Life Time Tags

[MT_elk]

Some will like it, some will hate it.

Bill aims to make some Montana hunting permits once-in-a-lifetime

Some hunters are luckier than others, a St. Regis lawmaker said, drawing permits two or even three times in their lifetimes.

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

 

[EKYHunter]

Very interesting. Lots of hunters in Kentucky would support a similar bill here in relation to our elk hunts. Personally, I would not be in favor but I can see both sides.

 

[MTGomer]

Wont go into effect until 2022 and isn’t retroactive, which effectively means not until 2030, because that’s when people that killed in 2022 come off their 7 year wait. It is statistically insignificant to draw odds, but sure could screw up the unlimited areas.

If it were retroactive, which it isn’t- and if we assumed everybody that has drawn a sheep tag in the last 40 years is back in the draw-which they aren’t- it would remove enough people from the draw to improve the simple odds by 0.015%.

Word is that it’s gonna die but we’ll see.

Watch that senate bill focused on Privatizing deer and elk tags for outfitter set asides. It may just be deer/elk this go around, but we all know if it’s passed they’ll be setting their sites on an outfitter set aside for the big three as well, much like NM has for their coveted Rocky and desert sheep hunts. They’ll want more than 10% for NR so they can break a bunch off and give them to outfitters

 

[winmag]

Hate it.

There are better ways address the draw odds problem in Montana.

For example Montana HB120, limiting bonus point purchases to those who can actually hunt the tag (so you can’t buy your infant child bonus points anymore) will do far more to improve draw odds in the long run than making them OIL.

 

[406LIFE]

This isn't about draw odds for me. If that were about that we could adress the draw system (and if I had a vote copy Idaho's.)

This is about equitable access to an extremely limited resources that continues to have population decline. I am unpersuaded that someone who has had the opportunity to chase one of these species should be granted another while the number of people who haven't continues to climb and the odds continue to drop. I would gladly relequinsh my opportunity to draw any of them to see this pass.

 

[grandejuan]

Arizona's OIL tags for Desert and Rocky Mtn sheep are a bit different. You can only harvest OIL for Desert and Rocky. You can apply the next year if you did not take a sheep. Of course your chances are slim because of bonus points, but I know one guy who struck out on Deserts and was drawn again 7 years later. I know of another who was drawn for a Rocky with only 6 points. Me, I drew my AZ Rocky tag with 23 points. I drew a NR Colorado Rocky tag after 10 years and my AZ Desert tag before the point system was established. GJ

 

[golfer]

.

For example Montana HB120, limiting bonus point purchases to those who can actually hunt the tag (so you can’t buy your infant child bonus points anymore) will do far more to improve draw odds in the long run than making them OIL.

I hope this passes. I listened to the sponser of the bill the other day present it. Even if it passes and your kid has say 4 points but cant buy a licesne they will still be able to hold on to those points already purchased. I do not think they should be able to accure points until they complete hunter safety.

 

[MTTW]

This isn't about draw odds for me. If that were about that we could adress the draw system (and if I had a vote copy Idaho's.)

This is about equitable access to an extremely limited resources that continues to have population decline. I am unpersuaded that someone who has had the opportunity to chase one of these species should be granted another while the number of people who haven't continues to climb and the odds continue to drop. I would gladly relequinsh my opportunity to draw any of them to see this pass.

Equitable access? Do you know what 18x18 equals? Here is a clue, it is more than one. One point would be equitable.

 

[winmag]

This bill was proposed in 2019 (and promptly died) and is being re-proposed now (and I bet Denley will propose it again in 2023 if he's still around). Listen to the hearings from 2019 and 2021. To the proponents of this bill, it is clearly about draw odds.

I work with statistics every day in my profession, so maybe I have a different interpretation of "fair" vs "unfair".

A defined draw system, with published rules and parameters, with the draw order drawn randomly, without any cheating or other corruption, can never be "unfair". Someone drawing 2 or 3 sheep tags in their lifetime while their buddy has drawn 0 has nothing to do with fairness, that's just how odds play out sometimes. It doesn't get any more fair than random. People are free to never apply again after they kill their sheep if they want to have some sort of moral high ground to stand on.

If you want to motivate hunters to fund species-specific conservation efforts, the best way to do that is to give them hope that they may be able to hunt that species later in life, even if that is for a second or third time. Put more sheep on the mountain; more tags will be available and draw odds will improve.

I wish it was all random; no bonus points, no preference points, no outfitter pools, no once in a lifetime, but there's no going back for states that have already gone down the bonus/preference point road.

 

[406LIFE]

Equitable access? Do you know what 18x18 equals? Here is a clue, it is more than one. One point would be equitable.

You're decorum aside, reread my post. I'm not addressing draw odds. I'm addressing how someone could have more than one sheep in their lifetime. That isn't equitable if someone has none and someone else has more than that.

 

[MTGomer]

You're decorum aside, reread my post. I'm not addressing draw odds. I'm addressing how someone could have more than one sheep in their lifetime. That isn't equitable if someone has none and someone else has more than that.

Some of us have put in an inequitable amount of work for a sheep and if there is ever another, we’ll probably put an inequitable amount of work into the next one.

The only people I know with >1 Montana ram have dedicated their hunting lives to sheep hunting.

You have the option to go hunt sheep. Same option you had two years ago when this bill was up. Have you done it?
You’re complaining about inequitable access but you can drive to the trailhead in a single day from your house and hunt sheep this year for $125. Are you going to?

The biggest threat to the unlimiteds is lack of interest. This would be a nail in their coffin and there will be another one any day now when the bio retires.
A new biologist with no history in the units combined with with the people that have kept the units going for decades no longer being involved and it’s done.
Then there really will be inequitable access because the cost of entry will go up by about $440k unless someone can beat the 0.03% draw odds.

You were pushing this last session too when it would have BANNED CHILDREN FROM APPLYING for moose, sheep and goat. Talk about inequitable access...

For those that don’t know, This bill is pushed by some older guys in a group, I think its called Private Lands/Public Wildlife, and is sponsored by Denley Loge who is a part of that group, that seem to have a focus advocating on behalf of older hunters.
Last session, they tanked this bill, because they were trying to keep children out of the draw to improve chances of them drawing a tag.
A few sessions before that, they had a bill to carve licenses out of the draw for a separate draw for people over 65. It failed too.

 

[el unit]

Hope it passes.

 

[MTTW]

This is about equitable access to an extremely limited resources that continues to have population decline.

I guess it is that right there that got me. To me it is pretty hard to address equitable access to limited tags without addressing equitable access to limited tags.

 

[MTGomer]

I guess it is that right there that got me. To me it is pretty hard to address equitable access to limited tags without addressing equitable access to limited tags.

Oh you don’t think someone with 18 points having their name in the hat 325:1 over someone with none is equitable?

 

[EYJONAS!]

Maybe if it wasn't basically free to put in that would eliminate some people...... just an observation.

 

[sacountry]

Wont go into effect until 2022 and isn’t retroactive, which effectively means not until 2030, because that’s when people that killed in 2022 come off their 7 year wait. It is statistically insignificant to draw odds, but sure could screw up the unlimited areas.

If it were retroactive, which it isn’t- and if we assumed everybody that has drawn a sheep tag in the last 40 years is back in the draw-which they aren’t- it would remove enough people from the draw to improve the simple odds by 0.015%.

Word is that it’s gonna die but we’ll see.

Watch that senate bill focused on Privatizing deer and elk tags for outfitter set asides. It may just be deer/elk this go around, but we all know if it’s passed they’ll be setting their sites on an outfitter set aside for the big three as well, much like NM has for their coveted Rocky and desert sheep hunts. They’ll want more than 10% for NR so they can break a bunch off and give them to outfitters

The outfitter bill is worrisome. Not even sure how someone could walk on to the floor with that in their hand to propose it.

 

[EYJONAS!]

You're decorum aside, reread my post. I'm not addressing draw odds. I'm addressing how someone could have more than one sheep in their lifetime. That isn't equitable if someone has none and someone else has more than that.

I would like to hear how many people have doubled in their life on a bighorn, moose, goat. Unlimited opportunities aside from the random draw.

The number has to be pretty dismal.

Eliminating those who have successfully drawn and harvested one of the 3 doesn't seem to make much sense or change anything.

There's on average over the past 10 years 7800 people who apply for 680 every year, elminimating 25 people from here on out isn't going to change much of a draw opportunity from here on out. They need to go back to the pay to play idea..... not a freeby draw system. That is going to eliminate or restrict quite a few.

 

[MTTW]

Oh you don’t think someone with 18 points having their name in the hat 325:1 over someone with none is equitable?

In my mind I see a young guy walk up to the counter and put his 2 bucks down and receive 1 lottery ticket. An old guy steps up and puts his 2$ down and receives 324 tickets. The young guy says " how fair is that?"
The old guy says " you will be happy to know we have a bill in the works that will make winning the lottery once in a lifetime"
The young guy says " F-it, can I get my 2 bucks back?"
The old guy says " you can't win if you don't play."

 

[golfer]

I would like to hear how many people have doubled in their life on a bighorn, moose, goat. Unlimited opportunities aside from the random draw.

The number has to be pretty dismal.

Eliminating those who have successfully drawn and harvested one of the 3 doesn't seem to make much sense or change anything.

There's on average over the past 10 years 7800 people who apply for 680 every year, elminimating 25 people from here on out isn't going to change much of a draw opportunity from here on out. They need to go back to the pay to play idea..... not a freeby draw system. That is going to eliminate or restrict quite a few.

I know one guy from back home who drew a 680 tag twice. First time his dad put him in for his graduation gift and then the next tim he was eligible to apply. Not really the point but it happens.

 

[EYJONAS!]

I know one guy from back home who drew a 680 tag twice. First time his dad put him in for his graduation gift and then the next tim he was eligible to apply. Not really the point but it happens.

I'll do ya one better I know a guy that's drawn all 3 twice and he has max goat points.