Montana NR Draw Shenanigans

[wymoosehunter]

In 2006, while researching Montana?s draw odds for moose, sheep and goats, I discovered that the State of Montana had short-changed all of the non-residents that applied for one of the units that MT FW&P had listed on the hunt application as non-resident eligible for 2005. What the state had done was reclassify their 10% rule and awarded moose, sheep, and goat tags to non-residents only in those units with 10 or more tags available. In a nutshell, non-residents only received 3 of the 129 ram/either sex sheep tags, which is only 2.3% of the tags being awarded to non-residents. This finding was repeated with the moose and goat permits for 2005 as well.
All of us dummies that loaned the State of Montana $2279 (cost of all applications plus bonus point purchase) and the interest income generated from that pool of money were cheated out of a year?s worth of drawing opportunities and the use of our money.
Even more insidious, was that the 2005 application listed all of the available sheep units that non-residents could apply for, and it did not list Unit 124-00 as one of the units that NR?s could apply for, yet 12 people put in for that unit and FW&P gave one ram tag for that unit. I wondered what kind of relationship those 12 people had with some mysterious FW&P official wherein they would know to put in for that ?off-limits? unit, knowing that they would have awesome odds of drawing a great ram tag.
I wrote to MT FW&P about this, and of course they did not write me back (heaven forbid that some bureaucrat would commit anything to writing), but an official for FW&P did call me. He explained that there was some ?computer glitch? that caused the problem and that the State of Montana had fixed the problem. When I asked how I specifically, and each of the NR?s shut out of the draw generally, could be made whole, he did not have an answer. We all know I got the B^%@S#%^ excuse, but what can you do? I really should have sent the same letter to the MT AG for investigation?but it was probably some political donor that drew the mystery Unit 124 tag, so that would have probably been a waste of a good stamp.
This year, after receiving my 2009 Moose, Goat, and Sheep Regulations, I began doing my annual research on what unit I will apply for goat, sheep and moose. I immediately went to the drawing statistics page of the regulation booklet (pg 13) and noticed that the odds are no longer broken down by Resy?s and NR?s. So I had to go online and research the draw odds by looking at the more detailed statistics online.
During that research, I discovered an anomaly in the sheep statistics. Mind you, it was not as glaring as the 2005/2006 debacle, and even statistically possible, however not probable.
NR?s are restricted to no more than 10% of the sheep, goat, and moose tags. I did not do the detailed analysis of the goat and moose drawing odds, but since I am a sheep nut, I focused on the sheep statistics. I found that NR?s only received 8.2% (13 NR tags to 158 Resy tags)(or arguably 7.6%; 13 NR tags out of a total of 171 available tags) of the ram tags. When I really researched the issue, Unit 315 was eligible for a NR tag, but statistically the number of Resy vs. NR applications made sense that a NR did not draw one of the tags. However, Unit 216 was also eligible for a NR tag and a NR did not draw a tag in that unit. Statistically, it is improbable that a NR did not draw out 1 of 8 tags from a total applicant pool of 646 (482 Resy?s and 164 NR?s). Statistically, for every 3 Resy?s, 1 NR should draw, limited to the no more than the 1 quota established by FWP. Essentially Resy?s beat the odds twice, which is statistically improbable.
I am not sure if I am being overly critical/suspicious of Montana FW&P because I caught them in a prior shenanigan, or if there is a covert attempt to further limit NR?s ability to draw one of the very few ram tags.
I probably (statistically speaking that is) shot myself in the foot for ever having a chance at drawing a tag in Montana with this post, but it is what it is.
What do you think and has anybody found similar issues with other states as well? Good luck in the draws.

WYMO

 

[D13er]

wow...that is a long winded blow about nothing....what is so hard to understand "up to" 10%....not guaranteed 10% to NR's



great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB

 

[PleaseDear]

+1 D13.....

What a long waste of 'Up to 10%'.....

Robb

 

[ElmerFudd]

At least MT is relatively cheap for NR's to apply. True, odds suck, especially for nonresidents.

They include ewes in the 10%, and you can only apply for certain units, so odds are NR will not get 10% of the ram tags.

 

[highhunt]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-09 AT 09:23AM (MST)[p]Interesting post. I would say that your sample size is to small or limited (number of years you are comparing) to infer what you are.

If you could compare say...50 years of NR and R draws for sheep and find the same trend then you would get me to "sit up in my chair."

The "law of large numbers" hurts your argument. But, I love the post. Very interesting.

 

[RaghornHS]

Guys it's pretty common for states not to issue NR tags when there are less than 10 available in a unit (and the NR is limited to 10% anyway). Look at Idaho's draw odds...they tell a similar story. Does this skew the odds, sure...but it's just a fact of life as a NR hunter.

It happens in a similar fashion in bonus point states. Take Nevada for example. Look through the draw odds and you'll see how many times the person with the most (or second-most) points misses out on a tag, but the folks with points near the bottom of the pack draw the bulk of them.

Raghorn Hunting Services
www.raghornhuntingservices.com
[email protected]

 

[ColoradoOak]

Some of you really need to do some reading and get a grasp on how the system works before complaining.

As D13er pointed out, it is "up to 10%" to non-residents. Also, it is up to 10% per region, not per unit. There have been times in the past when the single tag issued in a unit, or one out of two tags, went to a non-resident.

 

[roger]

wymoosehunter,

Montana caught their 2005 mistake and fessed up to it. The problem was that the computer recognized the 10% per unit and not per region. A unit would need at least 10 tags for a NR to have any chance. The computer did have a listing of the NR that were drawn but were turned away because of the 10% glitch. I know because I was one of the lucky ones. A Montana official called me in spring of 2006 and told me of the 2005 mistake and offered me the sheep tag. Needless to say, I accepted the tag. I think the total was 3 sheep tags and 3 goat tags, that had the problem. I also know one of the other guys that was lucky enough to get one of the sheep tags.

Montana could have swept this under the rug, and I would have have never known. They were upfront and honest and admitted their mistake. I truly appreciate their honesty.

Be careful to point the finger. There are always two sides to every story.

Roger

 

[CAelknuts]

A few years ago, I think two seasons ago, I got a message on my phone asking me to call someone about my mountain goat tag. I was thinking WTF, since I hadn't applied for a mountain goat tag yet. Turns out, Montana FW&P had made an error in their computer system the previous year, and something like 5 or 6 non-residents who should have drawn tags did not get them. They were calling those non-residents to offer them a tag, I am almost positive this was in 2007, and that tag would be deducted from the non-resident pool for that year, for those hunters who took them up on their offer.

Now I thought that was very much a 'stand up' thing for Montana to do, as nobody except their department would have known if they did not contact us. As it was, I got a goat tag and went goat hunting.

 

[wymoosehunter]

I am not writing this to start an argument or to write a dissertation on statistics, I am simply putting forth an anomaly that is totally outside the norm (all of the other years of data do appear to be mathematically correct) of the data that has been put forth by Montana.
Yes, Montana is an up to 10% per zone state, and that is why a NR can draw in a unit that only has 1 permit. The 10% rule also factors ewe permits into that, but when you throw out all the ewe permits, you still end up with the same percentages by simple math, and verified by Montana?s own data. As to other states and how they limit their permits, you are simply comparing apples to oranges-there is no correlation, it is Montana?s regulations that are being discussed herein.
Highhunt is completely right in that the law of large numbers does throw a monkey wrench into the equation. When you look at the limited number of years that Montana has been on this system (essentially since they instituted bonus points), there is no way to extrapolate it out where the data is such that the SD is within acceptable parameters.
However, what I wrote above still holds true, based on the available data.
But what is really interesting is what Roger wrote. I disagree with Roger in that Montana could have simply swept this under the rug; there are simply too many people that really crunch the numbers and follow sheep permits way too closely for that to have gone unnoticed. I am certain that I am not the only person to call or write Montana once the 2005 statistics were released. The question I have is why did it take Montana until the spring of 2006 to make the call to Roger? Why did Montana not notify all the other affected applicants and let them know the proposed solution? Montana had almost 2 months after the application deadline and before posting results to see that only 3 NR?s drew sheep tags, and no matter how you look at it, they should have caught that error as it is so far outside the realm of statistical probability that red flags should have been flying everywhere, plus they were losing critical revenue from NR tag fees and that is what really drives any government entity.
Also, Roger stated that there were a total of 3 NR?s that were called and offered tags once the error was discovered. Assuming that Roger?s numbers are accurate, adding those 3 ?makeup? tags to the three issued in 2005 results in 4.6% of the available tags being issued to NR?s for the amended 2005 season (statistically impossible given the number of NR applicants vs. the 10% rule). There should have been 12 NR tags issued.
Then there is the issue of how did Montana add those 3 tags into the 2006 season without violating their own regulations regarding the 10% rule? Montana?s own statistics show that 33 tags were issued to NR?s and Resy?s received 332 (as close to 10% as possible). Did three applicants from the 2006 draw get bumped from drawing in 2006 to make up for the 3 carry-over tags from 2005?
There was not a good solution for the quandary that MT FW&P was in, and no good way to correct the problem, since they either did not catch the problem in 2005 or decided to ?sweep the error under the rug? until someone called them on it. I hate to say this, but to my knowledge, Montana did not make a press release about this error and explain how they proposed to fix the problem.
Simply put, when the statistics don't support an outcome, and when government is more opaque than transparent, it does cause people to question government, especially when it is something as important as sheep tags (lol).
Good luck in the draws this year.
WYMO

 

[roger]

I am probably wrong on the number of tags that were issued in the next year. The official told me the number when he called but I was in such shock that I don't remember. I actually thought the call was some type of prank until I follow up.

I don't agree with all of the rules and regulations and the unfair treatment of non-residents either, but until some larger organizations start putting some pressure on the states then nothing will change. I would like to believe that The Sheep Foundation or GSCO would take a more active role with the states, but they are too busy fussing with each other.

Roger

 

[brymoore]

Did the unabomber get computer access?

 

[Califelkslayer]

Someone mentioned Nevada and this is off of the subject but they guarentee 10% of the tags for a species. Looking closer, some rifle deer hunts are less than 5%, way less but other hunts (mostly archery) are near 40%. Seems they keep their word on the percentage but not specific to unit/hunt/weapon.

Some of the deer hunts I want to apply for are so outta whack, I don't apply but again, "It is what it is." Use it to your advantage and apply where they give out the tags, OR don't apply.

 

[mtmuley]

Somebody FINALLY figured out the State of Montana is out to screw every hunter that does not reside here. Laughing Hard Here. mtmuley

 

[ElmerFudd]

The NV outfitter draw steals tags from the NR rifle deer quota (those permits are counted against the NR quota), and are based upon last years permit numbers. So the NR tag quota can really be whacked if the permit numbers decrease from the previous year. not sure exactly how it works, the outfitter quota and such, but thay can take a pretty high percentage of the more desirable tags. It's not a fixed percentage of each hunt, higher demand hunts can be "cherry picked" before the draw for everyone....