WY Game and Fish wants your thoughts on the preference point system (Moose and Sheep)

[Khunter]

We all knew this was coming after the 90/10 passed. money grubbers.

Now as a decout point scheme participant, I question having dropped sheep completely when the point fee hit and had zero chance of ever drawing, till now. LOL.

Still think I will stand pat with my 17 moose points if the change to squaring pts happens. I have no shortage of dumb luck drawing stuff, Just tell me there is a chance!

 

[rogerthat]

We all knew this was coming after the 90/10 passed. money grubbers.

Now as a decout point scheme participant, I question having dropped sheep completely when the point fee hit and had zero chance of ever drawing, till now. LOL.

Still think I will stand pat with my 17 moose points if the change to squaring pts happens. I have no shortage of dumb luck drawing stuff, Just tell me there is a chance!

Yeah from the little I have seen of your posts on your drawing luck, you are playing with “house money” at this point when it comes to the draw systems and points. For every lucky dude like you I bet there are 100s of unlucky dudes that couldn’t draw a tag with a pencil. IMO you will probably have better odds with squared bonus points and 17 points than you otherwise would have depending on the unit you apply for.

 

[Big Fin]

Keep moving the goal posts.

What's the next solution when bonus points squaring fails? Will it?

I hope people think about what Ivan has written here. My emails are full of requests for my thoughts on these Wyoming proposals. I wish I had thought about a simple reply like this.

None of this machination increases the total amount of opportunity, whether it is sheep and moose, or the deer/elk/pronghorn, or whatever species. I have grown tired of the facade these point schemes and allocation tricks create.

It's not like these "drawing gymnastics" change the size of the herds or the total number of tags. It merely takes the same size herd and changes the allocation of opportunity to the benefit of one group, usually old gray haired dudes like me, and does so at the expense of everyone else.

And in the process it creates the false sense that somehow we will draw "our tag." It lowers the priority of putting more sheep/elk/deer on the mountain. It takes our eye of the fact that we have let mule deer numbers crash across most of the west and rather than launch a full on effort to change management and improve habitat, we collectively accept that we should just fight over the ever-shrinking mule deer herds and that somehow a point scheme or changing the drawing formulas will improve that situation.

These debates remind me of when I sat on Montana's point committee in 1999. I was 34 years old and probably 15 years younger than the next youngest person and likely 25 years younger than the majority of the committee. When it was proposed that the Montana system only be applied to 50%, or less, of our tags, I thought I was going to get booted off the committee. Illustrations were presented to show that point schemes really do nothing for tags that are hard to draw, and that such schemes only create stacks of applicants all stalled at the top point levels. The math didn't seem to have much impact. The focus was more about getting one more moose or sheep tag, or finding ways to improve the likelihood of getting that coveted bull elk tag.

That committee proposed the idea of squaring points, as Nevada had just started that. A couple of us provided an illustration of what little benefit that provided if you have 10,000 applicants all starting out at the max point level and only giving away 200 tags for that species, say sheep or moose. The committee declined the proposal to square bonus points, only to have some old blue hairs come to the legislature ten years later and request such. It passed. We don't have any more sheep or moose tags than when the legislature passed that, rather we have less. And nobody has any better draw odds than before.

I accept that I'm pissing in the wind when it comes to my thoughts on this. I know it won't change, as I've spoke to enough western state agency folks, enough western state Game Commissioners, and I see how many hunters eat it up once they feel they have made an investment in the point system.

I hope Ivan and his fellow Alaska residents never go to a point system. The same in Idaho and New Mexico. There's not a state out there that has implemented a point scheme that has seen an increase in total hunting opportunity. I've not done the analysis, but I would bet money that the results of analysis would show that states implementing a point scheme are the states on the verge of seeing herd numbers decline and thus total tag numbers.

Sorry for the ramble that likely changes nothing. I'd ask that you see the wisdom in the statement of @Bambistew. All of this is merely changing goal posts. Until we get serious about habitat and better management schemes (speaking about Montana), none of this BS changes anything. It makes a few people feel good and might leverage something for old dudes like me, but it is a net negative to the bigger picture.

Rant over. I've got a long list of tasks to complete that accumulated during my last six weeks of travel. Carry on ........

 

[rogerthat]

I hope people think about what Ivan has written here. My emails are full of requests for my thoughts on these Wyoming proposals. I wish I had thought about a simple reply like this.

None of this machination increases the total amount of opportunity, whether it is sheep and moose, or the deer/elk/pronghorn, or whatever species. I have grown tired of the facade these point schemes and allocation tricks create.

It's not like these "drawing gymnastics" change the size of the herds or the total number of tags. It merely takes the same size herd and changes the allocation of opportunity to the benefit of one group, usually old gray haired dudes like me, and does so at the expense of everyone else.

And in the process it creates the false sense that somehow we will draw "our tag." It lowers the priority of putting more sheep/elk/deer on the mountain. It takes our eye of the fact that we have let mule deer numbers crash across most of the west and rather than launch a full on effort to change management and improve habitat, we collectively accept that we should just fight over the ever-shrinking mule deer herds and that somehow a point scheme or changing the drawing formulas will improve that situation.

These debates remind me of when I sat on Montana's point committee in 1999. I was 34 years old and probably 15 years younger than the next youngest person and likely 25 years younger than the majority of the committee. When it was proposed that the Montana system only be applied to 50%, or less, of our tags, I thought I was going to get booted off the committee. Illustrations were presented to show that point schemes really do nothing for tags that are hard to draw, and that such schemes only create stacks of applicants all stalled at the top point levels. The math didn't seem to have much impact. The focus was more about getting one more moose or sheep tag, or finding ways to improve the likelihood of getting that coveted bull elk tag.

That committee proposed the idea of squaring points, as Nevada had just started that. A couple of us provided an illustration of what little benefit that provided if you have 10,000 applicants all starting out at the max point level and only giving away 200 tags for that species, say sheep or moose. The committee declined the proposal to square bonus points, only to have some old blue hairs come to the legislature ten years later and request such. It passed. We don't have any more sheep or moose tags than when the legislature passed that, rather we have less. And nobody has any better draw odds than before.

I accept that I'm pissing in the wind when it comes to my thoughts on this. I know it won't change, as I've spoke to enough western state agency folks, enough western state Game Commissioners, and I see how many hunters eat it up once they feel they have made an investment in the point system.

I hope Ivan and his fellow Alaska residents never go to a point system. The same in Idaho and New Mexico. There's not a state out there that has implemented a point scheme that has seen an increase in total hunting opportunity. I've not done the analysis, but I would bet money that the results of analysis would show that states implementing a point scheme are the states on the verge of seeing herd numbers decline and thus total tag numbers.

Sorry for the ramble that likely changes nothing. I'd ask that you see the wisdom in the statement of @Bambistew. All of this is merely changing goal posts. Until we get serious about habitat and better management schemes (speaking about Montana), none of this BS changes anything. It makes a few people feel good and might leverage something for old dudes like me, but it is a net negative to the bigger picture.

Rant over. I've got a long list of tasks to complete that accumulated during my last six weeks of travel. Carry on ........

Randy,
With all due respect, your post makes no sense to me what so ever. Point systems and the resource have no direct correlation whatsoever other than maybe the point system might raise additional funds that could be used to support the resource. Emphasizing “maybe” in that last statement. Are you implying the point systems are responsible for the declining resource? I see no way that imposition is logical.

Point systems were put in place in all there various forms as a way for folks to stand in line for the various draw systems. It’s that simple. In theory there would be benefits to this- able to plan when you draw, more fair allocation of tags etc,etc. if anyone ever thought it would create more critters or help the resource, well I see no logic to this.

What’s funny to me in your rant is you completely ignore the demand side of the equation and focus on the supply. Is that because you were one of the pioneers of “the movement” that has got us to where we are today with demand? Maybe I’m out to lunch but most of the point schemes that everyone says are broken are functioning just as they were intended to. The systems just never were intended to handle the demand that now exists or even existed when they were put in place(a specific few instances)

It’s easy to say the point systems only benefit “old gray haired men like yourself” and that they are “broken”, and that they should be trashed but that completely dismisses the fact some people have been standing in “line” for a really long time. I don’t think telling them tough luck is what a fair society does. It’s not what I do when I go to Walmart Saturday afternoon.

If we want to talk about expanding the resource, that’s a different conversation. Blaming the point systems for anything resource related is mis-placed blame in my opinion. If we want to talk about the point systems and “fixing them”. we need to be honest about why they “failed” - overwhelming demand

 

[Firedude]

The "point" of a point system is to do what? What's the end goal of a point system?

To make tag drawings more fair. That's it. Mathematically there is a sweet spot for preference points where they make sense. I didn't see any complaining when you guys could plan on a nice tag every 3 to 5 years. I put in for deer, elk, and antelope with 1 in 4 to 1 in 8 odds for 16 years in Idaho as a resident. I never got a tag that wasn't unlimited. I was just that unlucky guy. Random 1 in 5 does NOT mean you'll draw about every 5 years. It means every year your odds are 5 to 1 against you drawing. EVERY YEAR the odds are against you drawing. This is where preference points begin to make sense.

Once you exceed certain numbers of hunters vs tags preference points have the opposite effect. Your seeing it now. Any reason to apply for Bighorn in wyoming with 0 points? No. You'll never draw. That's not making tag drawings fair. Therefore the system needs fixing. I like the idea of bonus points. You could draw year 1 but if you don't you get a small reward every year, a slight advantage next year. That's it. No guarantees. I replied that I was a fan of the changes. It makes sense with the numbers of applicants to "Move the goalposts." As it was put. Right now 90% of us are trying to compete outside the ballpark. You had a better chance than most for a long time. But new hunters should have a chance instead of locking them out their entire lives.

 

[jlmatthew]

I basically said if Colorado does it, run from it!

 

[brymoore]

There is nothing fair about a point system. It’s just a way to game how tags are distributed. For one person to get a better advantage to draw, another is disadvantaged.

 

[seeth07]

Randy,
With all due respect, your post makes no sense to me what so ever. Point systems and the resource have no direct correlation whatsoever other than maybe the point system might raise additional funds that could be used to support the resource. Emphasizing “maybe” in that last statement. Are you implying the point systems are responsible for the declining resource? I see no way that imposition is logical.

I have to agree with @rogerthat here unless we are both missing something. I don't see the correlation between the draw system and the decline in a resource. In fact, I would actually argue the opposite in that the draw systems have potentially helped the resource because the dollars spent on applications across the west has drastically inclined over the past decade. Therefore, with more dollars going to the state from hunters through the application process, it should mean more dollars to spend on wildlife management although we all know that isn't always the case in each state....

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

I have to agree with @rogerthat here unless we are both missing something. I don't see the correlation between the draw system and the decline in a resource. In fact, I would actually argue the opposite in that the draw systems have potentially helped the resource because the dollars spent on applications across the west has drastically inclined over the past decade. Therefore, with more dollars going to the state from hunters through the application process, it should mean more dollars to spend on wildlife management although we all know that isn't always the case in each state....

I think that was kind of Randy's point. The agencies are spending too much time and effort trying to figure out how the slice the pie different ways rather than finding ways to increase the size of the pie. It's all irrelevant if the resource isn't managed better. The point scheme are often presented as a way to increase opportunity, or possibility of opportunity, for more people. But with decreasing tags due to decreasing herds it is again irrelevant.

Grow the herds, grow the tags, increase opportunity.

At least, to my uneducated mind.

I don't personally the buy the fairness argument presented above either. I'm screwed because I was born a decade or few too late and the agencies set up by those same guys "standing in line" have too often failed to appropriately manage the resource. Therefore, I don't have a chance in hades because those old guys are more concerned about getting their turn than whether or not future generations will even have a similar opportunity. Fact of the matter is that there isn't enough opportunity to go around and a pile of us are going to die having never hunted certain species, at least in certain states, whether we've applying since we could or not. Fairness would be truly random, same odds for all every year. You might even convince some guys like me to spend the money to apply as it is slightly less of a waste of time. "So you're saying there's a chance!"

Maybe that would convince the agencies, and their supporters, to increase the pie rather than worrying about getting their slice before they die whether or not they screw the rest of us.

 

[Buck Fever NW]

I'm no expert here, and I also may be missing something, but I interpreted Randy's post as saying that in fact there is no correlation, in that it does nothing to improve the herds and therefore opportunity. After re-reading his post, I didn't understand him to be implying that there was a negative correlation, rather that there simply was no positive correlation. Good discussion.

 

[DFS]

Overwhelming demand will break any system. There is going to be a lot of unhappy people with any draw system going forward due to the increased demand.

 

[Labman]

Any reason to apply for Bighorn in wyoming with 0 points? No. You'll never draw. That's not making tag drawings fair. Therefore the system needs fixing. I like the idea of bonus points. You could draw year 1 but if you don't you get a small reward every year, a slight advantage next year. That's it. No guarantees. I replied that I was a fan of the changes. It makes sense with the numbers of applicants to "Move the goalposts." As it was put. Right now 90% of us are trying to compete outside the ballpark. You had a better chance than most for a long time. But new hunters should have a chance instead of locking them out their entire lives.

You speak of fairness in one breath then essentially disregard the sportsmen who have applied for 15, 20, 27 years under a system that has not changed. How is that fair to them?
There are already random tags, and you can draw a tag with 0 points, which is essentially what you have if you don’t have the points required to draw a particular unit. Unless you had the points required for that unit you didn’t have a better chance. New hunters do have a chance in the current system. The only thing this will accomplish is make odds slightly better for some and worse for those who have invested a quarter century into a scheme that was designed to benefit those individuals who were dedicated. The system is already “fair”, you just have to live long enough and/or get lucky to benefit from it.

 

[rwc101]

Easier to slice the pie than bake a new one.

 

[rogerthat]

Interesting how folks just looking to apply see point systems as getting screwed by the folks that have been applying for many years and hence want to change the system. The folks that have been applying for a long time under the current system see the changes to the system as getting screwed.

That to me shows the path to compromise is a system that gives both what they want. A chance to draw for everyone but some value to the existing points. Bonus points do that and why I support the change.

 

[Oak]

I think the point Randy was making is that point systems keep people applying for a shrinking resource.

Point systems started out as a way to allocate opportunity in a more orderly fashion. Many hunters still view them positively in that way. But for wildlife agencies, they have largely become just another funding mechanism. They aren't fighting for them because they are worried about doing wrong by the person that has been investing in them for 20 years. They are fighting for them because they make far more revenue from the people who are unsuccessful in the draws than they do from those who are successful.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

No point system works fairly unless the blue hairs get their tags.

@Bambistew nailed it. Keep putting lipstick on the pig…

 

[Nick87]

Keep putting lipstick on the pig…

Leave my sister in law out of this.

 

[BrentD]

...

Sorry for the ramble that likely changes nothing. I'd ask that you see the wisdom in the statement of @Bambistew. All of this is merely changing goal posts. Until we get serious about habitat and better management schemes (speaking about Montana), none of this BS changes anything. It makes a few people feel good and might leverage something for old dudes like me, but it is a net negative to the bigger picture.

As an older, greyer dude than you, Randy, there are some things that could be done. More habitat management to bump up herd sizes probably isn't one of them for most species. The herds are, generally speaking, quite large and many, perhaps, too large by various measures.

What could be done is to limit the number of tags any one person can apply for. Instead of one antelope, elk, moose, deer, .... tag per year per state, IF you want to see hunting remain as a popular activity, then limit the numbers of big game tags both within AND across states. How many head game must one take every season to be happy?

I realize this is going to go over like a lead balloon here, but when I hear about people killing multiple elk, and antelope, and deer, and so on, in a single year, I see the problem as a failure to distribute the wealth. Is that really necessary?

The bottom line is that there are not going to be significantly more tags. There can only be a better distribution of the tags that are available.

Fire away.

 

[Firedude]

Im

You speak of fairness in one breath then essentially disregard the sportsmen who have applied for 15, 20, 27 years under a system that has not changed. How is that fair to them?
There are already random tags, and you can draw a tag with 0 points, which is essentially what you have if you don’t have the points required to draw a particular unit. Unless you had the points required for that unit you didn’t have a better chance. New hunters do have a chance in the current system. The only thing this will accomplish is make odds slightly better for some and worse for those who have invested a quarter century into a scheme that was designed to benefit those individuals who were dedicated. The system is already “fair”, you just have to live long enough and/or get lucky to benefit from it.

I'm assuming from the way you describe fair you are sitting on a pile of points. Dedicated in this case means you are just old enough to have been around when the point system started. If we'd all started at the same time you'd be 100% correct. Only the guys who put in every year are in the lead. But over 30 years the starting point gets moved back 20 feet while you inch forward. Anybody can see how eventually the race is pointless to start. Hundreds to 1 or thousands to 1 odds in the random while a few hundred tags go only to top point holders who happened to be the right age at the right time isn't a convincing idea of fair either.

I surmise that in the give and take of this system you will keep your point numbers but it will convert to bonus points.

 

[Labman]

Im

I'm assuming from the way you describe fair you are sitting on a pile of points. Dedicated in this case means you are just old enough to have been around when the point system started. If we'd all started at the same time you'd be 100% correct. Only the guys who put in every year are in the lead. But over 30 years the starting point gets moved back 20 feet while you inch forward. Anybody can see how eventually the race is pointless to start. Hundreds to 1 or thousands to 1 odds in the random while a few hundred tags go only to top point holders who happened to be the right age at the right time isn't a convincing idea of fair either.

I surmise that in the give and take of this system you will keep your point numbers but it will convert to bonus points.

I just use the term “fair” as the dictionary defines it - in accordance with the rules or standards. The rules and standards have been established and have been in place for 27 years. The numbers in the NR category are 6 random and 39 preference BTW. Your earlier post describes no chance with 0 points, but everyone has zero if you don’t have the points it takes in the PP drawing. There is no doubt the most “fair” system is a totally random draw, but that is far from fair to the sportsmen who have 27 years invested in a system established in an attempt to give preferential treatment to people who are more invested.