The Draw System

[.270]

me and my middle boy got rifle bull elk tags last year and again this year. and my youngest son got an archery bull elk tag also this year. so for now, i'm happy with the draw. except for pronghorn and sheep. 30+ for sheep, never a tag. and 15 since my one and only Az. goat tag. so in retrospect, maybe things need fixed. Lark.

[krp]

Why stop at 50%, just go straight to 100% and for sure wait 24 bps instead of the 11 bps now. 100 is better than 50 any day, has to be. Or half the people drop out and try for easier cow hunts that they now only have to wait for 3 or 4 years to get. Hey, then it's only 12 bps to get a tag, that has to be better than the whatever it is now. I haven't looked at any numbers, someone said it was 11 bps but they are ignorant, no way. That would mean the system works about the same no matter what the % and half the people somehow move around the system now, no way. 50% just has to be better, it has to, it's, 30% better.

 

If Bubbas or whoever can get me a tag with 10 bps starting now, they're my hero. 15s the best he could come up with at 50% max pool. No thanks, I'll take my chances with the way it is now.

 

From, unfortunate to be so uneducated.

 

 

 

 

[hawkeye]

first off I need to say I have drawn a very good tag with only 3 points, so I am not for changing the draw system because I didn't draw. I would be for the current system if there were some sort of transparancy, but after going through this for over 30 years and seeing some of the screw ups. I don't trust the Game and Fish anymore. I for one like Colorados preference point system. The preference point is only for their first choice. And you only lose your points if you draw your first choice. So you could put in for that premium hunt but still get to hunt while waiting. In Arizona there is a small chance that you would never get to hunt or that you would give up after years of trying.

[krp]

sdr, why not a 100% preference, if 50% is faster than 20%, then 100% has to be faster than 50%. there really isn't any way to dispute the facts about mathmatical equations.

 

from, waiting to be learn'd.

 

 

[krp]

sdr, headed out the house to Backpack scout with the wife and daughter, look at it when I get home.

 

Just a thought, numbers don't mean squat for movement, direction does. If every one has to move in the same direction it takes forever to get there if your behind at all. In a mathimatical since, when the light turns green, everyone should be able to hit the gas at the same time and go. Reality is different, the only way to get everyone going is shoot them in as many different directions as possible. That's reality. Choke them with preferance % and traffic slows down.

 

Again, show me why unit 1 archery is at only 11 bps in a downward trend, not 16 or so, that's reality.

 

Kent

[krp]

So you're saying the same thing I've given senarios for and what I've reserched for years in the draw process, cause and effect + chaos have more of a result in moving the process along than keeping everyone in a controled line. The more people are controled into staying in the same line the longer it will take to get through. Oh, you'll have a better idea when you will be guaranteed to finally get through. It definately could be longer than if there are more avenues for some to move out of line, can't be sooner.

 

Until some of you guys actually go through and research the yearly BP/draw odds/BP groups/pass % results that come out and watch what trends are happening year to year, you're guessing at what can actually help. Or if there even needs to be help.

 

If you can answer some of these things, then we can actually have a debate, I'm done with "You're wrong cause I think so". If you at least can back up your ideas with what you see as a trend in the system and the numbers that are there, then I can respect that and am willing to listen.

 

How many elk hunts actually had more first choice applicants than second in the top half of the bonus point pools, example if 20 was the top then 11 and up would be the top 1/2.

 

Why do some cow hunts have applicants with up to or more than 10 BPs apply, how likely is someone with 5 or 6 BPs putting in for cow hunts second choice.

 

If a majority of people are drawing their second choice, where's their loyalty to their first choice.

 

Over 200,000 people actually have BPs, only 80,000 apply, how controllable is that.

 

If you go to a 100% max pool will anyone draw a tag on their second choice, even a cow tag. How many cow hunts are less than a 4 to 1 app to tag ratio. Who want's cow hunts be become PP hunts in Az.

 

How much does the BP power of the lower half BP groups have and can that be overcome with a 50% pass.

 

Will you need to look at changing the lottery numbers allocation to unit specific instead of spiecies specific.

 

Just of a few of the many things to discuss, if you know what you're talking about.

 

Is the G&F so stupid they haven't run numbers and looked at other states systems to see if they could improve the system. I am critical of the Commission at times, but there are a lot of smart people that work for G&F that know more than you or I.

 

I don't have to prove anything, you're the one's trying to push change, just asking you to supply a better reason than 'you think your way is the best way'. If you can show where a person will get a tag faster on average than the 'true current trend' (if you have been following the last few years you would know) I will back you. Otherwise I'm going to fight for the NR that will be screwd and 95% of the resident hunters that will be also.

 

Kent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[krp]

"we all know that the draw/life is not static thus we have to assume the same variables will apply to both static scenarios.

 

do you have an explanatioin? i am curious."

 

This is what I've discussed over on the other site and now here. That's an assumtion that's wrong and the root of the whole deal. You change the structure, you change the variables. I'm sorry if my answers are both simple and complicated at the same time.

 

Everything I wrote was an answer to your statement about static and variables. I listed only a small part of the variables involved. At least if you would look at the data and then have a different perspective of the variables than myself, we could have a conversation.

 

The answer to your Question is, any NR without max points that puts in for a hunt that fills the NR up to 10% in the max pool.

 

I'd like to see it go back to 10%.

 

If you went through the data, you would see that pretty much after the 20% pass, BP power takes over. The lower BP groups have many more BPs than the upper groups left. The upper groups get a few more tags than they probably should, but the lower groups seem to be more in chaos with their picks and knock themselves out. Helping this year and the next year.

 

Any rise in % pass increases the value of the higher BP holders BPs and decreases the value of the lower BP holders BPs. Also restricts the variables (amount of tags) that keep things moving in the lower and middle groups.

 

If you feel that strongly just take it to G&F and get it passed, I'm sure you have all the support you need right. Why worry about my lonely voice in the wilderness.

 

Kent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[krp]

sdr, look at your CA example, I like it. That's exactly the direction we would be moving.

 

CA: has a system in place that is almost a preference point system where 90% of the tags are issued to the max point pool. they have no other draw structures to accommodate the quantity type hunters that prefer to hunt as much as often regardless of quality. if you apply in CA and you don’t have A LOT of pref. points already you may very well be out of the loop with nearly impossible odds. CA does not have the supply and has huge demand.

 

Again; AZ: has a system in place that is almost a preference point system where 50% of the tags are issued to the max point pool. they have no other draw structures to accommodate the quantity type hunters that prefer to hunt as much as often regardless of quality. if you apply in AZ and you don’t have A LOT of pref. points already you may very well be out of the loop with nearly impossible odds. AZ does not have the supply and has huge demand.

 

After a few years it will need to be moved to 75%, then 90% like CA's. It's already happening with wanting to move from 20% to 50%, I remember when it was 20% will fix it over 10%.

 

Colorado's system works there because you can kill 2 elk a year without drawing your coveted tag. Their system has gotten so clogged when it comes to the premium hunts that they're looking for answers themselves. In our state there would effectively only be a first choice on all hunts and a definate wait period on even cow hunts. There are on most cow hunts, 4 apps per 1 tag, every tag in AZ is high demand in one way or another.

 

Squaring pts is making someones bps more valuable than someone elses, my dollars spent on licenses and tags, amount to more than someone that is waiting it out for a tag. My BP should have at least the same value per BP as that person. If I have 2 and he has 10, he has an advantage. I'm not sold on me having 4 and him having 100, just because he decided to wait for a hard to get tag, what's so special about that.

 

I'm just trying to make you guys think and come up with some facts and data to support your proposal. I guess when you walk into G&F you don't need to be prepared with detailed examples/facts of how the change will be benefical to the majority of hunters. They'll just say, hey, sounds good, 50% over 20%, why didn't we think of that.

 

Somehow I'm supposed to feel ashamed that I have researched the draw odds over the years to try and improve my families chances.

 

I'm tired of having the G&F change processes because the anti's whining over here with nothing but emotion, some of our own hunters crying because it will help their tiny group but hurt the majority without any real data, the Commission changing our traditional archery hunt structure without real data or the Commission changing hunt structures with weighted surveys and for monetary reasons, not wildlife data reasons.

 

I'm nobody, never got involved with these political issues beyond complaining around the campfire. Well that was my mistake and I'm not going to sit around anymore. You want to make it harder for my wife to get a cow tag, you better have more of an explanation than, it just has to be better. Because.

 

At least show how the changed % will effect the variables in a positive direction/trend, time and efficently wise to warrant a change, even if it's just a logical guess. But you have to have some understanding of the current direction/trend to show the difference. Like a graph with the current trend in red and your improved version in blue, all I see from you guys is a one line graph. Same old stuff we deal with all the time with G&F changes.

 

The only comparasion example I've heard is, Joe got 2 tags in a few years apart and Jim is still waiting for his. So the system needs to be changed to 50%. Well, Joe won out in the initial number allocation before the draw, he ended up with one of the 20 tags out of the 650 2 bper's recieved because of their bp power. He was getting a tag any way because his number was lower than Jim's even with a 50%. You'll need to change the inital allocation system.

 

I think we're the only two willing to talk about this anymore and I'm tiring of it myself. It's a dead issue not going anywhere.

 

Kent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coues krazy]

sdr, look at your CA example, I like it. That's exactly the direction we would be moving.

 

CA: has a system in place that is almost a preference point system where 90% of the tags are issued to the max point pool. they have no other draw structures to accommodate the quantity type hunters that prefer to hunt as much as often regardless of quality. if you apply in CA and you don’t have A LOT of pref. points already you may very well be out of the loop with nearly impossible odds. CA does not have the supply and has huge demand.

 

Again; AZ: has a system in place that is almost a preference point system where 50% of the tags are issued to the max point pool. they have no other draw structures to accommodate the quantity type hunters that prefer to hunt as much as often regardless of quality. if you apply in AZ and you don’t have A LOT of pref. points already you may very well be out of the loop with nearly impossible odds. AZ does not have the supply and has huge demand.

 

After a few years it will need to be moved to 75%, then 90% like CA's. It's already happening with wanting to move from 20% to 50%, I remember when it was 20% will fix it over 10%.

 

Colorado's system works there because you can kill 2 elk a year without drawing your coveted tag. Their system has gotten so clogged when it comes to the premium hunts that they're looking for answers themselves. In our state there would effectively only be a first choice on all hunts and a definate wait period on even cow hunts. There are on most cow hunts, 4 apps per 1 tag, every tag in AZ is high demand in one way or another.

 

Squaring pts is making someones bps more valuable than someone elses, my dollars spent on licenses and tags, amount to more than someone that is waiting it out for a tag. My BP should have at least the same value per BP as that person. If I have 2 and he has 10, he has an advantage. I'm not sold on me having 4 and him having 100, just because he decided to wait for a hard to get tag, what's so special about that.

 

I'm just trying to make you guys think and come up with some facts and data to support your proposal. I guess when you walk into G&F you don't need to be prepared with detailed examples/facts of how the change will be benefical to the majority of hunters. They'll just say, hey, sounds good, 50% over 20%, why didn't we think of that.

 

Somehow I'm supposed to feel ashamed that I have researched the draw odds over the years to try and improve my families chances.

 

I'm tired of having the G&F change processes because the anti's whining over here with nothing but emotion, some of our own hunters crying because it will help their tiny group but hurt the majority without any real data, the Commission changing our traditional archery hunt structure without real data or the Commission changing hunt structures with weighted surveys and for monetary reasons, not wildlife data reasons.

 

I'm nobody, never got involved with these political issues beyond complaining around the campfire. Well that was my mistake and I'm not going to sit around anymore. You want to make it harder for my wife to get a cow tag, you better have more of an explanation than, it just has to be better. Because.

 

At least show how the changed % will effect the variables in a positive direction/trend, time and efficently wise to warrant a change, even if it's just a logical guess. But you have to have some understanding of the current direction/trend to show the difference. Like a graph with the current trend in red and your improved version in blue, all I see from you guys is a one line graph. Same old stuff we deal with all the time with G&F changes.

 

The only comparasion example I've heard is, Joe got 2 tags in a few years apart and Jim is still waiting for his. So the system needs to be changed to 50%. Well, Joe won out in the initial number allocation before the draw, he ended up with one of the 20 tags out of the 650 2 bper's recieved because of their bp power. He was getting a tag any way because his number was lower than Jim's even with a 50%. You'll need to change the inital allocation system.

 

I think we're the only two willing to talk about this anymore and I'm tiring of it myself. It's a dead issue not going anywhere.

 

Kent

+1. Leave it alone

 

[RoughCut]

I think everyone would agree that AZGF should put a two year wait on drawing a "premium tag" like New Mexico does. It would prevent things like my brother-in-law drawing 6b,11m, 9 and 8 archery bull tags in 4 out of 5 years. It was great for him, but I have been putting in 5 years now for the same hunt that is almost the highest drawing bull archery tag there is and haven't been drawn.

 

I really think that would spread the wealth significantly, and perhaps more than fiddling with the bonus pass.

 

Do you guys concur?

[krp]

Emotionaly, yes, I don't want to hear that guy bragging again.

 

Realistically, where's the cutoff at premium, most rifle cow hunts are a 4 to 1 ratio, app to tag. Is that premium.

 

Set some parameters this time.

 

Kent

 

 

[RoughCut]

Emotionaly, yes, I don't want to hear that guy bragging again.

 

Realistically, where's the cutoff at premium, most rifle cow hunts are a 4 to 1 ratio, app to tag. Is that premium.

 

Set some parameters this time.

 

Kent

 

In New Mexico they designate premium hunts as "An elk or deer draw hunt which had at least 22% nonresident applicants for the previous two license years."

 

Just an example of a POSSIBE designation.

[krp]

RoughCut, your example of your BIL is on the extreem end but annoying non-the-less. He is either the luckiest guy in the world putting in by himself, or has a network of others he puts in with on different years that up his bp odds.

 

If he is riding luck then he is just beating everyone in the number allotment phase. Which of his hunts he drew would be considered premium, if not 6B and 11M then he would have still been in the draw and still beating everyone. I don't know if the 22% NR rule would apply to 6B and 11M.

 

All bull hunts including nov. archery? just rut hunts and rifle hunts? just rut hunts?

 

Also, will they be able to apply for nonpremium tags during their wait period.

 

Just some things to think on before moving forward, not trying to be contrary.

 

Kent

 

 

 

 

 

[billrquimby]

Establishing a waiting period for applying would be a step backward. We had three-year waits for elk and antelope permits for many years until it was shown that they do not statistically improve the odds of an individual hunter drawing a tag.

 

Instead of rehashing something from the past, why not discuss what should be done to allow substantially more of us to hunt without affecting the resource?

 

Even though that WOULD improve your odds and my odds of getting to hunt an elk or antelope in our favorite units, most of you will scream bloody murder and say we already have too many hunters.

 

Go figure.

 

Bill Quimby

[RoughCut]

your example of your BIL is on the extreem end but annoying non-the-less.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say by this.

He is either the luckiest guy in the world putting in by himself, or has a network of others he puts in with on different years that up his bp odds.

Always puts in by himself

If he is riding luck then he is just beating everyone in the number allotment phase.

What allotment phase are you referring to.

Which of his hunts he drew would be considered premium

You are right 11m and 6b wouldn't be under the premium category as New Mexico's guidelines stipulate, but like I said, we don't have to use NM as the ultimate example.

All bull hunts including nov. archery? just rut hunts and rifle hunts? just rut hunts?

Not sure what you are asking here. If you are asking what TYPES of hunts should be allocated as PREMIUM, then I think the pure application to tag ratio would be an excellent indicator regardless of TYPE, or season of hunt.

Also, will they be able to apply for nonpremium tags during their wait period.

Absolutely, unless they wanted to build points.