Curiosity...What do you think of your state's draw system????

[BluMtn]

When Washington started working on a draw system they had wardens going from camp to camp and explaining how the system was going to work and how it was going to increase the herds and make hunting even better and wanted our support to help make it happen. Their pitch was pretty much how it is now but they said after 10 years if you had not drawn you would automatically get a tag. So when 10 years came around for those that had not drawn they wanted their tags which the game dept replied "we never said that". When they were first explaining the draw they handed out little flyers that explained the whole draw system and how it worked and it stated it in there, but I don't think anybody ever kept it.

 

[KurtR]

You get this wierd east river, west river thing that goes on in sd. West river guys equally hate east river guys and non residents, heck they might hate the east river guys more. Then that all factored into changing the draw, now everyone is ticked

Cant forget the sconis running up and down the rez not understanding that every thing isnt tribal and blasting away.

 

[ScottR_EHJ]

I wish their was a cap on points, say 15 to 20 or so. I'm in my early 30s and there is just no way for me to ever catch up to some of these draws in my lifetime. A cap would keep it more fair then random to people who apply every year while making it possible for anyone to eventually get enough points to draw.

The only issue with a cap is that the top end turns into a random pool that continually grows. We see that some in Wyoming the way it is. Lots of NR hunters buying points waiting for the perfect year to burn their elk or deer points. The points game is a tough one, I can live with the random draw, once a state goes full bore preference points...it will be very tough to be undone.

 

[CorbLand]

The only issue with a cap is that the top end turns into a random pool that continually grows. We see that some in Wyoming the way it is. Lots of NR hunters buying points waiting for the perfect year to burn their elk or deer points. The points game is a tough one, I can live with the random draw, once a state goes full bore preference points...it will be very tough to be undone.

Exactly. All setting a cap on points would do is create a random draw system with extra steps. It does make me chuckle a little when I hear people advocate for a cap because it pretty much just reaffirms my position that points are just participation trophies. They just make people feel good. The only reason that you could think that a cap would work is that eventually you could say that you are in the max pool category. It doesn't improve your odds, it would actually make them worse.

The point of a preference point system is so that the top point pool gets smaller and smaller as each year goes on. Thus, increasing the odds for those in the top pool. If you capped it, more and more people would come into the max point pool each year, thus decreasing the odds for the top point holders. It would do the direct opposite of what a preference point system is designed to do.

Once a point system is implemented, it virtually has a 0% of being taken away. People get their points, feel like their are owed something. There are a few that would give up all their points to have a random draw but the majority wont.

 

[ericacymcdonald]

Exactly. All setting a cap on points would do is create a random draw system with extra steps. It does make me chuckle a little when I hear people advocate for a cap because it pretty much just reaffirms my position that points are just participation trophies. They just make people feel good. The only reason that you could think that a cap would work is that eventually you could say that you are in the max pool category. It doesn't improve your odds, it would actually make them worse.

The point of a preference point system is so that the top point pool gets smaller and smaller as each year goes on. Thus, increasing the odds for those in the top pool. If you capped it, more and more people would come into the max point pool each year, thus decreasing the odds for the top point holders. It would do the direct opposite of what a preference point system is designed to do.

Once a point system is implemented, it virtually has a 0% of being taken away. People get their points, feel like their are owed something. There are a few that would give up all their points to have a random draw but the majority wont.

I understand what you are saying, but the problem is "The point of a preference point system is so that the top point pool gets smaller and smaller as each year goes on." California has a max point of 24 right now I believe. I'm 32 and started applying when I was 18 so even though I started applying at a young age I'm still 10 points away from max. I would love a tule bull but there is 400 max point applicants in some hunts that only give out 3 tags. That over 100 years before it gets out of max points (yes I know people will die or miss applications). I get that the top pool gets smaller but it only gets smaller for the people who just happen to have been the right age when the point system was put in place. Everyone younger will never have a chance to draw. I know my odds wouldn't "get worse" as you said because my odds are pretty much zero right now. if I could get even a tiny tiny chance at drawing I'd start putting into the tule draws instead of the others

 

[CorbLand]

I understand what you are saying, but the problem is "The point of a preference point system is so that the top point pool gets smaller and smaller as each year goes on." California has a max point of 24 right now I believe. I'm 32 and started applying when I was 18 so even though I started applying at a young age I'm still 10 points away from max. I would love a tule bull but there is 400 max point applicants in some hunts that only give out 3 tags. That over 100 years before it gets out of max points (yes I know people will die or miss applications). I get that the top pool gets smaller but it only gets smaller for the people who just happen to have been the right age when the point system was put in place. Everyone younger will never have a chance to draw. I know my odds wouldn't "get worse" as you said because my odds are pretty much zero right now. if I could get even a tiny tiny chance at drawing I'd start putting into the tule draws instead of the others

What you are explaining is the exact definition of the issue with preference point systems. I agree with you on this and will go to my grave arguing against point systems.

If they placed a cap at 24 this year and you are at 14. It would take you 10 years to get to that cap. Every person with points above you would be in that top applicant pool that you would suddenly be competing against when you got there. So for easy math, lets say there is 400 in each point tier. By the time you got there, you would be at 3970 applicants competing for the same 3 tags or a .00076% chance of drawing.

My point is that putting cap on the number of points a person can accumulate will do absolutely nothing to solve this problem. It would literally be a random draw process with extra steps. Your odds would be pretty much zero even if there was a cap so instead of capping the number of points a person can accumulate, you should be arguing to get rid of a point system all together or transitioning to a bonus point system.

 

[Cervid]

Once a point system is implemented, it virtually has a 0% of being taken away. People get their points, feel like their are owed something. There are a few that would give up all their points to have a random draw but the majority wont.

The thing is, the people with the points are not the people who decide on how the draw system works. The state fish and game comissions do, and while they may be sympathetic to the concerns of the people with a lot of points, this is a pretty weak guarantee and would make me very nervous about tying up much money in a preference point system that could be changed at any time.

I know it's not hunting, but a decade and a half ago the National Park Service transitioned from a waitlist (basically a preference point system) to go on non-commercial private rafting trips down the Grand Canyon to a (very lightly weighted) random lottery. From my understanding, it was a 3 stage process to transition. In the first step, they opened up some launch dates (think tags) for 4 years in advance and people with the longest time on the waitlist could schedule their trip. Those still remaining on the waitlist then had the option to combine with other people on the waitlist to pool their years (to basically have more preference points and a joint trip - each permit is good for one trip with max 16 people) and then the people with the most points could schedule more dates up to 4 years in advance (obviously this stage would not work with hunting). In the final stage, the people still remaining could convert their time on the waitlist (i.e. preference points) into additional chances in the waited lottery or get a refund of the (pretty minimal) fee they paid to get on the waitlist.

I'm sure there were people who had been on the waitlist a long time who were ticked off about the change, but I think the gradual transition made it less painful than it could have been. If a state transitioned from preference points to a random/weighted draw, it definitely would help to say hey we're going to end it, you can put in for a tag any time in the next 4 years and after that all the points are getting converted to extra chances in a weighted draw. That would really cause people to maybe think twice about holding out for that one "prime" unit.

 

[CorbLand]

The thing is, the people with the points are not the people who decide on how the draw system works. The state fish and game comissions do, and while they may be sympathetic to the concerns of the people with a lot of points, this is a pretty weak guarantee and would make me very nervous about tying up much money in a preference point system that could be changed at any time.

I know it's not hunting, but a decade and a half ago the National Park Service transitioned from a waitlist (basically a preference point system) to go on non-commercial private rafting trips down the Grand Canyon to a (very lightly weighted) random lottery. From my understanding, it was a 3 stage process to transition. In the first step, they opened up some launch dates (think tags) for 4 years in advance and people with the longest time on the waitlist could schedule their trip. Those still remaining on the waitlist then had the option to combine with other people on the waitlist to pool their years (to basically have more preference points and a joint trip - each permit is good for one trip with max 16 people) and then the people with the most points could schedule more dates up to 4 years in advance (obviously this stage would not work with hunting). In the final stage, the people still remaining could convert their time on the waitlist (i.e. preference points) into additional chances in the waited lottery or get a refund of the (pretty minimal) fee they paid to get on the waitlist.

I'm sure there were people who had been on the waitlist a long time who were ticked off about the change, but I think the gradual transition made it less painful than it could have been. If a state transitioned from preference points to a random/weighted draw, it definitely would help to say hey we're going to end it, you can put in for a tag any time in the next 4 years and after that all the points are getting converted to extra chances in a weighted draw. That would really cause people to maybe think twice about holding out for that one "prime" unit.

Overall, preference points are pretty cheap on an individual state basis. Its time that is costly.

Speaking for the state that I live in. If they even mentioned that they were thinking about getting rid of the preference point system, the majority of the hunters here would burn the wildlife board and fish and game at the stake.

 

[ScottR_EHJ]

I understand what you are saying, but the problem is "The point of a preference point system is so that the top point pool gets smaller and smaller as each year goes on." California has a max point of 24 right now I believe. I'm 32 and started applying when I was 18 so even though I started applying at a young age I'm still 10 points away from max. I would love a tule bull but there is 400 max point applicants in some hunts that only give out 3 tags. That over 100 years before it gets out of max points (yes I know people will die or miss applications). I get that the top pool gets smaller but it only gets smaller for the people who just happen to have been the right age when the point system was put in place. Everyone younger will never have a chance to draw. I know my odds wouldn't "get worse" as you said because my odds are pretty much zero right now. if I could get even a tiny tiny chance at drawing I'd start putting into the tule draws instead of the other

Let's give this a visual number for reference. The difference between 1% and .001% is what you are talking about being ok with. For instance, several of the hard to draw Wyoming elk tags award very few NR tags, lets use a round number like 5. When 100 people apply that means only 5 of them were actually pulled out of the max point pool. That likely means that 95 people minimum will apply for that hunt the next year as they are already vested, "may as well keep shooting for the moon." The max point number continues to go up every year, but theoretically max point holders should be sent back to the bottom of the system.

In a capped system what would happen is you would watch that 5% turn to 4 and then 3 and so on, eventually ending up somewhere in the less thatn 1% category. Those odds are simply a reality to some as the chase things like sheep slams but you have to play the game to pull it off. But for others maintaning the 5% odds that were the starting point sounds like a lot better deal. Especially if you have been in the game long enough to have max points.

Easiest way not to have any of the issues above....is to not have preference points. Nevada's weighted bonus points at least feels better, but knowing one of the guys with max points who can't draw and elk tag to save his life the system there is a challenge too.

I can deal with never drawing one of our best tags if it meant that every person who applied had exactly the same odds every time. In all fairness though, my state is pretty good to be a resident in.

My apologies for being long winded and I will get off my soapbox now.

 

[slick]

Corb & Scott,

I know you don’t like PP, and I don’t either when you can’t burn them up in 5-7 years, after that I think it’s a waste. Anyways..

How do you think Idaho’s system of 1 of the big 3, or all 3 (Deer, elk, pronghorn) could be implemented into a current points system to help the creep issue? Would that at all be helpful?

Ie: you couldn’t gain a point for every species every year, but only one point total.

In my mind I think this could help, but certainly open to others ideas. Say a state tried to transition out of a BS preference point system- declared everyone can only build 1 point total per year, then declared their points were turning into BP for a period of time (like the example of Grand Canyon permits above) and then went random.
I’ve had a stupid long day so not thinking clearly.

I’m personally not against point systems as it allows people to plan a little better -as long as the turn over in the top points holders happens in within 5-7 years, and I think Idaho’s “pick one” has a lot of good going for it, I also think a system like Colorado’s hybrid draw for goats could be a useful methodology for elk, deer, pronghorn draws . And implementing them both would be even better.

Say for instance the most desirable buck and bull tags (permit areas with 25 or less- just a number) were all random. As are moose, sheep, goat. And then a hybrid draw for the rest of pronghorn, deer and elk- if no OTC opportunity exists.

In my own echo chamber I like it, but tear it up fellas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

I'm petty happy with California's system.. whomever has the most points wins. No squaring or extra super points or paying extra. Somewhere between 15 and 20% are completely random so anyone can draw. Predictable and those who have waited in line the longest go first.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[slick]

I'm petty happy with California's system.. whomever has the most points wins. No squaring or extra super points or paying extra. Somewhere between 15 and 20% are completely random so anyone can draw. Predictable and those who have waited in line the longest go first.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Marble,

How do you then address point creep?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

Random draw appeals to people who prefer a small chance of success today instead of zero chance today but greater chance years down the road. Preference points appeal to people who like to plan and are willing to wait. Bonus points and hybrid systems fall somewhere in between.

None of these methods are inherently more or less "fair." The fact that in a preference point system some tags are guaranteed to be out-of-reach for some people because they didn't begin building points early enough doesn't make a preference point system "unfair." In random draw systems, some people apply for premier tags their whole lives and never draw one, which is also not unfair, it's just a symptom of demand exceeding supply.

Point creep also doesn't make a point system unfair. Again, it's just a symptom of demand outpacing supply. The same factors that cause creep in a point-based system are manifest as continual year-over-year declining draw odds in a random system. The basic effect is the same: tags get harder and harder to draw over time.

Well said!

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

Marble,

How do you then address point creep?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The simple answer is you don't. You wait your turn. Just like everyone else. There is a certain amount available and not everyone gets a tag. It is fair. It's the same rules for everyone. It just doesn't make everyone happy because not everyone gets their dream hunt.

I guess with the portion that's random it always gives everyone a chance. My buddy got a max point zone with 2 points on the random. Just lucky I guess. I still have not gotten drawn. I think I'm 19 years into trying.


I look at like any other thing you have to wait you turn for in life. Grocery lines, ticket lines etc. Got to wait your turn.



Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[slick]

The simple answer is you don't. You wait your turn. Just like everyone else. There is a certain amount available and not everyone gets a tag. It is fair. It's the same rules for everyone. It just doesn't make everyone happy because not everyone gets their dream hunt.

I guess with the portion that's random it always gives everyone a chance. My buddy got a max point zone with 2 points on the random. Just lucky I guess. I still have not gotten drawn. I think I'm 19 years into trying.


I look at like any other thing you have to wait you turn for in life. Grocery lines, ticket lines etc. Got to wait your turn.



Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

I can agree. I don’t think it’s inherently unfair. The only difference is in the ticket line and grocery line you eventually are checked out/helped, etc. you wait your turn and you get your turn.

But in a true preference point system individuals starting now won’t ever get their turn if it stays under current structure and to me that is inherently unfair. Some states have the 10-25% random. Some don’t.

Whereas I see if they made the highest desirable areas all random it would be more fair. But a tag that’s taking 22 years to draw, and is experiencing point creep at a rate higher than 1pt p/year an 18 year old getting in now would be dead before they ever drew. So is that fair? I get your point I just think there’s some instances the states are entrusted the public’s wildlife and there are better ways to allocate those resources fairly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

The only difference is in the ticket line and grocery line you eventually are checked out/helped, etc. you wait your turn and you get your turn.

But in a true preference point system individuals starting now won’t ever get their turn if it stays under current structure and to me that is inherently unfair.

They can get "their turn" now, it just might not be from the line they wanted to be in. For some weird reason a whole lot of people seem to think that they deserve or are entitled to be able to draw "one specific tag" that 99.999% of the rest of the population will never draw either. It really helps if folks would just go into this whole draw thing with a logical frame of mind, instead of an emotional one. Study the draws and eliminate those that you KNOW you will never draw, and then eliminate all the crying about not being able to draw that and focus on what YOU CAN DRAW. And if you don't like PP systems, then ignore those states that use them and only apply for tags in states that are lottery draws. It's really that simple.

 

[CorbLand]

Corb & Scott,

I know you don’t like PP, and I don’t either when you can’t burn them up in 5-7 years, after that I think it’s a waste. Anyways..

How do you think Idaho’s system of 1 of the big 3, or all 3 (Deer, elk, pronghorn) could be implemented into a current points system to help the creep issue? Would that at all be helpful?

Ie: you couldn’t gain a point for every species every year, but only one point total.

In my mind I think this could help, but certainly open to others ideas. Say a state tried to transition out of a BS preference point system- declared everyone can only build 1 point total per year, then declared their points were turning into BP for a period of time (like the example of Grand Canyon permits above) and then went random.
I’ve had a stupid long day so not thinking clearly.

I’m personally not against point systems as it allows people to plan a little better -as long as the turn over in the top points holders happens in within 5-7 years, and I think Idaho’s “pick one” has a lot of good going for it, I also think a system like Colorado’s hybrid draw for goats could be a useful methodology for elk, deer, pronghorn draws . And implementing them both would be even better.

Say for instance the most desirable buck and bull tags (permit areas with 25 or less- just a number) were all random. As are moose, sheep, goat. And then a hybrid draw for the rest of pronghorn, deer and elk- if no OTC opportunity exists.

In my own echo chamber I like it, but tear it up fellas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am going to preface this that I am bias because I absolutely loath point systems. I generally call points participation trophies because that's all I really view them as. The likelihood of my opinion changing on this is slim.

The system that you are describing, if I understand you correctly is basically what Utah has. Utah is a hybrid preference where its a 50/50 split of tags. Half go to the top point holders and half are in a random draw. It helps to give people opportunity every year. As a resident, you can either choose to gain points for limited entry elk or limited entry deer or limited entry antelope and one of the once in a lifetimes. You can get a point for general season deer each year as well. So, you can gain 3 points a year in Utah total. So while not exactly like you described but similar that you can only gain one point per "type" of hunt/tag (not sure what the proper term here is).

Now, I like the method of forcing people to choose. So if Utah went to a random draw but kept its units and management the same. I would say that you could only apply for limited entry elk or limited entry deer or antelope. You would also only be able to apply for one of the once in a lifetime tags each year. I am not opposed to making people choose.

If you are dead set on keeping a point system, I think that bonus point systems are the best. It still gives people a chance every year with those that have applied longer, more chances.

If you want to keep a preference point system, don't allow people to turn back tags and you cant just buy points. This would force people to apply and hunt if they draw. Most states are finding out how common it has been for people to turn back tags and are finding ways to mitigate this, so hopefully that helps. Utah found out that a guy had drawn a limited entry deer tag for ~5 years in a row and turned it back the day before the hunt all of those years. Because it was so late, they couldn't reissue the tag, so that was 5 people that could have made it through the system that didn't.

I hate points systems, I have made my opinion on them perfectly clear. It is also nothing more than my opinion. Nor am I complaining about them, I just don't like them.

My number one issue with point systems, specifically preference points is that people get their points and then feel like they are owed something. As people get more and more points, they expect a tag and that tag better meet their expectations. We saw this in Utah a couple years ago with a certain buffalo hunt. They also did it with an elk unit as well. People complained that it was taking 15 points to draw an elk tag and they were only killing 320" bulls and that if it takes that long to draw a tag, you should get a better bull. So the solution? Cut tags to raise the age class and now it takes even longer to draw a tag.

My second reason is that as people get more and more points they feel like the same rules should apply as when they started. Utah needs to stop killing elk at their most vulnerable time with our most effective weapons but every time you bring that up there is a crowd that complains because when they started applying, it was this way and it should stay that way. I have been told countless times by people that "they can change anything they want after I get my tag." The part that makes me laugh about that is 99% of that comes from a specific generation that likes to bitch about another generation but that's a different topic.

Someone said it earlier, there is no solution to make it "fair" for everyone. Someone will always lose no matter what system is put in place. Personally, I would rather take my chances in a random draw every year than have a "guarantee" at the end. I put guarantee in quotes because nothing in life is guaranteed. There is no solution to mitigate the fact that demand for tags is out weighing the supply and its not going to get better. Take advantage of whatever is available now, it wont be there forever.

 

[Hatchet Jack]

I don't have a strong opinion either way; i like that the different states have different systems.

I'm pretty much a lock for a Pauns archery tag when i decide i want it. Name a non-point state where you can say with any fraction of certainty you're going to draw a world class deer tag next year. In this instance i'm a huge fan of the point game.

My son who was born 2 months ago will likely never draw a great Utah LE deer tag in my lifetime; in that case i'm not a huge points fan. But it is what it is; adapt and get crap tags in crap units every year and make it work.

Guarantee if point systems were never invented, the same guys on here bitching about point systems would be bitching about how all the new youtube hunters are taking their tags and there needs to be a way to reward the guys who have invested in the system.

 

[CorbLand]

I don't have a strong opinion either way; i like that the different states have different systems.

I'm pretty much a lock for a Pauns archery tag when i decide i want it. Name a non-point state where you can say with any fraction of certainty you're going to draw a world class deer tag next year. In this instance i'm a huge fan of the point game.

My son who was born 2 months ago will likely never draw a great Utah LE deer tag in my lifetime; in that case i'm not a huge points fan. But it is what it is; adapt and get crap tags in crap units every year and make it work.

Guarantee if point systems were never invented, the same guys on here bitching about point systems would be bitching about how all the new youtube hunters are taking their tags and there needs to be a way to reward the guys who have invested in the system.

I wouldn’t complain.

I also love the fact that people can say they don’t like something, state why and the default is that they are just bitching about it. It kind of reaffirms my second reason for not liking point systems. People get stuck in the status quo and heaven forbid you think that something should change.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

But a tag that’s taking 22 years to draw, and is experiencing point creep at a rate higher than 1pt p/year an 18 year old getting in now would be dead before they ever drew. So is that fair?

If that 18 year old were to start accumulating points now in pursuit of that 22 point tag, he likely will eventually have a legitimate chance at drawing the tag. The other guys chasing that tag will eventually either A) draw the tag and lose their points, B) give up on that particular tag and use their points elsewhere, or C) never use their points because they die or grow too old to hunt. That 22 point tag might creep up to a (wild guess) 50 point tag by the time the hypothetical youngster reaches the point level required to draw, but the number of points needed can't continue increasing forever. Assuming that current point creep rates will continue infinitely ignores the fact that somebody has to draw the tags every year and everybody eventually dies.