing where the prize is opens a door that you did not pick and does not have a prize behind it. You are offered the chance to change your selection. Should you?
What's strange is that a lot of people think that if they keep the door that they selected it is a 50/50 chance. It is not. Only if they switch do they get the 50/50 chance. The one that they selected is still a one in three chance even though there are now just two choices.
Keeping that in mind, be careful with the cumulative calculation.
Post by: AndyCAK on May 22, 2011, 07:10:29 PM
What I mean by cumulative odds is that chance that you will have drawn by the time you have that number of points. Though your odds are still VERY small that you will draw in any given year, the more times you try the greater your chance of winning in the long run. Though as Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead!"
Post by: huntnnw on May 22, 2011, 10:37:51 PM