utah preference point change
- Thread starter ELKOHOLIC
- Start date
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
>Does anyone know if you lose
>your points on a second
>choice like they were discussing.
>I can't seem to find
>it anywhere, but I know
>it was a hot topic.
>
No, you do not! The preference point system is exactly what it was last year. There will be no changes, if any, until a DWR study regarding combining deer preference points and bonus points is complete. That study starts early 2015.
>your points on a second
>choice like they were discussing.
>I can't seem to find
>it anywhere, but I know
>it was a hot topic.
>
No, you do not! The preference point system is exactly what it was last year. There will be no changes, if any, until a DWR study regarding combining deer preference points and bonus points is complete. That study starts early 2015.
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
I'll like it when it changes... and makes all the units equal LE units. My lifetime license will afford me some some great tags every year unless "equal" doesn't really mean "equal (which I'm sure it won't)!
Regardless of a change moving to a single-LE-points system, I'll bet there will always be those top-tier units which will be treated differently by the F&G.
I suppose there will always be winners and losers any time there's a change. Those who will benefit are all for it and those who it will hurt are against it.
Any change to an existing system is tantamount to "changing the rules in the middle of the game".
Good luck to us all,
Zeke
Regardless of a change moving to a single-LE-points system, I'll bet there will always be those top-tier units which will be treated differently by the F&G.
I suppose there will always be winners and losers any time there's a change. Those who will benefit are all for it and those who it will hurt are against it.
Any change to an existing system is tantamount to "changing the rules in the middle of the game".
Good luck to us all,
Zeke
utfireman
Active Member
- Messages
- 341
The state hasn't had a general season for a few years now. People need to stop thinking that. When you could no longer buy over the counter or hunt every year the general season tags went out the window.
That being said, I like the idea of one system and one draw. Pick your poison, either hunt every year or hunt a quality unit every few years. Make a dedicated Hunter option a special tag for each unit like they are trying out this year, and get rid of waiting period. You do that and I will be happy! While we are at it, let's do the same thing for the elk.
That being said, I like the idea of one system and one draw. Pick your poison, either hunt every year or hunt a quality unit every few years. Make a dedicated Hunter option a special tag for each unit like they are trying out this year, and get rid of waiting period. You do that and I will be happy! While we are at it, let's do the same thing for the elk.
So I guess I should've never put in for LE deer. My 13 points are going to go down the drain if they combine the LE units into the general. There's no way I'll keep applying for the Henry's so I will waste my years of patience by using 13 points to draw the general unit I hunt. That will piss me off because I could have had an awesome bull tag by now. So much for that dream.
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
>So I guess I should've never
>put in for LE deer.
>My 13 points are going
>to go down the drain
>if they combine the LE
>units into the general. There's
>no way I'll keep applying
>for the Henry's so I
>will waste my years of
>patience by using 13 points
>to draw the general unit
>I hunt. That will piss
>me off because I could
>have had an awesome bull
>tag by now. So much
>for that dream.
That's exactly right!
Those with deer points would get totally screwed while those guys without deer points are all for the "new" one-points deer system.
Any time there's a rules change for the points game, someone wins and someone loses.
Who knows? I might be a big winner with a rules change but it still isn't the right thing to do.
Zeke
>put in for LE deer.
>My 13 points are going
>to go down the drain
>if they combine the LE
>units into the general. There's
>no way I'll keep applying
>for the Henry's so I
>will waste my years of
>patience by using 13 points
>to draw the general unit
>I hunt. That will piss
>me off because I could
>have had an awesome bull
>tag by now. So much
>for that dream.
That's exactly right!
Those with deer points would get totally screwed while those guys without deer points are all for the "new" one-points deer system.
Any time there's a rules change for the points game, someone wins and someone loses.
Who knows? I might be a big winner with a rules change but it still isn't the right thing to do.
Zeke
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
Zeke, that is not necessarily true. There are multiple ways they could do this. For one, they could give each hunter the highest level of points that they had at the time of the change, for example...
1- a hunter with 3 GS deer points and 11 LE deer points would have 11 points under the new system.
2- a hunter with 2 GS deer points and 0 LE deer points (applying for elk) would retain 2 points for the new system.
3- a hunter with 3 GS deer points and 1 LE deer point would retain 3 deer points for the new system.
Nobody gets screwed.
Another option would be to combine points, 3 GS deer points and 11 LE deer points would have 14 deer points under the new system... however I think this is less likely.
The point of this is to open up the draw by not allowing people to build LE points while hunting GS every year. This would force hunters to choose a poor unit every year, the Henry's once-in-their-life, or anywhere in-between.
The hunt-every-year guys would really be the ones to benefit since everybody with 5+ deer points would never use that on a poorer unit, therefore keeping point creep down for those units. It is basically a "free-market capitalism" system that over time will assign value to every unit in the state... (see Colorado, they've been doing this for years).
Grizzly
1- a hunter with 3 GS deer points and 11 LE deer points would have 11 points under the new system.
2- a hunter with 2 GS deer points and 0 LE deer points (applying for elk) would retain 2 points for the new system.
3- a hunter with 3 GS deer points and 1 LE deer point would retain 3 deer points for the new system.
Nobody gets screwed.
Another option would be to combine points, 3 GS deer points and 11 LE deer points would have 14 deer points under the new system... however I think this is less likely.
The point of this is to open up the draw by not allowing people to build LE points while hunting GS every year. This would force hunters to choose a poor unit every year, the Henry's once-in-their-life, or anywhere in-between.
The hunt-every-year guys would really be the ones to benefit since everybody with 5+ deer points would never use that on a poorer unit, therefore keeping point creep down for those units. It is basically a "free-market capitalism" system that over time will assign value to every unit in the state... (see Colorado, they've been doing this for years).
Grizzly
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
Mr grizz, I certainly see what you're saying and the basic numbers might make sense but you'll have to admit that ANY change will be a positive for some and a negative for others.
The difference is this: A guy who has been building elk points would not be impacted at all (he continues building points and hunts deer every year) while the guy who has been applying for deer, now has to continue building deer points and cannot hunt deer every year and cannot apply for LE elk. And BOTH groups can continue to hunt elk every year!
The numbers might look good until you look at the big picture.
Thanks for the reply,
Zeke
The difference is this: A guy who has been building elk points would not be impacted at all (he continues building points and hunts deer every year) while the guy who has been applying for deer, now has to continue building deer points and cannot hunt deer every year and cannot apply for LE elk. And BOTH groups can continue to hunt elk every year!
The numbers might look good until you look at the big picture.
Thanks for the reply,
Zeke
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
Zeke, I totally agree that there will be winners and losers. But I also postulate that any young hunter turning 14 right now is a BIG loser with the current point system... so no matter what, there are losers.
I am sitting on 14 deer points, so I would be in the camp of guys that would not be able to apply for General Tags. I am pretty much stuck until I draw a LE tag. I would take that trade-off to unplug the catastrophe that is the current point creep.
The easiest-to-draw rifle deer tag is South Slope, Diamond Mtn. Last year there were 1,205 applicants for 39 tags. It will take over 30 years to clear those guys out so a new hunter would be in the Bonus Point Pool and be looking at a realistic chance at a tag. Sure he may get lucky, but for every guy that gets lucky and draws out of the Regular Draw there is an equal number of hunters that don't get lucky and have to wait until they hit the Bonus Point Pool.
I'm a believer in free-market forces and say if they are good enough for our economy, they are good enough for our deer tags.
Either combine the tags into one draw like Colorado, or go to a straight-draw like New Mexico and Idaho. Just my .02.
Grizzly
I am sitting on 14 deer points, so I would be in the camp of guys that would not be able to apply for General Tags. I am pretty much stuck until I draw a LE tag. I would take that trade-off to unplug the catastrophe that is the current point creep.
The easiest-to-draw rifle deer tag is South Slope, Diamond Mtn. Last year there were 1,205 applicants for 39 tags. It will take over 30 years to clear those guys out so a new hunter would be in the Bonus Point Pool and be looking at a realistic chance at a tag. Sure he may get lucky, but for every guy that gets lucky and draws out of the Regular Draw there is an equal number of hunters that don't get lucky and have to wait until they hit the Bonus Point Pool.
I'm a believer in free-market forces and say if they are good enough for our economy, they are good enough for our deer tags.
Either combine the tags into one draw like Colorado, or go to a straight-draw like New Mexico and Idaho. Just my .02.
Grizzly
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
You make a compelling point, yet.......
Since you're going to play the "youth" card:
The only way to make it FAIR is to have a totally random draw without regard for points and you give up your points right now. Seems fair huh?
Remember, youth have something going for them... they are YOUNG and many of us will be long dead and they'll be in the running for a great tag AND get to hunt deer with the family every year or so. That's fair for the youth.
There is no, zero, zilch fair system. There are only systems by which we play and EVERY time the system is change it hurts some group at the gain of others, period and amen.
Love, Zeke
Since you're going to play the "youth" card:
The only way to make it FAIR is to have a totally random draw without regard for points and you give up your points right now. Seems fair huh?
Remember, youth have something going for them... they are YOUNG and many of us will be long dead and they'll be in the running for a great tag AND get to hunt deer with the family every year or so. That's fair for the youth.
There is no, zero, zilch fair system. There are only systems by which we play and EVERY time the system is change it hurts some group at the gain of others, period and amen.
Love, Zeke
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
Zeke, in regards to your comments about the elk hunter applying for elk points but still hunting deer every year (in a lesser unit). This is exactly why some hunters would be inclined to jump into the elk draw, buy a leftover deer tag every year or two on lesser units and therefore lessen the point creep on those that choose to wait and only hunt deer occasionally, albeit on a better unit.
And those that mainly wanted to hunt deer wouldn't have to compete with the trophy hunters waiting for a Henry's tag or those applying for elk and would certainly be guaranteed a GS tag every year or two. Which also means that some hunters would rather hunt deer every year than wait for a LE elk tag in 15 years and would pull some hunters out of the elk draw.
All of these scenarios are exactly why point creep would lessen, it forces hunters to decide which species they want to hunt, at which quality level, and then pay (in points) a fair-market value for that tag.
One more thought, I would consider allowing hunters to apply for 2/3 Big Game species every year (deer/elk/antelope). Most guys would choose deer/elk and therefore the antelope odds would improve... but for every hunter that jumped into the antelope draw to take advantage of the opportunity, that is another removed from deer or elk. I see it ultimately as a win/win.
We will shortly find out the true value of every species and every unit.
Admittedly, it will take a few years for this to play out since people like me with 14 deer points are certainly not going to burn them on the Cache unit... but once I do burn them I will have to decide which application strategy is more important to me (opportunity or quality), right now hunters get to choose both and that is the problem.
Grizzly
And those that mainly wanted to hunt deer wouldn't have to compete with the trophy hunters waiting for a Henry's tag or those applying for elk and would certainly be guaranteed a GS tag every year or two. Which also means that some hunters would rather hunt deer every year than wait for a LE elk tag in 15 years and would pull some hunters out of the elk draw.
All of these scenarios are exactly why point creep would lessen, it forces hunters to decide which species they want to hunt, at which quality level, and then pay (in points) a fair-market value for that tag.
One more thought, I would consider allowing hunters to apply for 2/3 Big Game species every year (deer/elk/antelope). Most guys would choose deer/elk and therefore the antelope odds would improve... but for every hunter that jumped into the antelope draw to take advantage of the opportunity, that is another removed from deer or elk. I see it ultimately as a win/win.
We will shortly find out the true value of every species and every unit.
Admittedly, it will take a few years for this to play out since people like me with 14 deer points are certainly not going to burn them on the Cache unit... but once I do burn them I will have to decide which application strategy is more important to me (opportunity or quality), right now hunters get to choose both and that is the problem.
Grizzly
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
Zeke, I agree that a random draw is the only fair way. If somebody can come up with a way to implement it now that so many of us have blood and treasure into our current point build-up, I'm in. Let's do it. I love Idaho and New Mexico with their lack of point systems.
How about this? Utah issues no more points for any species. In the interim, 50% of tags for each unit are weighted for points until the current points are all burned up. The other 50% are pulled in a straight-draw every year.
That way we can slowly implement a random draw without telling hunters with over a decade of waiting that it was all for nothing.
UDWR will never do it because point systems are a major source of income (see: Idaho's study on the subject). But I for one would wholeheartedly support it.
Grizzly
How about this? Utah issues no more points for any species. In the interim, 50% of tags for each unit are weighted for points until the current points are all burned up. The other 50% are pulled in a straight-draw every year.
That way we can slowly implement a random draw without telling hunters with over a decade of waiting that it was all for nothing.
UDWR will never do it because point systems are a major source of income (see: Idaho's study on the subject). But I for one would wholeheartedly support it.
Grizzly
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-14 AT 02:03PM (MST)[p] If somebody can come
>up with a way to
>implement it now that so
>many of us have blood
>and treasure into our current
>point build-up, I'm in. Let's
>do it. I love Idaho
>and New Mexico with their
>lack of point systems.
Grizz,
That's flawed and selfish thinking! You want to see the rules changed AND yet keep the benefits of having your deer points.
You've made some great points but that's not one of them.
Everyone talks about point creep. Let me ask you this, when the resource is totally and completely outstripped by the demand, can there be anything else? Hell NO, brother. This is the game and we have the rules. Why the rush to change it NOW when we all have blood and treasure invested?
I must say that I've enjoyed our banter.
Zeke
>up with a way to
>implement it now that so
>many of us have blood
>and treasure into our current
>point build-up, I'm in. Let's
>do it. I love Idaho
>and New Mexico with their
>lack of point systems.
Grizz,
That's flawed and selfish thinking! You want to see the rules changed AND yet keep the benefits of having your deer points.
You've made some great points but that's not one of them.
Everyone talks about point creep. Let me ask you this, when the resource is totally and completely outstripped by the demand, can there be anything else? Hell NO, brother. This is the game and we have the rules. Why the rush to change it NOW when we all have blood and treasure invested?
I must say that I've enjoyed our banter.
Zeke
Zim
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,291
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-14 AT 02:32PM (MST)[p]Oh god not again. Been applying for tags 20 years and anytime there's a "change" it has ALWAYS screwed the guys with the most points, because we are sitting targets. Classic "bait-n-switch" to get new blood money. If the current proposals don't include this, they will by the time the bill is finalized. Never fails. Bend over.
I've been burning my points in various states desperately trying to stay ahead of the "bend over" game. In 2012 burned my Wyoming moose when the preference/random percentage legislation was brewing. Then in 2013 needed to burn my WY elk & lope points bacause my max points topped out for the units I wanted. Now this year running to Arizona to burn my elk points in 2015 before they screw us there with preference/random percentage rule "change". All these years I had to pass on burning my 18 Utah deer points. If I fail in AZ this year (50/50) I will be screwed there so would run to burn my UT points for 2016. It's like musical chairs trying to avoid getting my chair pulled out from under me. Before it's done, watch this UT proposal morph before your eyes to screw the high point holders. You can count on it.
***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
I've been burning my points in various states desperately trying to stay ahead of the "bend over" game. In 2012 burned my Wyoming moose when the preference/random percentage legislation was brewing. Then in 2013 needed to burn my WY elk & lope points bacause my max points topped out for the units I wanted. Now this year running to Arizona to burn my elk points in 2015 before they screw us there with preference/random percentage rule "change". All these years I had to pass on burning my 18 Utah deer points. If I fail in AZ this year (50/50) I will be screwed there so would run to burn my UT points for 2016. It's like musical chairs trying to avoid getting my chair pulled out from under me. Before it's done, watch this UT proposal morph before your eyes to screw the high point holders. You can count on it.
***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-14
>AT 02:03?PM (MST)
>
> If somebody can come
>>up with a way to
>>implement it now that so
>>many of us have blood
>>and treasure into our current
>>point build-up, I'm in. Let's
>>do it. I love Idaho
>>and New Mexico with their
>>lack of point systems.
>
>
>Grizz,
>That's flawed and selfish thinking! You
>want to see the rules
>changed AND yet keep the
>benefits of having your deer
>points.
>
>You've made some great points but
>that's not one of them.
>
>
>
>Everyone talks about point creep. Let
>me ask you this, when
>the resource is totally and
>completely outstripped by the demand,
>can there be anything else?
>Hell NO, brother. This is
>the game and we have
>the rules. Why the rush
>to change it NOW when
>we all have blood and
>treasure invested?
>
>I must say that I've enjoyed
>our banter.
>
>Zeke
Zeke, I should have been more clear. I'd give up my points for a true random draw, I just don't think DWR would wipe all the acquired points away for everybody... I think they'd come up with some sort of transition compromise.
I too have enjoyed the discussion, have a good one.
Grizzly
>AT 02:03?PM (MST)
>
> If somebody can come
>>up with a way to
>>implement it now that so
>>many of us have blood
>>and treasure into our current
>>point build-up, I'm in. Let's
>>do it. I love Idaho
>>and New Mexico with their
>>lack of point systems.
>
>
>Grizz,
>That's flawed and selfish thinking! You
>want to see the rules
>changed AND yet keep the
>benefits of having your deer
>points.
>
>You've made some great points but
>that's not one of them.
>
>
>
>Everyone talks about point creep. Let
>me ask you this, when
>the resource is totally and
>completely outstripped by the demand,
>can there be anything else?
>Hell NO, brother. This is
>the game and we have
>the rules. Why the rush
>to change it NOW when
>we all have blood and
>treasure invested?
>
>I must say that I've enjoyed
>our banter.
>
>Zeke
Zeke, I should have been more clear. I'd give up my points for a true random draw, I just don't think DWR would wipe all the acquired points away for everybody... I think they'd come up with some sort of transition compromise.
I too have enjoyed the discussion, have a good one.
Grizzly
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
When I taught Hunters Ed. and the kids would talk about Hunting Big Bucks and Bulls on the limited area's "just like so and so's Dad.. Almost couldn't look them in the eye knowing they would more than likely be old men and women if they did get "lucky". Starting 2 decades behind in a point racket that needs years and years to break even with the hunters in it now. My Brother contributed to everyone's success when he Died with max points in 1999. My Dad Drew Elk Ridge Deer the first Year and after waiting applied every year until he died. I doubt I'll ever Draw a limited tag unless I apply for an archery Book Cliff, And I have Given it a lot of thought the last few years. I only have 10 points. Another thing is, I first Wanted Elk Ridge, then after it went down hill I wanted the Pauns. Well it followed Elk Ridge. Now it the Henries.. I wonder where it will be in another 10 years. Do any of you guys remember Bumble Bee, Browse, Commanchy. Does anyone KNOW how long it would take to move (for Deer) just the top 50% through with the tags we have now. Imagine now the point creep with all the non hunters applying for Jonny's mentoring tag.
2lumpy
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,014
There is a solution to this. But not without a different approach to the problem and a different attitude at the decision making level. I can't see anyone supporting either a different approach nor a different attitude at the decision making level in the foreseeable future.
I believe we better hunker down and make do, the best we can, with the system is for now.
DC
I believe we better hunker down and make do, the best we can, with the system is for now.
DC
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,438
That would be great to combine Pref and LE Deer points into 1 point pool and have all your 5 choices count.
It is going to be 2015 for hell sake!~
When we gonna catch up with other states?
Robb
It is going to be 2015 for hell sake!~
When we gonna catch up with other states?
Robb
fullthrottle
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,361
I agree with what has already been said, but please don't go to a no points straight up random draw system. That sounds fair but in the end actually isn't. At least with points you know where you stand, and can somewhat make plans for hunts. It also rewards those who diligently put in for so long. Random draw who know's some guys will draw a couple times and others never. What is fair about that?
Zim
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,291
>I agree with what has already
>been said, but please don't
>go to a no points
>straight up random draw system.
>That sounds fair but in
>the end actually isn't. At
>least with points you know
>where you stand, and can
>somewhat make plans for hunts.
>It also rewards those who
>diligently put in for so
>long. Random draw who know's
>some guys will draw a
>couple times and others never.
>What is fair about that?
>
Unfortunately, eventually politicians always screw the high point holders because they are a captive audience forced to continue what they started. Not so for newbies considering getting into the game late. The politicians want that new blood money no matter who deserves the tags. It's all about money.
********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
>been said, but please don't
>go to a no points
>straight up random draw system.
>That sounds fair but in
>the end actually isn't. At
>least with points you know
>where you stand, and can
>somewhat make plans for hunts.
>It also rewards those who
>diligently put in for so
>long. Random draw who know's
>some guys will draw a
>couple times and others never.
>What is fair about that?
>
Unfortunately, eventually politicians always screw the high point holders because they are a captive audience forced to continue what they started. Not so for newbies considering getting into the game late. The politicians want that new blood money no matter who deserves the tags. It's all about money.
********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
I am interested to see what the "study" says when it comes back. I am building non-resident points for general season and limited entry deer just in case Utah joins the points into one pool at some point in time. Utah is home and I am sure I will move back sooner rather than later. I am also starting to build a collection of points since I can apply for all the species each year as a non-resident.
Do any of you know when this study is supposed to be completed by?
Dillon
www.dillonhoyt.com
Do any of you know when this study is supposed to be completed by?
Dillon
www.dillonhoyt.com
Zim if you have 18 points why don't you just draw a paunsy archery tag and go shoot a 200" buck and be done with utah ? Last year a guy with 16 drew the only max point tag ! You would have drawn with 17 unless you didn't have 17? But then you couldn't ##### about utah s point system or SFW
Zim
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,291
Your answer is in the thread below: http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID30/2578.html#.VJZD7IBAJQ
Thank god both UTDOW & HF gave me bad info last year on the tag return policy
Just lucky. Because if I had known and applied the tag would have been flushed down the toilet after 18 years wait. Was hospitalized for heart problem August 21st which would have ended my hunt. So lucky I failed to draw anything anywhere last year. Surgery fixed the problem so I should be safe to do this hunt in 2015. I will be applying.
***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
Thank god both UTDOW & HF gave me bad info last year on the tag return policy
Just lucky. Because if I had known and applied the tag would have been flushed down the toilet after 18 years wait. Was hospitalized for heart problem August 21st which would have ended my hunt. So lucky I failed to draw anything anywhere last year. Surgery fixed the problem so I should be safe to do this hunt in 2015. I will be applying.
***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,560
LAST EDITED ON Dec-25-14 AT 04:42PM (MST)[p]If bonus points go away in some kind of change, I would assume the Utah fish and game would refund my money for all of those points which would now be worthless?? LOL
Wonder if a class action lawsuit for reniging on promises made for money paid would get any traction.
Of course, us nonresidents have already been screwed by allowing us to apply for more than one species. We can still only draw one tag/species per year, AND our odds went to crap. I am paying money to put in for both an elk and deer tag, but if I were to draw a deer tag (draw held before elk) I can't draw an elk tag. To be fair, they should only let us apply for one tag but also put in for a point for another species. Then they get their money and I get better odds for the species I really want to draw.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
Wonder if a class action lawsuit for reniging on promises made for money paid would get any traction.
Of course, us nonresidents have already been screwed by allowing us to apply for more than one species. We can still only draw one tag/species per year, AND our odds went to crap. I am paying money to put in for both an elk and deer tag, but if I were to draw a deer tag (draw held before elk) I can't draw an elk tag. To be fair, they should only let us apply for one tag but also put in for a point for another species. Then they get their money and I get better odds for the species I really want to draw.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
Cam@strawberry
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,290
I'm all for an 'either or' system. But not a combined one make guys choose to hunt either GS or LE but not both. Allow them to do the same with elk, it stands to reason that those with a stock pile of points will remain in the system they've invested in. Those without the stock pile will jump ship, meaning if you have points then you will draw within a few years.
IE say for example there were 3000 current applicants for a given unit with 100 total permits. Of the 3000 there were 700 that had 10 points or more those 700 would remain in the pool while the 2300 others would opt for easier permits. Within a few years the max point pool would shrink to 10 or Less points.
Those 2300 that 'jumped ship' were already hunting GS so we effectively shrunk both draw pools,
This makes a lot of sense to my miniature brain, like zeke said some would be screwed in this but in the long run I think most would benefit
https://www.facebook.com/strawberrybayoutfitters
IE say for example there were 3000 current applicants for a given unit with 100 total permits. Of the 3000 there were 700 that had 10 points or more those 700 would remain in the pool while the 2300 others would opt for easier permits. Within a few years the max point pool would shrink to 10 or Less points.
Those 2300 that 'jumped ship' were already hunting GS so we effectively shrunk both draw pools,
This makes a lot of sense to my miniature brain, like zeke said some would be screwed in this but in the long run I think most would benefit
https://www.facebook.com/strawberrybayoutfitters
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,560
The way you describe it makes it sounds inviting, for residents at least, but probably won't change much for us NRs. I suspect that only a small amount of us opt to hunt yearly.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
gundog2
Active Member
- Messages
- 425
I predict that UDWR will develop a hybrid draw something like this. First run draw based on bonus points using same rules of current bonus point system, except that no new bonus points will be awarded. Bonus points will be erased only if you draw you first hunt choice in the bonus point draw. Then run draw for remaining permits based on preference points, using all the same rules of the current preference point draw, except that preference points will be erased if you draw in the preference point draw.
If I understand the current preference point system correctly, bonus point holders would still have a fair chance to draw using their second, third, or fourth choice based on their preference point status.
All unsuccessful applicants get a preference point, no new bonus points will be awarded.
If I understand the current preference point system correctly, bonus point holders would still have a fair chance to draw using their second, third, or fourth choice based on their preference point status.
All unsuccessful applicants get a preference point, no new bonus points will be awarded.
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
LAST EDITED ON Dec-26-14 AT 01:15PM (MST)[p]There are way to many things the Utah DWR has to consider before any changes can be made to the current system. And its sad to say that the average sportsmens concerns would be at the bottom of the list, Resident or nonresident. The top priority with this organisation has been for years and will continue to be the almighty dollar. If reason were given to applicants, that would decrease the number applying for tags and remove the gambling income from the DWR,. Where would the "replacement" money come from. Its not a matter of their (the DWR) willingness to make a change like this, its more a matter of them figuring out a way to "sell" the idea that would not decrease their coffers. The system IMO is to polluted now to even try an attempt at a change like this. Then AFTER the money issue they would need to find a way to coddle the special interest groups that have WAY more say as to to design of the current system than IMO they should.Then after that the CMWU folks would need a thoro coddling as well. Then if,(tongue in cheek)that ever happens I am sure there would only
be a few dozen more concerns to address,before the average hunters could begin to fight against each other in an effort to get what "they" want only to agree to not agree...... Then after the changes have been made (still with tongue in cheek) they could all start complaining about how they were each screwed by this or that. and when its all said and done the DWR and special interests will still have their peay day. And sportsmen will peay for it. Without any gain for the sportsmen interest
Before someone starts their whining about the Draw money going to Falon Nev. please explain to me why this draw cant be done within Utah? are we to inept, bureaucratic, are the people that would do it here more expensive than in Nev., and if so why?
be a few dozen more concerns to address,before the average hunters could begin to fight against each other in an effort to get what "they" want only to agree to not agree...... Then after the changes have been made (still with tongue in cheek) they could all start complaining about how they were each screwed by this or that. and when its all said and done the DWR and special interests will still have their peay day. And sportsmen will peay for it. Without any gain for the sportsmen interest
Before someone starts their whining about the Draw money going to Falon Nev. please explain to me why this draw cant be done within Utah? are we to inept, bureaucratic, are the people that would do it here more expensive than in Nev., and if so why?
Bwht4x4
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,428
>That would be great to combine
>Pref and LE Deer points
>into 1 point pool and
>have all your 5 choices
>count.
>
>It is going to be 2015
>for hell sake!~
>When we gonna catch up with
>other states?
>
>Robb
I think Robb is right on with this proposal. I have 18 pts for LE deer and the thought of completely loosing them is frightening. I've waited anxiously for nearly two decades for a great tag and not for my points to disappear. Combining both the LE and GS deer points I think would be the fairest option for us high point holders.
>Pref and LE Deer points
>into 1 point pool and
>have all your 5 choices
>count.
>
>It is going to be 2015
>for hell sake!~
>When we gonna catch up with
>other states?
>
>Robb
I think Robb is right on with this proposal. I have 18 pts for LE deer and the thought of completely loosing them is frightening. I've waited anxiously for nearly two decades for a great tag and not for my points to disappear. Combining both the LE and GS deer points I think would be the fairest option for us high point holders.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-14 AT 00:07AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-14 AT 00:05?AM (MST)
Over the last 5 years (2010-2014), General Deer apps regularly account for 33% of the total Buck, Bull, OIL apps (including point purchases) while LE Deer apps account for 15% of the totals and CWMU Deer apps account for 1%. (How many of those are from the same applicants is unknown.) And the Bucks, Bulls, OIL totals have risen from 309,582 to 377,836 apps with about 20,000 more each year for the last 3 years. Also, that doesn't count the OTC tags for elk, nor the Conservation tags. Plus, there is a current DWR proposal to add some of the EXPO apps money (30%) to the system. (UWC has a counter proposal for 50%.) I don't think the DWR is all that worried about losing revenue with a combined point system, but there certainly are those other issues of Lifetime License Holders, Dedicated Hunters, determining the individual totals of hunters who have both preference points and bonus points, the 50% bonus point rule, how the draw would be conducted, etc.
As for the Fallon company handling the draw, I think it's a matter of their bid being the lowest for the required services. Plus, they are already set up to develop software and do that sort of thing (They also handle Nevada's, New Mexico's, Arizona's and Idaho's Fish & Game permit distribution and data, as well as developing and maintaining programs for various Nevada county agencies and private companies.) and they do it with 16 officers and employees. I suspect they are about the best there is. They beat out 15 other firms for the bid to do Nevada's draw.
Over the last 5 years (2010-2014), General Deer apps regularly account for 33% of the total Buck, Bull, OIL apps (including point purchases) while LE Deer apps account for 15% of the totals and CWMU Deer apps account for 1%. (How many of those are from the same applicants is unknown.) And the Bucks, Bulls, OIL totals have risen from 309,582 to 377,836 apps with about 20,000 more each year for the last 3 years. Also, that doesn't count the OTC tags for elk, nor the Conservation tags. Plus, there is a current DWR proposal to add some of the EXPO apps money (30%) to the system. (UWC has a counter proposal for 50%.) I don't think the DWR is all that worried about losing revenue with a combined point system, but there certainly are those other issues of Lifetime License Holders, Dedicated Hunters, determining the individual totals of hunters who have both preference points and bonus points, the 50% bonus point rule, how the draw would be conducted, etc.
As for the Fallon company handling the draw, I think it's a matter of their bid being the lowest for the required services. Plus, they are already set up to develop software and do that sort of thing (They also handle Nevada's, New Mexico's, Arizona's and Idaho's Fish & Game permit distribution and data, as well as developing and maintaining programs for various Nevada county agencies and private companies.) and they do it with 16 officers and employees. I suspect they are about the best there is. They beat out 15 other firms for the bid to do Nevada's draw.
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
EFA, I always like your post, and believe you to be very knowledgeable about the DWR, you did not however answer my question as to why the draw is not done in State. You said there were 15 companies bidding on the "job", well if there is enough money to attract that many companies,why not do it ourselves? Do we as a state pay to much to our own employees to handle this? I certainly know that the in field LEO of the DWR are not overpaid. I bet the fallon folks get paid ( all 16 employees and officers.) The problem I see with Utah doing it would be that eventually the process would be run by the special interest groups, that I believe are being pandered to by the DWR. You bring up another point. The expo tags. The DWR has a proposal that we keep 30% ? and UWC say's 50%?
#1- Why is the DWR "proposing" 30%, why aren't they flat out stating what the % will be. I think this is another way for them to save face with the people and still do their pandering. When I hire an employee I (tell) that person what the job will pay, I do not ask him what I have to give him for the job. You see its like the Fallon deal If there are people capable to do the job, and your one of them and want the job, you had better be the lowest bidder. And if the lowest bidder is to high for me. I'll do it myself.
#2- Why in the world would they propose to give away 70%. Tell me what the 16 officers and employee's from Fallon could do with the money generated from the expo tags.. J/K but why, does it make sense to the DWR to give this money away, and have some projects done by SPECIAL interest in return.. I know and understand there are a lot more done by these groups, but with that said. Why would a special interest group want to do this without some type of gain? This is where you can tell me they just are lovers of hunting, And at this point I say ,then why pay,or I mean Peay lobbyists, Have expense accounts and or vouchers, and reimbursements for doing it all out of love for hunting, love of Mule Deer, Or love of the State of Utah. I'v heard it all and have yet to hear what I think is the TRUE answer. Love of MONEY and the gains allowed by it.
#3- Issues with Lifetime tag holders and Dedicated Hunters.("issues") I take it that by your word "Issues" you mean that there would be some type of problem, with them as a group, or groups. In resolving the point problem? Ok, then I say if there is a problem ,Eliminate it. Or, its (the groups) ability to be a problem. First lets just pretend that Lifetime hunters still get their tag every year. And they can use that tag to draw a hunting permit from the regular general allotment. They could have the same 5 chances for an area as other sportsmen. and if not drawn then they receive a leftover or consolation permit from a small pool. This will make them cry but why give them special perks when there was NO NEED for them when the Lifetime license was purchased. Only people who didn't buy the license had to follow the rules made after?? Why. I was in the Dedicated Hunter program for a while, I really liked the program, I even had one of my projects put in the review. It was Great to hunt wherever I wanted and all 3 seasons. after seeing how the projects were ran and and seeing how people could gain advantages I quit the program., I think it was in 2000, I was a Hunter Ed. instructor until 2012. I tell you this only to show you that I wasn't just tired of the working end of things. I never used my hours as an instructor as time for any dedicated hunter hours. 1 way to relive pressure from the problem or ( issue ) might be to only allow the "all 3 hunts" AFTER a tag is drawn in the regular draw. Or reverse it that you can have your choice of tags, but can hunt only rifle. archery, or muzzle load one season each of the 3 years or until you tag out. You could further it by making a different group with the same rule of a single season in an area of your choice, 1 year rifle,1 muzzle loader,and 1 Year archery. All I am saying is ,if you cant remove an "issue", Break it down into into smaller more manageable "issues". OK my rant is over . ready, aim, FIRE!
#1- Why is the DWR "proposing" 30%, why aren't they flat out stating what the % will be. I think this is another way for them to save face with the people and still do their pandering. When I hire an employee I (tell) that person what the job will pay, I do not ask him what I have to give him for the job. You see its like the Fallon deal If there are people capable to do the job, and your one of them and want the job, you had better be the lowest bidder. And if the lowest bidder is to high for me. I'll do it myself.
#2- Why in the world would they propose to give away 70%. Tell me what the 16 officers and employee's from Fallon could do with the money generated from the expo tags.. J/K but why, does it make sense to the DWR to give this money away, and have some projects done by SPECIAL interest in return.. I know and understand there are a lot more done by these groups, but with that said. Why would a special interest group want to do this without some type of gain? This is where you can tell me they just are lovers of hunting, And at this point I say ,then why pay,or I mean Peay lobbyists, Have expense accounts and or vouchers, and reimbursements for doing it all out of love for hunting, love of Mule Deer, Or love of the State of Utah. I'v heard it all and have yet to hear what I think is the TRUE answer. Love of MONEY and the gains allowed by it.
#3- Issues with Lifetime tag holders and Dedicated Hunters.("issues") I take it that by your word "Issues" you mean that there would be some type of problem, with them as a group, or groups. In resolving the point problem? Ok, then I say if there is a problem ,Eliminate it. Or, its (the groups) ability to be a problem. First lets just pretend that Lifetime hunters still get their tag every year. And they can use that tag to draw a hunting permit from the regular general allotment. They could have the same 5 chances for an area as other sportsmen. and if not drawn then they receive a leftover or consolation permit from a small pool. This will make them cry but why give them special perks when there was NO NEED for them when the Lifetime license was purchased. Only people who didn't buy the license had to follow the rules made after?? Why. I was in the Dedicated Hunter program for a while, I really liked the program, I even had one of my projects put in the review. It was Great to hunt wherever I wanted and all 3 seasons. after seeing how the projects were ran and and seeing how people could gain advantages I quit the program., I think it was in 2000, I was a Hunter Ed. instructor until 2012. I tell you this only to show you that I wasn't just tired of the working end of things. I never used my hours as an instructor as time for any dedicated hunter hours. 1 way to relive pressure from the problem or ( issue ) might be to only allow the "all 3 hunts" AFTER a tag is drawn in the regular draw. Or reverse it that you can have your choice of tags, but can hunt only rifle. archery, or muzzle load one season each of the 3 years or until you tag out. You could further it by making a different group with the same rule of a single season in an area of your choice, 1 year rifle,1 muzzle loader,and 1 Year archery. All I am saying is ,if you cant remove an "issue", Break it down into into smaller more manageable "issues". OK my rant is over . ready, aim, FIRE!
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
LAST EDITED ON Dec-29-14 AT 05:14PM (MST)[p]>EFA, I always like your post,
>and believe you to be
>very knowledgeable about the DWR,
>you did not however
>answer my question as to
>why the draw is not
>done in State. You said
>there were 15 companies bidding
>on the "job", well if
>there is enough money to
>attract that many companies,why not
>do it ourselves? Do we
>as a state pay to
>much to our own employees
>to handle this? I certainly
>know that the in field
>LEO of the DWR are
>not overpaid. I bet the
>fallon folks get paid (
>all 16 employees and officers.)
>The problem I see with
>Utah doing it would be
>that eventually the process would
>be run by the special
>interest groups, that I believe
>are being pandered to by
>the DWR. You bring up
>another point. The expo tags.
>The DWR has a proposal
>that we keep 30% ?
>and UWC say's 50%?
>#1- Why is the DWR "proposing"
>30%, why aren't they flat
>out stating what the %
>will be. I think this
>is another way for them
>to save face with the
>people and still do their
>pandering. When I hire an
>employee I (tell) that person
>what the job will pay,
>I do not ask him
>what I have to give
>him for the job. You
>see its like the Fallon
>deal If there are people
>capable to do the job,
>and your one of them
>and want the job, you
>had better be the lowest
>bidder. And if the lowest
>bidder is to high for
>me. I'll do it myself.
>
>#2- Why in the world would
>they propose to give away
>70%. Tell me what the
>16 officers and employee's from
>Fallon could do with the
>money generated from the expo
>tags.. J/K but why, does
>it make sense to the
>DWR to give this money
>away, and have some projects
>done by SPECIAL interest in
>return.. I know and understand
>there are a lot more
>done by these groups, but
>with that said. Why would
>a special interest group want
>to do this without some
>type of gain? This is
>where you can tell me
>they just are lovers of
>hunting, And at this point
>I say ,then why pay,or
>I mean Peay lobbyists, Have
>expense accounts and or vouchers,
>and reimbursements for doing it
>all out of love for
>hunting, love of Mule Deer,
>Or love of the State
>of Utah. I'v heard it
>all and have yet to
>hear what I think is
>the TRUE answer. Love of
>MONEY and the gains allowed
>by it.
>#3- Issues with Lifetime tag holders
>and Dedicated Hunters.("issues") I take
>it that by your word
>"Issues" you mean that there
>would be some type of
>problem, with them as a
>group, or groups. In resolving
>the point problem? Ok, then
>I say if there is
>a problem ,Eliminate it. Or,
>its (the groups) ability to
>be a problem. First lets
>just pretend that Lifetime hunters
>still get their tag every
>year. And they can use
>that tag to draw a
>hunting permit from the regular
>general allotment. They could have
>the same 5 chances for
>an area as other sportsmen.
>and if not drawn then
>they receive a leftover or
>consolation permit from a small
>pool. This will make them
>cry but why give them
>special perks when there was
>NO NEED for them when
>the Lifetime license was purchased.
>Only people who didn't buy
>the license had to follow
>the rules made after?? Why.
>I was in the Dedicated
>Hunter program for a while,
>I really liked the program,
>I even had one of
>my projects put in the
>review. It was Great to
>hunt wherever I wanted and
>all 3 seasons. after seeing
>how the projects were ran
>and and seeing how people
>could gain advantages I quit
>the program., I think it
>was in 2000, I was
>a Hunter Ed. instructor until
>2012. I tell you this
>only to show you that
>I wasn't just tired of
>the working end of things.
>I never used my hours
>as an instructor as time
>for any dedicated hunter hours.
>1 way to relive pressure
>from the problem or (
>issue ) might be to
>only allow the "all 3
>hunts" AFTER a tag is
>drawn in the regular draw.
>Or reverse it that you
>can have your choice of
>tags, but can hunt only
>rifle. archery, or muzzle load
>one season each of the
>3 years or until you
>tag out. You could further
>it by making a different
>group with the same rule
>of a single season in
>an area of your choice,
>1 year rifle,1 muzzle loader,and
>1 Year archery. All I
>am saying is ,if you
>cant remove an "issue", Break
>it down into into smaller
>more manageable "issues". OK my
>rant is over . ready,
>aim, FIRE!
>
>
>
I beg your pardon, but I think I answered your question just fine. You just didn't like the answer! But to give you further background on my answer you need to know that the DWR had already been doing some of the draws for many years (OIL, LE, antlerless, special hunts, depredation hunts, etc.), but when the general deer hunts finally went to a draw system in 1994 along with the new regional and separate weapon hunts, it apparently became a lot more cumbersome and/or expensive. In fact, they actually did the general deer season drawings in 1994 and the rifle deer season drawing in 1995 (archery and muzzy went back to over-the-counter), but in 1996 they contracted all the drawings out to Systems Consultants, along with some of the other tasks they were doing. I think they did what they thought best at the time.
I'm not sure how all that came about because it would take a GRAMA to get the minutes of the Board of Big Game Control (now called Wildlife Board) meetings to find out when or if it was even discussed and I have neither the time or money to do that. However, I can think of a lot of possible reasons for contracting out the draws rather than doing it themselves, ie; taking employees out of the field, hiring more employees, buying new computer equipment, finding a place to handle the project, new state laws prohibiting it, legislature not funding it, not within the scope of DWR's mission, NOT COST EFFECTIVE, changes in DWR leadership, new mandates for data, public relations, no Utah company bid on the project, etc.
Also, you have to remember that the DWR isn't allowed to unilaterally do much on their own and since this was a major decision, I'm sure that the Board of Big Game Control, Attorney General's Office, Legislature, State Budget Office, State Auditor and who knows who else was involved. And to make a change now would involve as many or more entities and people as it did then.
Is it still the best choice given all the advancements in computers and data collection? I don't know for sure, but I do know that Systems Consultants is a leading edge computer programming company and that they just recently completed a remodel and an addition to their building to house some new equipment.
As far as the EXPO tag application fees go, since it's inception, the Convention/EXPO Permit Program has allowed the EXPO promoters to keep ALL the application funds with no stipulations or mandates. It wasn't designed to be that way, but since the parties involved couldn't come to a consensus on the amount to be returned to the DWR, it was omitted from the contract and supposedly put on the back burner for an agreement later on. However, there were no efforts by any original party to correct the error and it wasn't until UWC's proposal in 2012, that the issue was even addressed. At that time, we proposed that the EXPO Permit Program be run like the Conservation (auctioned) Permit Program with 30% going directly to the DWR, 60% being held by the promoters in a separate account to be used ONLY for DWR approved conservation projects and the remaining 10% to go to the promoters for their own use. At the time, we were told by a representative from the Attorney General's office that we couldn't change a contract in midstream and that we had to wait until it expired. UWC didn't agree with his assessment and so, during a series of meetings (I don't know how many) with MDF, SFW, DWR, UWC, and the Wildlife Board, it was agreed that the promoters (MDF & SFW) would temporarily voluntarily return 30% to the DWR in the form of DWR approved projects and they would give a financial report as good faith gestures until we could negotiate a permanent solution. Apparently, MDF, SFW, DWR (and maybe the WB), considered the temporary solutions as permanent solutions without any further input from UWC and thus originally scheduled their current presentation on the agendas of the November RAC's and December WB meetings. However, the item was dropped in the agendas for those meetings and put on the agenda for December RAC's and the WB January meetings. Prior to all of this, there was a special meeting called for all parties involved (and then some) on October 23rd to discuss the DWR proposal as currently presented and everyone agreed to it except UWC, and I simply told them I would get in contact our Board of Directors to get their advice and we would make our decision known at the November RAC meetings, which we eventually did in December because of the change in agendas. And now we're preparing to make our counter-proposal
And that's where our counter-proposal started out. We agreed with their figures, but wanted them flipped, ie; 70% to go back to wildlife and 30% to the EXPO promoters. However, those figures didn't fly with the first two RAC's because it was probably considered too much of a change from the 0%/100% that they were used to. So, upon the advice of one of the Central RAC members (No, not Kris Marble, UWC's chairman) and after consulting with our Board of Directors, we changed to our current proposal of 50%/50%. And that's where it now stands and that's the proposal we'll make at the January Wildlife Board meeting. Will we get it? It's a long shot since even the three remaining RAC's voted for the DWR proposal as presented, but I can tell you this. We'll make every effort we can to get it changed and will not apologize for our efforts.
(Edited) I had to look up my notes and made some corrections on the dates of the RAC and WB meetings on my first edition of this post. It got a little confusing trying to remember the postponement and change of the agendas regarding this issue. Sorry.
Regarding the "issues" of Lifetime License holders, etc. I simply mentioned them because the are "issues" that will come up during any discussion of combining points. I haven't offered any solutions simply because I don't know what the options will end up being. You could very well be correct about eliminating these "issues" in increments or by eliminating the "group", but if I know Utahns, it isn't likely to be easy or simple.
>and believe you to be
>very knowledgeable about the DWR,
>you did not however
>answer my question as to
>why the draw is not
>done in State. You said
>there were 15 companies bidding
>on the "job", well if
>there is enough money to
>attract that many companies,why not
>do it ourselves? Do we
>as a state pay to
>much to our own employees
>to handle this? I certainly
>know that the in field
>LEO of the DWR are
>not overpaid. I bet the
>fallon folks get paid (
>all 16 employees and officers.)
>The problem I see with
>Utah doing it would be
>that eventually the process would
>be run by the special
>interest groups, that I believe
>are being pandered to by
>the DWR. You bring up
>another point. The expo tags.
>The DWR has a proposal
>that we keep 30% ?
>and UWC say's 50%?
>#1- Why is the DWR "proposing"
>30%, why aren't they flat
>out stating what the %
>will be. I think this
>is another way for them
>to save face with the
>people and still do their
>pandering. When I hire an
>employee I (tell) that person
>what the job will pay,
>I do not ask him
>what I have to give
>him for the job. You
>see its like the Fallon
>deal If there are people
>capable to do the job,
>and your one of them
>and want the job, you
>had better be the lowest
>bidder. And if the lowest
>bidder is to high for
>me. I'll do it myself.
>
>#2- Why in the world would
>they propose to give away
>70%. Tell me what the
>16 officers and employee's from
>Fallon could do with the
>money generated from the expo
>tags.. J/K but why, does
>it make sense to the
>DWR to give this money
>away, and have some projects
>done by SPECIAL interest in
>return.. I know and understand
>there are a lot more
>done by these groups, but
>with that said. Why would
>a special interest group want
>to do this without some
>type of gain? This is
>where you can tell me
>they just are lovers of
>hunting, And at this point
>I say ,then why pay,or
>I mean Peay lobbyists, Have
>expense accounts and or vouchers,
>and reimbursements for doing it
>all out of love for
>hunting, love of Mule Deer,
>Or love of the State
>of Utah. I'v heard it
>all and have yet to
>hear what I think is
>the TRUE answer. Love of
>MONEY and the gains allowed
>by it.
>#3- Issues with Lifetime tag holders
>and Dedicated Hunters.("issues") I take
>it that by your word
>"Issues" you mean that there
>would be some type of
>problem, with them as a
>group, or groups. In resolving
>the point problem? Ok, then
>I say if there is
>a problem ,Eliminate it. Or,
>its (the groups) ability to
>be a problem. First lets
>just pretend that Lifetime hunters
>still get their tag every
>year. And they can use
>that tag to draw a
>hunting permit from the regular
>general allotment. They could have
>the same 5 chances for
>an area as other sportsmen.
>and if not drawn then
>they receive a leftover or
>consolation permit from a small
>pool. This will make them
>cry but why give them
>special perks when there was
>NO NEED for them when
>the Lifetime license was purchased.
>Only people who didn't buy
>the license had to follow
>the rules made after?? Why.
>I was in the Dedicated
>Hunter program for a while,
>I really liked the program,
>I even had one of
>my projects put in the
>review. It was Great to
>hunt wherever I wanted and
>all 3 seasons. after seeing
>how the projects were ran
>and and seeing how people
>could gain advantages I quit
>the program., I think it
>was in 2000, I was
>a Hunter Ed. instructor until
>2012. I tell you this
>only to show you that
>I wasn't just tired of
>the working end of things.
>I never used my hours
>as an instructor as time
>for any dedicated hunter hours.
>1 way to relive pressure
>from the problem or (
>issue ) might be to
>only allow the "all 3
>hunts" AFTER a tag is
>drawn in the regular draw.
>Or reverse it that you
>can have your choice of
>tags, but can hunt only
>rifle. archery, or muzzle load
>one season each of the
>3 years or until you
>tag out. You could further
>it by making a different
>group with the same rule
>of a single season in
>an area of your choice,
>1 year rifle,1 muzzle loader,and
>1 Year archery. All I
>am saying is ,if you
>cant remove an "issue", Break
>it down into into smaller
>more manageable "issues". OK my
>rant is over . ready,
>aim, FIRE!
>
>
>
I beg your pardon, but I think I answered your question just fine. You just didn't like the answer! But to give you further background on my answer you need to know that the DWR had already been doing some of the draws for many years (OIL, LE, antlerless, special hunts, depredation hunts, etc.), but when the general deer hunts finally went to a draw system in 1994 along with the new regional and separate weapon hunts, it apparently became a lot more cumbersome and/or expensive. In fact, they actually did the general deer season drawings in 1994 and the rifle deer season drawing in 1995 (archery and muzzy went back to over-the-counter), but in 1996 they contracted all the drawings out to Systems Consultants, along with some of the other tasks they were doing. I think they did what they thought best at the time.
I'm not sure how all that came about because it would take a GRAMA to get the minutes of the Board of Big Game Control (now called Wildlife Board) meetings to find out when or if it was even discussed and I have neither the time or money to do that. However, I can think of a lot of possible reasons for contracting out the draws rather than doing it themselves, ie; taking employees out of the field, hiring more employees, buying new computer equipment, finding a place to handle the project, new state laws prohibiting it, legislature not funding it, not within the scope of DWR's mission, NOT COST EFFECTIVE, changes in DWR leadership, new mandates for data, public relations, no Utah company bid on the project, etc.
Also, you have to remember that the DWR isn't allowed to unilaterally do much on their own and since this was a major decision, I'm sure that the Board of Big Game Control, Attorney General's Office, Legislature, State Budget Office, State Auditor and who knows who else was involved. And to make a change now would involve as many or more entities and people as it did then.
Is it still the best choice given all the advancements in computers and data collection? I don't know for sure, but I do know that Systems Consultants is a leading edge computer programming company and that they just recently completed a remodel and an addition to their building to house some new equipment.
As far as the EXPO tag application fees go, since it's inception, the Convention/EXPO Permit Program has allowed the EXPO promoters to keep ALL the application funds with no stipulations or mandates. It wasn't designed to be that way, but since the parties involved couldn't come to a consensus on the amount to be returned to the DWR, it was omitted from the contract and supposedly put on the back burner for an agreement later on. However, there were no efforts by any original party to correct the error and it wasn't until UWC's proposal in 2012, that the issue was even addressed. At that time, we proposed that the EXPO Permit Program be run like the Conservation (auctioned) Permit Program with 30% going directly to the DWR, 60% being held by the promoters in a separate account to be used ONLY for DWR approved conservation projects and the remaining 10% to go to the promoters for their own use. At the time, we were told by a representative from the Attorney General's office that we couldn't change a contract in midstream and that we had to wait until it expired. UWC didn't agree with his assessment and so, during a series of meetings (I don't know how many) with MDF, SFW, DWR, UWC, and the Wildlife Board, it was agreed that the promoters (MDF & SFW) would temporarily voluntarily return 30% to the DWR in the form of DWR approved projects and they would give a financial report as good faith gestures until we could negotiate a permanent solution. Apparently, MDF, SFW, DWR (and maybe the WB), considered the temporary solutions as permanent solutions without any further input from UWC and thus originally scheduled their current presentation on the agendas of the November RAC's and December WB meetings. However, the item was dropped in the agendas for those meetings and put on the agenda for December RAC's and the WB January meetings. Prior to all of this, there was a special meeting called for all parties involved (and then some) on October 23rd to discuss the DWR proposal as currently presented and everyone agreed to it except UWC, and I simply told them I would get in contact our Board of Directors to get their advice and we would make our decision known at the November RAC meetings, which we eventually did in December because of the change in agendas. And now we're preparing to make our counter-proposal
And that's where our counter-proposal started out. We agreed with their figures, but wanted them flipped, ie; 70% to go back to wildlife and 30% to the EXPO promoters. However, those figures didn't fly with the first two RAC's because it was probably considered too much of a change from the 0%/100% that they were used to. So, upon the advice of one of the Central RAC members (No, not Kris Marble, UWC's chairman) and after consulting with our Board of Directors, we changed to our current proposal of 50%/50%. And that's where it now stands and that's the proposal we'll make at the January Wildlife Board meeting. Will we get it? It's a long shot since even the three remaining RAC's voted for the DWR proposal as presented, but I can tell you this. We'll make every effort we can to get it changed and will not apologize for our efforts.
(Edited) I had to look up my notes and made some corrections on the dates of the RAC and WB meetings on my first edition of this post. It got a little confusing trying to remember the postponement and change of the agendas regarding this issue. Sorry.
Regarding the "issues" of Lifetime License holders, etc. I simply mentioned them because the are "issues" that will come up during any discussion of combining points. I haven't offered any solutions simply because I don't know what the options will end up being. You could very well be correct about eliminating these "issues" in increments or by eliminating the "group", but if I know Utahns, it isn't likely to be easy or simple.
if they combine all deer points into one pool how will that affect the LE elk draw? As residents we can only put in for one LE species. THe way the current system is I hunt general deer so I can build elk points. If all deer units are considered LE units then no residents will be able to hunt both species (deer and elk) while still building elk points, while nonresidents will be able to.
The only way to hunt both deer and elk in utah as a resident would be to put in for deer and hunt general season elk.
If they do combine deer points the DWR will have to change the rule that you can only put in for one LE species.... If they dont there is going to be some serious drama.
The only way to hunt both deer and elk in utah as a resident would be to put in for deer and hunt general season elk.
If they do combine deer points the DWR will have to change the rule that you can only put in for one LE species.... If they dont there is going to be some serious drama.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
>if they combine all deer points
>into one pool how will
>that affect the LE elk
>draw? As residents we
>can only put in for
>one LE species. THe
>way the current system is
>I hunt general deer so
>I can build elk points.
> If all deer units
>are considered LE units then
>no residents will be able
>to hunt both species (deer
>and elk) while still building
>elk points, while nonresidents will
>be able to.
>
>The only way to hunt both
>deer and elk in utah
>as a resident would be
>to put in for deer
>and hunt general season elk.
>
>
>If they do combine deer points
>the DWR will have to
>change the rule that you
>can only put in for
>one LE species.... If they
>dont there is going to
>be some serious drama.
Good point! This is the reason I include "etc." at the end of most of my lists, regardless of the list. There are ALWAYS unintended consequences of any of these changes.
Nobody yet knows the answer to your inquiry. In my case, I prefer to apply for pronghorn hunts (They're all LE.) rather than LE elk hunts because I am primarily a bowhunter and can buy an elk tag over the counter, and your point effects me too!
>into one pool how will
>that affect the LE elk
>draw? As residents we
>can only put in for
>one LE species. THe
>way the current system is
>I hunt general deer so
>I can build elk points.
> If all deer units
>are considered LE units then
>no residents will be able
>to hunt both species (deer
>and elk) while still building
>elk points, while nonresidents will
>be able to.
>
>The only way to hunt both
>deer and elk in utah
>as a resident would be
>to put in for deer
>and hunt general season elk.
>
>
>If they do combine deer points
>the DWR will have to
>change the rule that you
>can only put in for
>one LE species.... If they
>dont there is going to
>be some serious drama.
Good point! This is the reason I include "etc." at the end of most of my lists, regardless of the list. There are ALWAYS unintended consequences of any of these changes.
Nobody yet knows the answer to your inquiry. In my case, I prefer to apply for pronghorn hunts (They're all LE.) rather than LE elk hunts because I am primarily a bowhunter and can buy an elk tag over the counter, and your point effects me too!
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,560
"If all deer units
>are considered LE units then
>no residents will be able
>to hunt both species (deer
>and elk) while still building
>elk points, while nonresidents will
>be able to"
This is not correct. I can currently APPLY for all species, but can only draw one tag. I would gladly trade places with you. Change it back to us being able to apply for only one species and you can apply for them all. You will NOT like it!
All it did for us was cost us more money and dropped our odds of drawing from decent to terrible odds. And we can still only draw one tag. I apply ever year for deer and elk but if I draw a deer tag, I am taken out of the drawing for an elk LE tag.
Since we have no pull with the Utah powers that be, if you are ever in a position to give an opinion, please put in a word for us that we would rather be able to only apply for one species too. What they could do is allow us (or you for that matter) to put in for a point for all species but only put in for one tag. That way, they get their extra money and we get more points and our odds of drawing goes way up.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
>are considered LE units then
>no residents will be able
>to hunt both species (deer
>and elk) while still building
>elk points, while nonresidents will
>be able to"
This is not correct. I can currently APPLY for all species, but can only draw one tag. I would gladly trade places with you. Change it back to us being able to apply for only one species and you can apply for them all. You will NOT like it!
All it did for us was cost us more money and dropped our odds of drawing from decent to terrible odds. And we can still only draw one tag. I apply ever year for deer and elk but if I draw a deer tag, I am taken out of the drawing for an elk LE tag.
Since we have no pull with the Utah powers that be, if you are ever in a position to give an opinion, please put in a word for us that we would rather be able to only apply for one species too. What they could do is allow us (or you for that matter) to put in for a point for all species but only put in for one tag. That way, they get their extra money and we get more points and our odds of drawing goes way up.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
>"If all deer units
>>are considered LE units then
>>no residents will be able
>>to hunt both species (deer
>>and elk) while still building
>>elk points, while nonresidents will
>>be able to"
>
>This is not correct. I
>can currently APPLY for all
>species, but can only draw
>one tag. I would
>gladly trade places with you.
> Change it back to
>us being able to apply
>for only one species and
>you can apply for them
>all. You will NOT
>like it!
>
>All it did for us was
>cost us more money and
>dropped our odds of drawing
>from decent to terrible odds.
>And we can still only
>draw one tag. I
>apply ever year for deer
>and elk but if I
>draw a deer tag, I
>am taken out of the
>drawing for an elk LE
>tag.
>
>Since we have no pull with
>the Utah powers that be,
>if you are ever in
>a position to give an
>opinion, please put in a
>word for us that we
>would rather be able to
>only apply for one species
>too. What they could do
>is allow us (or you
>for that matter) to put
>in for a point for
>all species but only put
>in for one tag. That
>way, they get their extra
>money and we get more
>points and our odds of
>drawing goes way up.
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)
Though you don't live in Utah, you still have the opportunity to give your own opinion! You can send emails or letters or make phone calls to the members of the RAC's and Wildlife Board. And your opinion is just as valuable to them as residents. In fact, it may actually mean more to them because you dump more money in Utah than I do for licenses and permits. Plus they don't often get opinions from non-residents for those meetings. Send them an email!
>>are considered LE units then
>>no residents will be able
>>to hunt both species (deer
>>and elk) while still building
>>elk points, while nonresidents will
>>be able to"
>
>This is not correct. I
>can currently APPLY for all
>species, but can only draw
>one tag. I would
>gladly trade places with you.
> Change it back to
>us being able to apply
>for only one species and
>you can apply for them
>all. You will NOT
>like it!
>
>All it did for us was
>cost us more money and
>dropped our odds of drawing
>from decent to terrible odds.
>And we can still only
>draw one tag. I
>apply ever year for deer
>and elk but if I
>draw a deer tag, I
>am taken out of the
>drawing for an elk LE
>tag.
>
>Since we have no pull with
>the Utah powers that be,
>if you are ever in
>a position to give an
>opinion, please put in a
>word for us that we
>would rather be able to
>only apply for one species
>too. What they could do
>is allow us (or you
>for that matter) to put
>in for a point for
>all species but only put
>in for one tag. That
>way, they get their extra
>money and we get more
>points and our odds of
>drawing goes way up.
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)
Though you don't live in Utah, you still have the opportunity to give your own opinion! You can send emails or letters or make phone calls to the members of the RAC's and Wildlife Board. And your opinion is just as valuable to them as residents. In fact, it may actually mean more to them because you dump more money in Utah than I do for licenses and permits. Plus they don't often get opinions from non-residents for those meetings. Send them an email!
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
txhunter58, that is a good point.
What if they let residents (maybe non-residents, too) apply for 2 out of the 3 LE species (elk/deer/antelope)? That may be a compromise that would work and would still spread out applicants to minimize the effect on odds.
Grizzly
What if they let residents (maybe non-residents, too) apply for 2 out of the 3 LE species (elk/deer/antelope)? That may be a compromise that would work and would still spread out applicants to minimize the effect on odds.
Grizzly
I find if laughable that Utah has so many types of deer hunts: Premium Limited Entry, Limited Entry, Management Buck, and General. All are controlled (limited entry), none are general (over the counter), three use Bonus Points, one uses Preference points, and all have different fees associated with hunting the same species of antlered ungulate. Of coarse each of these comes in a a flavor of weapon type such as archery, muzzleloader, and any weapon. Now they plan to add a General Premium hunt that includes all seasons. Don't forget the lifetime license holders and the Dedicated Hunter program. Could they make it any more freaking complicated??? Of coarse they can, and probably will!
There should be one point system, and one draw. High quality hunts will be harder to draw, and crappy units will be easy to draw. Simplify the system and allow sportsmen to pick their poison. Of coarse eliminating points and going to random draw allocation is the best way to do it, IMO.
There should be one point system, and one draw. High quality hunts will be harder to draw, and crappy units will be easy to draw. Simplify the system and allow sportsmen to pick their poison. Of coarse eliminating points and going to random draw allocation is the best way to do it, IMO.
gundog2
Active Member
- Messages
- 425
I see that the Wildlife board is already reviewing rules for the 2016 big game application. Based on discussions on this thread and things I read on the DWR website last year, I thought that the DWR was going to review the deer preference point draw system in 2015, but I do not see any agenda items regarding this and I have not heard any more about this since last year. Does anybody else know anything about it?
It seems pretty messed up that they allow people to draw use preference points to help draw a 2nd or 3rd choice tag AND gain another preference point, but I think that is how it works.
It seems pretty messed up that they allow people to draw use preference points to help draw a 2nd or 3rd choice tag AND gain another preference point, but I think that is how it works.
huntinfanatic
Active Member
- Messages
- 777
The gs deer preference point loophole would be very simple to fix. Draw ANY choice lose your points. The end! The DWR and WB excuse for not fixing the issue is asinine! I can't remember the exact number and might be off but I think they said it would cost around 15k to reprogram the computer system. So to not waste funds they are going to leave it as is while they do a study because there in a CHANCE that in the future preference and bonus point systems will be combined.
What baffles me is why Utah has 2 different preference point systems to begin with. For antlerless it's simple draw ANY choice you lose your points. GS deer would take an hour to explain. It is a mess and the vast majority of hunters have no clue how it really works and how easy it is to manipulate the draw. Those of us who frequent the forums and think about hunting on a daily basis and have done the research have figured it out and make the best of it, but for the guy that's just getting himself or his kids into hunting or the ol' timer who just wants a tag while he can still get out they get screwed and can only draw every other or every 3 years simply because haven't figured out the loophole.
What baffles me is why Utah has 2 different preference point systems to begin with. For antlerless it's simple draw ANY choice you lose your points. GS deer would take an hour to explain. It is a mess and the vast majority of hunters have no clue how it really works and how easy it is to manipulate the draw. Those of us who frequent the forums and think about hunting on a daily basis and have done the research have figured it out and make the best of it, but for the guy that's just getting himself or his kids into hunting or the ol' timer who just wants a tag while he can still get out they get screwed and can only draw every other or every 3 years simply because haven't figured out the loophole.
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
Lots of misinformation floating around!
The problem with the "draw = lose points" is that there would be tags remaining and it would have to go into yet another draw, creating an even more tiered system.
I don't have the answer but, like I suggested, change it so a guy's points don't give him an advantage on subsequent choices.
Zeke
The problem with the "draw = lose points" is that there would be tags remaining and it would have to go into yet another draw, creating an even more tiered system.
I don't have the answer but, like I suggested, change it so a guy's points don't give him an advantage on subsequent choices.
Zeke
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
LAST EDITED ON Nov-02-15 AT 11:30AM (MST)[p]>Lots of misinformation floating around!
>
>The problem with the "draw =
>lose points" is that there
>would be tags remaining and
>it would have to go
>into yet another draw, creating
>an even more tiered system.
>
>
>I don't have the answer but,
>like I suggested, change it
>so a guy's points don't
>give him an advantage on
>subsequent choices.
>
>Zeke
Remaining tags would be OTC (actually online), first come, first served after the draw results, the same as they are now! No additional draw necessary! Just a big scrambled, frustrating, attempt to be the first one online, the same as it is now!
>
>The problem with the "draw =
>lose points" is that there
>would be tags remaining and
>it would have to go
>into yet another draw, creating
>an even more tiered system.
>
>
>I don't have the answer but,
>like I suggested, change it
>so a guy's points don't
>give him an advantage on
>subsequent choices.
>
>Zeke
Remaining tags would be OTC (actually online), first come, first served after the draw results, the same as they are now! No additional draw necessary! Just a big scrambled, frustrating, attempt to be the first one online, the same as it is now!
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
>
>Remaining tags would be OTC (actually
>online), first come, first served
>after the draw results, the
>same as they are now!
>No additional draw necessary! Just
>a big scrambled, frustrating, attempt
>to be the first one
>online, the same as it
>is now!
Yep, but that adds just one more step and the F&G won't like that. Why go OTC when there is already a drawing in place for those who make the effort to apply?
Simply leave the tags in the same drawing but make it so points don't help gain advantage. It couldn't be more simple and straight-forward.
Zeke
>Remaining tags would be OTC (actually
>online), first come, first served
>after the draw results, the
>same as they are now!
>No additional draw necessary! Just
>a big scrambled, frustrating, attempt
>to be the first one
>online, the same as it
>is now!
Yep, but that adds just one more step and the F&G won't like that. Why go OTC when there is already a drawing in place for those who make the effort to apply?
Simply leave the tags in the same drawing but make it so points don't help gain advantage. It couldn't be more simple and straight-forward.
Zeke
gundog2
Active Member
- Messages
- 425
I agree with Zeke. There are two easy solutions to run this draw
1) remove preference advantage for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice, or
2) erase points for anyone that draws
I agree with Zeke that first option is best. They should run down the list and award licenses to fist choice applicants, then run 2nd choice random draw, 3rd choice random draw, and 4th choice random draw until quota is met. Erase points only for those that draw on first choice. How hard is that, really?
The current system is a disgrace, IMO.
1) remove preference advantage for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice, or
2) erase points for anyone that draws
I agree with Zeke that first option is best. They should run down the list and award licenses to fist choice applicants, then run 2nd choice random draw, 3rd choice random draw, and 4th choice random draw until quota is met. Erase points only for those that draw on first choice. How hard is that, really?
The current system is a disgrace, IMO.
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
>I agree with Zeke. There are
>two easy solutions to run
>this draw
>
>1) remove preference advantage for 2nd,
>3rd, and 4th choice, or
>
>2) erase points for anyone that
>draws
>
>I agree with Zeke that first
>option is best. They should
>run down the list and
>award licenses to fist choice
>applicants, then run 2nd choice
>random draw, 3rd choice random
>draw, and 4th choice random
>draw until quota is met.
>Erase points only for those
>that draw on first choice.
>How hard is that, really?
>
>
>The current system is a disgrace,
>IMO.
I agree with that 100%. (especially option #1)
That seems the best and most simple to me and the "fairness" factor is back in the draw!
It really is dumb the way it is now with a points advantage in the 2nd and subsequent rounds and the points are not lost.
Zeke
>two easy solutions to run
>this draw
>
>1) remove preference advantage for 2nd,
>3rd, and 4th choice, or
>
>2) erase points for anyone that
>draws
>
>I agree with Zeke that first
>option is best. They should
>run down the list and
>award licenses to fist choice
>applicants, then run 2nd choice
>random draw, 3rd choice random
>draw, and 4th choice random
>draw until quota is met.
>Erase points only for those
>that draw on first choice.
>How hard is that, really?
>
>
>The current system is a disgrace,
>IMO.
I agree with that 100%. (especially option #1)
That seems the best and most simple to me and the "fairness" factor is back in the draw!
It really is dumb the way it is now with a points advantage in the 2nd and subsequent rounds and the points are not lost.
Zeke
Hiker of the Woods
Active Member
- Messages
- 623
If Oregon has any tags left after our drawing they go on sale July 1st first come first serve. That means addition deer and elk tags for people. There is no other 2nd draw or hard work for ODFW.
Bearpaw Outfitters
Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.
Wild West Outfitters
Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.
J & J Outfitters
Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.
Shane Scott Outfitting
Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.
Utah Big Game Outfitters
Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.
Apex Outfitters
We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.
Urge 2 Hunt
We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.
Allout Guiding & Outfitting
Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.
Lickity Split Outfitters
General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.