The future of Preference Points

[Stocker]

You guys know that stats and fairness are why we are in this mess already. So let’s kick out the nerds, hurt some feelings and get some solid answers.

 

[Firedude]

The formula for cumulative probability ("P") of one occurrence of a result with individual probability ("p") over a given number of attempts ("n") is: P = 1–(1–p)^n

Below is a cumulative probability curve for one occurrence of an event with 10% individual probability.
View attachment 227798

This may be the same point you're already making and I just wasn't following.

By the way. I marked where I gave up on elk, deer, and antelope in Idaho in red. Terry drew his moose on the orange mark. His wife died having never drawn in over 40 years. There's a reason some of us are screaming the reconsider random.

 

[Scott85]

No buying points only would be a start. If you want to apply you need to apply to hunt. Then if it’s a first or only choice or pick 3. If you go on a hunt you give loose your points. I also like the way that Idaho does the big 3.

 

[Huntkook]

I have 12 WA goat points. My 144 chances, for the $160 I've put into it, has raised my chances from 0.022% to 0.034%...

 

[matechakeric]

It’s ok. I think I have like a 4% chance to draw a Nebraska elk tag this year so I’m planning on that. Even though the past 2 years members of my wife’s family have drawn with 0. If it happens this year I’m starting a full scale riot in Lincoln. Keep an eye on the news because I should know tomorrow. If you see a shirtless, 7/8 boozed up guy threatening a police horse with a broken Pendleton bottle you can say you’ve spoken to me on the internet.

hahahahahahaha. I'll be pulling for you

 

[Stocker]

hahahahahahaha. I'll be pulling for you

To draw a tag or vs the horse?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Explain this. I beg to differ. The state does not do controlled burns or other fire management, does not make timber sales, does not determine which timber or vegetation species will be planted or encouraged, does not control invasives, does not manage the riparian habitats, does not create water tanks, does not issue grazing permits, and so on and so forth - on Federal lands. I don't think the state does much for things like trail management and perhaps not even trail head management, but could be wrong about that. Is this not how real, pragmatic management happens? The state gets to step in and determine what proportion of the species gets to be shot, but the feds seem to be managers, pragmatically (and fiscally) speaking.

It would be sort of interesting to compare "elk-use days" on federal and state lands, for instance.

I think @wllm 's graph needs a little peer review. It ignores the other, absolutely critical, third dimension - time. And a few other details might be a bit misleading.

Bonus points, bonus squared, weighted preference, etc will not make any significant changes.

My thread, so...

 

[Irrelevant]

Explain this. I beg to differ. The state does not do controlled burns or other fire management, does not make timber sales, does not determine which timber or vegetation species will be planted or encouraged, does not control invasives, does not manage the riparian habitats, does not create water tanks, does not issue grazing permits, and so on and so forth - on Federal lands. I don't think the state does much for things like trail management and perhaps not even trail head management, but could be wrong about that. Is this not how real, pragmatic management happens? The state gets to step in and determine what proportion of the species gets to be shot, but the feds seem to be managers, pragmatically (and fiscally) speaking.

It would be sort of interesting to compare "elk-use days" on federal and state lands, for instance.

I think @wllm 's graph needs a little peer review. It ignores the other, absolutely critical, third dimension - time. And a few other details might be a bit misleading.

Bonus points, bonus squared, weighted preference, etc will not make any significant changes.

The feds bake the pie but then the states gets to dole out the slices and collected the revenue.

 

[geetar]

I'd forfeit every point I have to see everyone on a level playing field across the board. It's simply what's best for the future of hunting.

Agreed

 

[VikingsGuy]

It would be sort of interesting to compare "elk-use days" on federal and state lands, for instance.

Let's not pile on, they already are the 2nd most dependent state in the union . . .

 

[mtmuley]

Let's not pile on, they already are the 2nd most dependent state in the union . . .

View attachment 227808

Didn't notice this was a Montana issue. Or are you just piling on? mtmuley

 

[Redman]

Tell everyone cash in your points next year because the following year everything is going to a random draw. For high profile tags sheep, goat and moose lifetime tag foe NR and 10 year wait for residents. For high demand AKA trophy unit same.

 

[rwc101]

Me caring about NRs piling on while heading to Wally World to get my general tags.

 

[matechakeric]

To draw a tag or vs the horse?

depending on the circumstances, both

 

[Buffs35]

Great.

A lawyer & a statistician are now here.

This is how things get #@)(*%*.

I'm also a lawyer, and I root for the statistician.

 

[Bullshot]

Let's not pile on, they already are the 2nd most dependent state in the union . . .

View attachment 227808

Given this, I’d settle for 60 / 40

 

[Ben Lamb]

Didn't notice this was a Montana issue. Or are you just piling on? mtmuley

He's just angry because he got Marcia'd.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I profess to have about 3 brain cells and every year I buy $9 NR bear points ostensibly waiting for a unit 851 tag. I've never even thought twice about actually hunting a bear but I throw 851 on my app every year despite being a few points behind max. Technically, I could get lucky and get called with a last minute return.

You have to play the game the way the agencies design it.

Any of the following could happen and make my $9 (times X years) look like a reasonable investment
1. I could unexpectedly retire/move to Colorado
2. I get even with years of CPW discrimination by establishing 1-1.5 year RV park residence in Colorado and "rent out" my current home to my kids or on VRBO.
3. # of tags increase and CPW allows point averaging for groups,
4. CPW reinstates point banking and I hunt a 3 point unit, X years in a row (actually being discussed)
5. To extinguish points, CPW decides that points can now be pooled across all species (then squared?). Then, I use my bear points for elk.

I am buying bear points as cheap insurance against odd agency decision-making. And if none of the above ever happens, it was a $9 donation to CPW. After being used to settle CPW racial discrimination lawsuits, some very small portion of that $9 benefits wildlife (I hope).

Some of the honest states have shut down point buying when no tags currently exist. Other times, they let guys buy points - and that seems odd to many. If cheap, I buy those points. You can only analyze later under the "new rules" whether that was an intelligent move.

Currently the best bear hunting by far is not in draw units... only the one unit requires many points simply because there is only 1 tag for non-res not because it's incredibly awesome... I mean you might shoot a decent bear, but you aren't necessarily more likely to shoot a better one than an OTC unit.

It's silly IMHO because you aren't actually applying for anything, my opinion, if it was for say a big horn with those odds I'd like it was a long shot... but makes some sense.

That's more my point, if it makes you feel better two of ostensible very smart attorney friends also have piles of bear points despite my charts.

 

[mtmuley]

He's just angry because he got Marcia'd.

He should just bitch about Wyoming. mtmuley

 

[Ben Lamb]

He should just bitch about Wyoming. mtmuley

He's mostly harmless so long as we don't get him started on tort reform.