Improving your drawing odds

I

ID_Elkmagnet

Active Member
Messages
369
This is part one of a seven part series from IDF&G.


A well thought out reason NOT to support a bonus point system IMHO.

I like the idea of a 3-5 year waiting period.
What I really want is for our game herds to increase and for my odds to go up that way...





Justin
 
I like the idea of a waiting period equal to the odds for the hunt drawn. For example, if you put in for an antlerless deer with 1:1 draw success, there is no waiting period. If a 1:2 draw odd= 1 year waiting period, 1:35 Unit 45 dear tag = 33 year waiting period.

That would be fair, and would really mix things up.
 
+1 Something, anything needs to be done.






________________________________________
I'm not one for telling my grandson how big of turd I had to pinch off from having to eat so much meat. I want to give him the antlers that hang from my wall and tell him the unforgettable experience that came with each and every one.
 
i give them credit for listening to hunters concerns. i'm still 100% in favor of keeping the system how it stands...and I am not a high percentage tag drawing individual. now if I was forced to choose one method, it would be the standard single species per year.
 
Great video. Nice to see the work IDFG puts into the changes they propose. I especially like the MM shout-out in Slide 1.

I say keep things how they are in reference to Bonus Points (I hate them), though switching to one species per year with a longer waiting period (only applying to species previously drawn) would help a lot and be okay with me.

Grizzly

PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
 
I like the current system. I haven't looked extensively but I think our odds are pretty competitive with some of the more popular states, and sometimes better.

If they were to do anything I'd say at quick thought to adjust the waiting period according to the quality of the tag drawn, as mentioned above.
 
I'll have to watch the video tomorrow

But in response to what has been said already

Longer waiting periods is an interesting concept but can the department live without the revenue of those lost applications?

The weighted waiting period based on draw odds is kinda cool concept but it stands to be complicated and we all know how we'll government agencies do with complicated.

You all know I as a non resident am for a point system (not all do as they hunt idaho regardless of if they draw or not) non residents and I know you all as residents don't want to guarantee any tags to us. Fair enough
But you can't help but want that when you have applied for the same tag for over ten years that has about 1 in 6 odds and never drawn And watch other draw it multiple times.

Bottom line they need money how are they going to get it?
 
A lot of good ideas. I'm against the higher price tags and the bonus point systems,myself. The others seem very logical.
 
I am all for leaving it as is. As f&g stated in the video series a bonus point system would not have any significant boost in odds would just make it harder to draw for anyone who gets behind in the system(ie. kids, new residents). As it stands right now we all have the same shot at drawing every year. As far as the whole " you residents don't want us non residents to have tags" argument goes boohoo if you don't like the system don't apply. I personally have no problem with non residents drawing special tags.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-13 AT 12:30PM (MST)[p]I just watched all 7 parts of the series, interesting information. I'd encourage non residents to watch all of them, before they comment.

A few things I noted from the videos:

1) A weighted pricing structure in regards to the quality of the tag, I am NOT in favor of. Most all of us, and any serious hunter, would not let an extra $200 deter them from the hunt of a lifetime. If you have been putting in for 20+ years for some of these hunts, the extra fees are small potatoes and it would not discourage many, if any, applicants from applying for premier hunts.

It could slightly affect the odds of the lower demands hunts. I don't think residents would be willing to pay $200-$400 for middle of the road or anterless tags. So odds may increase for lower quality tags.

2) If they went to a single species structure, I wouldn't mind if they doubled the app fee and raised the tag prices by $5. That revenue has to be made up somewhere. If you want better odds, you have to make a compromise. Consider the cost of applying to and hunting other states. Randy Newberg wrote a good article on how residents need to "pony up".

Lastly, why does everyone think that our odds are that poor? I'd like to see some compiled info comparing apples to apples in other states. I think people need to remember that the system is RANDOM. If you apply for 44 bucks for 20 years and don't draw, that's not unfair, nor surprising. If you draw it 3 times in 20 years, that's not surprising either! If people don't like it, don't apply here, they can start building points in the other western states.
 
I think it's great that Idaho is at least looking into various options. Unlike Wyoming. If Idaho implements some of these ideas, maybe I could actually draw a unit 40 deer tag before I die. Under the current system(luck), it would appear that I will just continue to give Idaho $150 a year for the privilege of applying. I know...waaaa!! Whatever.

I like the idea of a bonus point system PLUS a few years layout. Just my opinion as a nonresident that wants to hunt Idaho unit 40. If a "squared point" system were implemented(like Nv), odds would increase more quickly for new applicants.

In Wyoming, it gets pretty frustrating to keep applying for 20+ yrs and never drawing the tag, while others draw the same tag multiple times. Idaho is the same. There has to be a way to even out the "luck factor" somehow.
 
twsnow18, that is exactly what I have done. Growing up I never thought of hunting other states. The fact that I do not see the quality of deer or elk does not bother me as much as the overwhelming crowds of other hunters. I put in for the controlled hunts every year, this is the first year that I have drawn anything that was not unlimited. I am 100% for anything that give me better odds of drawing a hunt where I can really hunt.



________________________________________
I'm not one for telling my grandson how big of turd I had to pinch off from having to eat so much meat. I want to give him the antlers that hang from my wall and tell him the unforgettable experience that came with each and every one.
 
I am a NR, I watched all 7 videos, and I don't want a point system.

I think I may be in the minority of NR on this issue, but as somebody who applies in 8 states every year, I probably am more informed on varying tag allocation systems than the average hunter as well.

People are confused by point systems and think they increase odds, the videos do a great job of explaining how that is not the case. Odds of drawing a tag will always be the number of tags divided by the number of hunters. Period. The only way to improve that is to increase tags or decrease hunters, which few want to do.

The thing that amazed me the most was the relatively small amount of revenue lost by each of these proposals. I would've thought it was greater. The actual decrease in revenue is terribly insignificant, especially when you compare it to the revenue lost by NR not applying due to poor hunt quality/wolves and increased tag fees from a few years ago.

Like I've said any times... I enjoy hunting in Idaho, hope they continue the random draw path they have had in the past, but would also look at the options I mentioned in my above post to maybe make it a little more "fair".

PS. People love to talk about NV (and their squared system) as a great model. In my opinion, that system is the worst as it doesn't improve your overall odds as many claim.

Here is why... when you get 82 chances for a tag (which is what you get with a theoretical 9 points) and everybody else with 9 points also gets 82 chances, your odds are still the same as those in your point pool. Your odds are much decreased as compared to those with more points than you and much increased as compared to those with less points than you. The odds graph in the slideshow becomes much steeper with the NV system than a typical BP system.

(Your odds don't increase overall, but new players pay a massive penalty. If this doesn't make sense, you either didn't watch the slideshow or didn't understand it. Or I didn't do a very good job of explaining myself. Hopefully it makes sense, it is kind of a complex concept.)

Grizzly

PS. Tristate, please be an adult and respect my wishes that you do not respond to any of my posts. I, in turn, will do you the courtesy of not responding to any of yours. I simply do not wish to converse with you.
 
Washington has the same squared points system, I used to live there and in 10 yrs of applying for tags I drew one elk tag and one deer tag. It doesn't improve odds much at all even for those at the upper end of the point scale. All it does is flood the system and give false hope. Ask the 1599 hunters who put in for a Lincoln cliffs sheep hunt last year and saw the guy with 2 points get it. Take a high quality hunt lets say 45 deer this year 2055 hunters put in for 75 tags, next year 1980 hunters are all going to be applying with 4 chances each and those same 75 would still have one chance each. Look down the road 5 years and you are only ahead of 450 other hunters in points and they are still applying 75 of whom would have 36, and other groups at 25,16,9,4, and 1 chance each so your odds will have improved slightly to 1 in 1683 as opposed to one in 2055. Now assume you are a kid or new applicant late to the game 10 years down the road. Your odds of ever drawing the tag are so astronomical it's ridiculous. That is why I am opposed to bonus points. One thing I might be accepting of would be a point system for non residents on their 10% of tags only, but those aren't even guaranteed meaning fish and game would have to find a way to put in the total # of non res apps without names/numbers associated to them to see how many tags the non-res's would draw then run a "second draw" in the non-res pool for a specific tag with the weighted points system.
 
Ok in a system like Nevada has where points are squared you are correct it's just a bigger number meaning odds should be the same

But what is great about Nevada is they draw by the applicants not the hunt. And you have a shot at any of your 5 choices. So you can apply for a really dream like tag without missing out on more reasonable draws.
 
I haven't watched the video's yet but I will tonight. I spent more than a little time this "off-season" analyzing the draw odd's data from two states often mentioned by others, Colorado and Nevada. I did this to try and see if we can make things better here.

Bottom line is that it is almost impossible to compare any two states systems and opportunities apples to apples. Most other states have NO OTC opportunities, and certainly not to Idaho's level. For example, how would our draw opportunities look if you considered the 100% draw odd's of all the OTC tags sold, or even the highly popular Unlimited Draw hunts such as 73 in SE Idaho that seems to be almost exclusively hunters from Utah.

If NR's want a BP system I say give it to them, but they have to 1) Give up OTC opportunities, all hunts become draws 2) The cost to apply needs to be set such that it becomes revenue positive overall.

Arguments that the hunting opportunities here don't justify a premium simply don't know what this state has to offer, plus other states have suffered some of the same herd issues we have the past few years.
 
>The thing that amazed me the
>most was the relatively small
>amount of revenue lost by
>each of these proposals.
>I would've thought it was
>greater. The actual decrease
>in revenue is terribly insignificant


+1, when she mentioned "cents" instead of "dollars" in regards to app fee increases, it shocked me.

The videos and Grizzly did a good job of summarizing. I am not experienced with actually applying in other states, but from everything I have read most of these other states' systems are just inflating the numbers. 1 divided by 2 is still the same as 4 divided by 8.

The point systems aren't going to improve odds, and their cons make the current system look much more desirable.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-13 AT 05:56PM (MST)[p]Make the waiting periods longer for successful applicants. If OTC's are eliminated they'll lose too much $. Never happen.
 
I watched the whole series of videos. While I am not in favor of a PP system, I would favor some tweaks to the current ID controlled hunt draw system.
Longer layout periods weighted to a hunt's difficulty in drawing would be my 1st choice, but I think some of the other suggestions in the videos might also be helpful in "spreading the wealth" so to speak.
I'm not in favor of big $$ tag fees for sought after CHs, but I would rather see the successful CH applicants pay for any revenue reductions that might potentially be caused by any system tweaks by paying slightly higher tag fees for those drawn rather than IDFG unilaterally raising the basic CH fee application prices. I don't have a problem paying a reasonably higher tag fee for a controlled hunt that should realistically be a high(er) caliber hunt than an OTC hunt.
 
I watched them all and came away with a few firm belief's:

1. It is obvious that all of these changes are going to have a more profoundly positive effect on our ability to draw more mediocre LE hunts, and less profoundly positive results on the hunts we all really want.

2. While I believe most everything said on the video's, they don't address point creep. All across the west, the demand for quality LE hunts have risen dramatically without a real increase in hunter numbers. The analysis they did, did not take this into account and I think you will find the hunts we all want never get easier to draw. For example, if we increase the "layout" period to 10 years for units 40, 45, 54(late), etc. don't you think more and more NR's and other hunters may jump into that pool, or be willing to pay more and therefore reduce the odd's as she calculated.

3. There is no magical way to reduce the desire for hunters to have quality hunts and the chances of getting these tags will continue to lessen, or at best always remain a near "once in a Lifetime" opportunity and we all need to stop looking for a way to get something for nothing.

4. There was little or no distinction between residents and non-residents in these video's, but if we want to really improve our odd's, we residents will really need to step up revenue wise for app's and tags.

5. I still think in the big picture NR's don't appreciate the benefit of our OTC opportunity and we should implement a BP system for them and eliminate all OTC tags, making ALL units draw only like most other states. They will have 100% draw opportunities in many units currently OTC but I think eventually that will go away, like Wyoming's 100% draw on some buck antelope hunts. We get the benefit of limiting their impact in a given unit, which would be a benefit in Unit 73 as an example.
 
BPK

I respect your approach and I as a non resident appreciate the opportunity todo OTC hunts

But what good does trading a point system for elimination of OTC do? Idaho can't even come close to selling all of their tags now? Would your draw allow someone to actually draw their second choice?
 
Nitis,

To answer your question, as a NR you would be able to get a tag if it is undersubscribed. But you would have to put in though the draw, unless there were leftovers afterward still available.

Of course over time, that might not remain true, not for some of the better OTC areas.
 
Several times she says that bonus points don't change the average, but more hunters get to experience the average.

That is exactly why we need a bonus point system! More people will get to draw tags because fewer people will draw multiple times. Combine that with a few of the other methods mentioned (ie, longer layover and applying for only one species), and you have a system that both increases odds and spreads the tags out between more hunters.

They are being way too quick to dismiss a bonus point option and their bias is showing through.

Take the chart from video 7. They make it seem like your odds of drawing a tag in their example within 5 years is a guarantee without bonus points. That's just not true. If you've failed to draw for 4 years, your odds are still only 20% in year 5. However, with a bonus point system (If applicants remain the same), your odds may very well be 100% like shown.

She also mentions the loss of application revenue as a con for many of the other options and uses an increase in application fees as the only revenue neutral option. What about a fee for a bonus point? Wouldn't that also be a revenue neutral option?

I believe that bonus points work. Not to increase the overall odds but to allow more people to experience the average. How is that not a good thing?
 
When it comes to resident applications yes there could be some application revenue lost as people sit out on probation after a successful draw. But people will still buy licenses and general tags

But non resident applications will skyrocket. I personally only apply in Idaho about every 5 years but would be forced to apply annually for fear I falling behind. So there is four years of no license or application money from me and many others.

My dad is the perfect example of someone whom is not experiencing the average. Over ten years of applying for 54 and never getting a sniff.

Another option can be like we have in California is to set aside a percentage of tags that are completely random and in areas with very low tag numbers the points are less of a factor.

Bottom line is they are looking to generate more money. A point system will do that no doubt about it. But they will also mark my word slip in a bonus point fee also which I think would be completely unnecessary.

Now more money is not a bad thing if they use it right. If that means they can acquire more resources for better research and management then the future of hunting your state may be brighter than if the money doesn't come in.

I can get why many people do not want a change but if the department is going broke then what are they supposed to do?
 
>Several times she says that bonus
>points don't change the average,
>but more hunters get to
>experience the average.
>
>That is exactly why we need
>a bonus point system! More
>people will get to draw
>tags because fewer people will
>draw multiple times.



This is what you would think would happen but not what history tells us would happen.
Look at nitis post right after your's he says "non res apps will skyrocket. I personaly only put in for Idaho every 5 yr but would be forced to put in annualy for fear of falling behind" This is from someone who is pro BP! I know for a fact this will happen. I have watched many other states impliment a BP system and the odds go down sharply. In that first year it forces all of the "not so serious" guys to get serious or get out. It also causes more people to put in because they "are getting somthing for their money". On top of this when you look at the harder to draw hunts and factor in point creep with the current odds the system becomes outrageous in just 10 years and thats not factoring in the jump in apps that will be seen. No one who has actualy sat down and done the math on point creep is in favor of a BP system unless they are very selfish.
Sorry but its true.



>They are being way too quick
>to dismiss a bonus point
>option and their bias is
>showing through.
>
If I have a child in oh lets say a year from now and we impliment a BP system next year. Do the math on the 45 deer and 40 early elk hunt's. With the current apps to tag ratio. How old will that child be before he has a 100% chance at that tag? how long until a 50% chance? Ok lets get real, how old will that child be before he has the same odds of drawing we had for those hunt's this year? Now imagine that child is your son, nephew or grand kid.

If you really care about this as you seem to, do the math and post it up for us to see! Please!

Point creep is a dam good reason for F&G to dismiss a BP system.

Justin
 
Personally I don't see why residents are so against a point system for non residents. Aside from having to guarantee a set number of tags. I think if you look at the draw history non residents get pretty darn close to that max threshold anyway.

We are trying to give you money. And the more money we give you the less you as residents need to come up with.

I don't want to hunt Idaho every year but would like to hunt it some. I can't make 5 hunting trips a year so I try to make the most of my one trip per year.

I get that residents don't like us coming to their state to hunt but ask yourself where do you think all the money comes from?
 
To clarify I personally dont care if they do a BP system for non res (IF) we keep the current 10% max. I do think it will make the draw odds go down but I have no skin in that game.
Justin
 
It seems there are plenty of states with bonus points. If you want to jump on one of those get started in Utah, say you want to chase the Pauns tag. Right now it is 16-18 points to draw depends on which weapon you choose. Point creep will take someone starting right now to maybe 40? Who knows, so you better be in your twenties if your wanting to jump on that point band wagon. It sounds great to get in on the ground floor but it sucks to be a year or two behind. JUST SAY NO!!!

DZ
 
For residents, as I think about it more, I would vote to:

1. Increase holdover period to 3 years for high demand LE Tags, keep it one for all others.

2. Push Antelope into what is considered once in a lifetime tags since the draw odd's are all so low anyway. Odd's would go up significantly for residents, but you would have to give up on other opportunities.

3. *Make differential pricing for low and high quality Deer/Elk tags. $500 for a unit 45 Buck or Bull tag, $200 for a unit 39 early buck or 51 Bull tag. Hell I pay a few hundred bucks for my kid to run Cross Country, if the school system can justify it so can Fish and Game.

4. *Increase cost just to apply for High Demand LE tags $20/ea. Applicants will be less casual.

*Pricing differential is not applicable to those age 18 and under.

I think I mentioned I support a BP system for NR's. Make it revenue positive and oppurtunity neutral. It is very feasible, we need to market it better like other states have.

Just don't become Utah, where as a resident you have to be rich or have 20 years of points to hunt anything other than a forkie.
 
My complaint is that they take $150 every year and i'm never any closer to drawing.

Maybe a system where you cannot apply for points only would be beneficial and mix that with a squaring of the points and a short waiting period if you draw would work. Or combining that with only applying for 1 species per year for out of state hunters?

Right now Idaho moves to the back of the line for my out of state hunts b/c i never feel like i'm getting any closer to drawing. Same with NM.
At least the state is listening and trying to do something about it which is encouraging.
 
To add on, I agree that you shouldn't have to wait 20 years as a resident for a good tag. I don't mind waiting awhile as a non-res but at least let me inch a little closer each year if you're going to swipe $150 from me for playing the lottery.

Nothing worse than never getting to hunt your home state.
 
>I haven't watched the video's yet
>but I will tonight.
>I spent more than a
>little time this "off-season" analyzing
>the draw odd's data from
>two states often mentioned by
>others, Colorado and Nevada.
>I did this to try
>and see if we can
>make things better here.
>
>Bottom line is that it is
>almost impossible to compare any
>two states systems and opportunities
>apples to apples. Most
>other states have NO OTC
>opportunities, and certainly not to
>Idaho's level. For example,
>how would our draw opportunities
>look if you considered the
>100% draw odd's of all
>the OTC tags sold, or
>even the highly popular Unlimited
>Draw hunts such as 73
>in SE Idaho that seems
>to be almost exclusively hunters
>from Utah.
>
>If NR's want a BP system
>I say give it to
>them, but they have to
>1) Give up OTC opportunities,
>all hunts become draws 2)
> The cost to apply
>needs to be set such
>that it becomes revenue positive
>overall.
>
>Arguments that the hunting opportunities here
>don't justify a premium simply
>don't know what this state
>has to offer, plus other
>states have suffered some of
>the same herd issues we
>have the past few years.
>
>
>


Been sying this exact same thing for years on this site. No one wants to hear it but it's 100% accurate.

the artist formerly known as "gemstatejake".
 
I agree with increasing the waiting periods in some fashion.

I agree with limiting the species one can apply for in a given year.

I also think bear hunts should be included in these discussions, as they have pretty dismal odds as well.

I do not agree with differential pricing as far as premium tags going up to $500.

I do not agree with bonus points for residents. I wouldn't mind seeing one for NRs, guarantee them somewhere between 7.5-10% of tags and they run completely seperate than our draws.

I do not believe that antelope should be once in a lifetime. Idaho does not hold the quality of animals to make that worthwhile, in my opinion.

Idaho could easily increase the tags/license/application fees by 10% across the board and not effect anyone. Raising prices for tags up to $500 is going to take a class of people out of the system and then you are on your way to making hunting "a rich man's game".

You could do differential pricing of 2x the current tag cost for draw hunts and 4-5X the cost for premium hunts. Then your premium elk tags would be $120-150 and you aren't going to force people out of the system by cost.

And they didn't say they were looking to make more money with these proposals. They want to increase the odds and keep their revenue the same, according to these videos.
 
>I agree with increasing the waiting
>periods in some fashion.
>
>I agree with limiting the species
>one can apply for in
>a given year.
>
>I also think bear hunts should
>be included in these discussions,
>as they have pretty dismal
>odds as well.
>
>I do not agree with differential
>pricing as far as premium
>tags going up to $500.
>
>
>I do not agree with bonus
>points for residents. I wouldn't
>mind seeing one for NRs,
>guarantee them somewhere between 7.5-10%
>of tags and they run
>completely seperate than our draws.
>
>
>I do not believe that antelope
>should be once in a
>lifetime. Idaho does not hold
>the quality of animals to
>make that worthwhile, in my
>opinion.
>
>Idaho could easily increase the tags/license/application
>fees by 10% across the
>board and not effect anyone.
>Raising prices for tags up
>to $500 is going to
>take a class of people
>out of the system
>and then you are on
>your way to making hunting
>"a rich man's game".
>
>You could do differential pricing of
>2x the current tag cost
>for draw hunts and 4-5X
>the cost for premium hunts.
>Then your premium elk tags
>would be $120-150 and you
>aren't going to force people
>out of the system by
>cost.
>
>And they didn't say they were
>looking to make more money
>with these proposals. They want
>to increase the odds and
>keep their revenue the same,
>according to these videos.

Of course they didn't directly come out and say they want to make more money but don't you think if they were solvent they wouldn't be doing this?

Look how much money has been left on the table the last 3-4 years in unsold general tags. Why not offer those tags at a reduced rate to residents after a certain date on the calendar?

And if you really want to shake things up have the application period close about 60 days earlier before people know if they drew In other states.
 
>Of course they didn't directly come
>out and say they want
>to make more money but
>don't you think if they
>were solvent they wouldn't be
>doing this?
>
>Look how much money has been
>left on the table the
>last 3-4 years in unsold
>general tags. Why not offer
>those tags at a reduced
>rate to residents after a
>certain date on the calendar?
>
>
>And if you really want to
>shake things up have the
>application period close about 60
>days earlier before people know
>if they drew In other
>states.


I have no doubt they will take all the money they can get. I was just saying that all the comments in the video were about being revenue neutral, as opposed to increasing revenue.

I think they could get alot more money for alot less effort by just raising everything 10%. Very small change of cost to the residents, $1.25-ish on a hunting license, $1.96-ish on a deer tag? That would be hardly noticeable to you and I but still get them a 10% increase in revenue. And we would still be one of the cheapest states for resident tags.

I also don't think they would hurt themselves much if at all if they dropped the price of NR tags back down a little. Just my opinion.

And I fully agree with moving the application date up.
 
>If I have a child in
>oh lets say a year
>from now and we impliment
>a BP system next year.
>Do the math on the
>45 deer and 40 early
>elk hunt's. With the current
>apps to tag ratio. How
>old will that child be
>before he has a 100%
>chance at that tag? how
>long until a 50% chance?
>Ok lets get real, how
>old will that child be
>before he has the same
>odds of drawing we had
>for those hunt's this year?
>Now imagine that child is
>your son, nephew or grand
>kid.
>
>If you really care about this
>as you seem to, do
>the math and post it
>up for us to see!
>Please!
>
>Point creep is a dam good
>reason for F&G to dismiss
>a BP system.
>
>Justin

I do care about this, but the math your asking for is not as black and white as you're trying to make me believe. In order to answer that question accurately, you would need to know how many people above that child will remain in the system until drawn vs how many will exit the system (quit hunting, stop applying, death). You can't possibly know that.

You're also assuming with your question that I think Idaho should adopt a preference point system, which I actually think is a bad idea. How about you do the math for me on your question if that child was applying in Wyoming where 75% is preference and 25% is random? Or in Utah where 50% is preference and 50% random? Or Nevada where it's purely a bonus point system? In those states the child you're talking about has a chance to draw in year one. It happens every single year.

Post up the odds for us, Please!

I'm 100% against Idaho becoming a preference point state, but I fully support some type of hybrid system. I think the positives far outweigh the negatives if the right type of system is adopted.
 
In my opinion, I say screw non residents with anything other than over the counter in Idaho. I'm a NR of Idaho, but my wife's family is from there and all still live there. I bought an OTC archery ANY Elk tag for $400 something, and couldn't be happier. Ya see I'm used to Utah as a resident, where you sit around and wait in line for 14 years to draw 1 elk tag. One. And when you finally end up drawing, you've spent almost $200 in application/point fees and your tag still costs +$200!!! I'm sorry I don't think I should even be able to put in for LE in Idaho, I've already won the lottery OTC.
 
if somebody has an extra 500$ laying around for a goat. go to wyoming . just saying. i am an old native lived here my entire life except for five years in anchorage working. leave it as is. i have drawn some good tags several times , and there are plenty of places to hunt general season. i didn't draw anything other than a cow tag but there are no tears in my eyes
 
I watched all the videos. They seem well thought out and I could see benefits to each program.

The thing I look at though is there are a lot of guys that are putting in for the "premium" tags that are not after a premium hunt. You can even see it here on MM. A guy puts in for unit 44 or 45 buck tag and they say I just was a 4 point. Or they say I am not looking for a BC buck I just want a decent buck. I even know a guy that drew for a 45 tag and shot a two point on opening day because he had never shot a buck before.

The low quality that a lot of people are experiencing in other hunts pushes these people to apply to a "premium" hunt just to get a decent buck. I have to point out that if ALL of our hunts were premium hunts then the odds would all be lower overall because you don't have the mass of the hunters applying for the same hunt.

We have a lot of people applying for premium hunts just to get any buck. That is not right, and that is not being addressed. Ron
 
Well this thread is a small but likely representative sample of the differing views that Idaho Fish and Game has to deal with in making these kinds of decisions. Would be tough.

Clearly the more I read the more convinced I am that a resident BP system would be awful. Even if I drew in the first few years, I would then be done, and what fun is it to have no hope. Right now, every year I am eligible to put in, I have the same hope as every other applicant.

P.S. Do you guys who prefer a hybrid draw system, BP with 25 or 50 % random, do you think that improves your odd's?
 
Such a strong opinion but to lazy to do the math? As far as it being black and white. I was making it easy for you by erroring on the low side and just using the number of apps from this year.
You see the number of apps on these premium hunts just goes up year after year 2010 had 597 apps 2011-626, 2012-642, 2013-743 for just 5 tags! The odds from 2010 were 0.8% this year you had a 0.6% chance of drawing.
So at the current rate it would take 149 years to get through the people who would have max points. I know I am over simplifying this but my point is hard to miss.

A hybrid system of 50/50 makes point creep twice as bad using the same numbers it would take 300 years to work through the max point guys.

Again over simplifying but the numbers are so bad it dosent really matter.

Justin
 
It would be very tough to make a decision such as this.

I think fortunately for us IDF&G can see what is happening in states that went bonus point 10 years ago.
Look at the point creep in Wyoming this year.

Justin
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-22-13 AT 09:37AM (MST)[p]>
>We have a lot of people
>applying for premium hunts just
>to get any buck. That
>is not right, and that
>is not being addressed.
> Ron

I agree Ron, which is why I would support a Utah style pricing model. Like my analogy earlier, if I have to pay $250 for my kid to run Cross Country in Idaho, why wouldn't I pay that much or more for a premium tag. That guy shooting that dink in 45 you mentioned isn't even buying or putting in for that tag at $500. Maybe it's $300, but the point is the point.
 
>Such a strong opinion but to
>lazy to do the math?
>As far as it being
>black and white. I was
>making it easy for you
>by erroring on the low
>side and just using the
>number of apps from this
>year.
>You see the number of apps
>on these premium hunts just
>goes up year after year
>2010 had 597 apps 2011-626,
>2012-642, 2013-743 for just 5
>tags! The odds from 2010
>were 0.8% this year you
>had a 0.6% chance of
>drawing.
>So at the current rate it
>would take 149 years to
>get through the people who
>would have max points. I
>know I am over simplifying
>this but my point is
>hard to miss.
>
>A hybrid system of 50/50 makes
>point creep twice as bad
>using the same numbers it
>would take 300 years to
>work through the max point
>guys.
>
>Again over simplifying but the numbers
>are so bad it dosent
>really matter.
>
>Justin

You're just flat wrong and you know it. You're numbers are deceitful at best. It will NEVER take someone 149 years to draw! Nobody will live that long ahead of you. I could just as easily say that it could take someone 149 years to draw with the current system and my figure would be just as accurate as yours. Plus, you're still talking about a preference point system to make a point against a bonus point system. They're not the same thing, but you know that too.

300 years in a 50/50 system? Wrong again. You could draw in year one, JUST LIKE THE CURRENT SYSTEM. Or, we can find a "magical live forever pill" and it could take you 300 years, JUST LIKE THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

I'll reiterate what I said before and what was made very clear in the videos. A bonus point system does not increase the average, but makes the individual more likely to experience the average. Anyone who thinks it's ok to draw multiple times while others never draw are only worried about themselves.

Too "lazy" to make up numbers by doing the impossible math? Try again!

I still would like to see your math on a 100% BONUS point system when you get a minute? Or you can call me lazy and spin it back to a preference point system with the "magical pill" again.
 
>In my opinion, I say screw
>non residents with anything other
>than over the counter in
>Idaho. I'm a NR
>of Idaho, but my wife's
>family is from there and
>all still live there.
>I bought an OTC archery
>ANY Elk tag for $400
>something, and couldn't be happier.
> Ya see I'm used
>to Utah as a resident,
>where you sit around and
>wait in line for 14
>years to draw 1 elk
>tag. One. And when
>you finally end up drawing,
>you've spent almost $200 in
>application/point fees and your tag
>still costs +$200!!! I'm sorry
>I don't think I should
>even be able to put
>in for LE in Idaho,
>I've already won the lottery
>OTC.


Finally, a Non Resident with some sense to him.

Just because the tags are "OTC" doesn't mean they aren't good tags, you just gotta look harder to make the most of them. In turn, I'll take that everyday of the week over points so that I'm able to hunt EVERY year.
 
I can see doubling or even tripling the cost of tags on some of the premium hunts but $250 or $500 is outrageous. That would price a lot of people out of hunting and is a STUPID idea. Small increases across the board for all sounds better to me. Giving non-res. a point system wont hurt us residents and just might help out with the money that's needed by everyone having to buy a license every year. Or making an application license cheaper and then making them buy the full price license if they draw or want to hunt OTC.
 
> I can see doubling or
>even tripling the cost of
>tags on some of the
>premium hunts but $250 or
>$500 is outrageous. That would
>price a lot of people
>out of hunting and is
>a STUPID idea. Small increases
>across the board for all
>sounds better to me. Giving
>non-res. a point system wont
>hurt us residents and just
>might help out with the
>money that's needed by everyone
>having to buy a license
>every year. Or making an
>application license cheaper and then
>making them buy the full
>price license if they draw
>or want to hunt OTC.
>

I like it Zeus.
 
The point is that its a once in a lifetime tag IF you are lucky and with a BP system if you get behind on this tag it would take many many lifetimes to get it. If my math is wrong show me the right way.
You sir are the one spinning it back at me and have shown no figures at all while saying mine are wrong.

You say this-
"That is exactly why we need a bonus point system! More people will get to draw tags because fewer people will draw multiple times."

Then you say this-
"You're also assuming with your question that I think Idaho should adopt a preference point system, which I actually think is a bad idea."

I let that stupidity go...

I say this-
">Do the math on the
>45 deer and 40 early
>elk hunt's. With the current
>apps to tag ratio. How
>old will that child be
>before he has a 100%
>chance at that tag? how
>long until a 50% chance?
>Ok lets get real, how
>old will that child be
>before he has the same
>odds of drawing we had
>for those hunt's this year?"

And you respond with this-
"How about you do the math for me on your question if that child was applying in Wyoming where 75% is preference and 25% is random? Or in Utah where 50% is preference and 50% random? Or Nevada where it's purely a bonus point system?

I do the math for you in the simplest way I can-
"You see the number of apps on these premium hunts just goes up year after year 2010 had 597 apps 2011-626, 2012-642, 2013-743 for just 5 tags! The odds from 2010 were 0.8% this year you had a 0.6% chance of drawing.
So at the current rate it would take 149 years to get through the people who would have max points. I know I am over simplifying this but my point is hard to miss.

A hybrid system of 50/50 makes point creep twice as bad using the same numbers it would take 300 years to work through the max point guys.

Again over simplifying but the numbers are so bad it dosent really matter"

and you say this-
"Too "lazy" to make up numbers by doing the impossible math? Try again!

I still would like to see your math on a 100% BONUS point system when you get a minute? Or you can call me lazy and spin it back to a preference point system with the "magical pill" again."

I am not the smartest but I am smart enough do simple math and smart enough to stop arguing with the ignoantnt.

Justin
 
If the point is to keep some guy from drawing a 45 tag that only wants an easy buck, then just doubling or tripling the cost from $30 to $100 isn't likely going to do it.

You guys saying you can't spare an extra $200 or $300 for a 22, 32, 40, 44, 45, 54....buck tag? You spend how much on fuel hunting?

This is by no means my top priority, but if we want this end result then I think this should be considered. I don't think there are enough of thest to make this about the revenue it generates, it's about increasing YOUR odd's.

If you are just cheap and honestly say this is too much, then I don't buy that argument.
 
>If the point is to keep
>some guy from drawing a
>45 tag that only wants
>an easy buck, then just
>doubling or tripling the cost
>from $30 to $100 isn't
>likely going to do it.
>

I think if you make the threshold to high, you are forcing people out. And once you do that, it starts becoming a rich man's game.

>
>You guys saying you can't spare
>an extra $200 or $300
>for a 22, 32, 40,
>44, 45, 54....buck tag?
>You spend how much on
>fuel hunting?
>

>This is by no means my
>top priority, but if we
>want this end result then
>I think this should be
>considered. I don't think
>there are enough of thest
>to make this about the
>revenue it generates, it's about
>increasing YOUR odd's.
>

It certainly does suck when people who don't know or care about the quality of the tag they apply for and draw, don't use it up to its potential. It would be nice to weed some of them out. I just don't think raising the price until it limits enough people to make the odds "desirable" is the way to do it.

>If you are just cheap and
>honestly say this is too
>much, then I don't buy
>that argument.

I am not rich. I have a family of 5 (3 boys who will be hunting someday) and we live on a modest single income. I don't want to take $500 out of my fuel/gear budget just for the tag. And if I have to add $500 to the budget, I have to take $500 away from somewhere else.
 
FWIW I am all for "other" solutions than monetary, I think there is a practical aspect to this though.

I too have 3 boys, all with licenses. Trust me, at even $500, for a QUALITY tag I think you will pay. Sorry if my tone sounds condescending, I truly don't mean it that way, but this is why I make the analogy about the cost of sports in school. I believe you would pay no less than that amount for a QUALITY tag. Plus, please see my previous post where I said I would exempt youth. I might exempt other classes, such as disabled and active duty personnel, but we all have burdens to bear for our hobbies. It is not my goal to make it a financial burden, but just a reality of how to separate the motivated from the opportunist.

While I am not set on any give dollar amount, per my on posts, I refute the argument that even $500/tag makes this a RICH man's game. How much does it cost to fuel up your pick-up? How often do you do that compared to how often you draw the level of tag we are talking about? Statistics say you shouldn't draw one more than about every 8-10 years, assuming you put in for all three trophy species at 3-5% draw odd's.

The real question about this proposal, the more I think about it is: Would the price of the tag keep people from applying? Maybe not. What we might find is more people don't pick them up. I am not for having to pay with your app like Wyoming, that will definitely hurt "average Joe hunter".

The other thing is that the legislature would likely never approve it, anything related to fee increases get's them defensive.

PS I know using the word "Utah" was a bad idea, I threw up in my mouth a little when I read it myself, but if the shoe fit's...

This is all good debate....
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-22-13 AT 04:41PM (MST)[p]The gal did a nice job with her narrative in all 7 of the videos. The dept has obviously spent some time carefully studying this issue.

FWIW I'm another non-res who doesn't want to see a bonus point system implemented. IMO the notion of point systems (bonus, preference, hybrid, squared bonus, et al) are still a bad idea, same as they were when this was argued and shot down back in 2010.

From the perspective of a NR who is a student of the app game, and who applies for virtually every species in every western state, in my opinion, Idaho still has, by far, the best system of any western state. Point systems on the other hand, are slowly becoming a bottle-necking, top-heavy nightmare in virtually every state where they've been implemented. That's why those states continue to tweak their systems, in a feeble effort to provide false solace to the applicant pools in those states.

As the gal alluded to several times, without decreasing the size of the applicant pools, the only way to increase odds for a given person (besides increasing herds) is to make it harder for ANOTHER PERSON to draw. There's just no way around it, other than doing something to discourage others from applying, like say, large fee hikes.

However, adding waiting periods for quality tag winners could be an acceptable enhancement, as well as premium pricing structures for the highest-demand hunts.
 
I like the system now just fine, but if we are forced to make changes I'd try to keep it simple:

1) 1 year layover for anterless/low demand hunts, 2 year layover for decent hunts and 3 year layover for trophy hunts.

2) Trophy hunts at $249/tag (competitive with other states) would help eliminate the weekend warrior that just wants to shoot his first 4 point with his 45 buck tag.

If possible, keep the resident system the same, and give NR's some gimmicky BP system that they THINK will increase their odds. That way eventually their kids won't get to hunt Idaho, so we will weed them all out ;)
 
I would like to see more hunts in our draw units. Such as, early draw archery, like unit 18 elk, or split units up in two hunts like unit 51 elk, early and late hunts. If they are adding more tags to a unit why not make two or three hunts to spread out or lower the draw odds. This year they added more elk tags to 36-a1 36-a2 and unit 50. I would like to see F&G make it in two or three hunts to give hunters more opprotunities. And have a 1-2 year waiting period for the lucky people that draw.
 
>I let that stupidity go...

>I am not the smartest but
>I am smart enough do
>simple math and smart enough
>to stop arguing with the
>ignoantnt.
>
>Justin


Now I'm lazy, ignorant, and stupid? Just because we disagree on this issue doesn't mean we can't be respectful to each other.

Your math is not wrong if several things happen. First - Idaho adopts a preference point system (We both agree that this is bad and I've never even heard the state say it was ever an option.) Second - Nobody ever leaves the system for any reason other than drawing a tag, including death. It's not reasonable to support an argument with either.

You stated that a bonus point system is a bad idea because of point creep, and that children and grandchildren will never draw. I simply don't believe that, and I don't think the numbers support it either. All point creep represents is the number of years someone has been putting in and not drawing. The same thing is happening in Idaho, we just don't have the "points" breakdown to see this. The proof is in the numbers you provided before. "2010 had 597 apps 2011-626, 2012-642, 2013-743 for just 5 tags!" That is "point creep." I also see kids with great tags every single year in the states that have bonus points. By your argument, that shouldn't happen.

In all sincerity, why wouldn't a pure bonus point system like Nevada's work? Your child and grandchild still have a chance to draw every single year. People who have been waiting for a longer period of time have increasingly better odds. Also, we have nonresidents who are dying to spend their money in this state who are hesitant because of the system we have. I want their money here. I want them to spend it locally at our stores, restaurants, and hotels. I also want our Fish and Game Department to have the funds they need to improve hunting in Idaho for all of us.
 
>
>>I let that stupidity go...
>
>>I am not the smartest but
>>I am smart enough do
>>simple math and smart enough
>>to stop arguing with the
>>ignoantnt.
>>
>>Justin
>
>
>Now I'm lazy, ignorant, and stupid?
>Just because we disagree on
>this issue doesn't mean we
>can't be respectful to each
>other.

This is a good point my apologies.

>
>Your math is not wrong if
>several things happen. First -
>Idaho adopts a preference point
>system (We both agree that
>this is bad and I've
>never even heard the state
>say it was ever an
>option.) Second - Nobody ever
>leaves the system for any
>reason other than drawing a
>tag, including death. It's not
>reasonable to support an argument
>with either.
>
>You stated that a bonus point
>system is a bad idea
>because of point creep, and
>that children and grandchildren will
>never draw. I simply don't
>believe that, and I don't
>think the numbers support it
>either. All point creep represents
>is the number of years
>someone has been putting in
>and not drawing. The same
>thing is happening in Idaho,
>we just don't have the
>"points" breakdown to see this.
>The proof is in the
>numbers you provided before. "2010
>had 597 apps 2011-626, 2012-642,
>2013-743 for just 5 tags!"
>That is "point creep." I
>also see kids with great
>tags every single year in
>the states that have bonus
>points. By your argument, that
>shouldn't happen.

You do not understand the pandora's box that is point creep.

>
>In all sincerity, why wouldn't a
>pure bonus point system like
>Nevada's work? Your child and
>grandchild still have a chance
>to draw every single year.
>People who have been waiting
>for a longer period of
>time have increasingly better odds.

You cannot improve the odds of one group without taking odds from another group. Do it with a PP system or a BP system it does not matter. If you take most of the odds from a first year applicant that only had a 0.6% chance to start with what real chance does the kid have?

I owed you an apology now I am done with this conversation.

Justin
 
You won't change the overall odds by splitting up the hunts. Number of tags divided by people will still be the same.

If you are adding tags, yes odds will go up.

If you simply break up the tags into multiple hunts, it becomes a crap shoot as to which hunts people are putting in for.


BPK, I'm with you on the pricing thing. After thinking about it for awhile, I think I understand where you are coming from a little more. Just hearing $500 still makes me nervous, though...
 
bpkhunter, who are you to say $500 doesn't make it a rich mans sport? do you know others financial situations? i'm sure a lot of people on this forum truly budget their finances and include their hunting costs in that budget. and i'm betting +/- $500 tags would throw a wrench in a lot of peoples hunting seasons...regardless of what YOU think others can afford or should be willing to pay.

your comparisons between high tag prices/kids sports/fueling trucks/etc has no validity. in your little world these things all cost relatively the same amount and if you pay for one there's no excuse you cant pay the same price for the other. ok. now the real world comes into play. maybe someone can pay x amount for their kids sports but cant pay that same amount for a tag...or fueling their truck, etc. just b/c they may all be priced similar, doesn't mean "average joe" hunter can afford all of them.
 
If you take your kids with you hunting, do all of you have to have a tag? You don't need a tag in your pocket to learn how to hunt. I despise the thinking that everyone has to have a tag and all those tags need to be filled. Hello, this is not the "good old days" anymore. And that is why the "good old days" are gone. I was mostly talking about the deer, but does emply to the elk in some areas.



________________________________________
I'm not one for telling my grandson how big of turd I had to pinch off from having to eat so much meat. I want to give him the antlers that hang from my wall and tell him the unforgettable experience that came with each and every one.
 
>You do not understand the pandora's
>box that is point creep.

I do understand. I just believe what point creep represents is more of a symptom of a high demand unit rather than exclusive to a preference/bonus point system.

>You cannot improve the odds of
>one group without taking odds
>from another group. Do it
>with a PP system or
>a BP system it does
>not matter. If you take
>most of the odds from
>a first year applicant that
>only had a 0.6% chance
>to start with what real
>chance does the kid have?

I agree here as well. Like I've stated several other times, a bonus point system allows more people to experience the average over time. That includes the kid. Their odds may not be as great in year one, but will improve each year. They also will have less of a chance of someone drawing the same tag multiple times before they get a chance. I'm all for more people getting a chance at the tag.
 
Deepforks,

Let's keep this a debate and not a personal attack. I understand your argument, I just don't agree with you. My point is based on my experience in working with people and their budgets as part of my job.

People make choices all the time on how to distribute their "limited" resources. Even the most limited household budgets still find ways to make purchases other's would call unnecessary, ie 12mpg truck vs a 30mpg car, bigger house, new rifle, new shoes for the wife, heck even a steak vs a burger. Every hunting season guys drive hundreds of miles, multiple times just to try and get to a big buck/bull, spending easily hundreds of dollars more in gas than they would to get to the nearest hunting grounds where an easy forkie could be taken. I think the motivated hunter who would spend a few hundred a year extra to scout, or travel in hopes of a better quality hunt, would pay that same amount for his rare LE tag if it doubled his draw odd's.

I would like to know what the minimum cost would be to drive away the competition from the "unmotivated" hunter who put's in for that same tag you do that you want better odd's to draw. If that price would not drive off the lower income, but MOTIVATED hunter, then I would charge that amount. My experience says that $500 would not drive off anyone as motivated as me, even if I was a 20 year old making 10/hr for a really good tag.

So if someone could legally sell you there 45 buck tag for $500, for you to hunt, you wouldn't buy that say once every 10 years or so?

We can agree to disagree. I'm prepared to be in the minority, and be wrong, I have been both before.

PS I'm off to drop $100 in gas this weekend glassing an OTC unit for bucks, I wish that would buy me my buddies 44 tag.
 
I belive prices should never be used as a way to "weed out people" they should be set by what it takes F&G to operate and thats it.
I dont have any more of a right to a LE tag than a college kid or a retired person on SS and neither do you.

I have been there and hunting was what kept me going. I have done a few LE week long hunts that only cost me $500 total licence, tag, bullets, gas, scoutting and food. Not because I wanted to, but because thats all I had.(PB&J, water and core loks) A $500 tag would have kept me at home.

You are Saying a $500 tag would not keep people from putting in while trying to say it would be a good way to keep some people from putting in???



Justin
 
> You are Saying a $500
>tag would not keep people
>from putting in while trying
>to say it would be
>a good way to keep
>some people from putting in???

It would discourage the weekend warrior that would under utilize that 45 buck tag by shooting a forkie from putting in. It's not weeding them out financially, it's delegating hunters' wants towards the appropriate tags. This would hopefully help to increase the draw odds for the trophy tags.

The higher premium would not discourage the SERIOUS mule deer hunter from putting in for that same tag. I'm in college, I make $12/hour, I would make it happen for that caliber of tag, I can assure you that. Even if it means eating ramen for 2 months to be able to afford the tag.
 
Ever think that maybe it is the guys right that draws a 45 or 40 or any other controlled hunt to shoot a forky. I wouldn't if I had one of those tags but to each their own. Trying to price anyone out of a tag makes you sound like an elitist jerk. Even if you are just a college kid making $12 an hour.
 
A couple thoughts:

1. In no way would I find it acceptable to limit the number of participants in a natural resource based activity by increasing the cost of participation. Should middle fork permits be $1000 so that only "serious" rafters apply? Should premium campsites be $100/night so that only "serious" campers utilize them? The answer is no, the resource belongs to everyone equally.

2. Who cares if someone shoots the first 4-point he sees in unit 45? It's his tag and he obtained it through a system that the vast majority of Idahoans value.

3. If IDFG were to charge a higher price for premium tags, what are the criterium for deciding what qualifies as a premium tag? IDFG's opinion? Number of appicants for a given hunt number? Vote of monster muleys members?
 
>Ever think that maybe it is
>the guys right that draws
>a 45 or 40 or
>any other controlled hunt to
>shoot a forky. I wouldn't
>if I had one of
>those tags but to each
>their own.

I'm not saying to take that right away. I don't have a problem with anyone taking any buck with any tag, as long as it's legal and ethical. I wouldn't. BUT, that's not what these LE hunts were created for. If he wants to shoot a meat buck with the 45 tag, so be it, but he would have to pay the $249 just like every other 18+ adult that drew it. The price would just encourage him to put in for the appropriate hunts, with great odds, that would be cheaper, and possibly closer to home and an easier tag to fill anyway.

You get what you pay for. It's the law of demand fellas. Right now the quantity (# of tags) is low, the price is low and the # of applicants is high. So of course the odds blow. If you want better odds pony up, otherwise keep paying the $6.25 for your app fee and the $30 for the tag and keep scratching your heads as to why the odds are low.

I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT ANY CHANGES MADE TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
You guys are the ones complaining about the odds, but NO ONE is willing to make a sacrifice/compromise. I haven't read a single post on this thread of someone suggesting something that they would GIVE UP in order to increase the odds. An extra year or two of a waiting period isn't going to help much and that's hardly a sacrifice. Unless it's combined with another system change or 2. Once again, I'd prefer to keep the system the way it is.
 
I don't want the system to change either. Bonus or preference points don't improve odds and I would never be for paying more just because it is a premium tag. I don't even care about waiting periods either, I mean seriously even a 5 yr waiting period on the tougher tags to draw wouldn't be long enough to have any real effect. People just need to quit their whining about draw odds because they suck everywhere. I personally will most likely never have a 45 or 40 deer tag or a premium elk tag and I am fine with that, because I still have the ability to hunt every year and the OTC opportunities in this state still offer plenty of game and trophies too. Instead of controlled hunts idaho should call them what they are "special permits" because that is what any of the controlled hunts are special they are above and beyond the nearly limitless hunting privileges we already have in this state.
 
I agree too.
I would sit out 3 years or even 4 years for the right tag. I wouldn't give 20 dollars for most of our deer tags. The fact is ALL the units need to be improved to the point that a unit 45 tag is not that special. It is a pie in the sky thought but we were there once. Ron
 
I am opposed to the implementation of a Points system in Idaho. I would be in favor of longer wait periods after drawing a tag.

I also think that because the antelope drawing odds are so low that they should be treated like the Once in a lifetime species inasmuch as if you apply for antelope you shouldn't be able to apply for any other species. I could possibly be persuaded to agree with extending that concept to all species with each applicant only being able to apply for one species during the first application period.

Or maybe we should just say each person gets a first choice second choice and third choice and let it be a mix of species. Then you would have to choose if you want the elk, deer or antelope tag more.

I disagree with increasing costs for high demand units because then we would be turning it into a rich mans game.

If a points system were to be implemented then it should be a single pool for residents and non-reseidents and they would be inelligible for the random draw. Put 10% of the tags from chosen units into a point system that has double the cost of applying than in the random draw and increased tag prices. Only allow points to accrue for those who put in for the same unit every year. None of this playing the points game of building points by applying in different units or by purchasing a point. If a controlled hunt is eliminated then everyone who had points built up for it could switch to a new unit and retain their points. And leave Moose, Mtn Goat and Bighorn sheep completely out of the point system.
 
>
>If a points system were to
>be implemented then it should
>be a single pool for
>residents and non-reseidents and they
>would be inelligible for the
>random draw. Put 10%
>of the tags from chosen
>units into a point system
>that has double the cost
>of applying than in the
>random draw and increased tag
>prices. Only allow points
>to accrue for those who
>put in for the same
>unit every year. None
>of this playing the points
>game of building points by
>applying in different units or
>by purchasing a point.
>If a controlled hunt is
>eliminated then everyone who had
>points built up for it
>could switch to a new
>unit and retain their points.
> And leave Moose, Mtn
>Goat and Bighorn sheep completely
>out of the point system.
>


I don't agree with the one unit part of this. You should have to apply every year, but you shouldn't limit the choice to one and only one unit.

How can you ensure that the quality of the unit will be the same as it is when you start applying? We are talking a difference from when you start applying to when you draw of many years, even decades.

There are a number of things that can change the quality of animals. Wolves (in areas where they aren't already), disease, fire, hard winters.
 
lets hope f&g doesn't even consider the higher priced tags for "quality" hunts/units. that is an elitist philosophy that has no place in this great state. neither does the attitude of weeding/driving away other hunters. if a motivated or non-motivated hunter draws a good tag and decides to use it or not, guess what...that's their choice!! stick with the current system.
 

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
Next Drawing is June 6th for Element Riflescopes
Replies
0
Views
103
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
813
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
6k
Vanilla
Vanilla

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Better view
7964882A-09A8-42F7-9AA4-2F6BA53D67E9.jpeg
IMG_20220311_213535_833.jpg
D699F390-6263-4C21-9BCB-13A2B4302101.jpeg
IMG_1203.jpeg
59107649-A16B-4925-9F63-39E58C2B286C.jpeg
20181009_182318.jpg
2015 Colorado 003.jpg
5A44166A-29E4-46B3-B5B6-9814B8BCDA44.jpeg
First big buck
B3803740-7903-48F1-8988-1E5861C784B9.jpeg
Screenshot_20231023_191851_Gallery.jpg

Idaho Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Bearpaw Outfitters

Idaho Deer & Elk Allocation Tags, Plus Bear, Bison, Lion, Moose, Turkey and Montana Prairie Dogs.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail, bear, lion and wolf hunts and spend hundreds of hours scouting.

Jokers Wild Outdoors

Trophy elk, whitetail, mule deer, antelope, bear and moose hunts. 35k acres of private land.

Back
Top Bottom