Az Draw Changes- Increase Hold Over %

Bubbas, during the course of your posts you have validated some of the early assumptions I made about you when I initially read and responded to the ?Arizona Draw Process Needs Changes? post. I suspected you fell into a specific demographic and you validated my assumptions. These things are not necessarily negative traits, they just paint a collective picture of a guy advocating in support of his own self interests. Here are some things we know about you.

? You didn't get drawn this year for an elk tag (boo hoo, neither did I)
? You apply in other states (not a sin, but certainly some evidence that you are a Bone Collector with some level of discretionary income)
? You previously lived out of state and applied to hunt in Arizona while you were there (I suspect you still live out of state ? quick test, most arizona plates a have a cactus on them)
? You apply for low-odds hunts (see one of your quotes below)
? You have far fewer points than those at the top of the bonus pool (you have no more than 7 points if you are telling the truth on the quote below ? you say you got an early bull tag in 2003)
? Never did get a real answer on the name thing

Just so that you are clear, I had an agenda too. My agenda was to help to educate other hunters about how ridiculous these proposals are. I hoped to bait you out so that others would squash your arguments with real data. The longer you talk the more people send in data-driven opposition, you are truly your own worst enemy (as well as the enemy of other Bone Collectors). I am grateful that others stepped up to the plate and eloquently proved that your positions are based on greed and your own self interests. .

Here are some of your direct quotes?.

DIRECT BUBBAS QUOTE
?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.?

? Several of us Ugly Tag Crew members have explicitly stated we do not advocate against change philosophically, we just disagree with these changes. As best as I can tell, just about every UTC guy has proposed at least one thoughtful change (at least Maddglasser, Mesquite Hunter, Kent, Bill and I have). I know I am missing recognizing some others, sorry guys, a lot of words to sort through. Most of the UTC proposals have been largely ignored because they do not explicitly support the very specific viewpoint (or agenda) that Bubbas and Billy share.


ANOTHER BUBBAS QUOTE
?One you are not interested in learning 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.?

? The only person consistently throwing out numbers is Kent. Most of his numbers come directly from the Arizona Hunt Survey Statistics book (Kent provided a link in one of his last posts). I encourage you to look at it someday as it has real numbers that if viewed objectively WOULD change some of your positions. The book is short on philosophy or recommendations for additional entitlement programs so you might find it boring.

AND ANOTHER BUBBAS QUOTE
?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.?

? A desparate statement from a beaten warrior. Please turn in your black hat and raise the white flag. People that speak in absolutes look stupid.

ANOTHER
?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?

? You have EVERY reason to change the system, I calculate that you have somewhere between 5 and 7 bonus points for elk (the people with the most incentive to want to increase holdover percentages). You also confirmed you are a low-odds unit BONE COLLECTOR. The rest of your explanation seems fishy too (you put in with your Dad to bring his points down? What the heck does that mean?). By the way, a quick check on the AZGFD website can confirm your Dads bonus point total. I checked the stats book and I didn't see anyone with so many bonus points that it would constitute a ?problem?.

One other quick point of clarification on tag turn in programs??..

? I do not endorse a tag turn in program since there has been no intelligent proposals to protect them from corruption (I go into great length on this on the ?Arizona Draw Process Needs Changes? posts)
? I think the turn in idea is worth investigation IF there are actually tags being wasted (and can be given to sick kids). When I say wasted I mean tags that are not being factored into the unit tag allocation models. Since the Arizona Survey and Draw Stats include ?hunter days in field? I suspect they are already being taken into account in the unit allocations. If this is the case, they provide no additional opportunity.
? As I have stated in previous posts, my concern for those with ?discretionary? hunt conflicts can be measured in fractions of a milli-shirt minus an r. These people need to just nut up and just go hunting or place the sticky side of the tag against their lips to drown out their whining.

I know I went off topic but like Ken, I now see the light. By responding to Bubbas ?flaming? posts we are essentially endorsing his positions because these hot topics are all being listed under thread titles that call his proposals into action. I think it is now time to stop responding to Bubbas posts as we have already covered the bad side of these proposals. I hope the real majority (mostly ugly tag hunters) in Arizona will think twice before hopping on these conspiracy theory ?I hate Game and Fish? bandwagons.

If anyone has an idea for how to post threads that would support the interests the Ugly Tag Crew I would chip in and give them support. Amen on Steve?s last comment, there are changes that worth working out, don't lose faith.

Cheers,
Ryan
 
Guys listen. I am trying to tell you that I can't keep trying to explain to you how the math Kent was using was untrue. What do you want me to do?

The only thing I could do was ask you to go to an independent source for the answer. I am even going to let you pick the person. Try an ASU mathematics Grad student or someone like that who has the time and would like to engage in a problem like this. How is this me looking after my own interests? I am trying to eliminate this back and forth stuff. Seriously, how can you say that is selfish and looking after my own interests?

I admitted when I made an incorrect statement earlier on in my posts. I am NOT above that. Trust me. I will admit to true statements at ALL costs. It is one of my faults even when it is to my detriment. I said that if you guys get someone to look at this proposal and tell me how it will create this "log jam" Kent is talking about I will become an advocate for The Ugly Tag group. What else do you want me to do?
 
Javi,

I am an Az resident. In fact born and raised. The only time I have ever lived out of the State was for higher education.

I am with you guys on NR being treated fairly but I am also with you in that resident should get a higher priority (Not "entitled" as Madd would say). You are correct that I do have more of a discretionary income. I do hunt out of state occasionally. Not every year by any means. Only when I can get drawn. I have bought one landowner tag in my life in NM and other than that have never hunted other than when drawn. The only states I apply in other than AZ are NM, NV, and Utah. I have never been east of the Mississippi. But I love to hunt coues deer in Mexico. So on average I spend about $4000 a year on hunts...more than half of that is the Mexico coues hunt. Does that $4K make me a high spender, I don't know.

I do not guide and make no money from anyone drawing tags in one area over the other. I do HELP other hunters every year as I love to just be out on The Hunt. I don't receive any compensation for this. I usually get contacted by others for this help and do so at a cost to me with no compensation in return. In fact, considering I just went to the Cancer Society Ball this past weekend I will end up donating MUCH more to others than getting from others.

Since these changes would obviously be applied to all equally and affected by all equally. I am genuinely confused when you guys say I am wanting these changes for my benefit. I don't know what else to say.
 
Bubbas, I truly don't believe you see the inconsistancies in your statements.

"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."

And then this.

"Try an ASU mathematics Grad student or someone like that who has the time and would like to engage in a problem like this."

It tells me that if it was as easy to prove me wrong with 5th grade math you would have done it before 100 posts and if you did I would admit it myself. You're trying to make me admit I'm wrong with no proof or attempted proof beyond your imagined wrongness. Now you are saying that I need to find a math grad student to prove myself right or wrong because it's time consuming and I guess difficult to prove I'm wrong. HUH?

"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."

WORD PROBLEMS = RIDDLES, I think everyone else knew what I was talking about. Using it to prove your point and then using it to denounce my findings by saying I was wrong to use this same process. HUH? So, since you were struggling to understand and prefered the more intelligent 'riddling' approach I used it for your benefit, my mistake. I guess it is "a simple cause and effect relationship equation." So now my word problem solving of the ridgid and flexing, cause and effect, with solution is wrong also, because, it just is and not the correct process to get the answer. Neither are my philisophical Knife and pyramid answers, when you used the pyramid yourself first, or just my fifth grade math adding and subtracting answers.

I've explained it every way you wanted it explained and now am wrong for using those processes. HUH?

So now you want an independent source, not to see if my math is more correct than your math, you haven't given any. But to prove me wrong cause you can't.

My kids are all to old, anyone have a fifth grader we can borrow.

Kent
 
Kent,
The reason why I suggested you take it to a grad student is because you are making it more difficult than it is by trying to use numbers that were taken from a non static system and then applying them in a static way. Then you are not applying those same rules to the differing way. I don't know how else to explain it.

The concept of having the same amount of product coming out of a system regardless of the hold over percentage allocation is a 5th grade concept. That is what Billy was saying (by the way I know him but we have not talked at all outside of this board so it's not like we are getting on the same page with all this).

I didn't want to keep hashing this out in the manner it was going because it was redundant and making it hard for people to follow. The reason why I recommended the Grad student is because you don't believe me when I say that you do not have to take the tedious time to conduct a fake draw (or at least punch numbers from the info you provide) to understand what the end result will be by the change to 50%. There are some people on here, I guarantee, who understand what I am saying but they are not stepping up to the plate and showing the integrity of validating it because they don't want to admit what I am saying is correct. I don't know what their motivations are.

AND SO IT IS CLEAR. All I am saying is that by pushing the "Hold Over" to 50% you are assuring that half of the tags will always go to a group of people who have the most points in the draw...........that is it! We have to all agree on that. Can all of you at least validate that statement?

I will continue to go on from there but we need to start over because there has been too much said at this point. Just please answer that question, everyone that is reading this. Just say I agree or I disagree. Please keep your post limited to that or don't post at all just until we can come to an understanding.

KRP, I am working out a draw with numbers as we speak. I am not dodging you. You have to realize that to show 3 years worth of a draw using the numbers you provided takes some time. You can't just use the same draw odds each year, exactly. i am using the same model of unit 1. But once you increase to 50% going to max points it takes tag numbers from other BP groups in the rest of the general draw (which is what I am trying to get everyone to agree on). So then I have to just use arbitrary draw odss that were assigned to the BP group from the original numbers you posted. This is the only way to do it because I cannot run a draw for each year. It is all random. So I maintained the odds for each BP group and then applied it to a 3 year period. I am almost done with the 50% hold over. After that, I will do the same for 20% hold over, so you can compare. This will show what trends will happen, or better yet the cause and effect of the change. One key point you MUST realize is that we have to assume a static non changing 3 year period because we cannot predict what applicants will do from one year to the next, like change units or get drawn for other hunts with 3rd, 4th, 5th choice etc. So given the large amount of applicants in the numbers you provided and given these large numbers of applicants are being kept from leaving the equation of our mock draw for 3 years unless they draw in our unit the max bonus point group WILL keep going up and up. I believe this is what you and others were trying to say about the MAX pool increasing. But if you look at the 20% hold over example, which you can see will follow the same math rules, it also keeps going up and up in max points. They both HAVE to in your static look at the draw because you are eliminating the applicants from switching to an easier draw unit the following year or eliminating them from drawing a 3rd,4th,and 5th choice. Those applicants have to move up in BP in both examples. And the overall # of applicants in the example decreases the same in each example, 150. The ONLY difference is the allocation of tags is different. But since we do the same for both examples it serves its purpose in order to see the over all effect.

I will send this to your message box so you can look it over and we won't have to reach 200 posts on this thread.....oh wait but that goes against the theory of me trying to draw attention to this thread for people to join my selfish cause to RULE THE AZ DRAW and THEN THE WORLD, ah ha ha!....oh well.
 
i agree. thanks bubbas for the explanation. i am interested in your model as well. please post it so i can review your numbers with my shoddy education. thanks.
 
"It only makes it more fair by guaranteeing a drawn tag in a SHORTER amount of time than the current system."

This is what you said and what you have to prove.

"AND SO IT IS CLEAR. All I am saying is that by pushing the "Hold Over" to 50% you are assuring that half of the tags will always go to a group of people who have the most points in the draw...........that is it! We have to all agree on that. Can all of you at least validate that statement?"

That's two conflicting results, how can I agree both are going to happen.

Right now unit 1 is at 11 bps to get in the max pool, 12 for a guaranteed tag. It has been this way for a few years so must be cause and effect, non static and therefore continue. If the draw was static this number would be much higher.

Since this number is not rising, remember we are using your cause and effect true sight to the answer, Those in the top half of the bp levels know when they will for sure get a tag. 7 bps is in the top half of the bp level and tags allocated, they know now that the max they have to wait is 5 yrs for sure, 4 gives them a good shot. This is every year for whoever reachs 7 bps not just this year's group of 7 bps.

Make you model reach that goal, can't do it with a 3 yr model. At least Billy went out to the end.

After all this if you want to discuss the real answer of cutting the number of applicant choices in half and the positive results for every level of applicant and unit, then we'll get to the real business of change for the better good.

I continued this because some people still have popcorn left in their bowl and need a reason to finish it.

Kent
 
KRP,
Those are not conflicting statements. By taking tags away from a group of applicants (the effect of going from 20% to 50%-you are taking away 30% from the bottom half of applicants and giving them to the top half). This means that those applicants who do not draw out of the max pool under the 20% hold over pool right now (because there are more applicants with max points than there are tags guaranteed to max point holders) will keep rising in bonus points each year. The number representing the Max Point group will be a higher number in the 20% hold over system than it will be in the 50% hold over system. This is because under the current 20% hold over system you are allowing those with lesser points (up to 30% more of the time than under 50% hold over model) to draw before those at the top in bonus points. That explains how it will "guarantee a drawn tag in a SHORTER amount of time than the current system." You will be GUARANTEED to draw a hunt with 50% hold over sooner than you will be GUARANTEED to draw a tag with 20% hold over. The key is at what year of applying, starting from zero will the applicant be GUARANTEED to draw by reaching the max point pool and being GUARANTEED to draw within that max point pool.

I asked you a clear cut question, one that does not require numbers in the post before which you subsequently skirted. Will you answer it. It does not require looking back at old posts or working up a ridiculous mock draw (which I am half way done with don't worry, I know it is a sticking point for you) but if you want me to do that why don't you return the favor and answer my question in the post before OR tell me in a statement THAT DIRECTLY addresses the explanation above how it is incorrect and I will sincerely look at to why it is so. STICK TO THE POINT!

Do you understand? Please anybody.....throw Mr. KRP a bone. It is very cruel to watch him fight this concept when you are reading this and know what I have explained HAS to be correct. Please someone who has been an obvious opponent to my comments before or someone new to this discussion let him know this is true. I have tried to get him to seek out an independent source for this validation but for some reason he refuses. I even suggested we take it to the message board to hash through before posting the results to spare you all from reading all this and make it more concise of a thread. What else am I to do here?
 
KRP,

i went back and read your posts, as well as others. It is funny you say Billy is at least closer or something like that with his 10,000 applicants and 1000 tags analogy. He was only illustrating a point that I had said a few times prior that you gave no validity to. If you don't believe me just ask him or someone else. He used that as a teaching tool of what a system a true preference point system does. He is not a proponent of a preference point system because there are too few tags in AZ so yes, it could prevent new applicants from starting to apply because the amount of time it will GUARANTEE they will have to wait to draw a tag will be too daunting, especially if they are jumping in at an older age, and they will not apply. The game and fish does not want this because they loose out on potential income if that happens. This is what we have ALWAYS contended, but a 100% preference point system or in this case, 50% preference point system, DOES NOT make the max point pool reach a higher status than a 20% preference point system (current system). This is what you proclaim and is our sticking point for some reason (please read your posts ##46 and 90). I will show you with a 3 year draw example so you can argue against it, but at least you will have to look like an idiot in trying to disprove it. That is why I was BEGGING you to take it to an independent math expert, so you would hopefully have enough faith in what they were talking about to just take their word for it. But you refuse to do it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-09 AT 12:32PM (MST)[p]I only skimmed your posts like you did mine, I don't know what you said besides I'm wrong again and you will show me how. Didn't see any numbers to prove me wrong.

Something about throwing me a bone, here's one for you.

I'll give you the 75 tags on the very top, I'll give you an additional 38 tags (half of the remaining 75) from the true bottom half 0 thru 6 bps, even though they have a heck of alot more bps than those left in the top half 7 thru 11 bps, to those same 7 thru 11 levels, distribute them any way you want.

That's 113 tags of 150 to the top half of the draw. Continue this trend.

Make the current 7 bp level recieve a guaranteed tag in 5 yrs as they will right now.

Good Luck.

Kent
 
Ok, this is getting boring. Here's the answer to my last question.

718 applicants with 7 or more bps, these are real numbers.

Right now with real numbers from the 2008 draw, extending them out in a static line, continuing the same trend a 7 bp level applicant will recieve a guaranteed tag in 4.33 years maximum. With the 20% rule.

With a 50% rule on top and another 25% in the top half, which is statistically very generous. Bubbas 50% rule, a 7 bp applicant will recieve a guaranteed tag in 5.20 yrs.

The only way for the 7 bp group to catch up to the other 7 bp group is if 120 people drop out of the top half. Then it will be 4.34 yrs again. I guess thats the better good, get people to quit.

If I gave Bubba all the 150 tags for the top group, it would take 4.79 yrs to get the 7 bp group to have guaranteed tags. Unless we can force people to drop out of the top half.

I know, I know more math that doesn't make sense. Even though heck, I just gave you all the tags.

Kent
 
I, or anyone for that matter, can't help you to understand the err of your formulas unless you first answer my questions from my last two previous posts. Will you just answer them? If you cannot do that for whatever reason, just be patient for the numbers I WILL send you.

Have you noticed I have put it out there numerous times for people to clearly state how mine or Billy's statements are FALSE? Have you also noticed that NO ONE has pointed this out? AZBUCKSNORT has been the only one to clarify me on a false statement and I validated him and reworded the statement. I am inviting someone to do this. I am the only one trying to be as unbiased as I can and yet you keep arguing with me instead of answering the questions why? Have you also noticed that NO ONE, since you have started spewing out all these interpretations has come out and said YOU ARE CORRECT in your interpretations? I am asking for anyone to explain to me how your statements are correct and to explain how my statements are incorrect. I have also asked for you to take it to someone independent and qualified to explain it so that you can trust what they are saying. What else do you want me to do? I can't help you out any more than that. Would you like me to pick someone and then provide the explanation along with their qualifications. I can even provide their contact information so you can talk to them to make sure they are qualified and are not biased to one side or the other. I will even pay for this. WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?

1. I am working up a real draw numbers example for you, which you won't just be patient and wait for.
2. I have asked others to specifically state how my statements have been incorrect or how your statements have been correct, which NO ONE has done, except Billy which you say makes some good points when all he has said is what I have said in a different way.
3. I have tried to take it one step at a time to walk through a deductive logic thought process, which you will not do. (Actually you did one time when you said what I stated was true in the "literal" sense but then got right back to confusing yourself over false math interpretations. I have tried to explain why they are false in simple terms but you don't believe me which is why I recommended below.)
4. I have asked you to take it to someone who is qualified, independent, and unbiased on the hunting draw, which you will not do.
5. Now I am saying that if you do not want to take it to some one qualified and unbiased to explain it out that I will do it and even pay for it if necessary.

So I ask you again, What else do you want me to do?

You have not extended the same attempts to be unbiased and fair in this whole discussion!

So if you refuse to take part in any of the above steps of discussion then it is a waste of time and just tell me what you want me to do so I can go back to living my what used to be meaningful life which has now turned into a discussion with a person who is refusing to follow a path to discovery of truth. Because those steps listed above are the ONLY way to try and achieve that and you keep bipassing the steps and instead just rearange your faulty numbers interpretations into another way to present them and thus we never get anywhere. Just let go of them just for a minute and do one of the things I listed above and we will get to the information you are looking for.

What do you want to do next?
 
49f525c4661b4207.jpg
 
your pony might be dead, however, several horses are alive and well.

i still am waiting a response to bubbas question from anyone on mm.com besides myself or bubbas. please someone respond to bubbas question with an agree or disagree. it can't be any more clear to me.

don't be scared to put up your agree or disagree.
 
i read those posts and am not sure what you're referencing in those post.

please restate what you are wanting me to read/see.

thanks
 
>i read those posts and am
>not sure what you're referencing
>in those posts.
>
>please restate what you are wanting
>me to read/see.
>
>thanks
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-09 AT 00:55AM (MST)[p]Just for the record. I honestly did not intend for this thread to go the direction it did. I did not think the actually effects of what raising the hold over % would bring would be contended. In other words I thought it was clear how that would work and we would actually discuss if it were the best thing to do for "the Greater Good". Leading us to think what is best for the group, and that includes all groups not just the "bone collectors" (I don't have a mounted animal in my house or anywhere for that matter). You guys don't know me or my integrity so it is easy to doubt that, but it is the truth. The reason for my long winded posts and continuing posts, which were in response to others it must be noted, was to get past the sticking point of how the system would actually change so we could finally get down to discussing what was best for the hunting community AS A WHOLE.

That is the difficulty with having these discussions over the internet instead of face to face. I had unrealistic intentions it appears. All I will say is we as Sportsmen can achieve what is best if we have open minds, are educated on policies and how they work, and then work together for "The Greater Good".

This was my intent. Since it seems we are not going down that track I will leave this thread to others to discuss. I have no intentions of arguing with people for arguments sake. I don't believe anyone really enjoys that. Sorry if I offended anyone.

I did work up a mock draw representing 8 consecutive years for both the current 20% hold over model and the 50% hold over model. I did this for KRP because he could visualize this problem better with numbers to look at. I emailed them to him as I did not want it to be a matter of contention on here any longer. Maddglasser, if you would like them or anyone else for that matter please send me a message with an email address and I can send the attachments to you. It is interesting to look at. If not, no need to contact me. It is just an offer if you are still interested. Other than that, I hope you all have a good week.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-09 AT 09:19PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-09 AT 09:18?PM (MST)

does the "ugly tag crew" understand this mathematical concept? please respond.

MP (max points draw pool) + OA (other applicants than drew w/o max points draw pool) = X (number of tags on any given yr./hunt).

or in other words the draw pool X, for any given unit, hunt, and dates equals those that drew with maximum bp plus those that drew w/o maximum bp.
 
Billy;
The idea was a good one, but I don't think
any one wants to continue in this manner.
Steve Cheuvront
 
Billy,

Do you have a 5th grade math education? LOL. I believe you meant to word it,


"MP (applicants who drew with max points) + OA (applicants who drew without max points) = X (number of tags issued for any given hunt/year).

That would be the more correct way to say it. Like I said I am ONLY interested in stating true facts so that there is no confusion. We owe it to the people to share accurate information in order to make accurate decisions. That is all I will say. I figured it was alright to post again since were never in disagreement before. But I won't debate with anyone else LOL.
 
steve,

are you a former board member of the ada?

i asked a simple question that obviously the "ugly tag crew can't effectively answer." are you affiliated with them?

why is this so hard to answer?
 
Billy; I will answer your question, but will not
continue this debate.
Yes, I have been a board member on several occations,
currently I am not, but they,ADA, has a fine bod's.
I am a member of many organizations. AAF, ADA, ADBSS,
MDF, AES, RMEF, and probably some others, my mind fails me sometimes.
I guess I'm too stupid to know or haven't read what you guys have been talking about. What is the ugly tag crew?
Steve Cheuvront
 
the "ugly tag crew" is a term that was introduced to me by either maddglasser or mesquitehunter, i believe please correct me if i am wrong, a few days ago via mm.com post. i am not sure what is meant by it. please ask one of those guys.

BTW, you still didn't answer the question...... it really is that difficult.
 
But I won't debate with anyone else

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
 
Billy;
Forgive me.
What question did you ask me that I didn't answer.
I sometimes get side tracked.
Repeat what you want me to answer.
Steve C.
 
Billy;
I'm sure you are pationate,about your beliefs.
I can't say that I kept up close enough or have the skill to answer your question.
With that, my time spent on this thread is at an end.
Thanks for your interest Billy.
Steve Cheuvront
 
Bubbas,

I replied to your original draw change proposal, and basically I stated that these changes are short-term solutions to more complicated problems than the simple 5th grade math equation above - the cause and effect described earlier. Supply and demand will not be in equilibrium in AZ, no matter how we try to manipulate the draw #'s, and but changing the pass % we drive the number crunchers, bone collectors, and meat hunters to other hunt #'s.

If you agree with this, then read on and continue.

Now, I ask you to look beyond your simple 50% suggestion, because this is just a round number that you feel is appropriate, and appears to be pulled out of thin air. I have not seen any basis of mathematical, logical, or sound reasoning behind this percentage in any of you posts.

If you agree with this, then read on and continue.

Now I ask you if you are such a logical person, to use your logic to project the tag distribution per bonus point holder group that you want to see, and devise a solution based on this number or projection. Let the numbers decide the theoretical pass %. To achieve this, a mathematician can then forcast an accurate pass % based on the profile.

If you agree with this, then read on and continue.

Now, even better than your 5th grade equation, is a mathematical approach to solving your problem and deciphing what others feel is appropriate. Try plotting a graph with the horizontal axis as the bonus point group, and the vertical axis as the draw % rate. Use the overall draw odds per species from the Hunt Arizona book, over all units combined. I think most of us would like to see a more gradual progression, with an exponential increase toward the end of the graph. Your suggestion puts a larger emphasis on a drastic exponential curve, with less slope and lower odds in the left-hand side and more significant slope to the right (or max bonus point holders).

This is your priciple which we do not agree is more fair or for any "greater good". I belive madglasser would like to see a flat line so that everyone has equal chance. I personally would like to see a less significant expontial slope than the current plot, more of a linear slope.

I think the KRP or someone else better explained this as a pyramid, where you need to remove a larger number of people from the lower groups while the top level raises. I think of this like sand falling into a conical pile at a given rate. You can't reduce the mass of the pile, or slow its falling rate, just redistribute it. According to my graph profile and the sand explanation, many here do not agree with your distribution including myself. You seem to want more of a fat tall profile, like a mesa for example; where we seem to want more of a tall sloped pile.

Now the only reasoning that comes into question is if the current pass % accomplishes the goal. In the G&F data that KRP linked above, many of us who look at these #'s are completely happy with the current system distribution. I'm not saying that the current 20% is perfect, but I do not like your suggested more radical change.
 
Everyone,
I want to answer all honest questions presented in a logical manner in an attempt to come to an understanding of Truth. I appreciate your post Jasn. I will answer them and send them to you via message because I will not support an irrational discussion on a public forum which does no good for educating the public. If I do this then I expect the same returned back to me. That is the nature of a proper discussion. I have answered the concerns that KRP and Maddglasser have where they clearly indicated that they believe an increase in the hold over % causes an effect of raising the max point pool, more so than the current 20%. All of the posts since that point pretty much revolved around us trying to explain how this was 100% INCORRECT and in fact it is the opposite. I have provided proof of this and made it available for all to see if you provide me your email. I have had no takers except Boskee (the one who seems as unbiased as possible on here). No one has answered the yes/no questions I have asked and no one has requested the numbers I can provide and encourage to cross check. Therefore I can only assume to they are not interested in learning true facts which I said earlier on.....just tell me you don't want change and leave it at that. Trying to maintain status quo by presenting false information as truth without an attempt to explore how it is false is dishonest shows selfish motivations and does not help educate the people in order to make accurate decisions.

Please all inquiries or questions on this matter to my message box. when we can agree on true facts then we can post that and then philosophies as to which model is best can be discussed. After all Jason, you basically confirmed what we have said all along but feel it should not be so heavily weighed to max point holders. That is great no argument. Can you at least do everyone a service and verify that raising the hold over DOES NOT raise the bonus point maximum more than the current 20% hold over?
 
I'm a new member on this site and hope I don't get off on the wrong foot with this post. I do have a pretty good math background, but don't think one really needs it to evaluate this proposal.

Many have written breaking down the exact odds per bonus point level for a certain hunt like unit 1 Archery elk. But detailed analysis is not required to understand that increasing the holdover percentage will get someone with max or near max bonus points a primo tag - once! That's the key - once!

Imagine the holdover is increased all the way to 100%. So now all tags for a given hunt will go to those with max points. If that doesn't use up the available tags, those with 1 less BP will draw, etc. until the tags are gone.

The next year, the process repeats, but those who were drawn start all over with their BP's and are therefore years away from drawing that tag again. So while increasing the holdover will guarantee you will draw a tag sooner (if you're near the max point level), it also guarantees your chances of drawing a subsequent and similar tag are reduced or eliminated (if holdover goes to 100%).

So, at best, it's a one time benefit for those with near max bonus points. The backers of this proposed change seem to think it unfair that some "lucky" people get drawn year after year with minimal points. Well, it is a lotery after all - and you are getting a statistically better chance if you have more bonus points.

If you want to eliminate or severly limit "luck", you would need to go with a waiting period - once you draw a designated "primo" tag, you can't apply for another for "x" number of years. Taken to the extreme, this is what's done with sheep in AZ - once in a lifetime.
 
jasn,

sent u message with answers to questions. Still haven't gotten anything back quid pro quo!

Vandy,
I will do the same when I get some free time. At least you came the closest anyone has come to validating the cause and effect relationship of increasing max point. I had been saying all along that there does not need to be an evaluation of numbers to know what increasing 50 % would do. It was others who took exception to that. That was the reason for providing the analysis. Had to provide real, true numbers to combat false assumption of numbers. Anyways, I will comment on your belief in message when i get more time.
 
I do agree with bubbas, that his assumption will not cause the max bonus point pool to increase faster or higher than the current system. In fact, it should slow the max bonus point pool creep by taking more tags from the lower tiers. This is just a tag redistribution topic, but most of us who are commenting do in fact like the current distribution and bubbas does not, or feels that luck is more of a factor than it really is.

I do not agree with his recommended pass %, which will alter the bonus point draw distribution. I think bubbas wants more of a guarantee due to the upfront fees, which I cannot completely disagree with possibly lowering the fee. That is all. The current system is based more on statistics for both increased chance, and representation. Representation is a big factor, which is why you tend to see slightly higher draw rates at the center tiers. When you understand statistical representation, it makes sense to allow a random draw, and is much more "fair" than I think bubbas would like to admit or understand. I personally trust statistics and randomness, more than someone forcing a tag allocation scheme on me. Now if the tag allocation scheme is floating, or adapts based on representation and weighting (bonus points) then I might consider it. However, this is just a simple rule to give more tags to people who have waited the longest, more of a preference sysem which cannot work well in AZ due to the high demand and low supply.
 
Several years ago, Dwight Shuh wrote an editorial about "Killing the Dream." It was directed toward the increasingly high cost of nonresident tags. Eventually, the cost may rise to the point where the average Joe could not afford to hunt his dream hunt, whether it be a Dall Sheep hunt in Alaska or an archery bull elk hunt in Arizona. Most hunters dream of being able to go on a special hunt.

The same scenario of KILLING THE DREAM may apply to the quality hunts here in AZ, and raising the % bonus pass may contribute to killing the hope and dream by reducing the chance of being lucky in the draw. As the % is raised, it becomes more like a total preference system as KRP pointed out. After one draws a permit it will take on average 26 years to draw a unit 9 tag where there were 2652 first choice applicants for 100 permits. 24 years in unit 1 as Kent noted. And it does not matter if the pass is 100%, 50%, or 0%, the average to draw will be 26 years between tags is one only applies for unit 9. (I am using first choice numbers as this is where an applicant will place their dream hunt.)

Let me throw in a negative about raising the percentage pass. This concerns the youth hunters or first time hunters starting out with no BP. A kid needs to be drawn and to have success to hook him or her into hunting. Putting a kid in for the LO hunts may get him drawn and hunting (as would an OTC tag), but the success/kill part will be lacking. Is Dad and kid going to put in the extra scouting necessary to be successful in these low success hunts?

Raising the bonus pass will require that young hunter to wait more years on average to be drawn as it requires more people to have the greatest number of bonus points to draw. He or she in not going to wait 26 years to draw a unit 9 archery bull tag. By raising the %, one has reduced the lucky chance that a youth hunter can beat the odds and draw sooner than what some deem fair. By raising the %, we may be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I agree with Kent that raising the % will only be a temporary fix appeasing those that have been unlucky in the draw and have many BP. After the few with the most have drawn, then the top BP group will have many members. Raising the % pass will moderate the system by awarding tags to the unlucky with the most BP, and reducing the number of tags give to the "lucky" who draw with few BP.

As it is now, there are about 80,000 applicants for 20,000 elk tags. So even with the LO hunts included, there is an average 4 years between tags.

Doug~RR
 

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!

Screenshot_20230122_165445_Gallery.jpg
631A26C5-D91E-4D1E-A9C4-34ED3B91C3ED.jpeg
rselk.jpg
20231121_110427.jpg
_DSD4448.jpg
Incredible Mega-Bull
IMG_2270.JPG
F070C9DF-28CE-488E-B1D3-61500D093851.jpeg
FDDC9E7E-6727-46AD-A66B-E616C6D319C7.jpeg
IMG_1873.png
20200719_101708.jpg
IMG_1673.png

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