Long-time lurker here. I have been working on a small site for western draw planning and wanted to ask for blunt feedback from people who actually apply across states.
The site is here ( Free & Ad-free ): https://htr.sfdj.net
The idea is simple: when I am deciding where to apply, draw odds by themselves are not enough. I want to know:
- can I realistically draw this tag?
- is there public land I can actually hunt?
- does recent harvest success support the tag, or is it mostly a paper opportunity?
- if I have points, am I better off burning them or waiting?
- if I am applying across multiple states, which applications are worth keeping on the slate?
Right now the site has draw odds/deadline pages, public-land context where I have a defensible unit boundary match, harvest context where agency data maps cleanly
enough, a burn calculator, and a light portfolio ranking page. Some states are deeper than others, so I added methodology/caveat links instead of pretending every number
is equally clean.
It is not meant to replace state regs, OnX, or actually reading the proclamation. It is more of a first-pass screen before wasting an evening on units that are easy to
draw but hard to hunt, or units where the odds look better than the access.
What I would really like feedback on:
1. Is draw odds + public land + harvest in one view actually useful, or is one of those signals noise?
2. What state/species would you want most, even if the data is messy?
3. What would make you not trust a tool like this?
4. Is there a better way to explain the caveats so the site does not look more certain than it is?
If you click around and see something that looks wrong, I would rather hear that than get polite feedback. I am fixing data issues as I find them.
The site is here ( Free & Ad-free ): https://htr.sfdj.net
The idea is simple: when I am deciding where to apply, draw odds by themselves are not enough. I want to know:
- can I realistically draw this tag?
- is there public land I can actually hunt?
- does recent harvest success support the tag, or is it mostly a paper opportunity?
- if I have points, am I better off burning them or waiting?
- if I am applying across multiple states, which applications are worth keeping on the slate?
Right now the site has draw odds/deadline pages, public-land context where I have a defensible unit boundary match, harvest context where agency data maps cleanly
enough, a burn calculator, and a light portfolio ranking page. Some states are deeper than others, so I added methodology/caveat links instead of pretending every number
is equally clean.
It is not meant to replace state regs, OnX, or actually reading the proclamation. It is more of a first-pass screen before wasting an evening on units that are easy to
draw but hard to hunt, or units where the odds look better than the access.
What I would really like feedback on:
1. Is draw odds + public land + harvest in one view actually useful, or is one of those signals noise?
2. What state/species would you want most, even if the data is messy?
3. What would make you not trust a tool like this?
4. Is there a better way to explain the caveats so the site does not look more certain than it is?
If you click around and see something that looks wrong, I would rather hear that than get polite feedback. I am fixing data issues as I find them.
