Interesting to read comments about the Big 3 in Montana. Many of the topics, changes, and variations were discussed that impact this "demand side" of the equation when the Montana point system was developed 25 years ago. I sat on that committee.
We had statisticians report to us how any of the variations would impact draw odds. The reality was, nothing was going to impact draw odds, merely slice the pie different ways, with each manner of slicing the pie creating a different set of winners and losers and leaving some with the idea that they had solved the "supply side" of the equation.
The proposals were many, most of which have been mentioned here. Do the Idaho thing where you only get to apply for one of the Big 3. Keep half the tags out of the point scheme was my biggest push and I think the vote was 14-1 against it, with the youngest person on the committee (me), being outvoted by the elders. We reviewed ideas of squaring bonus points, which the stats should was the biggest folly in trying reshuffle the deck. It was defeated by the committee as a useless idea, only to be passed by the legislature eight years later. Leave it to a legislature to do something that the numbers show is illogical.
We discussed Once-In-A-Lifetime as a solution. Statistically it was insignificant to draw odds. But, we all knew that for perceived equity it would go a long ways. That OIL proposal was defeated by a close vote. Just too many old gray hairs on the committee hoping for that 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Big 3 tag.
Over the course of the year that the committee met, one thing became more and more obvious and was something I think most of us knew before the committee. The statistical models made it pretty clear we were just rearranging the same furniture and not making any difference.
From that experience, it was pretty obvious to me, and not just for the Big 3 - the only real impact was going to be addressing the supply side of the equation as mentioned by
@Randy11 . The demand side of the equation was never going to change, likely to increase as it always had. Manipulations and tricks to try cut the pie to the favor of one group over another was a mirage. To increase the odds in total, there needed to be more supply; in other words, we needed more animals in the hills.
As I look back over the last 25 years since that committee met, that axiom; "more animals in the hills" is more true today than it was back then. And it will be more true 25 years from now than it is today.
If hunters and legislators took one-fourth of the time they spend arguing about the "demand side" and scheming new gymnastics to benefit certain groups, and they spent that time on conservation, habitat, advocacy for native species, and working to fund the expensive efforts to increase numbers of the Big 3 ("make a bigger pie" as I call it), we would have way better draw odds for these species.
"Supply side" work is hard, it is expensive, it takes time, money, and commitment. Given that challenging reality of "supply side," the odds are that hunters and legislators will likely continue focusing on the "demand side" that rearranges the same furniture, albeit less furniture to rearrange.
Edit: One thing the committee did not consider, as nobody could have imagined such change, was removing the requirement to front the tag fees of the Big 3. Back then $75 per species was fronted. Whether one likes/dislikes that idea, it has been the biggest change to the "demand side" of this equation.