The Draw System

[RoughCut]

Establishing a waiting period for applying would be a step backward. We had three-year waits for elk and antelope permits for many years until it was shown that they do not statistically improve the odds of an individual hunter drawing a tag.

Can I just ask how taking 1000's of people out of the current year's draw (those whom in the prior year drew a PREMIUM TAG) wouldn't in fact increase the overall odds of drawing?

Instead of rehashing something from the past, why not discuss what should be done to allow substantially more of us to hunt without affecting the resource?

I apologize if this has been discussed here before, some of us are relatively new here and haven't had the priveledge to discuss it yet.

 

 

[krp]

Bill,I absolutely agree with your ideas that I've heard you express before. I'm not bringing it up though.

 

Kent

 

 

[krp]

I'm just saying that is a very extreme case and I can see how you are annoyed. That may be the most extreme case I've heard about and annoys me on a certain level also. Human nature.

 

There are people that piggyback off their family members bps. Drawing those many tags solo means he is just beating everyone in the overall number lottery. The lowest number everyone is alloted in the lottery before going to the actual draw. Once the numbers are given, the draw goes through those numbers in order. He's pulling some very low numbers consistantly to be getting tags.

 

If all bull hunts are premium, (the only way to keep him from getting a bull tag with that low number) then allowing him in the cow hunts will only allow him to take tags from those hunters with his low number. Many hunters consider cow hunts premium and already are competeing 4 to 1 for tags, they don't want 12,000 bull hunters the first year, and 24,000 the second, forced into their territory, competeing for tags.

 

Has to be a system that is fair for everyone.

 

Kent

 

[billrquimby]

Establishing a waiting period for applying would be a step backward. We had three-year waits for elk and antelope permits for many years until it was shown that they do not statistically improve the odds of an individual hunter drawing a tag.

Can I just ask how taking 1000's of people out of the current year's draw (those whom in the prior year drew a PREMIUM TAG) wouldn't in fact increase the overall odds of drawing?

Instead of rehashing something from the past, why not discuss what should be done to allow substantially more of us to hunt without affecting the resource?

I apologize if this has been discussed here before, some of us are relatively new here and haven't had the priveledge to discuss it yet.

 

 

The point is, there are too few permits for the large number of people who are applying. Removing those who drew tags recently does not significantly improve your odds of drawing.

 

It's kind of like prohibiting everyone who won $1 or more in a lottery from ever again buying a ticket in the mistaken belief that if you wait long enough (and live long enough) your day will come.

 

To take that analogy further, if you think bonus points are the answer, spend your entire next year's paychecks on Powerball tickets and see how it improves your odds of winning that $64 zillion.

 

And if you believe I'm wrong about both of the above, let me tell you about Santa Claus. He actually lives on the beach at Mazatlan.

 

If you want to improve your odds, ask what needs to be done to allow more of us to go hunting without adversely affecting wildlife populations -- and then see that it gets done.

 

Bill Quimby

[RoughCut]

Establishing a waiting period for applying would be a step backward. We had three-year waits for elk and antelope permits for many years until it was shown that they do not statistically improve the odds of an individual hunter drawing a tag.

Can I just ask how taking 1000's of people out of the current year's draw (those whom in the prior year drew a PREMIUM TAG) wouldn't in fact increase the overall odds of drawing?

Instead of rehashing something from the past, why not discuss what should be done to allow substantially more of us to hunt without affecting the resource?

I apologize if this has been discussed here before, some of us are relatively new here and haven't had the priveledge to discuss it yet.

 

 

The point is, there are too few permits for the large number of people who are applying. Removing those who drew tags recently does not significantly improve your odds of drawing.

 

It's kind of like prohibiting everyone who won $1 or more in a lottery from ever again buying a ticket in the mistaken belief that if you wait long enough (and live long enough) your day will come.

 

To take that analogy further, if you think bonus points are the answer, spend your entire next year's paychecks on Powerball tickets and see how it improves your odds of winning that $64 zillion.

 

And if you believe I'm wrong about both of the above, let me tell you about Santa Claus. He actually lives on the beach at Mazatlan.

 

If you want to improve your odds, ask what needs to be done to allow more of us to go hunting without adversely affecting wildlife populations -- and then see that it gets done.

 

Bill Quimby

 

I've gotta say one thing, I didn't jump into this discussion to fuel everybodies sensitivities. I was just making a civil comment that I thought would help a very difficult situation.

 

I didn't say the wait period was a cure-all by any means. yes the change; would be small but it would help. To be perfectly honest I don't even know if I would endorse the change. I like the system the way it is.

 

[krp]

RoughCut, I'm also intriged a little at taking 12,000 bull hunters out of the draw the first year and then 24,000 there after. The bonus point odds don't allow most to get another tag within the next few years anyway, cases like your BIL are there but not in great numbers. I also remember when they had the wait period when I was young, it really sucked and didn't help anything back then.

 

Todays different and I'm on the fence like you, not really sure I like it because of the past. If someone comes up with a substandual reason then maybe I could decide.

 

Kent

[DubTee]

1. Like others have mentioned, I would only think a waiting period would benefit those putting in for the "premium" hunts. Sure many "premium" hunt guys will start building points again or drop out completely after drawing that great tag, thus removing them from the draw for at least a couple years but I'm sure some would move to non-premium hunts, which really wouldn't be fair for those who have been waiting on those tags. Not sure what to do about that, seems fair for some, not so fair for others.

 

2. Bill, I would think the only thing that could be done to increase everyone's chances that are applying without compromising game numbers, is to have more game, thus increasing the tags. I think most would agree that AZ is pretty streched out on tag numbers the way they are now without affecting the quality of the hunt. I can only think of better fawn recruitment as a way of increasing game numbers, simply more fawns that survive=more mature animals down the road to be hunted. Assuming AZ has the space/cover for more animals, the only way I can think to increase fawn recruitment would be wetter weather, and/or less natural predation. Since we can't control the weather, we could knock off more predators, I guess it would be just a matter of more of us getting out and doing it, or thinking of an incentive for more to get out there (bounties, fur prices, etc., I don't know).

 

3. KRP, I know you mentioned you weren't a fan of squaring the points, but under our current system, that is the only way I would think would be fairer to those who have waited longer, and still give everyone a chance, which I see as the biggest complaint. I like the fact that those who have waited the longest get top priority (20% pass), but not all the tags. I took '08 numbers for the 9 early rifle bull hunts (I would think everyone considers premium hunts) and took a look at them comparing 2 bp holders to 10 bp holders. In this case, all 10 bp holders did not qualify for the 20% pass, so this is an accurate comparison. If my numbers are correct, there were 3530 people who applied with 2 bp's, 678 people with 10 applied. 10 bp people drew 6 of the tags for an average 1.3% success rate, 2 bp holders drew 29 of the tags for an average of .9%, I think it should be the other way around. I know this is one year, and I don't have the numbers for past years, but this seems consistant to what I hear on who drew year in and year out. If we squared points, I would think the numbers would come out to benefit the higher bp groups (in this case the 10's) even though their overall numbers where 5 times less. If you look at how it works now, 3530 with 2 bp's = 7060 chances, 678 with 10 = 6780 chances, no wonder the 2's out drew them although in this case it probably was a fluke year and should be a bit more even, but still. Now if we square the 2's, that's 2x2 then multiply that by the number of applicants 3530 = 14120 chances. 10x10x678=67,800 chances, that seems more like it to me and I would think we'd have less people complain if 10 bp holders got more of the tags than the 2's, around 5 times as many as it should be on average when comparing 10 to 2. Yes, bonus points would be at more of a premium, and 5 would definitly mean more than 3, as it is now, it really does not make that much of a difference. But in the end it seems more fair to me with who the majority of tags would be going to, yet everyone still has a chance. It seems that the bone collectors would still wait, the researchers could still research, the meat hunters will meat hunt, etc., but the very lucky won't be so lucky. I could be way off on my thinking though, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

[DubTee]

After thinking about it some more, I could see how in the scenario I presented that 2's could outdraw 10's so badly but I'd have to assume the majority of the 10 holders where non-residents and the cap was already or mostly filled. I would think the philosophy would be the same though by squaring, just giving residents with higher bonus points more of the tags on average, with everyone still having a chance.

[krp]

DubTee, you are the first one from two sites and hundreds of posts to look at the numbers and add in past knowledge to see a trend and come up with a reasonable reponce to me. Thanks.

 

There are plenty of people that know the numbers, just none of the ones that have been hammering me.

 

Just a quick change on your numbers, doesn't change your well thought out ideas.

 

2 bpers have 3x3530=10,590 choices

10 bpers have 11x678=7,458 choices

 

Just some quick thoughts.

The early rifle tags are almost another animal in themselves, much more like sheep tags.

I know this is what most of the guys are really wanting to change without coming right out and saying it.

22,780 applicants for 230 tags in the early rifle, not even counting the early muzzy.

The 2 bpers sure made a killing.

100 of the 230 tags went to the top half BP pools, the bottom half BP pools had more choices after the 20% pass.

Unit 9 by itself had 5173 apps for 25 tags, if everyone was serious that would take 200 years to get a tag even if it was a lifetime tag.

The thing that effects the draw odds the most in these hunts is the 'Hail Mary' throwers on the first choice.

If there wasn't a free shot at these hunts at least 3/4ths of the apps wouldn't be there.

Even in these hunts only 5 had more 1st choice apps in the top BP pool half, the other 4 hunts had more that thought it wasn't good enough to be 1st choice.

Trying to change the entire system with a 50% or squaring BPs for just a few tags is what we're talking about here and just like the sheep tags what can you really do.

Moving closer to a preferance system may be the fairest thing in the case of these tags, but not for the other 20,000 tags out there.

It's funny that every state with some kind of pts are always having their hunters gripe about the system and pointing to other states as having a better one. Az is considered by many in other states as having the best system and we look at others and think the same of them.

NM has it right and didn't get in this mess.

 

Well, either we take these tags out of the system and put them in their own draw and then make a PP system or we keep dealing with them the way it is.

 

Or we go to a 1st choice only first draw and cut out the 'Hail Mary' throwing.

 

Or we just give everyone a tag for one year and then can get rid of BPs and start over.

 

Kent

 

 

 

 

 

[DubTee]

Kent,

 

Thanks for the change of those numbers, adding in their choice for that year, the numbers make even more sense to me now. I think you make a great point, there is not a perfect system for everyone, so there will always be complaining. I really don't mind the way it is now, the options out there each have their flaws, so I wouldn't want to copy any other state's system, maybe some type of hybrid as suggested, but I would want to see reasonable guesstimation numbers of how a hybrid would work out before I would support a change. I am still intrigued about how your 1 choice only suggestion and how it would change the numbers around, is there any way to guesstimate? I still think everyone's input on this subject is constructive, making people think about things and looking for better ways will help us all.

[krp]

This may be boring as heck but I like this stuff. It'll take a few posts to go through just a couple of hunt choices but maybe we can make a guesstimation and some general observations. If there's not an interested responce I'll just drop it.

 

The #1 hunt in Az, unit 9 early rifle, #3004, year 2008 ,25 tags

 

For some reason there is no way to just copy the info and paste it here, makes it hard but I'll hand type the important stuff.

 

BP 1st 2nd (tags drew)

0- 338- 80---- 0

1- 462- 145---- 2

2- 555- 139---- 0

3- 488- 143---- 3

4- 341- 122---- 0 lower bp groups 21,074 choices

5- 324- 101---- 2

6- 296- 89---- 6

7- 237- 67---- 0

8- 202- 94---- 3

9- 162- 56---- 0

----------------------

10- 144- 54---- 1

11- 128- 32---- 1

12- 86- 26---- 0

13- 80- 24---- 0 upper bp groups 9,422 choices

14- 48- 24---- 0

15- 34- 16---- 2

16- 21- 5---- 0

-----------------------

17- 6- 1---- 2

18- 3- 0---- 3 20% pass

 

 

First observation is that the system is working as designed. 5 tags went in the max pool and left 4 of the 17 bpers dropping into the general draw. I'm leaving out the 2nd choicer because they got a tag on whatever 1st choice they put in for, more to come on the 2nd choicers putting in for the most difficult unit to draw.

 

If the same 17ers only put in for unit 9 this year, next year there will be 4 18 bpers, probably at least one was drawn for a 2nd choice tag. No creep with 20%. Since this is really for 2008, we'll find out this year how many 16,15,14 bpers drew 2nd choice and how much creep there are in those groups.

 

I split them in upper and lower because the upper groups are usually in it for the long haul, especially in the middle and lower hunts, maybe not so much here. A 13 bper would still be a Hail Mary thrower.

 

The upper group should have gotten 6 tags but only 4, Oh well, just the way it turned out. the lower group had more power and reaped more tags as it should.

 

Now some funny stuff, all second choices were a waste, if they had a low enough alloted # to get a 9ER tag they would have easily drawn their 1st choice before it came to their 2nd.

 

The 2 thru 11 groups all are pretty equal in there choice power 2000 to 2600 range for each one. Very few of these apps are in it for the long haul and are pretty much taking a free shot with their first choice, as are most with 0 to 14. If you force them to decide which hunt they really want on their first choice, it'll probably be a much easier to draw tag and get them out of the way.

 

You'll only compete against those that are in it like yourself. This even goes to cow tags and they might like to keep the 'I really only want a bull tag but will take your cow tag if I'm not that lucky' guy out. There's Hail Mary throwers in every hunt.

 

I'm still working on the 1st choice deal and I'm not seeing that much improvement because of some of the same variables as the other suggestions. Lots to look at.

 

Kent

 

 

 

 

 

 

[krp]

First, my numbers aren't an example, that's really what happened.

 

Second, what happened to the 50% deal?

 

Third, you have no idea how many of those in the top pool drew their 2nd choice, quite a few because the lower hunts show that more than half the tags in the top half pools go to 2nd choicers. You have to add those in with the ones that will not be a contender next year for max pool. Also many were in the max pool of their second choice and never got back to the general pool in their 1st choice to contend for that tag. How many more in the top half would have recieved a 1st choice if they hadn't picked up their 2nd before?

 

You're assuming a first choice only draw. I've already said that may be a good option, even without squaring.

 

Hunt # 3015 has (500) tags. 0 to 13 is the BP range, 1375 first choice, 2269 second choice, 3644 total choices. 20% max pool is at 7 bps with 35 tags left to drop to the general.

 

I don't have time for more than a few numbers, you can look up the rest and work them yourself.

 

BPs 1st&2nd

0----413

1----756

2----894

3----610

4----425

5----256

6----155

7-----88

8-----35

9------5

10-----4

11-----2

13-----1

 

Look how nice and streamlined the BPs are, light at the top, those up there get their tags, the ones in the middle and bottom get their fair share also keeping the sides trimed. Every year the same thing. Takeing an unnatural amount from the top will cause the max pool to be one BP group in a short time and because those behind aren't having many tags, they will bunch up also. The more the top groups bunch and continue to square their points the less tags for those under until it's a PP system and totally clogged.

 

If I only use the first choice, man, I can move 1375 apps through fast without squaring. Of course there will be more than that if it was 1st only draw, alot of those second choicers would back off the higher draws and come back to this one as 1st. Hey, backing off the higher draws, would that help those waiting for a premium tag?

 

Even 9ER is nice and streamlined and holding at 18 BPs max, not bad.

 

Ok, you squared 9ER, that's 150,000 numbers for just that hunt the computer has to give out, square all the hunts and you get a 15,000,000? more? I don't like my odds, even with 1500 numbers against that many. You're selling more lottery tickets in the lottery I'm trying to win, even with 1500 tickets.

 

I still don't know why just because someone wants to hold out, their BPs should be worth more squared per, than mine per.

 

I had some other snappy things to say but I forgot.

 

The main question you have for me is not if I think you will be able to in the long run get everyone a elk tag faster on average, but if I think those that have more BPs should have a right to more then their natural share of tags no matter what happens to everyone else.

 

Your answer is yes and mine is no.

 

I give you credit for working out a decent responce.

 

Kent

[krp]

I have to leave till friday, just a few things to think about.

 

KRP's

 

group 1 gets 70 tags

 

group 2 gets 30 tags

 

Squared b.p.'s

 

group 1 gets 45 tags

 

group 2 gets 55 tags

 

You need to add the 25 tags that had already went to the max pool.

 

krp's 70 tags to 55 tags, without squaring, the lower group has a lot more bp power than those left in the top group.

 

sdr's 45 tags to 80 tags

 

Add the 125 tags with the 500 draw

 

krp's 350 tags to 275 tags

 

sdr's 225 tags to 400 tags

 

Those at the top are the only ones that want this type of weighted system. Ask the people in the lower and middle bp pools, who actually are the overwelming majority in numbers and BP power, if they care about these higher hunts and if they are willing to delute their hard earned BPs and give up a big portion of their tags, for someone that could have already had a tag, but are holding out.

 

Hold outs could have already had some tags and like the 13,11,10,9,8 BPers in the 3015 hunt I listed, can at anytime jump ship and get one. Those people didn't put in for that hunt before or they would have been in the max pool the years before.

 

They also are not having to wait all that long now and there's no way to lower the wait time anyway, but it sure can be messed up.

 

Just cause they are holding out doesn't mean I have to accomadate them beyond their natural advantage in any way.

 

Kent

[Birddog]

[johnnie blaze]

I was thinkin the same thing!!