What if there were no point schemes?

[Gr8bawana]

Off topic for the thread but I think I remember hearing of a state that you had to turn in your survey or you are ineligible for a tag the next year? Consume too much hunting info on internet to remember where!

NV has mandatory survey whether you were successful or not even if you did not hunt.

 

[jvanhoy]

Wonder why western states haven’t went to a call in system like most of the eastern states have? In Va when you kill you notch your tag to bring the animal out then call a 800 number or check through the app and they give you a confirmation number to write on the tag.

 

[kansasdad]

Perhaps jvanhoy, nearly 100% of VA has good cell phone coverage, while many western states have large areas of no coverage. (One of my favorite places to hang about in Kansas still has extremely spotty coverage)

 

[madtom]

New Mexico also has mandatory harvest reporting. I'm not a good enough statistician to say whether mandatory reporting creates better data than estimating from a subsample when you factor in people not being truthful, not remembering how many days they hunted, etc.

 

[Elkmagnet]

1st off, I love straight up random draws. But there's a lot that can still be done to address fairness and revenue.
"Fairness"
I actually want longer waiting periods after drawing. The waiting period should be a sliding scale based on the drawing odds of the hunt. As an example a hunt with 75%+ drawing odds would have a 1 year wait, a hunt with 40-50% would be 3 years, below 10% odds and its 6 years wait before you can apply again. These can be adjusted after a few years to optimize "fairness"
Also if you kill in a hunt with odds below 50% you add an extra 2 years wait. This will keep buck and bull ratio high in quality units by discouraging last day meat bucks/bulls. While increasing "fairness"
These changes work in Idaho because you can still hunt elk/deer every year and shoot 2 of each if you want.
Now you have done most of the things that point systems were originally intended to do without punishing youth for not being eligible yet. In the long run this will be better for hunting and hunters.
Revenue

As far as point systems locking people in, to increase revenue Idaho already has a price lock policy where if you apply every year you pay less for a license. If you skip years you pay a higher fee for your license.

If people see holes in this I would like to discuss them because i am pushing this with IDFG commission.

 

[vanish]

1st off, I love straight up random draws. But there's a lot that can still be done to address fairness and revenue.
"Fairness"
I actually want longer waiting periods after drawing. The waiting period should be a sliding scale based on the drawing odds of the hunt. As an example a hunt with 75%+ drawing odds would have a 1 year wait, a hunt with 40-50% would be 3 years, below 10% odds and its 6 years wait before you can apply again. These can be adjusted after a few years to optimize "fairness"
Also if you kill in a hunt with odds below 50% you add an extra 2 years wait. This will keep buck and bull ratio high in quality units by discouraging last day meat bucks/bulls. While increasing "fairness"
These changes work in Idaho because you can still hunt elk/deer every year and shoot 2 of each if you want.
Now you have done most of the things that point systems were originally intended to do without punishing youth for not being eligible yet. In the long run this will be better for hunting and hunters.
Revenue

As far as point systems locking people in, to increase revenue Idaho already has a price lock policy where if you apply every year you pay less for a license. If you skip years you pay a higher fee for your license.

If people see holes in this I would like to discuss them because i am pushing this with IDFG commission.

I have had very similar ideas. You take the number of applicants for a tag, divided by the number of tags, subtract one, and that gives you their waiting period for any first choice tag upon drawing. So, for 100 tags with 100 applicants, 100/100 = 1 - 1 = 0 year waiting period. 1000 / 10 = 100 - 1 = 99 year waiting period ( effectively OIL ). I think the problem states have is that there is no "hook" to get someone to keep applying (and thus contributing $$) once they're in the waiting period.

I do not like your rule for "if you kill you wait longer" as that encourages 1.) people to lie in reporting, so they can get back in the game sooner if they did kill 2.) people not to tag out. You can debate whether 2 is a problem or not, but I'd prefer more people get a chance to have the tag than one hunter be selfish with it.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Vanish.
In Idaho the hook could be to expand the current price lock on your license to include non residents.

Price Lock

idfg.idaho.gov

As for the kill penalty you would need mandatory harvest reports and lying on one would be fraud.
I stole that provision from Nevada. I don't know if Nevada has issues with that? I haven't herd of any?
I think It really does help maintain quality and would work great in a state like Idaho that has the option for you to buy another over the counter tag if you wanted a meat bull/buck.
It seem better to disqualify those who have drawn and been successful than to disqualify the not yet able to participate.

 

[Elkmagnet]

2.) people not to tag out. You can debate whether 2 is a problem or not, but I'd prefer more people get a chance to have the tag than one hunter be selfish with it.

Also my thought is that the kill penalty would leave more animals on the mountain thus increasing the ability tosustain a higher number of tags. That would give more people the opportunity to hunt.

 

[LaSportsman]

No to kill penalty, especially when a harder to draw tag should have better odds. Biologists include success ratio already when determining number of tags to issue

 

[BrentD]

Who is going to admit to killing something if there is a penalty for it. Game reporting will go downhill fast.

 

[ImBillT]

I have no problem discussing GMUs in this thread or any other, but I’m not sure how going from a point based draw to a random draw(with a transposition period) resulted in concern for overharvest, elimination of GMUs, and free tags. I would be happy if every western state maintained current prices, tags, GMUs etc. I’m glad to see the discussion though.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Who is going to admit to killing something if there is a penalty for it. Game reporting will go downhill fast.

You make reprting mandatory. Like in many states. You can also require the return of the un used tag just like Idaho already does for trophy species.
Try not to think of it as a "kill penalty " and think of it as a short cut for those who don't harvest.
Nevada has used this to build there herds and age class. Some things this has proved to do are.
It will improve draw odds in two ways
1st It will leave a few more animals on the hill.
2nd It will lower harvest statistics.
Both of these allow more tags to be issued. It will also increase age structure and hunter/animal encounters.

You still get to choose if you shoot a meat buck on the last day unlike say a 3pt only rule or brow tine only rule.
I get that you guys might not want to wait longer before being eligible for the draw again but Im having trouble seeing the down side of making those who harvest have a longer waiting period? Other than the cost of mandated reports.Thoughts?
Again I'm just discussing these as an alternative to a point system in Idaho where we have two general elk and two general deer over the counter tags available on a yearly basis. In Idaho we need to increase the perceived fairness of our draw system preemptively before we get a points system shoved down our throats. I think this is how we can do that.

 

[BrentD]

elkmagnet, you have more faith in people than I do. I think many people will avoid reporting, mandatory or otherwise. I guess I woke up on the cynical side of the bed this morning.

 

[Elkmagnet]

It's pretty simple in most States with mandated reports if you don't report you don't get another hunting license or tag until you do.

 

[BrentD]

It's pretty simple in most States with mandated reports if you don't report you don't get another hunting license or tag until you do.

Okay, I report that I did not kill anything.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't know how enforceable and honest it will be. We are required to report deer and turkey kills in Iowa, but unless I'm stopped in the field, no one would know if I did or did not. For that matter, it would also be easily possible to lie and say I did kill something when I, in fact, went home empty handed. In Iowa's case, they rely on hunters' good will and honesty AND the fact that there are no negative consequences for being honest.

If there was a reward to lying (e.g., getting another tag sooner), then I think honesty and good will would decline fairly dramatically. Like I said, I got up on the cynical side of bed today.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I understand that would be an issue. But by doing so you just committed felony fraud because the tag you drew by lying has a marketable value in the thousands. It is no different than people lying about being a resident to get in the resident tag drawings. People do and they get hammered!
Also if its ends up being an issue you require that all unused tags be returned in order to shorten your waiting period. No tag then you get the longer waiting period.
Idaho already does this for trophy species because they are once in a lifetime if you harvest.

 

[BrentD]

returning tags might help. That's an idea. I don't object to your idea, just being pragmatic about it. Maybe it can be done.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Understood, I appreciate your views as I am sure they are shared by many if not most.

 

[hossblur]

Again, the hunter benefits but the individual state loses, there is literally 0 incentive for them to something like this...

Honestly, I think the system we have is great because it gives you a ton of options. If you are a planner and like knowing when you are going to draw then apply in AZ, CO, NV, or WY. If you hate point systems then apply in ID, NM, or AK. If you are less concerned with quality as getting to hunt, then you can go to Montana or Colorado. If you think you will likely only go on a couple of elk hunts and want a really good experience you can hold out for an AZ, NM, or WY hunt.

I really unconvinced that random is better... is it "fair" for someone to draw 5 glory tags in 5 years and someone else to never draw... that doesn't happen with point systems.

In the systems. In Utah there are hundreds of org tags, and CWMU. You can simply buy your way around points and waiting periods.

Think I heard Corey Jacobsen on with FIN talking about how random and points didn't make much diff unless you were the max.

Most of the top5 elk and deer units here are OIL now. For 12yr olds they could very well be never.

I'm sitting on 18 moose points. I will never hunt moose. A guy who was 13 when Utah started points will never hunt moose simply because he was born a month or so later.

Total random. Oil in place. Waiting periods for LE. The color of your hair shouldn't dictate your hunting.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

In the systems. In Utah there are hundreds of org tags, and CWMU. You can simply buy your way around points and waiting periods.

Think I heard Corey Jacobsen on with FIN talking about how random and points didn't make much diff unless you were the max.

Most of the top5 elk and deer units here are OIL now. For 12yr olds they could very well be never.

I'm sitting on 18 moose points. I will never hunt moose. A guy who was 13 when Utah started points will never hunt moose simply because he was born a month or so later.

Total random. Oil in place. Waiting periods for LE. The color of your hair shouldn't dictate your hunting.

Isn't this just a product of scarcity... I mean even if they went totally random you still aren't going to draw that tag?