Poll: Utah NR applications. Read post before voting

[txhunter58]

Currently NRs can apply for all species every year. Facts about this:
1) you can only draw one tag per year. Deer is first. If you draw a deer tag, you are removed from all other hunt drawings. Any single tag you draw is the only one you can get
2) This current system dilutes your odds across all species.

If we switched back to being only able to apply for one hunt/tag, that eliminates more than 50% of the people ahead of us with more points. Because instead of everyone applying for all species, they have to choose one. That will decrease the time it takes to draw a Bonus tag for those with the most points. AND it increases the random odds for that tag because less total people are applying for that tag.

If Utah made this change, they could still allow us to put in for points for all other species. So they still make as much money from applications. And you could change to a new species next year if you want.

Residents can currently only apply for 1 hunt tag per year. They don’t appear to want to change this or it prob would have been changed. IMO it is because their odds would drop drastically.

 

[lundellhunting7]

Then Utah DNR loses out on all those app fees.....

 

[BradA]

I would be against having the exact same draw format as Utah residents, one OIL and one, deer, elk or Antelope to pick from

 

[hornkiller]

Ut non res odds suck so bad it would not matter period!

 

[txhunter58]

Then Utah DNR loses out on all those app fees.....

Uh no, please read my post, they can let us still apply for points for all other species. Would you quit applying for points if you could only apply for one hunt tag? I wouldn’t. Only $15 extra…

Why would people stop?

 

[txhunter58]

I would be against having the exact same draw format as Utah residents, one OIL and one, deer, elk or Antelope to pick from

But residents can’t build points for other species. We could. So once you draw a tag, you can switch to a different species you have been building points for.

 

[txhunter58]

Ut non res odds suck so bad it would not matter period!

So having over half the people ahead of you with more points go away wouldn't appeal to you. And doubling or tripling your random odds at the same time

 

[idahomuleyhunter]

We can't restrict applicants to one species per year!!!!! I am the one person who is going to draw all 5 in my life.

 

[D_Hoyt]

I think non-residents should have the same application choices and limitations as residents. That being said, when I was living in Nevada and Wyoming, I stocked up on points several species.

 

[txhunter58]

We can't restrict applicants to one species per year!!!!! I am the one person who is going to draw all 5 in my life.

But you are really only applying for 1 tag now. Cause you can only draw one.

I would have drawn my elk tag 3-4 years ago if they changed the rules. I would now be applying for deer.

 

[sticksender]

I'd rather go back to the old way where we could only apply for a single OIL species, the same as residents. There is a reason the pick-your-species format was retained for residents....it's a far more desirable system, if you actually want to draw a particular species in your lifetime. Pick-Your-OIL means better draw odds for those applicants targeting one species.

I don't want to be forced to apply for bison, goat, etc, in order to maintain my odds to at least draw "something". I want to draw my target OIL species. Odds were already horrific enough. With this change the odds to draw your one target species became roughly 4-5 times worse.

The change was made by UDWR back about 14 years ago, and is simply a sleight-of-hand trick intended to compel NR's to stay in the system and keep applying, once UDWR began requiring purchase of a general hunting license. It's amazing that so many NR's have fallen for it as a positive.

 

[hornkiller]

But you are really only applying for 1 tag now. Cause you can only draw one.

I would have drawn my elk tag 3-4 years ago if they changed the rules. I would now be applying for deer.

You do realize on most of the hunts they only give 1 tag points do not matter!

 

[idahomuleyhunter]

You do realize on most of the hunts they only give 1 tag points do not matter!

I think you still get draws based on your points in Utah. I.e. 10 points gets you 10 random numbers.

 

[hornkiller]

True but very few ever with max points draw the tags with only 1 available!

 

[middlefork]

The application fees are straight up to garner Pittman Robertson dollars along with the hunting license.. The state would be negligent to not take advantage. Along with every other state.

With that in mind I have no idea how the NR mind works.

 

[txhunter58]

Here is an example. These are real odds for a decent elk unit last year. Let’s say you have 10 points. They give 2 tags a year. You have 12 people with more points ahead of you: That means at least 6 years. Now eliminate half of those (prob more). That cuts your wait down to 3 years.

10 points isn’t that many. This change would make 10 points in realistic reach of a tag.

 

[WapitiBob]

You're guessing at the number of nr that apply for all species.

 

[hornkiller]

17 people with the same points and 28 above me in the buff pool how many of those guys are going to drop out?
None! I may not be able to walk when/if I ever draw a tag!

If f.$.w. and all the banquets didn't steal all the tags we all would have drawn by now!

 

[desperatehills]

If you triple the odds they go from .02% to .06% ....so you are sayin' there is a chance

 

[txhunter58]

It’s not the “random odds” that I am talking about improving. It’s less years to a bonus tag. You have enough points and it’s 100% chance to draw.

 

[johnnycake]

Something something midgets something something pissing something something forest fires

 

[Tristate]

 

[sticksender]

The bonus points report paints the picture. For example, prior to the end of the Pick-One era, for RMBS there were 233 total NR's with bonus points. In the first year of the Pick-All era, new applicants jumped from 93 to 411, an increase of 440%. As of today, the total RMBS applicants on the NR side has increased from 233 to 6923, an increase of 2970%.

 

[sticksender]

Similar story for Moose.

 

[sticksender]

Making things even tougher, largely thanks to the internet and to the proliferation of hunt application services....the public has wised up and became a little more educated about draws. Thus the trend has been for a higher percentage of applicants to apply for actual licenses instead of just points.

 

[idahomuleyhunter]

1 species per state. And be happy if you get one OIL in your life, anywhere. Any scheme you believe gives you an advantage can also give someone else that advantage over you.

 

[Crampy]

I would have drawn my elk tag 3-4 years ago if they changed the rules.

“My elk tag”?

Ideas like this only help a small group of boomers who are close to “their” elk tag. This is the entitlement concept of preference tags. (Which Utah incorrectly terms bonus tags.)

Everyone would like to tweak a system to benefit the way they like to apply. It’s human.

 

[idahomuleyhunter]

“My elk tag”?

Ideas like this only help a small group of boomers who are close to “their” elk tag. This is the entitlement concept of preference tags. (Which Utah incorrectly terms bonus tags.)

Everyone would like to tweak a system to benefit the way they like to apply. It’s human.

Exactly, so why "tweak" it at all? Random draws, one a year.

 

[Iddogguy]

Leave the same but square the points!

 

[Crampy]

As the boomers in UDWR/board die, Utah will go more towards random or true bonus. Of some type.

The 49.9% Preference of today (Utah LE/OIL) must go away - completely go away.

No idea (like this one) that benefit preference will get anywhere. Just too many folks are starting to understand the faulty math of preference for any quality tag.

 

[chicken77]

Random draw for all, no waiting periods, no points, no auction tags, no nothing but random draws and 5% max tags for Nonresidents. Every land owner/CWMU tag given must have a public tag in the random draw. Pay up front to apply and only get 80% of the fees returned if unsuccessful.

 

[txhunter58]

“My elk tag”?

Ideas like this only help a small group of boomers who are close to “their” elk tag. This is the entitlement concept of preference tags. (Which Utah incorrectly terms bonus tags.)

Everyone would like to tweak a system to benefit the way they like to apply. It’s human.

Ok, you got me there. Should have said “an” elk tag. But I get your point.

Of course, maybe this year I will get lucky and draw “your” elk tag! ?

 

[txhunter58]

Give you one more fact to chew on:

When Utah opened it up so we can all apply for everything, they gave us the exact same number of tags as when there were less applicants. No more NR tags, and you can still only draw 1 tag per year.

Regardless of your opinions, the only real winner is the state. We got nothing in return but much lower odds.

 

[BrianID]

Currently NRs can apply for all species every year. Facts about this:
1) you can only draw one tag per year. Deer is first. If you draw a deer tag, you are removed from all other hunt drawings. Any single tag you draw is the only one you can get
2) This current system dilutes your odds across all species.

If we switched back to being only able to apply for one hunt/tag, that eliminates more than 50% of the people ahead of us with more points. Because instead of everyone applying for all species, they have to choose one. That will decrease the time it takes to draw a Bonus tag for those with the most points. AND it increases the random odds for that tag because less total people are applying for that tag.

If Utah made this change, they could still allow us to put in for points for all other species. So they still make as much money from applications. And you could change to a new species next year if you want.

Residents can currently only apply for 1 hunt tag per year. They don’t appear to want to change this or it prob would have been changed. IMO it is because their odds would drop drastically.

You have flawed logic. It would only work if you could only build points for once species at at time.

This would not significantly make it easier to draw a tag with your points. You can already only draw one tag. Another applicant with 30 points for moose, elk, deer, sheep and goats is still restricted to one tag and isn't restricting people with 29 points from drawing more than one tag. The guys with the same amount or more points applying for the same elk hunt you want would almost all certainly be making that elk hunt their 1st priority, just like you would. If they thought they had enough points for sheep and wanted to make sheep their priority, then they would only be buying a point for elk anyway and wouldn't be competing for an elk tag with the current system.

I agree the random odds would be significantly improved but it would hardly be noticeable. Improving odds from 0.005% to 0.01% wouldn't make a noticeable difference on drawing a tag from one year to the next.

Everyone has an opinion on what draw system is best. Premium tags are going to be difficult to draw regardless of the point system. Point systems for premium tags are really only good for those that get in on the ground floor and only want one tag in their life. For everyone else, point systems are a bad deal in my opinion. A pure random draw like NM or Idaho gives me the best odds of drawing more tags. It isn't complicated math to see how pure random draw will increase the odds of those that really like to hunt. The only downside to pure random draw for me is that I cannot predict when I will draw a tag.

 

[idahomuleyhunter]

You have flawed logic. It would only work if you could only build points for once species at at time.

This would not significantly make it easier to draw a tag with your points. You can already only draw one tag. Another applicant with 30 points for moose, elk, deer, sheep and goats is still restricted to one tag and isn't restricting people with 29 points from drawing more than one tag. The guys with the same amount or more points applying for the same elk hunt you want would almost all certainly be making that elk hunt their 1st priority, just like you would. If they thought they had enough points for sheep and wanted to make sheep their priority, then they would only be buying a point for elk anyway and wouldn't be competing for an elk tag with the current system.

I agree the random odds would be significantly improved but it would hardly be noticeable. Improving odds from 0.005% to 0.01% wouldn't make a noticeable difference on drawing a tag from one year to the next.

Everyone has an opinion on what draw system is best. Premium tags are going to be difficult to draw regardless of the point system. Point systems for premium tags are really only good for those that get in on the ground floor and only want one tag in their life. For everyone else, point systems are a bad deal in my opinion. A pure random draw like NM or Idaho gives me the best odds of drawing more tags. It isn't complicated math to see how pure random draw will increase the odds of those that really like to hunt. The only downside to pure random draw for me is that I cannot predict when I will draw a tag.

Preference systems like Utah guarantee most people will never get drawn. So saying difficult to draw no matter the system is disingenuous. It is impossible to draw for those not on the top of the pyramid.

 

[rmanwill]

View attachment 108528

Here is an example. These are real odds for a decent elk unit last year. Let’s say you have 10 points. They give 2 tags a year. You have 12 people with more points ahead of you: That means at least 6 years. Now eliminate half of those (prob more). That cuts your wait down to 3 years.

10 points isn’t that many. This change would make 10 points in realistic reach of a tag.

And as a residence I have to chose one species until I draw and once drawn, I have to decide which species to try for next and start with ZERO points for that species. Not the best odds for a second or third OIL tag.

If Utah made Non residence pick a species like they do residence your odds would be much better for the selected species. If they are worried about the small amount of point fees they can raise the fee for the selected species. A lot better odds for non residence that way.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it, is you are just trying to get better odds for yourself and continue to collect points for all species.

 

[Iowan]

Leave it the way it is - at least I have horrible odds for more species.

 

[txhunter58]

You have flawed logic. It would only work if you could only build points for once species at at time.

This would not significantly make it easier to draw a tag with your points. You can already only draw one tag. Another applicant with 30 points for moose, elk, deer, sheep and goats is still restricted to one tag and isn't restricting people with 29 points from drawing more than one tag. The guys with the same amount or more points applying for the same elk hunt you want would almost all certainly be making that elk hunt their 1st priority, just like you would. If they thought they had enough points for sheep and wanted to make sheep their priority, then they would only be buying a point for elk anyway and wouldn't be competing for an elk tag with the current system.

I agree the random odds would be significantly improved but it would hardly be noticeable. Improving odds from 0.005% to 0.01% wouldn't make a noticeable difference on drawing a tag from one year to the next.

Everyone has an opinion on what draw system is best. Premium tags are going to be difficult to draw regardless of the point system. Point systems for premium tags are really only good for those that get in on the ground floor and only want one tag in their life. For everyone else, point systems are a bad deal in my opinion. A pure random draw like NM or Idaho gives me the best odds of drawing more tags. It isn't complicated math to see how pure random draw will increase the odds of those that really like to hunt. The only downside to pure random draw for me is that I cannot predict when I will draw a tag.

I disagree. Let’s say you currently have 100 guys all applying for elk and deer and antelope with varying amounts of points. You want an elk tag and currently you have 99 other persons competing for that tag.

If you make this change you could possibly now have 40 guys applying for elk and 40 guys applying for deer and 20 guys applying for antelope.

You went from competing with 100 guys to 40 guys. And some of those that have more points than you will pick a different species. And if 90% of the apps choose elk this year, you can put in for deer next year.

Everyone continues to build points in all species, so when you draw “an” elk tag and switch to deer, you have been building points, and still have better odds competing against 40 guys instead of 100

Where is the flaw in my logic?

 

[Crampy]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see it, is you are just trying to get better odds for yourself

Bingo! He only buys elk and deer in Utah.

He didn't start buying all species with the 2009 NR change like guys in his cohort.

So this proposal fixes his situation.

You have to play the game Utah deals you. Not some other game.

 

[txhunter58]

Bingo! He only buys elk and deer in Utah.

He didn't start buying all species with the 2009 NR change like guys in his cohort.

So this proposal fixes his situation.

You have to play the game Utah deals you. Not some other game.

Uh no, on every single species application, the odds will go up substantially. Even the ones I don’t apply for. Sure it is better for me or I wouldn’t be for it. But it substantially increases your odds of drawing YOUR tag of choice too

I get it, some people want to be able to “have a chance” at all species. I will never convince those.

 

[idahomuleyhunter]

Uh no, on every single species application, the odds will go up substantially. Even the ones I don’t apply for. Sure it is better for me or I wouldn’t be for it. But it substantially increases your odds of drawing YOUR tag of choice too

I get it, some people want to be able to “have a chance” at all species. I will never convince those.

This is the problem. Everyone wants better for me which guarantees just about everyone gets ****. How about the most good for everyone? Which involves everyone risking a little.

 

[BrianID]

Preference systems like Utah guarantee most people will never get drawn. So saying difficult to draw no matter the system is disingenuous. It is impossible to draw for those not on the top of the pyramid.

Sounds like you feel the same way about point systems I do. I'm glade people in Idaho have pushed back every time the state thinks it is a good idea $$$.

You could also say drawing a unit 45 deer tag in Idaho is impossible. It isn't impossible for anyone not at the top of the pyramid to drawn but I get your point. For those at the top, they would like it it be a pure preference system instead of a hybrid draw.

Mathematically it would make more sense to buy Powerball tickets and then pay for a bunch of hunts if I win instead of paying some of the application/license fees that I do.

 

[idahomuleyhunter]

Sounds like you feel the same way about point systems I do. I'm glade people in Idaho have pushed back every time the state thinks it is a good idea $$$.

You could also say drawing a unit 45 deer tag in Idaho is impossible. It isn't impossible for anyone not at the top of the pyramid to drawn but I get your point. For those at the top, they would like it it be a pure preference system instead of a hybrid draw.

Mathematically it would make more sense to buy Powerball tickets and then pay for a bunch of hunts if I win instead of paying some of the application/license fees that I do.

Unit 45 is highly unlikely. Rising to the top of the pyramid in Utah if you didn't start 28 years ago is impossible before you get into your 70's, at least. Those BP tags are in fact impossible for most people to ever get. But yes you're right, and I buy the points too, we'd probably do better buying lotto tickets. Until people, including me, get over the delusion that we'll all hunt every OIL and premium unit in every state, things won't get better.

 

[BrianID]

I disagree. Let’s say you currently have 100 guys all applying for elk and deer and antelope with varying amounts of points. You want an elk tag and currently you have 99 other persons competing for that tag.

If you make this change you could possibly now have 40 guys applying for elk and 40 guys applying for deer and 20 guys applying for antelope.

You went from competing with 100 guys to 40 guys. And some of those that have more points than you will pick a different species. And if 90% of the apps choose elk this year, you can put in for deer next year.

Everyone continues to build points in all species, so when you draw “an” elk tag and switch to deer, you have been building points, and still have better odds competing against 40 guys instead of 100

Where is the flaw in my logic?

Your logic is flawed because you think the other guys you are really competing with for a preference point elk tag would choose to apply for something other than elk. You are only competing for a preference point elk tag with a small group of other nonresident hunters, not "100 guys that apply with varying amounts of points." You might have 5 or 10 guys with enough points to have a realistic chance of drawing that preference tag. That small group of guys are all going to choose elk over deer or pronghorn until they get their elk tag.

There are many other nonresident hunters that you're competing with for an elk tag in Utah that are just building points. Guys just buying points don't show up in the odds until they decide to draw a tag. There are many guys with more points than you that have just been sitting on the sideline so even when you think you will draw a tag, that might be the year they decide to draw their elk tag.

Yes, your idea would significantly increase the odds of drawing a random tag but it would have insignificant effect on drawing a preference tag.

If nonresidents could only build points for one species, then your idea would work.

 

[BrianID]

Unit 45 is highly unlikely. Rising to the top of the pyramid in Utah if you didn't start 28 years ago is impossible before you get into your 70's, at least. Those BP tags are in fact impossible for most people to ever get. But yes you're right, and I buy the points too, we'd probably do better buying lotto tickets. Until people, including me, get over the delusion that we'll all hunt every OIL and premium unit in every state, things won't get better.

If you are only one point behind max, then that would still be a good place to be. I should be at 24 points for deer in Utah but I saw the $5 as a waste of money in the early 2000's some years. Now I wish I had 24 deer points. However, maybe I was right in the early 2000's and that $5/year really was a waste of money. For nonresidents of Utah with less than 10 points, the $15 application fee combined with the license fee is absolutely a waste of money if they think they will draw San Juan early rifle elk or Henry's Mountain deer one day.
It is nice to see others that hate point systems as much as I do. I was posting on monstermuley's 20 years ago about how point systems were a scam. Back then there were few others that agreed with me and I was worried Idaho would get a point system. Fortunately more and more hunters are realizing what a scam they are.

 

[BrianID]

This is the problem. Everyone wants better for me which guarantees just about everyone gets ****. How about the most good for everyone? Which involves everyone risking a little.

There is nothing wrong with txhunter58 wanting a different system that benefits him. A pure preference point draw system with no random tags would be the best deal for him because he just wants his one elk tag.

I would rather have random odds because for a guy like me that applies for 40+ tags every year. Random odds in every state would increase my odds of drawing quality tags. I've drawn deer tags in NM 8 out of the last 9 years. I wouldn't be able to draw the same quality of deer tag in Utah as often because point systems would prevent it from happening.

 

[desperatehills]

If you are building points for the Henry Mountains or big horn sheep or any other "near max point" tag, of course you are going to be disappointed with point systems. If you look at any one state's point systems you will find a flaw. Every state has positives and negatives. I was a little late getting into the point game, I started applying to more and more states around 2008. I have drawn two OIL tags, I have hunted deer, elk and antelope in Nevada, mule deer twice in Utah, Mule deer in Colorado. Without points I have hunted moose and elk in Idaho and Oryx and elk in New Mexico. I have drawn 5 antelope tags in Oregon in a unit that currently takes 18 points to draw.

I have points in states for species I will never draw. My 15 Montana sheep points are a prime example. I have never drawn a sheep tag in any state. If I focused on the negative aspects of point systems I would likely sell my guns and bow and spend a lot more time fishing.

Utah is interesting. I applied for elk and moose the year before they allowed us to apply for everything. I got excited when I saw I was a point away from drawing a great antelope tag (by Utah standards). There are only 60 NR with more antelope points than me. There are 1100 in my point pool. What is another $10 for a antelope point, right? Looks like I have a 15% chance of drawing some of the better units. The OP's idea would certainly improve my antelope odds but they will not help me much with getting a sheep tag.

I cast a big net every application season. I tend to get lucky more years than not. The years I do not get lucky I still hunt. I apply for the "Henry's" type hunts when I really just want another point. When I get lucky I figure out how to make it work. This season I should be chasing elk in Wyoming and mule deer on the Kaibab. I should get some zero point tag in Oregon and that will fill my season. If I draw one of the 6 sheep tags I applied for I will figure it out. If someone wants to change the point system in their state I will adjust my game plan and keep digging.

 

[txhunter58]

Your logic is flawed because you think the other guys you are really competing with for a preference point elk tag would choose to apply for something other than elk. You are only competing for a preference point elk tag with a small group of other nonresident hunters, not "100 guys that apply with varying amounts of points." You might have 5 or 10 guys with enough points to have a realistic chance of drawing that preference tag. That small group of guys are all going to choose elk over deer or pronghorn until they get their elk tag.

There are many other nonresident hunters that you're competing with for an elk tag in Utah that are just building points. Guys just buying points don't show up in the odds until they decide to draw a tag. There are many guys with more points than you that have just been sitting on the sideline so even when you think you will draw a tag, that might be the year they decide to draw their elk tag.

Yes, your idea would significantly increase the odds of drawing a random tag but it would have insignificant effect on drawing a preference tag.

If nonresidents could only build points for one species, then your idea would work.

Again, I respectfully disagree. I never said I only apply for elk. Only that I want an elk tag the most. Surely I am not the only person with quite a few points in multiple species. I have just as many deer points as elk and apply for deer every year. I play the system as it is. Not how I wish it were.

Residents system would never work for NRs. There arent enough tags. If and when you got “a” tag, there would be too many people above you in other species who have too many points.

And guess what, after I draw an elk tag, I will keep applying for elk until I can’t hunt any more. No, I don’t have a snowballs chance to get one , but who knows? But by doing that, I lower the random odds of those who haven’t drawn an elk tag

 

[txhunter58]

But you guys have convinced me to do something new this year. Since deer and elk are drawn first, I’m going to add every other species on the application. Who knows, lightning could strike. After all, may as well play the system as it is, not how I would like it to be.

 

[roadrunner]

View attachment 108528

Here is an example. These are real odds for a decent elk unit last year. Let’s say you have 10 points. They give 2 tags a year. You have 12 people with more points ahead of you: That means at least 6 years. Now eliminate half of those (prob more). That cuts your wait down to 3 years.

10 points isn’t that many. This change would make 10 points in realistic reach of a tag.

That cuts your wait down to 3 years to have a 50% chance of drawing 1 of 2 tags allocated to the other 4 point holders in your pool.

 

[txhunter58]

Instead of 6 years before having a chance. But should be a 50% chance (2 bonus tags)

 

[roadrunner]

Instead of 6 years before having a chance. But should be a 50% (2 bonus tags)

post edit.

 

[BrianID]

txhunter58,

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I still don't think the other guys with as many or more elk points than you would choose anything but elk, until they get their elk tag. Sure there could be one or two that choose to try for deer one year but most won't be on the edge of drawing the deer tag and elk tag they want in the same year. They will just prioritize the tag they are closest to drawing and no ones odds will significantly improve.

desperatehills,

Good attitude to have. The problem is there is too much demand for such a small supply. Wish you luck in the draws.

 

[roadrunner]

As a NR of UT, I'm glad I can apply for everything after not being able to draw my own state for many years at a time.

I hope UT doesn't change applying for multiple species anytime soon for NR's.

 

[txhunter58]

txhunter58,

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I still don't think the other guys with as many or more elk points than you would choose anything but elk, until they get their elk tag. Sure there could be one or two that choose to try for deer one year but most won't be on the edge of drawing the deer tag and elk tag they want in the same year. They will just prioritize the tag they are closest to drawing and no ones odds will significantly improve.

desperatehills,

Good attitude to have. The problem is there is too much demand for such a small supply. Wish you luck in the draws.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Because it depends on what unit and what hunt. So many different variables.

 

[uphill]

Note to self; While individual results may vary it appears the schools in ID teach mathematical theory better than in TX.

 

[Cooper]

I say get rid of the hunt expo and have more tags for everyone who applies in the general draw, let these groups that make all the money off utahs resources find another way to become wealthy. Maybe non residents would have a chance at a cool tag

 

[txhunter58]

Note to self; While individual results may vary it appears the schools in ID teach mathematical theory better than in TX.

Funny, but there is nothing wrong with my math. The only question is whether or not people with more points than you/me would choose another species.

Brian believes most with lots of elk points don’t have as many deer points and will only put in for an elk tag. And those with lots of deer points (or antelope, ext) don’t have as many elk points and will only put in for deer.

That may be true for some people and some hunts, but I believe (and this has nothing to do with math theory) this is not true across the board. IMO, my method would give you the option of choosing a different species and different hunt to increase your odds well beyond current odds. Do I know with with absolute certainty? Nope, but I believe it.

For Brian to be right, most people with high bonus points have to have substantially more in one species than the other, and they would only put in for their higher point species. If there are lots of people like me, with about the same number for multiple species, and they all choose elk this year, then deer odds would go up substantially and at some level, the people ahead of you in deer bonus points would be reduced. That’s not math theory, that is a fact

I have 18 elk points and 17 deer points. How about you guys?

 

[txhunter58]

Remember, from the limited tag list above, you can apply for all species, but draw only one tag. If they made you choose only one to apply for each year, every person who chooses a different species than you makes your odds go up at some level

Brian and I agree on that point. The difference of opinion is whether or not it would reduce the number of people ahead of you in bonus points and therefore make a significant reduction in the years it takes to draw a bonus tag.

Would be interested in knowing how many points of each species each of you have? If don’t want to get the exact number you can say:

I have about the same points for all OR.

I have many more (insert species) and would only apply for that tag if things were changed.

 

[rmanwill]

Remember, from the limited tag list above, you can apply for all species, but draw only one tag. If they made you choose only one to apply for each year, every person who chooses a different species than you makes your odds go up at some level

Brian and I agree on that point. The difference of opinion is whether or not it would reduce the number of people ahead of you in bonus points and therefore make a significant reduction in the years it takes to draw a bonus tag.

Would be interested in knowing how many points of each species each of you have? If don’t want to get the exact number you can say:

I have about the same points for all OR.

I have many more (insert species) and would only apply for that tag if things were changed.

And if Utah only allowed non residents to apply for only one species like residents it would do just that. And it would be easy to see draw odds and limit applicants from having points for all species so when they draw one species their not right in the higher point pool for the next species they chose. Big point creep fixed. ?

 

[Crampy]

You shouldn’t have been so cheap starting in 2009 when Utah grabbed extra NR money by allowing 7 categories of apps for NRs. You were already on the website and buying the $72 Utah base license and should have started buying all species apps for only $15/species. The charts show that many NRs figured that out in 2009 – sorry that you didn’t.

Your proposal fixes your error from 2009 that otherwise can’t be fixed without a time machine. Yes, your proposal definitely helps you out and the other guys who didn’t start playing the new game that Utah started in 2009.

For all species applying folks, your proposal hurts us. Because we are currently benefitting from guys in your situation. We spent the money ($15/species/year) – you didn’t.

Many of us are OK with dispersing our odds across 7 species rather than concentrating those odds on to one OIL and one LE.

 

[Wyo_Roadhunter]

This all depends on if your a resident or a non resident.

When I was a utah resident I thought it was bs non res could put in for everything.

Now that I'm a non resident and drew a elk tag as a random and have all my deer points I really like it haha.

So say utah did that and you could only choose 1 LE and 1 OIL then I'd hope wyoming and every other state would follow so you could only hunt deer or elk or antelope in the the other states and say wyoming you could only apply for moose, sheep, goat, Buffalo, or if they'd ever open it grizzly. I wish there was a perfect draw system that all states could go to.

 

[txhunter58]

You shouldn’t have been so cheap starting in 2009 when Utah grabbed extra NR money by allowing 7 categories of apps for NRs. You were already on the website and buying the $72 Utah base license and should have started buying all species apps for only $15/species. The charts show that many NRs figured that out in 2009 – sorry that you didn’t.

Your proposal fixes your error from 2009 that otherwise can’t be fixed without a time machine. Yes, your proposal definitely helps you out and the other guys who didn’t start playing the new game that Utah started in 2009.

For all species applying folks, your proposal hurts us. Because we are currently benefitting from guys in your situation. We spent the money ($15/species/year) – you didn’t.

Many of us are OK with dispersing our odds across 7 species rather than concentrating those odds on to one OIL and one LE.

Good enough. I understand your point of view. Your logic is sound and your opinion is as valid as mine.

But if what you say is true, and everyone has lots of points for all species, then you agree that in my proposed system, the odds for drawing a single animal would rise substantially. Not just mine, everyone’s. Cause that’s the math.

To be honest, I have very little interest in hunting anything Utah has to offer other than elk and deer, but since I am retiring this year and deer and elk are chosen first, I put in for all, and if I get picked I will go and enjoy it. But I will be diluting your odds even more. Since I won’t lose my shot at a deer or elk, I may as well play the game as it is.

Imagine if more than anything else you really wanted to draw a bighorn sheep tag and 90% of the applications went away. It wouldn’t just be me who benefits.

 

[uphill]

As I write this the votes are 38 for status quo and 31 for the proposed modification, which is curious because everyone is essentially voting for the same outcome. Stay with me here;

Under the status quo if a non-res applies for the limited buck deer, limited elk, limited pronghorn and each of the five once-in-a-lifetime species (that's 8 applications) the best the applicant can do is to draw 1 tag in any given year. Under txhunter58's proposal you could only apply for one species per year so the best you could do is draw one tag in any given year.
It's a tie.

Under the status quo a non-res can accrue 1 bonus point per species per year. Under txhuner58's proposal the accrual of bonus points is exactly the same.
Same thing, tie game.

Let's say you have 10 points for each species and there are a 1000 non-res applicants ahead of you with 11+ points per species. Under either system the only thing that gets the 11+ crowd out of your way for a tag in the bonus draw is if they quit applying altogether, die, or draw their tag. Now I understand txhuner58's point that under his proposal you might have ten points for elk and are applying for an elk tag and a bunch of the 1000 applicants with 11+ points will not be in the elk draw because they are applying for other species that year...so what?

They are currently ahead of you and they will stay ahead of you because under either proposal everyone is accruing bonus points at the same rate of one per species per year. The only thing mildly interesting about the proposed changes would be watching the draw statistics and applying for that species with your "one species per year" application when you knew you had reached the level to draw. But hey, that isn't fundamentally any different from how top point holders apply under the current system. It's a wash.

Now we come to the random draw. For the sake of analysis lets say there are 8000 non-residents that apply for limited random tags and there is only one random tag available per species. I understand this isn't exactly as it would play out in real life but you can massage the numbers around and the results will be the same. Under txhunter58's proposal applicants would have to pick a species and again, for the sake of analysis, let's say the applicants split up evenly and there were 1000 non-res applicants in each of the 8 separate draws for limited and OIL tags. So simple math tells us the odds of drawing a random tag would be 1000 to 1 or .1%


Under the current system all 8000 non-res could apply for each species so your odds of drawing a tag would be 8000 to 1 or .0125% . It seems like 8000 to 1 sucks compared to a 1000 to 1. But that's not how it plays out because the applicants are not constrained to one drawing per year at 8000 to 1 odds...they have entered 8 separate draws, each at 8000 to 1. So the odds of drawing are;
.0125% in the first draw,
.0125% in the second draw,
.0125% in the third draw,
etc. through 8 draws and if you add that up your chances of hitting one of the eight draws entered, each at 8000 to 1 = .1%
Which is exactly the same as your odds if entered in one draw at 1000 to one.

So once again, the differences in expected outcomes between the two systems is Zip.

April 27 is fast approaching, good luck to all in the draws!

 

[johnnycake]

Exactly uphill, which is why all of this even if it ever got implemented is as effective as a midget pissing on a forest fire.

 

[txhunter58]

That’s some very good and accurate math, but sometimes statistics can be skewed compared to real world examples. If all Units were 1 tag only, no bonus points, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There are many units with bonus point tags. Take my unit above for example:

If you only increased the odds by half, that lowers the people ahead of you from 111 to 56. They take 2 every year, so that is roughly 28 years to draw. Still very daunting, but doable in a lifetime. But in your example, if it was an even split between species, you would have only 14 people ahead of you. More realistic might be to decrease your competition by 2/3. That would mean only 37 people ahead of you. Now you are down to 18 years. Still attainable.

That doesn’t take into a count that there are now 5 bonus tags instead of 2 for that unit.

 

[txhunter58]

Yep, uphill, I do like a lively debate, but when all is said and done, hope you draw a tag this year.

 

[BrianID]

That’s some very good and accurate math, but sometimes statistics can be skewed compared to real world examples. If all Units were 1 tag only, no bonus points, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There are many units with bonus point tags. Take my unit above for example:

If you only increased the odds by half, that lowers the people ahead of you from 111 to 56. They take 2 every year, so that is roughly 28 years to draw. Still very daunting, but doable in a lifetime. But in your example, if it was an even split between species, you would have only 14 people ahead of you. More realistic might be to decrease your competition by 2/3. That would mean only 37 people ahead of you. Now you are down to 18 years. Still attainable.

That doesn’t take into a count that there are now 5 bonus tags instead of 2 for that unit.

Your logic is still flawed. The problem is nonresidents can still build points for all species with your proposal. When they still build a point every year, they hold their spot in line and are still in front of you and point creep continues. The picture that you posted above only gives you an idea of what it will be like this year. There will likely be multiple guys that currently have 19+ points try to draw that tag over the next 5 years that did not apply for it last year.

All of this just proves how point systems fool people just like they fall for socialism and communism. They think they are a good idea at the time but you have to look at the long term consequences. Older hunters are going to be taking a larger and large quantity of quality tags in Western states over the next couple decades. You are free to disagree with me but I think a guy in his 20's should have the same chance at a tag as I do even when I've built decades of points.

 

[nmbighorn]

The only way everyone can have the same chance is do away with the system, but that won't happen because too many people have built points by purchasing them, the only way to improve this mess of odds so everyone can have a chance is to square points like Nevada does!

 

[txhunter58]

I must admit that you guys have made me reevaluate my idea. Especially when I applied for the OIL tags for the first time this year. ? There is only 1 tag per hunt (something you have repeatedly told me) with thousands of applicants. So random odds only every year. The vast majority of people will never get a tag in a lifetime. I doubt I will apply again next year. Cause I don’t have a lifetime left! ?. I still believe my plan would help, but only for limited draws. If they would just separate the draws, it would help (chance to draw both a limited and OIL tag each year)

In the long run, they prob need to eliminate bonus points. But cold Turkey would not be fair. Need a “golden parachute” plan.

Good luck in the draws. Ya better hurry and decide!

 

[cwprx]

Sadly I see your point, but you need to realize that people who are residents and are just starting to build points have worse odds than anyone. I finally drew my limited entry elk tag last year with 25 points going into the draw. I could have drawn other units earlier, but wanted to hunt a specific unit. My kids most likely will never draw a tag in Utah for elk, deer, moose, bison, sheep, or goats. The population of Utah is exploding, and some of these people are moving in with points for every species because of the way the draw system is currently set up.

I would propose that if this were to stay the same upon moving into Utah you would have to choose one LE species, one OIL species, and forfeit all points collected for any other species.

Truly there is not any perfect preference point system. I'm not sure there is any legit random system either. Some people have all the luck and draw a ton of tags. Others, like me, having lived in Utah 41 years and have drawn 2 LE turkey tags and 1 LE elk tag. Most likely I will never draw another limited entry tag in my lifetime.

 

[txhunter58]

I have yet to see a perfect system.
I think the closest I have seen is totally random drawing for all tags, but you still get a point each year and they square your points. So no tags to the highest point holders, but your points mean more. But when you have a lot of people with lots of points, even that advantage is negated.