Az Draw Changes- Increase Hold Over %

B

bubbas

Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-09 AT 09:38PM (MST)[p] This is point three of a five point proposal regarding changes to the Arizona Draw Process, INCREASE HOLD OVER PERCENTAGE. These proposed changes are a culmination of research into other state draw systems and diversified discussion. There will be a separate thread for each point so please try to keep each response limited to the proper thread to make it as organized and concise as possible. There are no dumb or unnecessary opinions and comments so please give your opinion and feedback. However, it will most constructive if opinion's are attempted to be supported and expressed by logical and respectful means. Through everyone's perspective we should be able to come up with a good census as to what may be good for the Sportsmen of Arizona.


3. INCREASE HOLD OVER PERCENTAGE- Increase the "hold over" tag percentage to 50% for those with max bonus points. Seriously, in a hunt with 150 tags such as many archery bull hunts, that would STILL leave 75 tags for the random lucky SOB to draw with less than max points. The incentive to put in with less than max points is still there so the Department won't have to worry about scaring away new applicants and decreasing application revenue. Actually, I would argue that there would be MORE incentive for new applicants because they would have more faith that in a more fair process they will be rewarded for their draw loyalty. The only people I personally have heard argue against this change are the lucky guys that draw multiple tags IN HARD TO DRAW HUNTS year after year. These are selfish motivations again but even so, it will still be possible to draw multiple tags before reaching the max point pool in every hunt and especially so in the not so coveted hunts. It only makes it more fair by guaranteeing a drawn tag in a SHORTER amount of time than the current system. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about.....put your hard work in, sacrifice, follow the rules and you won't be screwed. That isn't reality but isn't that what we strive for, especially as a governmental agency (again, maybe I am an elitist.....asking too much for a fair system).
 
Hope this is OK Kent. This was posted on other thread before I could set up separate thread. This was KRP's response:

"Going from 20% to 50%

I'm not a math guru and probably have this all screwed up. Using a calculator and a scratch pad I've tried to work the numbers out 10 yrs using Unit 1 archery bull and unit 4B archery bull. A premium hunt and the least desirable rut hunt.

Hopefully someone that knows what they're doing can run the numbers and say if I'm close. Basically I took the 2008 info G&F puts out for each unit and advanced it 10 years assuming same percentages of those putting in 1st and 2nd choice, how many bps it would take each year to be in the max pool.

What I seemed to come up with on both hunts is a 1 year jump for those in the top 3 or 4 highest bp groups, then they are quickly taken out of the system and it starts to clog even worse and moves right back to where it would have been with more people in the max pool.

The unit 1 tag becomes much harder to draw unless you are in the exact bp number that is now required and even then most years there will be more people in the max pool than tags so you're still in a lottery, it does look like you will be guaranteed a tag every three years, if you finally made it to the max pool, as a resident.

The 4B tag has a quick jump and goes right back where it was.

I may be wrong on my numbers but I think I am right with this.

There are 150 tags in unit 1, 3700 people applied, no matter where you take them out of the process,(someone that has 0 bps or someone that has 14 bps) there will still be 3700 apps next year and 150 tags. If you take more out of the top that's less from the middle, the middle gets clogged and the top gets heavy as the middle quickly moves up. How will we find a way to get 3700 people through the system, even if there wasn't new ones coming aboard all the time. We can't, some will drop, others will go to a different hunt, who knows where they go.

The only real change I see is NRs will be in a 100% PP system even on a hunt like 4B, They will for sure have to wait 6 yrs for a tag instead of having a decent chance of drawing a tag before that. If things didn't change a NR will for sure get a tag in 6 yrs for 4B, could be the 1st.

Unit 1, 14 bps was the highest. Last year those with 7 bps or more got 1/2 the tags, 718 people. the other half went to those with 0 to 6, 2989 people. Seems as if that is how a lottery system should work. There's no room to adjust for 3700 people to get that tag anytime, we just have to let things work themselves out.

Heck, I think I confused myself, which isn't hard. I'm not throwing this out as an answer to the question, just wondering if we can work through the numbers and see if this is kinda correct.

Kent"
 
Hope this is OK Billy. This was posted on other thread before I could set up separate thread. This was Billy's response:

"one of the best mm.com posts ever.

krp,

the point of an increased % in the max point pool is not going to "push folks through the draw," in the manner in which you presented it. there is not a system in the world that will "push folks through the draw," apart from raising tag numbers and at the expense of quality. it is simple math. however, i believe the purpose of increasing the max point pass % is to "create a more fair substructure for the draw."

this yr. i have heard of 7 people who drew a PREMIUM unit elk tag that have had PREMIUM elk tags in the last 2 yrs. i am talking about one specific unit, not to mention all the folks i know that drew PREMIUM elk tags back-to-back in different PREMIUM units. this is very frustrating and "not fair" to the folks that have waited and sit on 12+ bp's and can't draw an archery elk tag.

no one can argue, increasing the % of the max pass only creates a more fair system and spreads the PREMIUM tags out to a greater population, "those who have waited their turn." who cares if it clogs up the bottom or middle end. those folks have obviously drawn in recent years.

az. is behind the times when it comes to draw hunt substructure.

1. colorado is a strict preference system
2. utah is a 50% max point pass
3. nevada is a squared bp system
etc...................

AZ. a bunch of folks who think luck should be the name of the game. might as well play the lottery."
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-09 AT 09:52PM (MST)[p]The problem with BP'S in general is---infinity. The more goes thru and draws, the more now become max. Even with max at 50% the other 50% move up. Simple fact, more people have max points than what the "desired" units can stand. Even if the sheep draw went 100% max, the max will grow. Maybe after 20 yrs the numbers would equal out, but they can't because there is ALWAYS a new max. The solution, IMO, is deciding to hunt where you can draw and hunt as if it was a "desired" unit, or get rid of points and run a TRUE lottery, this is the only fair system.

You can't tell me that someone who bought deer points for 12 years should have a better chance at the strip than I do. Hunting every year thru archery or other units should also qualify me, after all I have spent as much money as point buyers!
This is only my opinion, I am sure MANY will find it wrong!
Travis
www.southwesthuntingadventures.com
 
+1 maddglasser

I think this horse is dead now.

What's the plan to make the change?????????

I'm fine with things the way they are!!!!
 
I agree absolutely 100% with the proposal.

Agree that this would be fantastic.... When all said as done as is right now on a premium hunt, 20% goes to the top pool.. NR typically make up 10% of that, leaving 10% only to NR with the max point pool.. That needs to be adjusted upward. 50 % is great. Thanks for the effort bubbas.
 
Mesquite did you agree with Maddglasser instinctively because he upholds your position....No change? This is the mentality I would like to see change. No change in an ever changing demographic (hunting community) is not good. It only insures mediocrity.

Maddglasser,

You made a couple true statements but neither of them are actually logical, supportive arguments as to why increasing the hold over to 50% doesn't distribute the tags out more evenly to those who have waited the longest to hunt.

You said, "Even with max at 50% the other 50% move up."

Yes, this is true. And your point is? The people who did not draw gain a point and move closer to the max. However, and this is key, there is always 50% of those with max drawing. This reduces the amount of people who can draw WITHOUT max by 30%. It makes no difference how high the actual integer goes to represent Max. 50% of max will draw ensuring those who draw half of the tags will be those who have waited the longest. If there is an influx of people who enter the draw or decrease in people entering the draw it will still equate to the same over all amount of applicants and the applicants will be tied together to the same group with the same amount of bonus points. The difference the amount of time it takes for each group to be GUARANTEED to draw will be lowered. I cannot explain it any more simple than that. If someone can do better please do so.

The ONLY argument that is at least valid is if you are of the philosophy that you want everything to be up to luck. You do not want any system in place that rewards or helps evenly distribute the tags to those who have spent the most amount of time applying for a specific tag. I believe this philosophy is shortsighted, selfish, and not what should be followed by a governmental agency that is usually about creating equal opportunity for everyone....but at least it is valid.

You also said, "You can't tell me that someone who bought deer points for 12 years should have a better chance at the strip than I do. Hunting every year thru archery or other units should also qualify me, after all I have spent as much money as point buyers!"

Oh boy, sure I can argue that someone who has not hunted deer, other than OTC archery, for 12 years should have a better chance at a Strip tag than you.....because if you have less points it's because you chose to hunt deer in another unit and use your points up. That was your choice. If you used your points up it means you hunted deer which took that opportunity away from someone else by so doing. If you had chosen to make the Strip tag a priority then you would not have been taking a tag away from someone else and been collecting BP instead. That is 100% fair and the right thing to do in maximizing hunting opportunity for everyone applying. That is why you can get a left over tag and not loose your bonus points.....in that situation you did not take away a hunting opportunity away from those in the draw. Any argument against that follows no form of logic.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-09 AT 11:35PM (MST)[p]I don't agree with your ludacris statements so there is NO logical reason to what I have said--- sounds like you should work for AZGFD
You yourself said you are no math guru--learn it and do the math.
Why reward pestilence but not adventure? You, I guess have the only true innovative ideas--master!
Simple fact-- BP's are not working, the number goes to infinity, now figure the math. There is no reward or changing philosophy of us hillbillies, just keep complaining then send Taulman your money for another lawsuit, we see where that one went!
Also check the regs smart guy, buying archery and killing does not take bp's away!
 
Bubbas, nobody upholds my position.

Just because you want a change for yourself doesn't mean I want it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-09 AT 11:47PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-09 AT 11:44?PM (MST)

Bubbas, does your head get bigger when you write nonsense?
This all boils down to nonsense, figure the math, your idea of "more chance" or " more right" sounds like a Game and Fish welfare not an even opportunity. What are you trying to do here, complain? We have all heard this. Take this IMO, STUPID, idea to G&F and see where it goes or shut up about it.

MATH IS MATH. BP's and %'S pass don't work, find another unit or quit complaining. You can still draw many units without max points.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 00:02AM (MST)[p]First, Travis I agree that no one has more of a right to a tag than any one else, no matter what. Each year is a different lottery, you pay to play for that year and if you don't win, try again the next. With the addition of BPs and now a pass % if you stick it out you will get a tag eventually, thats the best it will ever be with this system. To change it you need a completely different system from what we have now. Just want to acknowledge Travis's statement about we all contribute into the system every year even if we draw tags.

I state my personal opinion but try not to let that blind me to other's opinions in a discussion, This allows me to be flexable and possibly modify my ideas or at least acceptance level.

There's alot to look at here and other states draws, especially Colorado's will not work here, not sure about Nevada's though and I'm going to leave that out for right now.

Just working the 50% thing, forgetting if we are for it or against, let's work numbers to find out if it is really a change, not just imagine it is. I can't find the change, my logic could be off, my first post was't ment to be about pushing people through, I didn't express myself good enough. Let me try again.

Billy brought up some good points, I just see no mathematical difference even with a 50% rule.

Let me give some conclusions I came up with before my pitiful math skills confuse you, then we can discuss if I was correct or how to use the math to fix my ideas.

We went to a 10% rule and cleared the top bps out a little so worked, kinda.
We went to the 20% rule to help clear out some more at the top and it worked for a year or so. then caught right back up to the 10% and caused the most sought after tags to become PP draws for NRs, some of us claimed it was unfair even though we are residents. So it semms going to 20% didn't do anything math wise and hurt NRs.
Going to 50% or any other higher % seems to only make a difference for 1 year and then it progressively becomes worse time wise to get a tag or at best reverts back to where it was. The new negative is that basically most tags become PP tags for NRs not just the top few. I can't find a difference for residents.

Ok now some numbers, I'll try to paraphrase what I did and we can break it down in more detail as we discuss it.

Unit 1 archery bull. I added the combined bps myself.

BP - 1st & 2nd applied - drawn - comb bps+ch - %odds

0 -- 228 -- 1 -- 228 -- .44
1 -- 423 -- 2 -- 846 -- .47
2 -- 662 -- 20 -- 1986 -- 3.02
3 -- 573 -- 16 -- 2292 -- 2.79
4 -- 428 -- 6 -- 2140 -- 1.40
5 -- 419 -- 22 -- 2514 -- 5.25
6 -- 256 -- 10 -- 1792 -- 3.91
7 -- 265 -- 18 -- 2120 -- 6.79
8 -- 225 -- 9 -- 2025 -- 4.00
9 -- 104 -- 6 -- 1040 -- 5.77
10 -- 82 -- 9 -- 902 -- 10.98
11 -- 36 -- 25 -- 432 -- 69.44
12 -- 3 -- 3 -- 39 -- 100
13 -- 1 -- 1 -- 14 -- 100
14 -- 2 -- 2 -- 30 -- 100

It's getting late I'll skim for now.

Taking 75 tags from the top pool knocks the next years top pool from 14 thru 10 to 11 thru 10 then the next year at 11 thru 10, continuing, now you are getting clogged. only 11, only 12, 13 and 12, only 13, only 14, only 14, 14 and 15, continuing the same three year period of the same people in the max pool for three years at a time having their own little mini lottery. Always increasing the bp by one until they are cleared out, every couple years.

Best case is it stays about the same for the same reason it does now and 11 bps gets you into the max pool but not guaranteed a tag unless at 12. All you are doing is hurting the NRs who want to put in for a marginal tag.

Right now the top half of the bps get 1/2 of the tags.

718 people got 73 tags and they had accumulated 6602 bps+draw

2989 people got 77 tags with 11798 bps+draw

So this is already working the way it should and the 50% will only effect the bottom half very little, they have to much power with their 11000 bps against the people in the top half but not in the max pool. Most of the extra 30 % will be taken out of the top half and they are only a couple years from drawing anyway.

If you look, the people with 2 or 3 bps have alot of power and collect their share of tags, the guy that has 2 perminate bps and happens to luck out with 2 tags close together would not change, he just happened to get 2 low numbers in the shuffle.

The only way I see to change, is from a lottery and with so few tags we have, a lottery is the only fair way.

Lots to look at here, again we have to figure the math before we can even make up our mind if it is good or bad.

Kent
 
"However, and this is key, there is always 50% of those with max drawing."

This statement is not correct. Think about it, for example, if there are 200 applicants with max bonus points applying for a hunt with 50 permits, only 25 permits would be drawn by that group. That is far less that 1/2 of 200 which would total 100 of the applicant pool.

More likely you meant to say, "However, and this is key, there is always 50% of the available permits going to applicants who hold max bonus points." There is a difference.

You have to remember that each year is a set of unique snapshots in time that freeze-frame through each phase of the draw and produce differing results every time; albeit, often very tiny ones as we simply have far too many applicants for far too few hunt opportunities.

I salute your efforts to take the time to brainstorm for a better way. That being said, don't be too quick to dismiss those who don't support any further fiddling with the current draw process as some, or most of them, probably look at the draw, flawed as it may be, and surely see it as the best system going right now. The AZGFD does listen to sportsmen and will make changes if they have merit and their computer modeling supports the proposed changes. That's how we got the current 20% pass phase of the draw.

Remember, the reason we went to the "up to 10% NR draw max" was due to an overwhelming number of the deer permits going to NR applicants on the AZ Strip one year. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over that outcome led to the NR limitation in place now.



Maddglasser makes a crucial point when he points out that the hunt is what you make of it and that if some would quit believing the various hunt reports/magazines that tout only what they deem to be "premier units", and following only their recommendations, maybe some of those max BP holders would discover they could have a grand hunt and kill a terrific bull elk in units other than 1, 8, 9, or 10. Seriously, I seldom, if ever, hear of a NR max BP holder jumping up and down about an elk tag from 5BN or 6A to name two "other units", both of which that can produce a wonderful trophy elk. At what point is "big" not big enough? Here's a photo of a friend of mine and his 360's gross bull he took in a unit you'll never hear mentioned in the same sentence as "max BP holder". Is his bull "too small" for a max BP holder to take home from an AZ elk hunt?

shanes2006bullelk.jpg


"Change for the sake of change" is something that should be embraced very cautiously. Is there really a true solution or "better way" when the root problem will never change, which is too few permits for too many applicants? Perhaps if our politicians ban firearms, and leave us to hunt bull elk with longbows and spears, the draw process will loosen up just a bit?

In the interest of throwing out a suggestion of two, and to honor all the previous posts and discussion concerning this issue, something to consider might be requiring applicants to select at least two choices on an application? I can't help but believe there is a significant number of applicants that have high numbers of BPs who are only applying for one specific unit and method of take. Requiring applicants to pick at least two units may help to move these high BP holders through the draw process at least a bit quicker.

Perhaps squaring BPs for those who hold 1/2 of the total number of possible BPs for any particular species is something that could be looked at as well?

Jim Rich
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 01:20AM (MST)[p]Bubbas, how come only a few people have chimed in on your dead horse topic? It seems to me from what I've read it's the same people over and over with long winded comments.

If you want to change the system to benfit YOU go to AZGF and voice your opinion.
 
Actually, I thought I did a pretty good job explaining in the beginning how we could explain positions from a logical stance vs. illogical rants like you just did. "Stupid", "Shut up". Why such the harsh feelings, Madd.

Would you like to explain to us "Stupid" people how the "Math is Math"? Somehow many of us missed the math formula that disproves the cause and effect relationship that happens when you increase the % of hold over tags. It should by this cause and effect relationship equate to more people with the most points drawing and less people with lower than max points drawing. Maybe we are making that too difficult though. Please enlighten us as to how they "don't" work. After all "Math is Math".
 
Mesquite,
I don't recall this being a mandatory discussion. If you do not want to participate in a discussion where we try to truly understand how a system works and how changes may equate to a better system FOR THE MAJORITY, then feel free to let us "long winded" people talk. If you read my posts in other threads it is I wanting to maximize fairness to all involved in the process. You may disagree with how to achieve that but unless I have the magical powers to make a system that equates to a more even distribution of tags work to my "personal" benefit....I'll take your last shot as an irrational statement.
 
Azbucksnort,

You are absolutely right when you said, "More likely you meant to say, "However, and this is key, there is always 50% of the available permits going to applicants who hold max bonus points." There is a difference."

This is what I meant and the correct way to say it. Thank you for clearing up what may have been confusing for some. (By the way, I wouldn't want to know what kind of response back I would get if I told someone what they meant to say, but I digress LOL.)


KRP,

I appreciate you trying to put the different scenarios in a numerical, real life example. However, I do feel that by doing that one looses the larger picture. What Billy and I was trying to get across is that it is a relationship thing. It really does not make a difference how many drew with this number or that number or how many applicants will jump up into this BP # or that. This is so because those two things will happen regardless. As long as 50% of the tags are guaranteed to come from those at the top of the point pool that's all that matters. Just think relationships and ratios.

Now, for the sake of illustrating I will use numbers but not in a "draw odds" way.

Please bare with me. If this does not make sense then I am probably missing something and I will need you to explain to me how in a simple manner so I can understand.

Current System (20% max point hold over):

100 tags
--------------
20 tags go to those with the most points - this could be out of a group that all have the same number of points or a mixture of multiple bonus points, at the top.

80 tags go to those who did not fall within that 20% max point group (whatever it was)- could be drawn with no BP or the number just under the max BP for that hunt.


Proposed System (50% max point hold over):

100 tags
---------------
50 tags go to those with the most points- again, this could be out of a group that all have the same number of points or a mixture of multiple bonus points, at the top.

50 tags go to those who did not fall within that 50% max point group (whatever it was)- again, could be drawn with no BP or the number just under the max BP for that hunt.


What that equated to was 30 (or 30%) tags shifting from those who DID NOT have maximum bonus points to those that DID have maximum bonus points. That effect HAS TO HAPPEN by virtue of the change. There is no "this group catching up with this group" or "in the beginning it clears out this many people with max points faster but then it all levels back down to where it was". By shifting away 30% of the tags to the max point pool you are preventing someone with less than max points from getting lucky and drawing one of those 30 tags because they don't even have a chance at them anymore. This does make a difference (and I suggest not even trying and put a number to it because it does not matter) because now 30 more people who have waited longer for a tag will get drawn before the 30 people who have waited a lesser period of time. Again, this effect HAS to happen.

Unless I am crazy, which is entirely possible and I would love to have it RATIONALLY explained as to how. Thank You

Once we can all agree on this effect. Then it is simply a matter of deciding which philosophy is better for the "Greater Good". That is a subjective discussion. Figuring out how the draw would actually change is objective and not open for interpretation. In order to make informed decisions we need to be educated on true facts. That is my motivation, Mesquite and Madd. You have your right to believe that a system based on pure luck is better for "Greater Good". I may not agree with that but some people like to live life based on gamble vs. knowledge or assurances. That is what makes us all different and I wasn't trying to say you can't choose to live your life that way. I believe if we first know what things actually are then we can make more informed decisions....that is all!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 02:45AM (MST)[p]AZbucksnort had a good point and so did KRP.

bubbas what hunts and units are you refering to? What are the PREMIUM TAGS that your talking about.

I remember when my brother and I were seeing HUGE bulls in unit 9 several years back before it was a PREMIUM TAG. I don't have max points for elk but with your plan I dont deserve that tag because somebody who has been trying for a unit 1 early rifle all this time and has max points deserves to draw a unit 9 tag and kill a HUGE bull I've been watching for a few years. Is that fair because he followed the hype.

Take 44bn for sheep as an example last year it was one of crappiest units to draw a sheep tag. In the last five years I've assisted on 4 BC rams in 44bn nobody noticed or said it was a fluke. IN DEC of 08' we killed a 180 ram The largest ever in that unit. NOW 44BN IS ONE OF THE PREMIUM SHEEP UNITS IN THE STATE. My family members don't have max points but since we put 44BN on the map, with your plan they don't deserve that tag.....Right? Only the guys who have been spending $7.00 buying BP or playing the system do....

There have been some big bucks killed during the DEC Muzzy hunts that have great odds 60% or better in getting a tag. Now that word is out only max BP holders are entitled right ? Even though they have been buying BP for a strip tag all this time and holding out they're entitled to a unit that wasn't even known a year ago? Why should I be punished because I lost my points a year before when I have drawn that tag year after year before it turned into a premium tag?

I really don't care about somebody putting in for a unit that ten thousand other people are on a premium tag, then shifting over to the next big premium tag hype. It will only hurt me.
 
Unit 1 again.

You have 150 tags and 3700 applicants. It would take 25 years to push just these people through if they all hung on. Well obviously if 11 bps and up get you in the max pool there is alot of movement in different directions with people's choices.

With 50% (73) already being given in the 7 thru 11 bp group (top half) it's already working, the people with the most tags percentage wise are getting 50% of the tags and those in the bottom half are also getting 50%.

There were 42 people in the max pool, only 15 put this as their first choice, 27 as 2nd.

31 of those 42 recieved tags and some of those others drew their first choice and got a better result.

The 7,8,9,10 people recieved 42 tags and some of them recieved tags on their first choice if this was their second or second if this was their first, probably quite a few. This is why we'll never get to the 25 bp max level.

The 0 to 6 bp holders recieved 77 tags because of their overwelming bp power as a group, if there was no 20% rule right now that number would be closer to 100 tags.

At 50% instead of 20% the people with 10 bps would have been included. 40 tags were given in the 10 thru 14 range as it was, 27% of the tags. Since there were 43 people putting this down as a second choice some had to have drawn a first choice that also would have drawn a unit 1 tag otherwise. By the way only 39 people with 10 bps thought unit 1 was a priority pick.

11 bps is the bench mark and has leveled out that way and should cont. Don't look at the 14,13,12 people, they are ship jumpers, if they had applied for unit 1 the year before they would have recieved a tag.

I can find no way the 50% is changing the 11 bp max. Only condencing the top half by taking the most tags out of the 7 to 9 bp people. The lower half has to many bps to be affected enough.

There will be a slight change but it would have to some great improvement (much more than 10 or 15 tags out of 150) before I would throw the NRs wanting a lesser tag under the bus, heck I wouldn't do it even then, I still don't like the 20% rule because of it and my family has lived in Az since the 1800's. I care about NRs because I am one in their state.

Also this deemed unfairness to those with high bps is assuming that they have been loyal to their cause and just unlucky. Look at unit 1 again, the top 6 tags that went were ship jumpers, they didn't wait forever for a unit 1 tag, they would already have had one. They moved over to get a guaranteed tag above someone else that had been waiting. Nothing wrong with this but these are the ones your trying to even out, they can figure it out themselves.

Again this doen't change 150 tags for 3700 people enough at the top end but a few tags from where it is, you have to think of a totally different system to have a change and I'm not helping with that even though I know how to do it. I believe a lottery is the only way we can give out 150 tags to 3700 people.

Kent
 
Well said.
Bubbas,
What about the junior hunts, cow hunts, champ hunts or even the left over tags that are out there? Should we make the juniors wait longer for a chance to hunt with there dad?

When you work out the math you will never get rid of max points.
Even if max points was 100% pass (max at 20), all the available tags went to max holders, there would be people still not drawn that rool over to next year, now at 21. The max is still growing! OK now the next year these guy's all apply and draw, which they can't, but for sake arguement they did. What is the new max point. It will be 21. And more people with less than have moved in and join this pool. As the steps go down more and more hunters are in each pool, so that meens the less likelyhood of drawing, even with 100% pass in place.

If this to be only on "deseired" hunts, who decides desired or
not? What you may not want for your tag, maybe my dream tag!
 
Mesquite,

You have a valid concern. I can understand where you are coming from better now, thank you.

I would like to clarify one thing so you guys can better understand where I am coming from, also. Before , I do this can we agree that increasing the "hold over" from 20 to 50% HAS to shift the tag allocation to those with the most relative amount of points? Not whether you whether you believe it should be done but only if you recognize that it will have an effect? Because there are two contrasting arguments being made by the opposition to the increase. Both CANNOT be true without invalidating the other argument. If the change, as KRP, is arguing makes no significant difference then why are the other opposers so adamant about not increasing the hold over?

Azbuck, you said,

"Maddglasser makes a crucial point when he points out that the hunt is what you make of it and that if some would quit believing the various hunt reports/magazines that tout only what they deem to be "premier units", and following only their recommendations, maybe some of those max BP holders would discover they could have a grand hunt and kill a terrific bull elk in units other than 1, 8, 9, or 10. Seriously, I seldom, if ever, hear of a NR max BP holder jumping up and down about an elk tag from 5BN or 6A to name two "other units", both of which that can produce a wonderful trophy elk. At what point is "big" not big enough? Here's a photo of a friend of mine and his 360's gross bull he took in a unit you'll never hear mentioned in the same sentence as "max BP holder". Is his bull "too small" for a max BP holder to take home from an AZ elk hunt?"

What I wanted to clear up is this. I do not necessarily disagree with you guys on Azbucksnorts comment above. I am very aware of these opportunities in all units. In fact, I will take this comment a step further in that I do not feel that a trophy is in the eye of the beholder and that it should not be determined by a B&C score. Hunter "A" who wants to just shoot a nice little raghorn for the meat and hunting experience has the SAME right to ANY tag.......as long as they have the same amount of bonus points. This seems to be where we differ so let me expound on why I believe this, realizing that you believe different. This is a philosophical difference. Just keep in mind also that you are jumping to conclusion as to what units and/or hunts I apply for.

The problem, which everyone agrees on, is we have a larger demand than supply...check. Now, Mesquite let me address your last post which I felt was valid. What you seem to be referring to is the "perception" of what constitutes a "premium" hunt and how that "perception" is always changing. This is very correct. So when I mentioned a "Premium" hunt structure as a proposal or when others refer to "premium" I can see how this is a sticking point automatically for some.

When I mention "premium" I am NOT referring to what I or anyone else "perceive" as a hunt that produces the largest scoring antlers. I won't say this is entirely subjective because studies and surveys do show that some units produce ON AVERAGE higher scoring racks. However even if we could agree that some units DO produce larger scoring racks, that is NOT what I feel would constitute a "premium" hunt.

What I constitute as "Premium" is based soley on demand. A tag can be in higher demand because of the weapon used, because the area is perceived by a majority as a more enjoyable place to camp, because there is a higher animal population to hunt, because the area is closer to a metropolitan area, etc, etc. This is why I believe the determination of a "premium" hunt should be based on an average of draw odds, whether that be 3, 5, or 10 years worth of draw odds. Going into this point though is actually going away form the hold over topic and into the "premium" hunt topic and though. The "premium" hunt designation would come more into play from a management perspective, only if it was instituted.

Having said that, Mesquite, from a draw perspective there is always going to be a change in units someone puts in for REGARDLESS of what what the hold over is or if there is a hold over at all. Yes, it stinks that in this day in age, in Arizona, there are not enough tags to go around for someone to learn a favorite area and then get to hunt that area on a regular basis. Some states have enough animals to be able to do this, we are not. That starts to get into a management philosophy issue as well. So I recognize your reluctance. But keep in mind, there are other people who may be in your own shoes who have loved that area for a long time and want to hunt it and they may have waited a lot longer than you to hunt the area. Also, it is not necessarily an area or size of animal issue more than it is a species issue. Just because someone all of a sudden switches areas from one year to the next doesn't mean they are doing it based on the SIZE of the animal. It may be due to a change in any of the reasons I listed above. So yes, if that person has waited a longer period of time to hunt that species, whatever the reason, I do feel they should have a better chance to draw than the person with lower points. Even if they were just "buying points" the effect is the same. They were sitting out of the game, no matter the reason, which gave way to other people having better draw opportunity the years they sat out. That was a sacrifice they made and there was real value there. Does that make sense. Versus someone who has less points because they drew an elk tag 3 years ago who then draws again. Regardless if the tags were in different units, or even lower demand units, the effect is the same, he has prevented SOMEONE from drawing a tag by him drawing a tag. There is real value in that event. Remember, you guys are not the only ones who want to hunt that unit. There is a demand for that unit regardless of the "perceived" "Premium" status. So, with a limited amount of tags that is the fairest way to evenly distribute the tags over a given amount of time in ALL units. The system works unbiasedly toward ALL hunts.

Let me also point out that there are STILL 50% of tags going to those WITHOUT the most points. Contrary, to what some of you may believe, I am adamantly opposed to a strict "preference point" system. 50% of tags going to those WITHOUT max points is still significant in my opinion and still provides hope each year you apply.

The system will work itself out in all hunting demographics. For those who like to hunt the areas that "traditionally" are not of high demand, those areas will still be in lesser demand. In most cases, they won't all of a sudden become more sought after tags. Provided hunters with higher amounts of bonus points don't switch units, what it will equate to is someone with lower amounts of points actually being guaranteed a tag FASTER because they will be in the max point pool faster. So again, it is fair in all areas, NOT JUST the high demand or "premium" areas. If hunters with more points do switch units to draw faster then logically this is still fair and will work out. First, theoretically this won't happen an astronomical amount because if someone with a lot of points has been putting in for a hard to draw area and then all of a sudden the max is switched to 50% of the tags...his draw odds go up for that hard to draw area therefore it is HIGHLY more likely he will continue to put in for that same hard to draw area. If the "perception" for a unit, which does happen but history shows not on a large scale in a short period of time, then it is still fair because the person with more points has waited longer, not used up hunting opportunities, and BEFORE adding in the "wait" factor has at least as much right to the tag as the next guy.

I will share an analogy later. This was already long LOL but please read without prejudice trying to find merit in what I have said. This is what I have tried to do with posts of differing views. I have given merit and recognition where warranted.
 
>"However, and this is key, there
>is always 50% of those
>with max drawing."
>
> This statement is not
>correct. Think about it, for
>example, if there are 200
>applicants with max bonus points
>applying for a hunt with
>50 permits, only 25 permits
>would be drawn by that
>group. That is far less
>that 1/2 of 200 which
>would total 100 of the
>applicant pool.
>
> More likely you meant
>to say, "However, and this
>is key, there is always
>50% of the available permits
>going to applicants who hold
>max bonus points." There
>is a difference.
>
> You have to remember
>that each year is a
>set of unique snapshots in
>time that freeze-frame through each
>phase of the draw and
>produce differing results every time;
>albeit, often very tiny ones
>as we simply have far
>too many applicants for far
>too few hunt opportunities.
>
> I salute your efforts
>to take the time to
>brainstorm for a better way.
>That being said, don't be
>too quick to dismiss those
>who don't support any further
>fiddling with the current draw
>process as some, or most
>of them, probably look at
>the draw, flawed as it
>may be, and surely see
>it as the best system
>going right now. The AZGFD
>does listen to sportsmen and
>will make changes if they
>have merit and their computer
>modeling supports the proposed changes.
>That's how we got the
>current 20% pass phase of
>the draw.
>
> Remember, the reason we
>went to the "up to
>10% NR draw max" was
>due to an overwhelming number
>of the deer permits going
>to NR applicants on the
>AZ Strip one year. The
>wailing and gnashing of teeth
>over that outcome led to
>the NR limitation in place
>now.
>
>
>
> Maddglasser makes a crucial
>point when he points out
>that the hunt is what
>you make of it and
>that if some would quit
>believing the various hunt reports/magazines
>that tout only what they
>deem to be "premier units",
>and following only their recommendations,
>maybe some of those max
>BP holders would discover they
>could have a grand hunt
>and kill a terrific bull
>elk in units other than
>1, 8, 9, or 10.
>Seriously, I seldom, if ever,
>hear of a NR max
>BP holder jumping up and
>down about an elk tag
>from 5BN or 6A to
>name two "other units", both
>of which that can produce
>a wonderful trophy elk. At
>what point is "big" not
>big enough? Here's a photo
>of a friend of mine
>and his 360's gross bull
>he took in a unit
>you'll never hear mentioned in
>the same sentence as "max
>BP holder". Is his bull
>"too small" for a max
>BP holder to take home
>from an AZ elk hunt?
>
>
>
shanes2006bullelk.jpg

>
> "Change for the sake
>of change" is something that
>should be embraced very cautiously.
>Is there really a true
>solution or "better way" when
>the root problem will never
>change, which is too few
>permits for too many applicants?
>Perhaps if our politicians ban
>firearms, and leave us to
>hunt bull elk with longbows
>and spears, the draw process
>will loosen up just a
>bit?
>
> In the interest of
>throwing out a suggestion of
>two, and to honor all
>the previous posts and discussion
>concerning this issue, something to
>consider might be requiring applicants
>to select at least two
>choices on an application? I
>can't help but believe there
>is a significant number of
>applicants that have high numbers
>of BPs who are only
>applying for one specific unit
>and method of take. Requiring
>applicants to pick at least
>two units may help to
>move these high BP holders
>through the draw process at
>least a bit quicker.
>
> Perhaps squaring BPs for
>those who hold 1/2 of
>the total number of possible
>BPs for any particular species
>is something that could be
>looked at as well?
>
>Jim Rich

this is exactly why i don't understand those who are against a system that would decrease LUCK, spread the wealth, and create a more "FAIR" substructure on which to base the draw.

sounds like those against it don't need to hunt the premier units to have a good time and hunt on a more regular basis than others. with this in mind, it makes no sense why they would oppose change. obviously this proposal would not affect those hillbilly individuals. they would keep applying for their units where a proposal such as this wouldn't change things much.

BTW, why are people against change that clearly creates a more fair system? please enlighten me? greed gets you nowhere.
 
"what it will equate to is someone with lower amounts of points actually being guaranteed a tag FASTER because they will be in the max point pool faster."

Bubbas, I am working on the line of thought that 50% is better for those with the most points. Can't find the advantage after the first year and is actually harmful to those that are now vaulted into max point with too many others at the same time. Instead of thinning the ranks porportionatly by bounus point group, the 50% rule will cause hundreds to be in the max point pool after the first year. In unit 1 that would be the ones that had 10 bps, they now have 11.

Years 2-10

1. 11 and 10 max 144
2. 11 and 10 max 265
Same group because you didn't clear out 265 people,everyone else is waiting and blding bps.
3. 12 and 11 max 115
4. 13 and 12 max 40
Finally got rid of those people now to the next group, and I'm knocking them down 20% for dropouts and maybe they drew another tag but since every unit has less tags available under max not to many have left the system.
5. 13 max 244
6. 14 max 152
7. 15 max 60
Hey another group of people gets to join in.
8. 16 and 15 max 390 after taking 20% out

I'm not going any farther, it'll take a few years to get to the next group. Now the last group that finally made it was the 6 bp group to start with. Instead of waiting 5 more years to be guaranteed a tag they had to wait 8 years to get in the max pool. Each group ahead of them after the first couple years had to wait longer also.

Now because of the movement of people through out the draw year to year it seems to stablize to a certain level and it might only stay at the current max bp, it diffinatly will not go down and probably will go up at least 1 to be max.

The closer you get to 100% max pool the higher max pool will be required to reach it, this is why Colorado's system won't work for us. Run the numbers on taking all 150 tags from the top bps and figure how long it would take to get 3700 people through, 25 yrs.

Now it's 11 to 12 bps so about 10 years max.

If someone could run the numbers so that the max pool will be 8 or 9 consistantly instead of 11 or 12, not just the first year, I'll listen, not going to happen. 3700 and 150, it's a wonder it stays at 11.

Actually the 20% didn't do anything better than the original 10% just sounded like it did. Same situation here. The change that would actually help a fraction on what max point will be is to go back to the 10% and help NRs also.

Kent
 
"What about the junior hunts, cow hunts, champ hunts or even the left over tags that are out there? Should we make the juniors wait longer for a chance to hunt with there dad?"

this is what is wrong with those folks that oppose a fairness. if this is really your concern:

1. go on the OVER THE COUNTER FREE FOR ALL JR. TURKEY HUNT RIGHT NOW
2. pick up a bow and WITH YOUR SON, GO ARCHERY DEER HUNTING FOR 2 MONTHS/YR
3. put in for any of the L.O. hunts for elk, cow elk hunts, or buy a tag in the KILL EM' all zones and hunt every year
4. go on one of many 100% draw hunts in the state of az. for both deer, elk, bear, turkey, javelina, not to mention predators and small game

This statement has no validity.

currently the system provides ample opportunity for those folks that want to just get out and HUNT every year for almost every species az. has to offer, however, it provides minimal if any fairness to those willing to wait their turn for a PREMIUM TAG.

what say u?
 
Billy I guess I'm confused at what the advantage is supposed to be. Redusing the max point pool to a lower level or having those with more points draw more tags now, causing the wait times to increase in the future.

Kent
 
so why don't u respond?

why are you against increasing the % pass? point being, there are several opportunities to introduce youngsters or older folks just beginning to hunt. why not make it fair for those willing to wait?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 12:54PM (MST)[p]Those willing to wait already have a better chance, the system is set to reward all the way it is.

What I am saying is the max pool could have already drawn hunts here, these individuals choose to apply for hunts they may never draw, or they can play and see how there luck goes! I think the max pass rule is only making the point pool rise. If somebody is willing to wait for a tag-- hopefully they will get it, but, IMO at no demise to any other hunter.

G&F does not care what unit you want to draw, only those who spend their money, and the ones who draw more often spend more money. Carter and others want you to draw a "premium" tag so it increases their odds of providing service. I am an outfitter and wish more max guy's would draw- they are simply more likely to want to hire an outfitter service, as they think a hunt that is premium deems it neccesary.

Raising the % pass will only bring the next low # (1 shy of max) up even faster. This will only result in a bigger squirrel cage that already exists. Sheep is a perfect example! There will be roughly 7 max point holders draw each year, with less than 70 desert tags any pass rule only decreases the pool's chances and prolongs them not 1 but up to 10 years. I don't think this is fair, it means our kids will have a far less chance to ever draw a tag. The max poll will be 45 when they have 20 points!

We don't hunt the "desired" units. I am fortunate to hunt/ guide hunters every year regardless of max rules. I am simply stating what, I feel, are the negative results of doing so.
 
squirrel cage or whatever you want to call it. the only way to make the draw "FAIR" is to increase the % pass. take luck out of it and make it more rewardable for those that wait.

refer to a previous post of mine. it is not "FAIR" for folks to draw PREMIUM TAGS back to back yrs. the only way to prevent this is have a system that doesn't allow it.

i don't care if it takes longer to draw a specific tag. the point is to have a more fair system.
 
The most fair is to not have any points!

This sense of entitlement will get the draw into more trouble than ever!
 
what are u talking about, entitlement? their is nothing fair about a lottery ticket. fairness is waiting in line for your turn. how can u debate that?
 
You feel the person that waits longer is entitled to a better chance, right?

That is called entitlement.
 
>Billy I guess I'm confused at
>what the advantage is supposed
>to be. Redusing the max
>point pool to a lower
>level or having those with
>more points draw more tags
>now, causing the wait times
>to increase in the future.
>
>
>Kent

my point exactly. i am not debating the wait time will increase. it is inevitable. more demand than supply. the advantage is to create a more FAIR system. who cares if one has to wait longer for a particular tag if he is so inclined. the point of this discussion is to brainstorm and come up with a more "FAIR" approach to the draw. take luck out of it and make it fair.
 
Not fair...........ENTITLED. Kinda like a preference system when you think about it!
 
Please do not skip over my last post in favor of reading this one. I shared a lot in my last post, valid to you or not it explains a lot on the position of 50% hold over.

Madd,
I wanted to address your last post now. You said,

"What about the junior hunts, cow hunts, champ hunts or even the left over tags that are out there? Should we make the juniors wait longer for a chance to hunt with there dad?"

Let me preface my response with the fact that I have 3 young children. The two oldest (8 and 6) are boys who love the outdoors and already have a passion for hunting. I am a very hands on father, involved in their sporting activities. So I have every motivation to be looking after what is best for them. I feel that increasing the holdover to 50% provides a MUCH greater benefit to ensuring a fair, evenly distributed tag allocation then the small negative effect of reducing tags going to those just starting out in the draw, which is the case for youth and I assume what you are making reference to.

Let me expound. First, there are already systems in place exclusively set aside for youth hunting opportunities. This includes junior only hunts in the general draw and now OTC junior turkey tags. Then lets consider all the hunts/tags in the general draw that have a VERY HIGH draw rate (antlered and antlerless hunts alike). These hunts will continue to have high draw rates. This is just in our home state as I feel we should only really consider this, with regards to fair distribution, as we are discussing our own resource. However, it does not negate the fact that there are still ample opportunities to hunt in other states on an unlimited basis which provide good opportunities for youth and their dads. There are no realistic scenarios where youth cannot be introduced into hunting and then maintained in hunting if those opportunities are prioritized by the father and sought after. Since many of you proclaim to be big researchers, this is especially the case.

Second, these juniors eventually grow into adults. We need to factor that in as well. Since what is best for the "Greater Good" as a whole will benefit them throughout all stages of their lives.

Now for the second part of Madd's post. Let me respond first by saying I understand what you are trying to say here, Madd, and appreciate your concern of the events you describe happening. I would not want this result either, just so we are clear. HOWEVER, it is important to know that the events you describe and predict are not correct and faulty in reasoning. It is NOT a matter of interpretation or opinion but a matter of fact, cause and effect, otherwise we could just chalk it up to difference in philosophy. Please note, I am not making a personal reference to you only the reasoning so please do not take offense. Let me explain by breaking each section down. My response to each section will be in parenthesis.

"When you work out the math you will never get rid of max points. Even if max points was 100% pass (max at 20), all the available tags went to max holders, there would be people still not drawn that rool over to next year, now at 21. The max is still growing! OK now the next year these guy's all apply and draw, which they can't, but for sake arguement they did. What is the new max point. It will be 21. And more people with less than have moved in and join this pool. As the steps go down more and more hunters are in each pool, so that meens the less likelyhood of drawing, even with 100% pass in place."

(Of course you will never get rid of max points. There will always be a group of people who have more points than the next group. That is the objective of having bonus points in the first place. But to infer that by increasing the % of hold over from one percentage to another somehow leads to more people stacking up at the top with Max points is simply impossible. Once an applicant moves into a bonus point group and given he has the most amount of points possible for him, i.e. the applicant has hunter ed and loyalty point, he can no longer move out of that group until he draws, fails to apply, or is rejected. Now follow with me. The number of applicants in each BP group DOES NOT INCREASE, assuming there is no unit switching from year to year for the sake of explanation. It can only DECREASE when someone drops out by drawing a tag. This will happen to some extent by applicants drawing with less than max points while that group is out of the max point group. Now while that is going on there is always 50% of allocated tags (thank you Azbucksnort) going to those at the top of the pyramid with max points. This is key, the same amount of applicants are dropping out of the equation each year so there CANNOT be an increase in draw competition (for unit 1 as referenced that is 150 applicants coming out of the equation every year). This end effect is UNRELATED to what the hold over %. (PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS)is. Thus the only affect is that you are ensuring that the 150 applicants that MUST come out of the equation every year consists of more people from the top of the pyramid than from the bottom or even middle part of the pyramid. Notice, I said MORE not all. There will still be a good chunk of people coming out of the equation from the middle and bottom.

I hope this is clear. Can someone else please give veracity to this cause and effect relationship. It is not a matter of opinion. That is all I am asking. Once we come to an agreement on this FACT we can start discussing whether or not we agree that more people should draw at the top of the pyramid than the middle and bottom.
 
i guess if you want to call it that. i am not to concerned about using the word.

entitlement=the fact of having a right to something. i guess it is entitlement i am looking for.

waiting your turn is what i call it. taking luck out of the equation.

the way i look at it is this. your approach allows for entitlement w/o dues. much like a non taxpaying citizen benefiting from government hand-outs funded by those who pay taxes.

if one is willing to wait, then by all means he becomes more entitled to draw. if u want to become philosophical, what makes one entitled to draw?

i say time (# years applied w/o opportunity) entitles one to an increased chance at drawing any particular tag. the longer he waits the more entitled he becomes.

i just want to know. do you not feel entitled to draw a particular tag?
 
Kent,
Please read my above post, it explains and answers your question in length. In summary, It ONLY lengthens the time to draw for those that have a history of drawing multiple tags within a short amount of time because they will no longer have as good of odds to jump in front of someone with more points in the draw. Still a chance of that happening but not as good.

However, it HAS TO lower the amount of time it takes to draw for those who have not been LUCKY enough to draw a tag. It evens the process out by taking out AS MUCH luck involved and creates more assurances, REGARDLESS of the unit, hunt, "premium hunt perception" etc.
 
NOPE! I don't care how many years. We have sheep hunters every year that draw with 2-5 points, well the had the one intangable, the one thing none of us can disect, the one only fair, unbiased, ungreedy element------------luck!
 
Bubbas you sure explain yourself well. But with all that said, we are taking the chances from younger hunters away! They still have a chance, but a much more limited chance because of greed and entitlement.

I feel the 20% is fine, these guy's still have a better chance in the general pool than the ones with lower point numbers. Going to a no point system gives every and all an EQUAL chance. But, I know, we can't do that now can we. What if random units were chosen every year to have a 100% pass rule. All max holders that applied would receive the tag or until supply ran out? Would that satisfy some?
 
Bubbas,
I do think you are on to something here, I think it does raise some questions about allocations to certain people, however, I will never feel anyone is entitled to anything just because they waited longer. Their reward could have came earlier if they got lucky just like many others.
 
how it the heck are the youngsters at a loss here b/c of greed and entitlement?

going to a no point system does not give every and all an EQUAL chance. going to a strict preference gives every and all an equal chance. ALL willing to wait will hunt a given unit before any one person hunts it twice. get the drift. no equality with luck.

how about we take the luck out of the equation.

btw. look at my about post. there are plenty of opportunity for the YOUNGSTERS to get out and hunt, with dad or without.
 
>Bubbas,
>I do think you are on
>to something here, I think
>it does raise some questions
>about allocations to certain people,
>however, I will never feel
>anyone is entitled to anything
>just because they waited longer.
>Their reward could have came
>earlier if they got lucky
>just like many others.

"their reward could have came earlier if they got lucky just like many others."

explain this. are you entitled to be lucky?????
 
thanks bubbas for raising legitimate concerns regarding the current az. draw guidelines. they are flawed and need changed. i like your comments and approach, however, i am more blunt and not as well spoken as you. i get your drift. you must be an attorney!!! LOL!!!
 
The problem begins when people believe they have a right to hunt. We don't, we have a privilege. We are expected to stay within the set boundaries and provisions set forth with this privilege.

We can hope to change what is happening, but, hope will be small. We, the licence buyers can't even vote for our commissioners! The commission seems to be going in a different direction than many of us are. MONEY, not bonus points or"desired" units, but money. When there are no more left over tags in this state they may change the existing laws. Until then-------------more of the same!
 
>The problem begins when people believe
>they have a right to
>hunt. We don't, we have
>a privilege. We are expected
>to stay within the set
>boundaries and provisions set forth
>with this privilege.
>
>We can hope to change what
>is happening, but, hope will
>be small. We, the licence
>buyers can't even vote for
>our commissioners! The commission seems
>to be going in a
>different direction than many of
>us are. MONEY, not bonus
>points or"desired" units, but money.
>When there are no more
>left over tags in this
>state they may change the
>existing laws. Until then-------------more of
>the same!

I can finally agree with you on something madglasser! Did you read my post in the other topic? Our commissioners are not being held accountable to anyone! They do whatever they want that suits THEIR agenda. And then they qualify it by stating it is consistent with other state led agencies. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe other agencies are wrong too? We must find a way to make the commission accountable to us, the residents of Arizona. Sorry to hijack the thread, but we need a proposal to make commissioners elected officials. It would be great if you were required to own a hunting or fishing license in order to vote, but that would never happen!

Though, I do disagree with your other comment. I feel we DO have the right to hunt! It may not be expressly written, but I feel it is something they could never permanently take away from us.

By the way, I do support the increase in max point percentage. I feel it IS fair for a higher percentage of tags to go to those who have waited longer. There still lies the "luck" factor in the other 50%.

Also, in regards to this change making the NR draw a purely "preference point" system, I can offer a POSSIBLE solution: Maintain the current 10% CAP (up to, not a guarantee), and I think we could afford to alot an additional 5% CAP for the random draw. Keep in mind, this is a CAP and not a guarantee. This would ensure that it is not a pure preference point system for NR and still fair for everyone. Plus, I think G&F would not object because it would possibly bring in additional NR fees.

What do you all think?
 
Billy,
Do not EVER refer to me as an attorney....them are fightin' words LOL! Jerk, Looser, Ugly, whatever....never attorney!

No actually it would be beneficial to be an attorney sometimes because, Maddglasser, you could bet I would be doing more to change The Commission thing you referred to. You have missed some of my discussions with others as some have taken place on a nice level through messages. There has been more Commission talk there. There needs to be great change in that Department. And you are right we can talk until we are blue in the face....nothing is going to change until the way The Commission conducts itself, as a whole, changes.

However, if or when that happens things still won't change unless we as Sportsmen can at least understand what the real issues at hand are. I didn't say come to a 100% agreement on things that are subjective as to this philosophy is better than this philosophy. But we need to at least be able to discuss things open minded enough to at least come to true knowledge of the facts on issues certain issues. The problem is that over the years in this new media day and age it has created polarized ends of the spectrum on issues. Most of the times the real issues aren't even understood before making a decision on something. It is no different in politics which has always been mind boggling to me and a true shame...so inefficient.

For instance, I understand your comments regarding no one having the "right" or "entitlement" to hunt but rather it is a privilege. You obviously have strong emotions attached to that belief evident by the amount and different ways you have expressed it. I share your same sentiments. How can one not feel that way when in this world we here these "right" or entitlement" words being thrown out as an excuse for laziness. If there were a way to reward the public with more of a chance to hunt through hard work and sacrifice through works then I would be the first inline to support that program let me tell you! But when there is no such program, I would rather have knowledge that to the best of our abilities we are trying to create as even of a distribution of a resource as possible. And when I say even I mean even amongst those who are on the same playing field (ie. you know the odds so if you ut in for a low draw odd area you are accepting the fact that you will not be able to hunt there for a long while...your choice. But you should have confidence that you will be treated equally within that local demand market (unit). Having someone with a lot less time invested draw a tag and use the resource before the applicant who has patiently waited within that local demand market is not fair treatment. So lets throw out the use of the words "right" and "entitlement" because as you say NO ONE is entitled...but that person who drew with far less time was not entitled either. We can make it an issue of distributing the tags according to time and money invested. That actually plays to the theory of time and sacrificing equaling a reward vs asking to be entitled to the tag at any time because " I am a person to and I am a resident to, etc.

I obviously have strong emotions towards finding equality and fairness in things evident by these proposals and philosophy for searching out what I refer to as "The Greater Good". These emotions are good as they make us who we are and add diversity in the decision making process, BUT only in so much as we can navigate past the emotions in finding truth first!

Actually I know I did not use these words "right" and "entitlement", I believe you did to try and express what you thought we were trying to achieve. Hopefully you can understand that this is not our belief and understand what we would hope to achieve.
 
Billy, ok I got it now , you want a straight preference point system. That's not anything like we are discussing here. That's a total system overhaul including only having 1 choice applications and waiting 25 years for your next unit 1 tag. That's the math.

Why would you wait that long when I proved you could get the same tag every 10 or 11 years for sure. Just because joe might get 2 tags close together. In the unit 1 example 20 people that had 2 bps out of 662 recieved tags, because there is a bunch of them and they have 1986 lottery numbers. Joe just happened to be one of those, who cares wheather it was him or someone else,if he wasn't such a braggart we wouldn't want to slap him. I'm not going to punish my self because of it. 25 years instead of 11 years, I don't get it.

Bubba, the 50% rule creeps the max BP up higher not lower for the same reason a straight PP system gets it to 25 years. I've shown the numbers to support that, if I'm wrong someone has to show the numbers to support that before I can adjust anything I can say or think. The best it could ever do is stay at the same level. I'm not for changing if it does nothing in reality but make some think it is, and the only real thing it does is hurt others. I thought this was about the greater good.

Go back to 10% is the true greater good.

Kent
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 07:13PM (MST)[p]i guess in all fairness one could say i have centered my opinions around a preference point system. however, i believe that this discussion has created several points of view that all differ in structure: keep things the same, 50% pass, and preference point system.

IMO a true preference point system is not all that bad. however, in a state like Az. where the sheer numbers of animals are few relative to the hunting population I don't feel like a pref pt. system would server the "greater good." in a state such as CO, a pref point system works better, b/c they have more animals, more hunts, and all groups of hunters can be represented with all their diff. hunt structures. those that were described by someone (I can't remember who) before, ie. bone collector.............., a 50% pass would be a more "meet in the middle" type deal where both extremes are accommodated here in az.

the bone collectors could be represented as well as the other end of the spectrum.
 
I posted the below statements a few posts back, and I'm surprised nobody has commented on the idea yet. What do you think?

"By the way, I do support the increase in max point percentage. I feel it IS fair for a higher percentage of tags to go to those who have waited longer. There still lies the "luck" factor in the other 50%.

Also, in regards to this change making the NR draw a purely "preference point" system, I can offer a POSSIBLE solution: Maintain the current 10% CAP (up to, not a guarantee), and I think we could afford to alot an additional 5% CAP for the random draw. Keep in mind, this is a CAP and not a guarantee. This would ensure that it is not a pure preference point system for NR and still fair for everyone. Plus, I think G&F would not object because it would possibly bring in additional NR fees.

What do you all think?"
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 08:34PM (MST)[p]I kinda agree with the NR rule, although perf points have not always shown to work out the best, it does offer some "stability" to the situation with the additional 5%. My question is- Who decides what hunts and units require how many points? PLEASE don't say the commission, as that will go nowhere!

On the privilege vs right question. Hunting is a privilege and CAN BE REVOKED. Rights may be suspended but not revoked. I for one "feel" hunting is my god given right, but by definition it is purely a privilege.

If the answere for the 50% is time and money invested i.e. (We can make it an issue of distributing the tags according to time and money invested.) Thats easy, the person who bought the most tags, the one who drew more often. He still may have been applying for 35 yrs but hunted every 4. That is what the commision sees! 8.3 tags over 35 yrs is a whole lot more money than 1 tag every 18 years.
 
>I kinda agree with the NR
>rule, although perf points have
>not always shown to work
>out the best, it does
>offer some "stability" to the
>situation with the additional 5%.
>My question is- Who decides
>what hunts and units require
>how many points? PLEASE don't
>sat the commission, as that
>will go nowhere!
>
>On the privilege vs right question.
>Hunting is a privilege and
>CAN BE REVOKED. Rights may
>be suspended but not revoked.
>I for one "feel" hunting
>is my god given right,
>but by definition it is
>purely a privilege



I'm sorry if there was a miscommunication. I was not promoting a preference point system. I'm not sure where the "Who decides
>what hunts and units require
>how many points?" question came from. My point was quite the opposite. I believe adding the additional 5% would prevent it from being a preference point system for NR. I hope that helps clear it up. thx.
 
I wasn't saying that it was a perf system, mearly pointing out a question of the perf system. I have heard several,not 30-378, but others using the perf idea aquite abit, Thats all
 
30_378, I know now the 50% will not improve anything the way the draw is setup, it's not because of BPs or % Max pools. It's something that has been a part of our draw from day one, long before BPs. We have a bigger decision of tradition/stay put or radical change to actually change anything about what we are talking about here. I'm waiting to see if someone can dispute my math, I really hope they can. The only true answer I found is too radical for a traditional guy like me.

I would like to see a way for there to be some tag available to anyone in the draw, no matter the odds. I can't believe the G&F hasn't addressed this issue already.

Kent
 
Kent,

Personally, I do not have the ability to explain this any different so that it appeal to different thought processes so bear with me. i will re post my explanation from above in hopes that it may seem different this time. If not, I will try and work up a hypothetical draw with numbers later when i have more time. But first I must make a comment as to that. If one gets too caught up on the specific numbers it can mislead you or just take a heck of a lot longer to understand something. First this can be due to the fact that statistics can be manipulated and construed many different ways. It is very important to first understand ratios and relationships and then once these are understood the numbers can be crunched in. Trying to crunch numbers before first understanding the theorum or cause and effect relationship is like trying to build a pyramid from the top down. The numbers CANNOT defy the laws of Cause and Effect unless the numbers themselves are inaccurate or incomplete. This is why someone can do a math problem as swear up and down that it is correct but someone without the math skills can look at the problem and tell you it has to be incorrect without even knowing why and end up being correct that the problem was false (that was confusing LOL). Anyways, they try and teach us this at an early age, you remember all those word problems that every hates, but we usually disregard their true importance. I have spent many years in education in the science/ health field and cause and effect and relationships are really driven home because it is an essential skill to be able to problem solve (by problem solve I am not only referring to number problems but situational problems also) in order to excel. It is why entrance exams to any higher level graduate training is riddled with these types of cause and effect, casual relationship problems. I only say this because I think looking at statistics which are first not accurate (ones provided by The Department) but also that approach is not necessary to understand the effect (short and long term) that will occur as a consequence to raising the Hold Over. It is is more sure to confuse people and is inefficient. However, I will try to do this for you at some time....unless someone else would like to do it, LOL!

Anyways here is my explanation as to the Cause and Effect relationship. To dismiss this relationship you have to disprove the statement SPECIFICALLY or else the statement HAS to be correct. Maddglasser's statement in quotes, mine in parentheses. If this doesn't work we'll just have to stay stuck on this point, I guess.

"When you work out the math you will never get rid of max points. Even if max points was 100% pass (max at 20), all the available tags went to max holders, there would be people still not drawn that rool over to next year, now at 21. The max is still growing! OK now the next year these guy's all apply and draw, which they can't, but for sake arguement they did. What is the new max point. It will be 21. And more people with less than have moved in and join this pool. As the steps go down more and more hunters are in each pool, so that meens the less likelyhood of drawing, even with 100% pass in place."

(Of course you will never get rid of max points. There will always be a group of people who have more points than the next group. That is the objective of having bonus points in the first place. But to infer that by increasing the % of hold over from one percentage to another somehow leads to more people stacking up at the top with Max points is simply impossible. Once an applicant moves into a bonus point group and given he has the most amount of points possible for him, i.e. the applicant has hunter ed and loyalty point, he can no longer move out of that group until he draws, fails to apply, or is rejected. Now follow with me. The number of applicants in each BP group DOES NOT INCREASE, assuming there is no unit switching from year to year for the sake of explanation. It can only DECREASE when someone drops out by drawing a tag. This will happen to some extent by applicants drawing with less than max points while that group is out of the max point group. Now while that is going on there is always 50% of allocated tags (thank you Azbucksnort) going to those at the top of the pyramid with max points. This is key, the same amount of applicants are dropping out of the equation each year so there CANNOT be an increase in draw competition (for unit 1 as referenced that is 150 applicants coming out of the equation every year). This end effect is UNRELATED to what the hold over %. (PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS)is. Thus the only affect is that you are ensuring that the 150 applicants that MUST come out of the equation every year consists of more people from the top of the pyramid than from the bottom or even middle part of the pyramid. Notice, I said MORE not all. There will still be a good chunk of people coming out of the equation from the middle and bottom.
 
I think we could be reaching an agreement or at least common ground, good to see a bunch of us cyber pro's could actually get down and have an intelligent conversation
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-09 AT 09:20PM (MST)[p]I actually have a personal "pet peave" when people make those "+1" posts cause it it lets them off the hook from sharing any additional support or knowledge but.........................................+1 Maddglasser!

And what I am doing that for is cause I agree that it is nice to have some valuable, constructive discussion between us "Rednecks". (See I still couldn't just say +1...LOL)
 
AZBucksnort, Kent, Maddglasser ? You guys make me a whole lot more secure as an Arizona hunter. You also saved me a whole lot more calluses on my fingers. I am not a gay man but I am sending out a virtual hug to all my brothers on this issue. We have all spent considerable time defining impacts and based on responses it seems to have been a pretty good thing.

Maddglasser ? Agree 1000000000% on the entitlement issue. No one should feel entitled to a tag that almost 150 other hunters value enough to put as a first choice on their hunting application (take a look at the early unit nine bull statistics, 145 guys standing in line for each and every tag ? yes 145 guys wanting one tag). Everyone is entitled to buy a ticket but no one is entitled to win the lottery. It doesn't matter how many times they have played and lost. Anyone that thinks they are entitled to a tag is an elitist jackass in my opinion.

Kent ? I didn't always follow your math but you ended up in the right place. Waiting periods are bad news for everyone, even those that draw a good tag.

AZBucksnort ? You should apply for the Psychic network, you read my mind buddy. I agree, great bulls live outside the boundaries of unit 9. You might actually find a waterhole available in some of those other units too.

Bubbas/Billy the Kid ? You have an agenda and lots of energy. When you are tired of the beans there is plenty of good statistical meat in Kent's posts. The are a lot of stubborn Maddglassers and Javihammers in Arizona. Hopefully other glassers and hammers see how organized the opposition can be and are willing to attend the meetings and contact the commissioners about issues. Some might even post a note of support to the opinions expressed by the Arizona Ugly Tag Crew.

Everyone ? I agree the public should be able to appoint commissioners.

Non-Resident Allocation - Agree we should put some thought into getting them out of the mess caused by the 20% holdover. I think a percentage of their 10% allocation (maybe half) should be available for the regular draw on the really tough draws like the strip.

Long Live the Arizona Free Market Draw System! Your dream tag can be yours; it just takes some research, TIME and a little money. Time is a cost so their will be no discounts available on it.

Cheers,
Ryan
 
I was hoping you were reading, although NOBODY agrees with everything (that would be a scary place), we can still get together on the Ugly Tag Crew. This ALMOST turned into a free market vs socialism argument!LOLOLOLOLOL
 
Bubbas, you are almost there but not quite. No need to do the math, I've done it 6 different angles, you won't get it to work.

Think again of your example of educational riddles, this is a good one.

Not the answer but why when I first looked at it I knew there was a problem before I did the math. A pyramid, good example or a knife blade may be better. For it to be sharp and cut the cleanest, it must be thin at the top and taper down the sides at a optimum angle and have a strong but not to thick backbone. The best way to keep it sharp is to continually sharpen the top while taking off the extra on the sides, keeping the optimum angle. It gets dull fast if there is too much metal on the edge and the sides get fat and the bottom thick.

See my example of how you will get over 200 people in the max pool very quick and now the edge is blunted, the sides get fat because there is less movement from the lower BP groups and the bottom gets bloated. Your pyramid has a flat top with the 200 people and it gets higher but fatter as it grows. If 50% is good why isn't 100% the ultimate and yet that is easy math to figure, no other tags are given except for the top. 25 Years between tags.

Come on Bubba, you can do it, it's a trick question that takes thinking outside the box, just like you said. You will never get the answer you want with a 50% rule with the draw the way it is now.

Kent
 
Kent,

I am posting this during my wife's bathroom break from LOST LOL. So your "numbers" example is coming. But before I spend the time constructing it...you have to promise me that you are even open minded enough to change your opinion. If you philosophically are opposed to change then it makes no difference how many times I explain or give examples (Lets just assume they are correct even just to drive home my point) that are true in statement. You (plug in all who want the system to stay the same based on anecdotal experience) will not be open to change regardless. I can at least save my time that way.

It's like the Mormon trying to convert the episcopalian or visa versa. Neither one of them is truly listening to the other! It actually takes the agnostic to make a rational decision!
 
No kiddin on the socialist thing Maddglasser. The older brother in me really wanted to adress some of my comments to Barack and BTK but I thought I would lose all credibility. LOL

If anyone wants to call me a name, I have heard them all and I know I am a jerk. (Also voted Republican - shocker huh?)

Just one more thing, meant to acknowledge Mesquite Hunter as well, he can pickup his membership card to the Arizona Ugly Tag Crew tomorrow. Sremin's application is currently under review :)

Thanks again to Bubbas for setting up these new posts. I still dont get the motivation but I recognize noone has expended the time that he has. I think buried in their somewhere may be a few changes worth getting behind (just not the first 5).

Take care,
Ryan
 
Bubba, I'm not apposed to change at all, I'm not saying we should stand pat if there's a better way, just the 50% rule isn't it. I'm actually working something in another direction that may be 'your' answer, just not sure how far I want to really take it, like I said it would be a radical change.

You better not get caught on the computer.

Kent
 
"Bubbas, you are almost there but not quite. No need to do the math, I've done it 6 different angles, you won't get it to work.
Think again of your example of educational riddles, this is a good one."

I didn't express myself very well here. I'm trying to say that from the start of this thread we have all been looking in the wrong place for the answer to your question or nonanswer if you will.

It's a trick question with a trick answer just like your educational example, that's what I mean by you're almost there with your thoughts.

I'm throwing all the math on the 50% deal out except to say it didn't get us anywhere and that's part of the trick answer.

Kent
 
Ok, here it is, the more I think about it the more it is worth looking at. Maybe.

The only way to move faster through the system is decrease the amount of people in each bp level. If you have 1/3rd to 1/2 the amount of people moving through the max draw system, their levels will move faster and they will repeat faster also, so not just one time through and stall again.

The key isn't making people get out, it is something else.

2nd choice, it's accounts 1/3 to 1/2 of the bps in a unit. Do we need to be adding them into the max bp % in every unit. Just in unit 1, 16 of the 30 max points went to the 2nd choice apps.

If we only had a persons 1st choice be eligable for max point consideration, that would mean the max pool number will fall to a lower level. You could do the 50% because that would relate to 25% of how it is now.

Unit 1 archery bull would have been 9 up instead of 11 up. 10 guaranteed

Unit 4B archery bull would have been 3 and up. 4 guaranteed.

Also there will not be a huge number waiting to fill the gap, bigger, just not huge.

The radical part is there wouldn't be a 1st and 2nd choice looked at the first round, only the first. The second round would be by itself, you definately couldn't put another sought after tag, they would be gone in the first, but could put a cow or a few bull hunts us researchers would figure out. Bonus pts would be used in either of these rounds. 3 thru 5 choices if drawn would not affect BPs.

It would effectively take 1/2 the amount of choices out of the first round and make everyone decide which hunt they will try for and cause less competition for each tag. Their 2nd choice, what I'll settle for tag, won't be as sexy but it won't affect the draw in any way. Maybe the days of putting a unit 9 and then a unit 3A/3C tag should be over, your bps on your second choice is affecting the bp max pool and the people that put that for first choice.

Just something to think about and it flies in the face of tradition.

Kent
 
>>>>>>"Just something to think about and it flies in the face of tradition.">>>>>


I have a suggestion that also flies in the face of tradition. How about increasing the number of deer and elk permits by at least 10% in every unit? The number of animals killed would not increase by 10%, although hunters would have to accept a slightly lower success rate.

While doing this, how about also having fewer but much longer seasons to reduce the number of opening weekends, when hunting pressure is greatest? If you want to avoid the crowds, wait until the third or fourth weekend to go out.

AZGFD also could expand the size of the permitted areas. For example, a whitetail permit would be valid for the Santa Ritas, Baboquivaris, Catalinas, Huachucas, Whetstones, and all other mountain ranges with whitetails south of the Gila River. This way, hunters would distribute themselves according to the availability of deer.

Now this really gives us something to think about.

Bill Quimby
 
Bill, that makes so much sense in so many ways, it's scary.

To everyone's relief, I won't do the math.

It'll be one of those educational riddles to work through.

Kent
 
It's definitely something to chew on. I would love to hear the pros and cons. I haven't thought about it enough to make any theories or opinions.
 
AS I see it the main objection to our draw process is the guy that draws a couple of tags and then maybe another & another before a guy that's been waiting. I would leave the max point pool allocation alone because in reality they get 20% and are elgible to draw in the other 80%. So opportunitys are there. I think we need to balance the process out a bit and that will alleviate most concerns.

Junior tags a junior would only be eligible for 1 tag per species as a junior then they have to go into the main draw. This will give more kids a chance to draw a junior tag and go on a quality hunt. All individuals would be eligible for any left over tags or OTC opportunity.

Now taking the the same thought process to the main draw pool a successful applicant would go into a limited draw pool for the next 3 years. While in this pool he can still draw any tag but there is a cap on those in this pool of up to 5%. A tag drawn in the pool restarts the clock again. This could create some more opportunity to the others left in the general draw. If you understand how our draw works the cap doesn't go into effect until the cap is met then those in the general draw are the only ones eligible for these tags. So while it is restrictive in effect it has LITTLE EFFECT until the cap is hit then they are blocked out. In some draws statistically it may offer no relief but in others it may offer more opportunity to those that have gone w/o tags for a longer duration. This idea effectively eliminates the belief that our draw process is UNFAIR which in effect is more perception than reality because it limits the tags for redraws.

*** If you really wanted to add another level if a guy drew a tag in the limited pool he would be blocked from drawing another tag for that specie for 3 years. This would create more opportunity but will also have a considerable amount of opposition but it would make a guy consider his choices very carefully and not apply for just any tag. While our system historically relies on the luck of the draw it would only seem fair to reduce the odds in some manner for those that just had the opportunity to hunt. Just throwing this out there to let you guys see what you think about something like this. It's not too restrictive unless you throw the second draw item into place yet it can provide more opportunity and at the very least it removes the perception that our draw in unfair.
 
That is a FAIR idea and could help all. Personally I like what is here but some change would be OK.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-09 AT 07:40PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-09 AT 07:25?PM (MST)

After a little more thought I would add something onto what Boskee has said. The 5% cap and restricted draws only be on thous hunts in which 10% or higher of which are max pool applicants. We all know the
'Bone collectors" are ONLY interested in a few hunts. I think that restricting the less "desirable" hunts would not get the effect to which some of the "Change Posse" is looking for and would still give us "Ugly Tag Crew" the opportunity to draw our unwanted tags that we love to hunt so much.

I think sheep stay the way it is. 1 kill per lifetime for both species. 1 desert 1 rocky.
 
Kent,
You may be on to something there. Could you use your points for 2nd choice?
As a NR I have virtually no chance to hunt in AZ unless there is some "Luck" involved, so I do not have a stake in the 20% - 50% discussion except that it makes it even worse for me with 50%.
Also you are correct that changing to 50% will only work the first year, then you are right back where you were.
Bubbas,
Are you talking fair for the "greater good" for all, or only for AZ residents? For the greater good truly, you need to trash the current system altogether. You could go to true preference points - you would know when and where you could draw a tag and plan accordingly. Or, you could go to no points - then we all have the same chance to draw the tag. Or you could go to a bonus point system like Nevada - you reward the people who apply year after year but everyone has some chance to draw a tag.

Most of the argument sounds like sour grapes "How dare that ba$tard draw a premium tag two years in a row when I have been faithfully applying for 15 Yrs?" The whole tag structure in AZ is broken and needs an overhaul. Moving to 50% will not change anything except the 1st year, then you are right back where you started as Kent pointed out. So I suppose you would then propose moving the number to 80%? Then 100%?

Ed
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-09 AT 10:28PM (MST)[p]Ed, I think someone like you is why us 'Ugly Tag Crew', I like that term, are working this out here and now. We have learned to live in the middle of Az's draw system. We get tags others don't deem worthy and make them successful at least in our eyes. All the yearly changes and tinkering don't really effect us too much but can irritate alittle. A true change for the better good, we are always ready to work for but it has to work. Nothing said in this thread will have a negative or positive effect on the tags I get, my ugly tag system works no matter what. Bill's suggestions would enhance my hunts and everyone else's that was serious, his 10% increase will have a positive effect in what we're talking about, but that's another topic for later. So I have no agenda.

Like you said the 50% pass will not 'change' anything in this system. We have to change the system. Boskee has good ideas also.

Let me just answer your question about the 2nd choice deal for now.

1st draw will be 1st choice only. Everyone gets a computer # and go down the list giving tags if available when their # comes up. What will this do?

It effectively reduces the amount of choices and people per BP pool in each hunt choice. 80,000 people and their BPs with 1st and 2nd choices in the first round = 160,000 choices total. With 1 choice it's only 80,000, that's a 50% reduction.

We could go back to a 10% max pool because that reflects the same impact with 80,000 as the current 20% has on 160,000. Helping NRs, who are my brothers and sisters also.

It would reduce the competition for each hunt by those that put it for an impossible first choice,(I put all my family in for unit 9 with few BPs just in case and then a cow hunt second so we can have meat) This will make them decide if unit 9 is really something they are willing to wait for, good for them if they do and go for it. Otherwise get out of the way.

This will also stop someone who has enough BPs to effect 2 units at the same time. You finally get to a level you will for sure be drawn for unit 1, you've never put in for unit 1 always unit 9. You put your 13 pts in unit 9 first choice swelling that 13 bp pool and decide to put in for unit 1 on your second choice adding to that 13 bp pool also. You didn't get a unit 9 tag but was in the max pool on your second choice so for sure got a 1 tag. Last year 16 of 30 max pool tags in unit 1 went to those that put unit 1 as second choice, if they had stuck with their 1st choice and couldn't be in the max pool with a second those putting unit 1 as first choice would have reduced the max pool from 11 BPs and up, to 9 BPs and up. That would continue every year and actually have an impact on moving people through the system.

It takes the free Hail-Mary out of the equazion that we've always had so that would be the stickler. The second choice thing was an equalizer before BPs and even when they were just starting. Now with the amount and the addition of a pass % to try to equalize the draw, the 2nd choice situation actually keeps it from moving forward by bloating the first draw along with the sheer numbers of BPs.

2nd choice is it's own draw, all the good tags will be gone but that's ok there will be some meat tags left. if you want to put in for that you will lose your bps but the average person doing it will only have a few anyway, they would be trying for a cow second choice anyway in the current system and lose them now.

3rd draw would look at your 3,4,5 choices the same as now, no bps lost. So you could put a 1st, no 2nd and a 3,4,5, draw a tag and keep your points.

Definately could be modified with other's ideas.

Kent
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-09 AT 10:51PM (MST)[p]Oh boy,
Look what I started! Kent, I am going to work out a "numbers" scenario for you here yet. Too busy of a day. Lots of patients. Let me just say, you guys are getting all over the place and starting to contradict some of your earlier statements and priorities. You are even starting to contradict within the same post...so slow down.... but I like the active thought.

Ed,
Yes I agree that for non-residents increasing the hold over to 50% will make it pretty much make it impossible for a non resident to draw without being in the max point pool. It would make it a preference point system for NR. I did not like this effect even now at 20% so I have an answer for that, even though some have addressed earlier. There is a fix for that to.

OK guys you are not being open minded here. Please answer this question and answer it honestly. KENT and ED, you both have said,

"Like you said the 50% pass will not 'change' anything in this system." and, "Like you said the 50% pass will not 'change' anything in this system."

You are now on the record as saying that increasing the Hold Over to 50% has no effect and will not change anything! Then in a contradictory statement you say,

"As a NR I have virtually no chance to hunt in AZ unless there is some "Luck" involved, so I do not have a stake in the 20% - 50% discussion except that it makes it even worse for me with 50%."

I do not say this out of disrespect so please take no offense, but do you guys know how the laws of logic work? They are not a made up by philosophers to be boring or confuse people. They are tools to help you to predict cause and effect relationships. Those laws, if followed correctly, CANNOT be broken. The events HAVE to be true. If one of the statements is false then the whole belief is false. Cannot work both ways.

So if, you say that increasing the HOLD OVER to 50% effects nothing or changes nothing then it HAS to be true that your odds as a NR are NOT effected by increasing the hold over! You have to decide which of those statements is true and then decipher why it is so.

Please take the time to do this before you keep coming up with all of these concoctions that make it more confusing for you.
 
Bubbas, ok symantics. When I say it dosen't change anything, it's in the guidelines you are trying to improve. No improvement, no change.

You will change the first year for those at the top by pushing them through. You will change those in the upper/middle by not taking as many out of the system, alot. You will change the bottom half very little , maybe a couple tags, because of the sheer power of their BPs compared to the middle/upper group with much fewer bps.

You are not changing the amount of time it takes to get to max pool except the first year, you are not changing that those that have 2 bps would have drawn 20 tags because of their sheer numbers and have more bps than another higher bp level. you're not going to change that Joe drew a tag in the max pool and then one of the 20 in the 2bp level because he won that battle in the lottery number allocation before the draw, he would have gotten any tag he applied for, the 50% has no affect on that.

"There are no dumb or unnecessary opinions and comments so please give your opinion and feedback. However, it will most constructive if opinion's are attempted to be supported and expressed by logical and respectful means. Through everyone's perspective we should be able to come up with a good census as to what may be good for the Sportsmen of Arizona."

"It only makes it more fair by guaranteeing a drawn tag in a SHORTER amount of time than the current system"

The 50% does not change the draw to this.

3700 minus 150, doesn't matter if it's 30 or 75 in the max pool it still comes out 3550.

2400 minus 150 = 2350, I think I can get 2350 through faster at 10% max pool than you can 3550 with a 50%.

Both Ed and I have said it won't change anything in the amount of time drawing a tag but have said it will change the NR part to a PP system, even on a marginal He would have no chance at a tag for years.

Kent
 
Also meant to say that I don't know how much more logical I can get. If you have 3700 tags and a 100% max draw, it would take 24 yrs to move everyone through the system, it's totally ridgid with no flexability. If the current system at 20% max has a max pool at 11 bps, 9 yrs starting with 2bps. then logically it would figure the more ridgid the system the longer the wait period. Even if I hadn't shown you with admittedly, confusing math. Forgetting the math we can build a logical model with the 2 extreems. Logically a flexable system sheds more evenly and the waste falls off instead of being trapped on, moving faster.

I haven't heard any logic for the 50% being, "It only makes it more fair by guaranteeing a drawn tag in a SHORTER amount of time than the current system"

I've given a different solution that meets all your criteria in spades and works with NRs also, Boskee has some solutions as does Bill and Travis, others.

I'm not that literal, I speak in double negatives all the time but I think my meaning is usally clear. Sorry if I'm confusing.

Kent
 
Madd,
Please remind me of your proposal. I forget. I have way to many other things that require my attention, not the least of which is multiple questions from multiple people on these forums with limited time. Trust me I wasn't dodging it. I still want to work out the numbers for KRP. Sometime, this weekend hopefully. Lots of sporting events for the kids but I'll do my best. Hell, it's 1 AM as it is now! Can you re-post your question so I have it though, thx
 
I have ask several questions that you have not answered!

Here's another-If you drew the tag you desired this year would you still post the same topic you've posted?

IMO your a mad selfish ##### who didn't draw a "PREIUM TAG"!

That's my story and I"m sticking to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sick and tired of people wanting to change things for their benefit!!!!!!!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 03:31AM (MST)[p]>Madd,
>Please remind me of your proposal.
>I forget. I have way
>to many other things that
>require my attention, not the
>least of which is multiple
>questions from multiple people on
>these forums with limited time.
>Trust me I wasn't dodging
>it. I still want to
>work out the numbers for
>KRP. Sometime, this weekend hopefully.
> Lots of sporting events
>for the kids but I'll
>do my best. Hell, it's
>1 AM as it is
>now! Can you re-post your
>question so I have it
>though, thx

Now you sound like back peddling politician !!!!!
Go run your "I'm for HOPE and CHANGE ideas some where else.
 
Bubbas,

"OK guys you are not being open minded here."

I don't believe that's the case at all. We have proposed some better ways to improve the system for "The greater good"
You seem to be stuck on YOUR 50% change.
If there is consensus here it is that the 50% change will not make a difference for the good in the long term, in fact it makes it worse for the NRs. Most of us here are in it for the long term.
Sooooo... being open minded like yourself, lets trash the change to 50% and thrash out something that works.

Kent,
That is an intriguing proposal. I kinda like being able to use points on a second choice tag, or not as you wish.
You could just put down 1 choice and wait, or decide if you could hunt an alternate tag.
How about point banking? We are pushing for this in Colorado. If you have 10 PPs and you get tired of waiting for that unit 21 tag you could select a hunt requiring fewer points, still get a better unit that with no pts and only use the pts required to draw. Hmm, maybe that would plug up the system more!? It would however remove some from the max point pool, if some are determined to keep the max point reserve.

Just throwing out ideas here as I am open minded enough to realize the first choice topic needed work.

Ed
 
Mesquite- I actually drew a premium archery tag this year, and yet I still believe the system needs to be re-worked.

I believe Bubbas' theories are correct. Simply put: If you increase the Max Point % it HAS to give more tags to those with the most amount of points.

I'm just thinking this through my head so bare with me. Some of you have stated that the 50% will only push people through and then simply cog the max pool with a ton of people. (sorry, I didn't go back and look at the exact number example) So, let's skip ahead a couple years and say there are now 300 people in the max pool.

Well, even if, let's say 300 people are now in the max point pool for a specific hunt with 150 tags instead of 60(60 was probably the max pool for the hunt I drew this year). We know that all 300 can't have be guaranteed a tag in the max because only 75 would be alotted for the max pool. That still gives those in the max pool of 300 people a 25% draw odd (75/300). Now, isn't 25% a MUCH HIGHER odd than the .5-10% draw odds we have now?

Then, the next year you should only have 225 in max, and that's assuming nobody drew their second or 3-5th choices.

I believe my logic is correct, but please let me know if I am wrong. I just thought this through rather quickly.

Thanks
 
Ed, every angle should be looked at if a new system seems to have merit. Positives weighted against negatives.

These are the things I think it will do.

Decrease the amount of applicants per hunt choice, also decreasing the number of people in each BP level per hunt choice. Overall throughout the draw it will be cut in half, each HC will be different depending how people want to go.

Logically, those with the most points will stay with the harder to draw hunts, that's why they have so many points. The amount of applicants in the middle and lower half will fall dramatically because the hail-mary lobbers will not want to risk not drawing the real hunt they are after.

The middleing to draw units will have those that want those hunts specifically for the most part.

The 1st choice applicants for the easiest to draw HCs will be those that aren't willing to risk that hunt not dropping to a second round, stopping them from throwing a hail-mary into the middle or upper level HCs.

Doesn't stop someone from throwing a lob on the first round if they want, just puts some real risk to those not dedicated to it.

Takes care of the Premium Hunt Structure issue with a natural personal choice decision. You will mostly be competeing with those dedicated to the same tag.

These are things to look at also.

Bill's expanding ideas.

Boskee and Travis's, up to 10% NR in the max draw, up to 5% NR in the general draw. They may end up with 12 to 15 % but only effects top units and they are some of the biggest players there. Would have no effect on the middling/lower units.

If you want a waiting period, I don't, do it with using BPs not years. You would have to have 3 BPs to be drawn, means if you were drawn you could put in for hunts on the 3,4,5 draw or a BP choice. If you have a hunter safety point(most do) you only wait 2 yrs. If you have a HS pt and a L pt you only wait 1 yr.

There I fixed all the other issues in one fell sweep.

Seriously, I'm sitting here thinking, what is a Dumb A construction worker like me doing, I'm probably in way over my head and just don't see it. I should have kept my fool mouth shut instead of proving I'm a fool.

I'm done.

Kent
 
Until there's no more left over tags the commission isn't going to change.

a person who opted to hold out for years and years has not invested the $$$$$$$$$$$ as a person who gets a tag every year.
I ask "why should the commission be loyal to person who hasn't paid the same amount of money than the person who hunts every year?"
 
Mesquite,
You make it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion when you sling crap out like that. Lets stick to the point. I understand that if I point out flaws in comments it frustrates but it is NOT an attack on the person. So no need to take things personal. And if you say you are not taking them personal then that means you must just be irrational all the time. If neither are correct then show some discipline and express your thoughts clearly without fault or don't engage in a discussion you have no intention of being open minded about.

I am a big boy, if you find fault in my statements say so. I will validate you. Azbucksnort, did this early on. He was correct in his correction and I validated him. My only motivation is to discuss things openly and truthfully. Making statements that are incorrect, intentionally or unintentionally, which results in garnishing support for you position. And then not retracting them or clarifying them without butt hurtedness is Selfish buddy. So look at your self first.

i have made many truthful, valid statements and I have not once heard a validating statement from any of you.....why because it is you that is fearful of what validating truthful statements will lead to. I can take each of you from step to step leading to the end result of truth but none of you will validate the statements but instead already have a comment to make before reading my post openly and either validating or stating they are incorrect. Once you do this, we can move on and I will have more time to answer all your different questions. Try clarifying the first point before moving on to another and convoluting the discussion down. This is why Sportsmen can't get anything organized and achieved. But rather we have to have a Dictatorship, in The Commission, to make all our decisions because can you imagine trying to educate the Hunting Demographic as a whole. I am about ready to off myself just trying to get a cross simple cause and effect relationships! (I will save you from making your next, irrational, off subject rant by saying it for you..."why don't you do it then and save us all from your selfish, mumbo jumbo...etc etc")

I have NO motivation to change the system for my benefit (I drew an early rifle bull tag in a premium unit in 2003 with 4 BP). I put in with my dad trying to bring his points down so he wouldn't draw while I was out of the state. We drew tags 3 and 4, the first ones possible after the 10% hold over in place at the time. I do not believe this was right. There were many people I "leap frogged" ahead of to do this, with 12-13 points etc. Just like some logic mentioned by opposition before he didn't think someone with more points should have more priority (not "Right" Maddglasser) to his favorite, lesser, unit. He feared that switching hunts to premium status would allow for unit switching when a hunt popularity switches and then his traditional less popular hunt now becomes harder for him to draw with less points. He felt he should have just as much chance at that tag at that tag because he had more time expended in that hunt than others in the first place, which isn't necessarily true. I validated him and explained why I thought it was fair. Was it fair for me? I've never had any desire to hunt the unit he was talking about and never plan on it. I ask how was I looking after "My Own benefit" there Mesquite? Anyways just like his logic, why should I draw a tag before someone who has more points because they have waited longer to hunt?

Lastly, Mesquite and everyone else. Can you at least recognize that there are a few of you "opposing" me and asking me multiple questions and only one of me. Whereas there is only one of me asking all of you questions....and you still won't answer mine. So don't be so narrow minded and get a grip. Do I sound like I am someone who would be intimidated to answer your questions? LOL. I was still wanting to prioritize KRP's math equation which I don't know if I still need to do it. After my last post pointing out contradicting statements he came back saying something that I am still not sure if he agrees that increasing to 50% would allocate more tags to those with the most points or not. KRP, do you agree with this now? Just that effect? I know you feel there will result in more people clogging in the middle and top but I will address that. First, I just need to know if you recognize the fact that 30% more tags will ALWAYS be shifted from those lower than Max points to those with Max points..on every year and not just the first year implemented? Does everyone in opposition agree or disagree with this statement?

If it is alright with you guys I would like to work my way down in priority of questions sequentially. Is that OK?
 
Mesquite,

You are making it very difficult to get through a meaningful discussion when you make asinine comments like that. (notice i am not calling you a asinine person but the comment was asinine). You said,
"a person who opted to hold out for years and years has not invested the $$$$$$$$$$$ as a person who gets a tag every year.
I ask "why should the commission be loyal to person who hasn't paid the same amount of money than the person who hunts every year?"

Do I really have to explain how this statement is false? The Department receives the same amount of money form the tag revenue, REGARDLESS who draws the tag. There is a defined amount of tags that equal total the same amount of funds! They are not being loyal to one group over the other. Lets say they instituted a 100% preference point system. They would be getting 100% of their income from the Max point holders. By your logic would they then be loyal only to The max point holders? They would be receiving the same amount of money! AWWWWWW you are doing a great job trying to put me in my grave Mesquite!

Now please, do not say anything else until I have the time to go through all YOUR Questions. Geeze!

I have baseball games today, a practice and a side business both of which need books updated, and the NFL draft (which is a higher priority for me TODAY than answering questions like above) so they will come but you'll have to be patient in the meantime. In that meantime, why don't you all take some of your own advice and answer my questions from post #85, if you have the time.
 
THIS IS GETTING RIDICULAS! You won't look at any others as valid unless they agree. Me typing this is as asinine as thinking all of this nonsense will get us somewhere. Good luck on the draft, hope you get drafted or your fantasy team or whatever it is does well. I'm outta here!
 
Bubbas, I will try one more time because this is goes along with 30_378's question.

"After my last post pointing out contradicting statements he came back saying something that I am still not sure if he agrees that increasing to 50% would allocate more tags to those with the most points or not. KRP, do you agree with this now? Just that effect? I know you feel there will result in more people clogging in the middle and top but I will address that. First, I just need to know if you recognize the fact that 30% more tags will ALWAYS be shifted from those lower than Max points to those with Max points..on every year and not just the first year implemented?"

In a literal sense, Yes. There you can cherry pick that all you want.

But, you've caused more people to be in the max pool by doing this, making it longer for them to get a tag than it would have been before, so where does your 'Shorter' comment fall in this literal discussion? 30_378's example of 300 people being in max draw from one BP level is correct. Even with a 20% drop off effect of them drawing a second choice or just giving up, it will take 3yrs for that group to get out of the max pool and the next BP level group to get in. If they start at 10 bps, the last of them will have 13 before they are done. The original 9 bp level that have been waiting will now have 12 bps and it starts there, three yrs later its 14 bps.

But the people with the most bps will be getting the first 75 tags, Yes.

Just go to 100% and wait twice as long for a tag, doesn't affect me. I'm just a fool for trying to help.

Right now there are multiple BP levels in the max pool at only 20%. You have to use one of your educational cause and effect riddles to figure it out.

Good luck to all in their future hunting and draws.

Kent
 
krp,

i am sorry but you're not right. making it a 50% max pool will not lead to clogging up the max point pools than a 20% or any other % max pass pool. it is simple math.

the fastest way to get people through the draw is a pref point system. i already stated that i am not for a pref point system as i don't feel like we have enough wildlife to model a CO pref point system, which IMO a state needs to make it successful.

here is the model for a strict prep pt. system:

you have 10, 000 applicants every year for elk. every yr. the same 10,000 applicants apply and no others (just to keep it simple). there are only 1,000 elk tags/yr. this means that in a strict point system it would take 10 yrs. for EVERYONE to draw (we are assuming there is only one hunt available to draw). the first that drew would put in the next year with 0 points, while the 9,000 others that didn't draw would have 1 point. the next year the folks with 0 points have ZERO chance of drawing. 1,000 folks with 1 point draw and at the end of the year we have. 8,000 folks with 2 points, 1,000 folks with 1 point, and 1,000 folks with ZERO points. and so the wheel turns. you get the progression pattern? cause and effect.......

the fastest way to DRAW is not allowing another to draw twice w/o others drawing once. it is MATH.

in a no bonus point/pref point system it is not all "FAIR." choose your poison. the only chance at drawing is LUCK. can't argue that. one might draw 10x to your ZERO.

now increasing the max point pool only allows that more people in the max point pool draw tags. that is a fact. it does not mean that creep in max b.p. will not occur.

where the problem comes is when a youngster is introduced into hunting and decides it is time for him to start applying. perhaps the max point creep is such that he has no chance in drawing. we need to address this. however, we can't move forward with this discussion until people agree that increasing the max point pass % will insure that people with max points will draw more tags/yr.

the real issue is this. the "ugly tag crew" is scared that if the % max pass increases they will not be able to draw their "ugly tags" as often anymore b/c this will cause those with more points than them, albeit not enough to draw the PREMIUM TAG they have been putting in yrs. for, to change the way they approach the draw and there will be an influx of folks switching their draw choices from the PREMIUM TAG group to the UGLY TAG group. when this happens, the max point pool for the UGLY TAG will increase dramatically. the only way for this scenario not to play out is if those PREMIUM TAG folks stick to their guns and keep putting in for their PREMIUM TAG. Than the max point pool for them will increase, however not as fast as with the 20% max pool b/c their will still be less folks with fewer points drawing those tags.

DO YOU AGREE?????????

once we can agree on what math has shown us, we can move on and discuss the ramifications of the proven point.
 
Billy, first you are forgetting about second choice and all the effects this has. A PP system only involves a first choice. Second, use real numbers like I did, not something that is only a 90% unsuccessful draw rate. Unit 1, 3700 applicants and 150 tags. In your example it would take 24 yrs to get through the system, why isn't it now?

I've explained it.

And I hunt elk every year, it's a secret. Adding what most consider a worthless bull hunt every 3 on average. I've worked hard to know how to make this 3 yr hunt not worthless. Nothing happening on this thread will affect me in the least.

Kent
 
i figured if: i take into account a second choice, used multiple hunts, different draw pools, yadaaaaaaaaaa.... it would complicate matters worse, however, the same model does apply. for some reason it is hard for those to figure out the math.

one shouldn't disregard facts. if they are against the idea, they should state why they are against it vs. complaining about the ideas that have been presented. use facts and state why a different system would or wouldn't be better, or use your opinion and state why you think you wont benefit from the idea.

you can't use math and prove it would take longer/shorter to draw w/o bonus points in place, and a decreased or same max point pool. however, one can use simple math and show the fastest way to get all those through the system is to allow any given individual applying for the same tags/unit/dates as others for the same period of time each a chance at hunting before allowing one to hunt it twice all things considered equal.

your model before only shows that bp creep will still exist, albeit a different rate than we have now.
 
Fact

You just did away with half the applicants by ignoring the second choice picks. Kinda moving to my proposal of only having one choice for the first draw and claiming I'm wrong. Your example is stating exactly where I led to, take away the second choice in the first draw and it's much easier to draw a tag.

Try again using our current 1st and 2nd system and a 50% max pool.

Kent
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-09 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p][http://www.azgfd.gov/eservices/documents/bonuspoint/1-2 Pass.pdf]

Here's the info on the 2008 elk and antelope draw with Bps and everything but R/NR info. Each hunt is disected. You won't have to make up a fake draw.

The unit 1 archery bull hunt is 3110 if you're interested. I just picked it because it was the first archery hunt listed and a high priority tag.

I can't believe you guys haven't dropped the 50% deal and grabbed onto the 1st choice rule, that's what's strange. You don't even know what you're wanting to argue about.

Kent
 
Madd,

You act like I was saying that because he and I disagree on opinions. I was NOT just disagreeing. In fact I told you I will agree with any statement that is correct and truthful. If it is false I will disagree. It is as simple as that. I am not interested in proving a philosophical point. I am interested in THE TRUTH and what is fair. His comment was 100% FALSE! Not a difference of opinion, FACT. If there is a statement that is philosophical in nature then I will validate that as just a philosophical difference of belief. Get a clue!

If you guys who do not want change just say "hey, having the draw rely more heavily on luck because, anecdotally, the draw has been good to me that way and I am selfish in that I think i can still be lucky and not have to wait as long to get multiple tags the way it is now." then I will not say you are making an asinine statement. That would be an opinion or a philosophical point of view. I may disagree with that being the most fair approach but I will say "I disagree that it is what is most fair." Then we can discuss things in a correct manner. It is you guys who are simply not allowing yourselves to get off your anti-change soap box to even validate or falsify statements. There can only be two reasons for that. One you are not interested in learnig the truth about how things work because you are afraid to admit what it may lead to again because you like the draw being based on luck. Or you really do think all the incorrect math "SPEW" you are throwing out, which conflicts with all laws of equations, is correct. Either way you are correct in bowing out because this is a discussion where TRUTH should be sought out first and your biased approach won't allow you to do that.

Yes, my boys had great games and the draft is going well. Cards got Beanie Wells which is great value at pick #31 but I feel their greater need was on defense with either Everett Brown out of FSU or Rey Maualuga of USC. Defense will be addressed in these next couple rounds.
 
Kent,
Your numbers will come. It just takes an amount of time to do that and it is not necessary, that is what we are trying to say. You cannot take a basic math formula or law that is 100% true in how it plays out and then all of a sudden make it FALSE just because you throw in draw odds, 1st and 2nd choices etc.

You CANNOT say that you agree with my statement which you said in a literal sense it was correct and then say BUT it won't play out that way in the long run. This is what we can't get you to understand.

My suggestion is to take this scenario and present it to a very intelligent, and this is key, independent person who is qualified in the science of Math and UNBIASEDLY present this equation to him. Explain that here are the number of applicants. Here are the number of tags that come out of the system EVERY year. When the applicants # comes up-he is afforded two choices. Every year that an applicant does not draw he receives a bonus point. Right now 20% of the tags (Hold Over) MUST go applicants who have the most amount of points before any other tags can be drawn by any other applicants........AND then ask them what increasing the hold over from 20%-50% will do in that system........I GUARANTEE you that if you do this unbiasedly and present it to a qualified statistician you will be enlightened. Also, I almost guarantee you that he will not want to see your "numbers" before first telling you what the result will be to the system. Now after telling you the end result he may work it out for you with numbers but that is because it's what they like to do so it will be fun for them. But they will not need to use numbers to know the end result.

So please do this and present me the results. If you can verify the person with qualification for me and the rest of us supporters and it is how you think it is then I am telling you and everyone right here and now that I will validate your thinking as FACT and I will start supporting NO CHANGE.

I will still do the numbers for you but first I hate doing stuff that is a waste of time because I am too busy....but more importantly it should be from an independent person so there is better odds of believing them. If I do it then I do not have faith that you will readily accept it anyways. I give this challenge to anyone, not just KRP.
 
This is some kind of internet joke, right. A candid camera type thing and I was nieve enough to think I was helping a cause for the greater good and fall for it. Good one, you got me. Where's the camera.

No matter what he say's just keep telling him he's wrong, tell him we'll supply proof later, but he's wrong. We'll say he only want's to keep it the same way even when he completely reworks the draw. Ha,Ha tell him he's wrong again, he still doen't get what we're doing. Give him some numbers like 10000 and 1000, that'll keep him on the string awhile longer, heck, tell him he's wrong again.

I'm slow I admit, you got me.

Kent
 
I know the feeling KRP. I can't believe we are still trying to help you understand a simple mathematical concept. We are not just telling you are wrong for the heck of it. That is why I issued you that challenge. I have tried all I can do to explain it. I have done this honestly with good intent. I have been as politically correct as I can. I have asked someone else who may have qualifications on here to explain it in a different way than myself which may help you out but no takers, besides Billy but he wants change to so he is not a reliable source for you. That is why I recommended you take it to someone independent with it. If it were a joke or I was unsure of the process...why would i do this.

I feel like that teacher who gets frustrated when they cannot get through to their students.......5th grade students. Because we really are dealing with 5th grade math KRP. It should not be a riddle (definition- a puzzling question, problem, or matter). You are making it a riddle when it should be a simple cause and effect relationship equation. Until you take it to someone that is very well qualified for them to dispell your theories on what will happen if you raise to 50%, you will be lost. I am NOT asking you to believe me...now I am asking you to believe them. How more unbiased can that be?
 
Kent/ KRP
Don't feel bad my friend, I thought it might amount to something
myself. I think if you look at who was replying, it was just a few, and I guess, I too wanted something positive to come out of this. Sorry bud, we both got taken in. Next time we feel like playing school, I'll meet you in the park, with a bunch
of the other guys, you bring the gram crackers, and I'll bring the milk. We will have to invite some little snotty kid to play the teacher.
DON'T let this kind of manipulation sour you from working for wildlife in any form you choose.
Steve C.
 
Bubbas, no one's going to show up and prove me wrong with real numbers even if you ask them to. They can't, you can't, I'm not. Using a 10000 to 1000 single stage stastic is laughable. If you could have figured out how to prove me wrong you would have already. Almost a hundred posts. Don't try to help me understand the pebble in my eye when you can't see past the boulder in both yours. You're stalling for some impossible intervention.

You also completely ignore the best solution of turning the draw proccess in the direction you are claiming to, even though Billy almost stumbled on to it with his 10000 to 1000 responce. Also ignored possible solutions to your other issues.

Looks like I'm the last one trying and that ends here. You win like a politician does, deny without proof, claiming some mystic high ground without substance and when everyone quits after realising you will continue to spew the same propaganda to every issue brought up, claim victory.

I commend you for your work in the health field and being stong in family values. Good Luck.

Kent
 

Similar threads

Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
5k
Vanilla
Vanilla
L
No more governors tags for AZ
2
Replies
145
Views
6k
AZGuy
AZGuy
SDBugler
Elk Draw Questions
Replies
34
Views
2k
ClearCreek
C

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20190709_230821.jpg
CBA57052-EFAC-4DD7-AC77-59D523E70009.jpeg
[000134]Copy.jpg
20180811_210656.jpg
2FB66482-CEB8-4A08-ADC8-317C08963E2F.jpeg
4F665966-B81B-4EC2-ADA0-9DD5EE17E99D.jpeg
IMG_1810.JPG
BD31FE97-F28F-4BE8-B75A-B94522EA21F0.jpeg
elk2.jpg
B3659141-B47B-4276-B2D7-BA0AF0E371E6.png
6B3CA0D6-430D-4DB6-A244-AD0527465CDD.jpeg
2021 still needs mounted

Arizona Hunting Guides & Outfitters

SilverGrand Outfitters

Offering mule deer, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep, javelina, and turkey hunts in Nevada and Arizona.

Arizona Elk Outfitters

Offering the serious hunter a chance to hunt trophy animals in the great Southwest.

A3 Trophy Hunts

An Arizona Outfitter specializing in the harvest of World Class big game of all species.

Arizona Strip Guides

Highly experienced and highly dedicated team of hardworking professional Arizona Strip mule deer guides.

Urge 2 Hunt

THE premier hunts in Arizona for trophy elk, mule deer, couse deer and javelina.

Shadow Valley Outfitters

AZ Strip and Kaibab mule deer, big bulls during the rut, spot-n-stalk pronghorn and coues deer hunts.

Back
Top Bottom