Maine & NH Moose in Huntin Fool

Zim · Apr 18, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-14 AT 11:04AM (MST)[p]Just got my latest issue of HF and I see Maine & Hew Hampshire moose made their debuts as anticipated. But for anyone who thinks their draw odds are accurate, think again. When I drew NH in 2012 I calculated my odds at ~1%, and that was figured taking into account my 8 points. Now HF posts it's ~1% but does not mention how they get that number. I can assure you it's a hell of a lot less than 1% for anyone starting out from the ground floor.

As for Maine? They are the kings of point cheapening with their rediculous unlimited 10 pack point sales! I wait 16 years to accumulate my 15 points and then their legislators bend us over and peddle them for $2.78 each! No, that's not a misprint.....two dollars and seventy eight cents each. Think that would fly in Arizona???

If you'd like to read what legislators are really thinking when they make their idiotic & unethical decisions, read the following article:
http://www.georgesmithmaine.com/art...aine-moose-permits-less-moose-lottery-chances

"Although many committee members argued for a simpler fairer lottery system, DIF&W?s need for the $1.5 million it raises from the lottery stymied that opportunity."

If you are considering getting in the Maine game, please read this stuff so you know what you are getting into. Another persistent issue is the outfitters constantly whining about wanting outfitter welfare "like the western states have" in their words. Legislation for this has been narrowly defeated on several occasions and will likely continue to resurface until they get it. This year they are whining for 100 of the tags. When they get it, you can count on NR's absorbing the brunt of it, further cheapening any points you buy. Of course HF does not mention any of this.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club

PleaseDear · Apr 18, 2014

For hell sakes Ken----

After all these years, have ya not figured out that HF is pure BS for most every ODDS they put in the rag-mag....look at Montana Sheep/Mnt. Goat/Moose for an example....

I will not even bring up HF's ODDS for N.Mex Sheep Oryx, Ibex...and THEY should have known that was coming down the pipe for screwing Non-Ressy's....

Do they break down every single bought point for Ma. and NH.....hell no...

Sorry dude but come on----HF is a joke....

I haven't been a member since 2008 and I still get Emails from those goofball$

Robb

Zeke · Apr 18, 2014

+1 and +1

It's a trap and tags are the bait and points are the hook and the applicant loses money, time and hope!

Bottom line is a guy better do his own research.... Well maybe he shouldn't or he'll see how futile it is!

Zeke

Califelkslayer · Apr 18, 2014

I'll argue the other side:

I agree that Garth was one of the two main reasons Colorado landowner tags went through the roof about 10 years ago, TAG PIMP!!!

But the mag ain't worthless, for me anyways. I don't have time to read 8-10 State's hunting regulations every year. They do mention changes. This has been invaluable to me in the past.

An example is I started putting in for a Idaho controlled deer tag in the mid 1990s. But I didn't apply for elk. After reading in HF that it would only cost me another $6.00, I applied for elk too. About 3 years later I caught that tag and killed a decent bull. Still chasing that buck tag.

Plus in a couple of states I know pretty well, I look at their recommendations...and steer away from them. Some of these are units they pushed a few years ago but don't now. If I didn't read HF, I might be competing against their readers. An example is Nevada. If any of my choices after my first 2 are mentioned in HF, I choose different hunts but hunts I am familiar with.

Zim · Apr 18, 2014

> They do mention changes.
> This has been invaluable
>to me in the past.
>
>Nevada. If any of
>my choices after my first
>2 are mentioned in HF,
>I choose different hunts but
>hunts I am familiar with.

For those of us that apply in a lot of states and have followed app number shifts post HF rating, no explanation is needed.

Am curious if featuring these new snowballs chance in hell draws lure many HF subscribers, considering the geographics.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club

gznokes · Apr 19, 2014

Well I subscribe bc I find value and I think they have a good group of consultants over there. However, I did not think their Maine and New Hampshire sections were overly compelling. It was like they started covering it but did really have a bunch of good insight. I wonder if they are covering it in an attempt to appeal to more East Coast hunters. I think Garth was lucky to run this mag when points made economical sense. For example, CO pts were about $3 per species. Now every Western State, including CO, is raising application and bonus fees. Take MT for example--now $70 PER SPECIES. If you do the math for non residents for bighorns, it is actually the same as just buying a $25,000 bighorn sheep hunt. I thought the HnF was a bit disingenuous when they said "great news! Now you don't have to front the tag fee in MT! Everyone should be applying!"

sticksender · Apr 19, 2014

gznokes, agree with you. I was disappointed with their line: "great news! Now you don't have to front the tag fee in MT! Everyone should be applying!"

I use the magazine in various ways, but publishing that quote it strikes me they must deem their readers as not very bright. And that they're more concerned with selling their application service, than with giving useful advice.

IMO the correct advice would be more like: "Montana has decided to dramatically increase the non-refundable application fees for Sheep/Moose/Goat for NR's. With the extremely slim odds to draw, each person should decide for themselves whether this drastic increase in fees is worth the cost".

I may still apply, just because I like to gamble, but putting up that kind of statement insults our intelligence.

Zim · Apr 19, 2014

Yup. With almost every state jacking up the nonrefundable annual fees to apply, HF & EJ should post accurate odds and ROI advice, but I guess that wouldn't be good for business. I actually find myself pulling out of more big game lotteries these days than adding them, due to decreasing ROI's.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club

Sierra · Apr 20, 2014

I still find HF valuable, but they could (and should) do a better job explaining the odds for some of the states. The odds they publish are often way too optimistic in cases where the state does one draw and then applies a non-resident cap (e.g., Idaho) or in cases when the state considers all of the applicants choices before moving on to the next applicant (e.g., New Mexico).

WapitiBob · Apr 20, 2014

Non of them post accurate odds because they don't know how the draw systems work. They simply rehash data that the departments publish and assume it has everything they need.

Horniac · Apr 20, 2014

>I still find HF valuable, but
>they could (and should) do
>a better job explaining the
>odds for some of the
>states. The odds they
>publish are often way too
>optimistic in cases where the
>state does one draw and
>then applies a non-resident cap
>(e.g., Idaho) or in cases
>when the state considers all
>of the applicants choices before
>moving on to the next
>applicant (e.g., New Mexico).

HF usually provides a disclaimer under the draw odds section describing how the draw odds in their tables are calculated and commenting that the actual draw odds are much worse due to conditions such as you describe in your post.

I think everyone that has been seriously applying in the various states over the years know in the back of our minds that our odds are actually much worse than those set forth in the tables but being optimistic, we look the other way.

I am surprised that some brilliant mathematician in probabilities hasn't yet come up with a service to calculate and provide the true draw odds to hunters - for a small fee of course!

Horniac

Zim · Apr 20, 2014

I subscribe to HuntersTrailhead and find most their stuff accurate. However, I do find some hunts hard to believe, such as nevada sheep. I'll have to shoot the owner a question about that. He is pretty responsive.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club

WapitiBob · Apr 20, 2014

>I subscribe to HuntersTrailhead and find
>most their stuff accurate.
>However, I do find some
>hunts hard to believe, such
>as nevada sheep. I'll
>have to shoot the owner
>a question about that.
> He is pretty responsive.
>
>
>***********************************
>Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club,
>NRA, UWC & DP Hate
>Club

They're just as bad.
AZ archery unit 27 at 16% NR odds for 8 points? There hasn't been a NR tag in the 1-2 pass for the last 5 years and 8 points didn't get you in the Bonus pass. Those odds were 0%.
3a3c at 14% with 9 points? Another 0% odds.
Then there's Wyoming.....

SageHunter29 · Apr 20, 2014

I think Eastman's do a terrible a job as well. They don't even include all of the units in Nevada, and then half the time they don't even break down odds by points. Also I have noticed their "Trophy Quailty" section is pure b.s.- a number of units that I know should be a "blue chip" are marked as "fair" units and vice-a-versa.

Overall I think it's a good magazine if you have no prior knowledge about anything relevant to hunting.

PleaseDear · Apr 20, 2014

"I subscribe to HuntersTrailhead and find most their stuff accurate"

For real???

The Montana Odds are freaking 2011.....

Wanna buy a Utah Antelope Island view acre with a bid chance at a big Muley??

WTF???

Robb

Zim · Apr 20, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Apr-20-14 AT 05:11PM (MST)[p]Hmmmm......Maybe I've been just lucky with the units I chose? HuntersTrailhead was precisely correct with the stats for both Wyoming elk & lope last year, which I drew. And they are precise for the Arizona elk, Oregon elk, Utah deer & Colorado elk & deer which I have lined up to draw for 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018. These and more are all saved in my favorites. I have double & triple checked these with various other sources, as anyone would who's burning 15-20 points/hunt.

Nevada I'd cut anyone slack due to the complexity of their system, and multiple choices. I custom crunch the numbers there by myself considering all the point pools & squaring. So I know what my approx. chances are with 15 points. I relegate only one of my picks to a HF top 5, and only when I have to due to geography.

Can't comment on Montana as I don't apply there.....thank god, due to their new point fees.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club

elkassassin · Apr 20, 2014

I've got a Friend that reads Huntin Fool like Roy Reads his Bible!

Believes any & every thing Carters Boast!

The part I really get a kick out of is where it says:Should be 170"-180" type of Buck Hunt!

Kinda like Utah!

It Should be but most places/Units are not that type of Quality!

So Who's the Fool?

Or should I say Fools?

[font color="red"]From My Smokin Cherry Red Hot Barrel & My Dead Cold Hands I Shall go down Fighting for American Pride & Rights!
I Know I'm Out Numbered by Pusssies & Brainwashed Democrats that'll Throw Their Hands in the air & I know I can't Lick the U.S. Military by Myself when they Turn on us but I'll make
you one Guarantee,They'll be Enduring a Situation where I Hope to Hell All Americans become True Americans once again & Stand up for their Rights!

WapitiBob · Apr 20, 2014

Ken, if you're happy with the numbers they give you, that's all that matters.
But, nr don't have 16% odds for a 27 archery tag with 8 points.

Zim · Apr 21, 2014

>Ken, if you're happy with the
>numbers they give you, that's
>all that matters.
>But, nr don't have 16% odds
>for a 27 archery tag
>with 8 points.

Actually, for Arizona I don't care what they post now. I am not sure how they can know the percentage chance for the point level some draw & some don't, since supposedly AZ does not provide a breakdown. But with 13 points going into next year, all that matters to me is my odds for unit 1 archery, which they post are 55% with 11 points in 2013. I know that to be correct. So I know my odds are approx. 100% for unit 1 archery elk next year. No need for me to explore odds they post for other units now.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club

nocal · Apr 21, 2014

Hey Guys......I approach the HF mag as merely a "Tool" and try to extract info from it. I guess in a sense, its no different that a shovel, and learn how to use it to your advantage (and somehow justify the cost). I agree that more and more the information is less and less valuable because of the subscriber numbers growth and everyone has the same info.

Good luck guys,

nocal

WapitiBob · Apr 21, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-14 AT 02:48PM (MST)[p]Zim, your odds for the 2013 draw were close to that 55% but they didn't carry forward for 2014. There were another 200 NR apps for your unit this year and even 13 points wasn't a lock. Hopefully things will level out for next year.

Zim · Apr 22, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-14 AT 08:31AM (MST)[p]>Zim, your odds for the 2013
>draw were close to that
>55% but they didn't carry
>forward for 2014. There were
>another 200 NR apps for
>your unit this year and
>even 13 points wasn't a
>lock. Hopefully things will level
>out for next year.

Hmmmm. Are the 2014 draw stats posted already? I looked on the AZF&G website but could not locate any. Can you post a link? This hunt has had virtually zero point creep over the last 15 years. For it to jump from 11 to 13 in one year would be pretty crazy.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club

WapitiBob · Apr 22, 2014

They haven't posted their reports yet.
They came from other hunts. For your hunt, the Bonus Pass NR apps increased from 855 in 2013 to 1045 for 2014. 3A dropped by 60 for 2014 and Unit 9 dropped by 240.

billythekid · Apr 22, 2014

>Yup. With almost every state
>jacking up the nonrefundable annual
>fees to apply, HF &
>EJ should post accurate odds
>and ROI advice, but I
>guess that wouldn't be good
>for business. I actually
>find myself pulling out of
>more big game lotteries these
>days than adding them, due
>to decreasing ROI's.
>
>***********************************
>Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club,
>NRA, UWC & DP Hate
>Club

zimmers,

this is probably due to you having issues with a state using it's resource for capital gain. it goes against your social view of america. how sad.