How about Bonus Points?

[jm77]

I think I know, but how do all the Wyoming residents out there think about bonus points for elk, deer and antelope? Keep in mind youth hunters down the road and whether or not you like the "weighted system". Let's assume there would be no waiting periods. Also, $10 or $20 fee to participate, receive a point if you don't draw 1st choice or option to buy if you don't apply and party app goes by lowest point holder.(youth option on that possible).

How would the system deal with general tags?

Since a lot of you out there do not show your names and where you are from, for my sake, if you are a non-resident and must comment, please state that.

 

[WapitiBob]

NR that can't help it.
In my opinion, Bonus Points are better by their nature than Preference Points. I think you guys would be better served by them, especially in the "random" side where you would still get an advantage by being in longer than the other guy..

If you want everybody to still be able to hunt, then you leave the GEN side alone. Up here, if you don't draw you can still buy a GEN tag. That adds to point creep though.

 

[piper]

A simple bonus point system would be great, at least it would give some a better chance next year.
Kids can hunt general in Wyoming and there are doe antelope tags readily available, plus they still have a good chance at drawings anyway.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-14 AT 11:51AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-14 AT 11:47?AM (MST)

Its better than preference as all applicants have a shot at 100% of the available tags.

But, if you're going to go that route, cut to the chase right off and go with squaring bonus points.

It will end up that way anyway.

Not sure how or why you'd need to handle general tags any differently than you do now. If you didnt draw your first choice, you could either apply for a general tag as a second choice or buy one after the draw.

Of course, I can already hear the squawking when someone lucks out and draws with 1-2 points over someone with 10, in particular if it happens 2 years in a row.

I think most hunters either didnt take basic statistics or flunked if they did.

For those that aced statistics, it really does give them a huge advantage in the draws...

 

[jm77]

Buzz

I can already see the arguement that someone who hunts general could just bank bonus points and then jump in at some point, same as with PP.

Believe me someone will come up with some twisted angle about something.

How about only a bonus point if you are unsuccessful in draw? Montana's that way.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-14 AT 12:08PM (MST)[p]NR here, as you well know, LOL! If you go any route from the present random system, I'd also like to state that I'd be in favor of the bonus system and would pretty well echo what BuzzH stated for them and then buy a general tag if you aren't successful in the draw.

ADDENDUM: jm77---I was typing as you were posting and would like to add this comment. Your comment is how I would take care of the problem you mentioned by only allowing the bonus point when applying in the draw and being unsuccessful. Buying and saving PPs in our system without applying for a tag is a bummer because you don't have any idea when that guy who has just been building PPs is going to jump into the draw, thus throwing the odds off that you are watching and thinking you have it made for a tag in a particular year. This is what I'm presently experiencing in trying to draw a LE deer tag right now in WY.

 

[WapitiBob]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-14 AT 12:00PM (MST)[p]

AZ is that way too. You draw any tag, points are gone.

Would you draw for GEN tags or have them OTC, or both?

 

[jm77]

>LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-14
>AT 12:00?PM (MST)
>
>
>
>AZ is that way too. You
>draw any tag, points are
>gone.
>
>Would you draw for GEN tags
>or have them OTC, or
>both?


What I meant was the ONLY way to get a bonus point is to participate in the drawing and be unsuccessful. If you put General down as 1st choice no point. But if you don't draw LQ you get a point and then can buy general OTC.

 

[BuzzH]

jm77,

Montana requires a general deer A tag before you apply for a LQ DEER PERMIT.

Same with elk, you must have a general elk tag before you can apply for a LQ elk PERMIT.

The tags and permits are 2 seperate things in Montana. In other words, when I drew the breaks, I didnt have a breaks elk TAG, I had a breaks PERMIT.

I still had to tag my elk with my general TAG, and have the breaks PERMIT in my possession.

Montana and Wyoming are not the same in any way.

IMO, Montana is a fugged up mess the way they deal with LQ areas.

 

[jm77]

>jm77,
>
>Montana requires a general deer A
>tag before you apply for
>a LQ DEER PERMIT.

Buzz,
I know that, what I meant was you can't buy a bonus point in Montana without applying for something and being unsuccessful. Is that right?

 

[piper]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-14 AT 01:13PM (MST)[p]Utah trophy big game is a bonus system and they give 50% of tags with the most points, so its kind of a hybrid system, so is Arizona but they only give 20% to the top point holders.

Nevada had a simple bonus point system for years, they then started squaring points.
Nevada has relatively few big game permits available each year and lots of them are quite hard to draw, it also has a much larger resident population base.
Maybe squaring points makes a little more sense there?, and it came about because of so many complaints about having to wait 20 or more years to even draw a bull elk. Nevada also has a separate drawing for youth deer, pretty well assuring kids a deer tag every year from ages 12 to 17.

Wyoming has general elk and deer tags available, where Nevada does not, plus Wyoming has a small population base, and far more hunt-able big game animals.

I say this because squaring points gives a huge advantage to those that have been applying for multiple years, therefore giving a bigger disadvantage to young people and new hunters.

As an example, I have 21 or 22 points in Nevada for CA bighorn sheep, At 22 points I have a 485 to 1 advantage over a newcomer.
In a simple bonus point system I would only have a 23 to 1 advantage.

 

[BuzzH]

Nope, starting next year you can apply for points only in Montana...

 

[nontypical]

Squaring bonus points gives the "unlucky" guy a better advantage as time goes by. It took me 11 years to draw a Nevada deer tag, and that was in the outfitter draw. My name went in the hat 122 times(11x11+1). The previous year, both tags in that draw went to guys with 4 pts each. Their names went into the hat 17(4x4+1)times, while mine went in 101( 10x10+1) times. The moral of the story is those guys both still drew even though I had 6 times better odds of drawing. The squared point system is designed to help the folks that have been applying the longest. The longer you play the game, your chances go up exponentially. But you could still draw with 0 points.

Not so sure that system would create a huge disadvantage to newcomers, as it would stand to reason that higher point holders would cycle through quicker.

A guy I used to work with drew 3 bighorn sheep tags. After his 1st one, he drew again after the 5 year waiting period the first year he put in. He did it again 5 years later. Both times he was in the 25% random pool. Some people are just "lucky". We all know someone like that; and we all know the guy that never draws a tag.

A BP system doesn't discriminate against the "lucky" guy; it just gives the "unlucky" guy a better chance.

I don't think you would have a high percentage of residents "banking" points, so I don't think that would be a huge factor, either. We all know where we want to hunt; and we go there every year for the most part.

As a resident, this system is much more palatable to me.

 

[feduptwo]

I would not oppose a true bonus or weighted bonus point system. I would prefer to fix the problem but its clear we as residents don't have the fortitude to accept that kind of change. I would prefer a weighted system with a 3 year waiting period for ha with <50% odds.
I would also support the ability to donate your permit to a youth of your choice.

 

[ICMDEER]

I've been an advocate for a Nevada-type system for over a decade. I can't draw squat, and without some sort of preference system, I'll never hunt anything in my good old Wyoming unless it's 100% draw or general.

In the last 12 years, I've only drawn one license that was under a 50% probability. And I did take a lot of statistics. that's way out of the realm of probability when you consider I apply for up to 7 species in 3-5 states each year.

I also see this as an additional revenue source for G&F. They need that help. I also believe it has the potential to enhance the quality of hunting in Wyoming, which is a good thing and a way to keep more people involved in our sport.

I'm actually amazed that so many folks agree with the concept. The trend is moving toward more support. 5-10 years ago that was not the case.

 

[feduptwo]

No one disagrees that this one would be better than the proposed preference point system. Can we amend the current bill to reflect what everyone thinks is a better idea. Can we shelf sf94 and agree to bring something more acceptable next year? We've gone 100's of years without a point system what is one more year?

 

[jm77]

I really doubt SF 94 has a chance this year.

 

[TOPGUN]

I would suggest that all you guys get together and try to put something like we're talking about on the table for the next Legislative Session. This was not a good year for any of the current Bills to be introduced the way the Wyoming system works on a biannual basis, so you'll have plenty of time to do it. I'm sure you guys can find a few Legislators to back and introduce something more in line with what it sounds most would probably want compared to this system us NRs got saddled with!

 

[jm77]

SF 94 the PP bill died in House Committee this morning due to lack of vote.

 

[BuzzH]

Bills like that have tough sledding in a budget session.

 

[WapitiBob]

You guys really should take the time to come up with a workable system and not let Hicks throw crap against the wall.

 

[jm77]

>You guys really should take the
>time to come up with
>a workable system and not
>let Hicks throw crap against
>the wall.


There will be way more citizen involvement next time. Not sure which direction it will go yet.

People trash Hicks a lot, but he's one of the few who gets involved in sportsman issues. It can be hard to explain some of his actions, but I think he's coming around.

Loved it when him and Buzz had a civil conversation last week!

 

[Teepee]

Jm77, don't they have until Friday to vote it out of committee? How did it already "die"? Just curious what you heard?
Thanks.

Also, this board was having the same conversations last year & the consensus was that we need a more thought out plan for this year. Wanna bet we have the same conversation next year when the 2015 version is introduced by someone in legislature? Not pointing the finger at anyone, but at all of us.

 

[dwalton]

The bill did not have enough votes to make it out of the house commitee. My rep called me today to let me know the bill is dead.

 

[jm77]

>Also, this board was having the
>same conversations last year &
>the consensus was that we
>need a more thought out
>plan for this year.
>Wanna bet we have the
>same conversation next year when
>the 2015 version is introduced
>by someone in legislature?
>Not pointing the finger at
>anyone, but at all of
>us.


Teepee
You're right about last year, we discussed trying to get together as sportsman and hammer out a plan, because as everyone knows, this isn't going away.

When I made the effort to contact ihuntelk I was basicly told he wanted no part of it. This, after he posted on here how we should all have some input in this and talk it out. You should have seen the email he sent me when he found out I drew a moose tag and then his ridiculous attempt to apologize for it.

After that, someone else was pursuing a bill and never got hooked up with Sen Hicks, although some language was relayed to him and didn't end up correctly in the bill. Don't blame Hicks because LSO most likely didn't understand what he wanted.

Long story short, the next bill won't have the mistakes that need to be amended. Also, the House feels that the charge for the point is merely a license fee increase. That may have to go and elk, deer, & antelope will be treated like moose & sheep: no charge you get a point if you don't draw.

We also have to deal with regulation on the party draw. The averaging system for residents is a point of contention. It needs to be member of party with lowest points.

I have got to read many letters sent to legislators this year already. One thing that many have in common is most those people writing against the bill had either no idea what it was about or they don't have a clue on how preference points work. This has caused a great deal of questions on the part of the legislators. I swear some of these letters just fall short of losing all hunting in Wyoming, to having to give up their first born if points were passed.

 

[godeep]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-14 AT 04:06PM (MST)[p]If we did resident points I would want them to be averaged with other point holders when applying as a party. Actual Wyoming resident. I will say I kind of like the way it is though

 

[SouthernWyo]

jm,

How is it that you are reading letters intended for legislators? Are you a lobbyist of some sort? Part of a PAC? Are you some sort of staffer for the legislature?

I'm concerned if letters or comments to legislators are now open to everyone and anyone, especially if comments or opinions would get thrown around on an internet forum.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-14 AT 07:59AM (MST)[p]>jm,
>
>How is it that you are
>reading letters intended for legislators?
> Are you a lobbyist
>of some sort? Part of
>a PAC? Are you some
>sort of staffer for the
>legislature?
>
>I'm concerned if letters or comments
>to legislators are now open
>to everyone and anyone, especially
>if comments or opinions would
>get thrown around on an
>internet forum.


***Answer to your question to jm77 is that anything sent in to Legislators is open to the public just like memos, emails, etc. for the asking and if it isn't readily given up a FOIA request can get it. Normally the names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. are blacked out such that confidentiality of the persons is maintained.

PS: I believe jm77 is just a very concerned conservationist like a lot of us, but actually gets very involved by doing much more than just get on the internet and griping about stuff like a lot of folks do!

 

[jm77]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-14 AT 09:08AM (MST)[p]>jm,
>
>How is it that you are
>reading letters intended for legislators?
> Are you a lobbyist
>of some sort? Part of
>a PAC? Are you some
>sort of staffer for the
>legislature?
>
>I'm concerned if letters or comments
>to legislators are now open
>to everyone and anyone, especially
>if comments or opinions would
>get thrown around on an
>internet forum.


Southern
First, TOPGUN answered your first question rather well and I might add there are very good reasons to keep all this information public.

Second, I am not a lobbyist, PAC member or staffer and what would make you think those people would have any more right to see this information than you or I?

Third, why are you concerned that this is public information? I would be more concerned about secret communications and behind closed door conversations (which I'm sure go on) than information sent to our elected officials on the job.

Some of the comments made I have seen, tell me one of two things: either these folks are intentionally misleading through their outrageous statements or they literally don't have a clue. I make a point to correct anyone who agrees with me that might say or write something erroneous.

And this forum, I choose to hold more credibility to those who don't hide their profile. If I have something to say, it won't be said with anonymity. But that's just me.

 

[jm77]

TOPGUN

Thank you, Mike, I appreciate it very much.

 

[quest]

Being a NR what is the time frame to get that tag you want now? Dont you have a low population for your state? If you do go that way I'd put a cap on how many you could acquire. Just for fun put it at 10 BPS and have it start going backwards at 11. If you didn't buy a BP at your 11 year mark you'd in up with 9 and so on lol.

 

[SouthernWyo]

Actually jm, it was just a straight-forward question. I haven't been able to find the written public comments on proposed legislation to for review. To me, your statements made it seem that you had some sort of inside track. I'm certainly not about to file FOIA requests over something as trivial as preference points.

When someone gets on the internet and ridicules peoples' opinions by saying that they are "outrageous statements and they literally don't have a clue", they lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned, real or imagined. I tend to think that actions mean alot more than what someone says on an internet forum, but hey, that's just me.

 

[jm77]

>When someone gets on the internet
>and ridicules peoples' opinions by
>saying that they are "outrageous
>statements and they literally don't
>have a clue", they lose
>all credibility as far as
>I'm concerned, real or imagined.
> I tend to think
>that actions mean alot more
>than what someone says on
>an internet forum, but hey,
>that's just me.

You be the judge Southern. Outrageous? Don't have a clue? These are quotes from several letters sent to legislators. If you don't understand PP or the bill I am wasting my time to write this.

"Many feel that the points will be gamed by groups or individuals who stand to gain monetarily"

"They(hunters) will sell their equipment and go on vacation elsewhere."

"Preference points for residents would demolish the hunting tradition.

"You(legislator) are now an enemy to our freedom to hunt."

"Preference points will undermine the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation."

At least, since I lose credibility in your eyes, you know who I am and I am plenty fine with that. I don't need to hide on a forum. My words speak for themselves and I am willing to deal with the consequences. Right or wrong.

 

[BuzzH]

SouthernWyo,

I can tell you that emails are definitely shared (without names) in committee hearings once in a while by the Legislators.

I dont find it out of line, or irresponsible to do so. I think its maybe a bit "gray" if they're sharing too much with other constituents, hopefully they dont share who sent the emails.

Maintaining a level of confidentiality is definately in order..and I would think expected.

However, I can tell you that I would share anything I personally write with anyone. I stand by what I say in writing or in person. I say it/write it...I own it.

Also, I think everyone needs to keep in mind that the entire points issue is going to be taken seriously by those that want a system and those that dont. There really isnt much middle ground as no matter what happens, about 50% of Sportsmen are not going to get what they want.

Finally, the thing I hope many that want a point system realize, is that most states that have point systems, the resident hunters there dont like them after a while. Most all of the point systems that were put in place, including WY's Resident Moose/Sheep systems, all are changed over time.

I do understand that a random system will create inequity to some, but a point system discriminates against everyone but the max point holders to some degree...

Anytime you give preference to one group over another, you're creating inequity to all but the prefered group. Thats the very definition of preference.

 

[Outdoors]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-14 AT 08:20PM (MST)[p]Someone mentioned above they put in for several hunts a year and does not seem right they get blanked in the draws some years.

Statistics. Trust them.

I apply for hunts in most of the West. I could look it up but is around 70. Maybe 15 of those 70 are points only in a given year and 6 or so are resident application in my home state. Let's look at the 50 or so hunt applications where I am a NR and trying to draw a tag this year.

I have drawn one tag some years and 4 tags one year out of those 50. I have been doing this for over 20 years. I consider my self average in my drawing luck. So, 50 NR hunt apps and draw 2 on average. That tells me each of my appns average around 4% odds. That means I have 40 in 1000 chances to draw that tag that year. I should draw each tag once every 25 years if I have 4% odds.

I rolled up my sleeves years ago when I was feeling unlucky by not drawing more tags. I mean, dozens of apps and a couple of tags?

I spent days digging around to find the most recent odds for the hunts where I apply. You have to "read the tea leaves" in a state like AZ or ID but you can get in the ball park. I have a column in a spreadsheet for the number of chances I have per 1000 to draw a tag. Some are 4 in 1000 and some are much higher where I am building points.

Bottom line, you may not be unlucky but rather the odds are not as good as you suspect. Dig up the drawing stats from prior years. For example, HFool will say is a 1 in 6 chance to draw a a certain sheep tag as NR. Bull feathers. Add up all the NR sheep appns in ID and then look at NR tags awarded. That is the x per 1000 but if you are applying for the tag that more than 20% apply for most years then you need to make that x in 1000 be .20X in 1000.

Another bottom line, you can have a points system and make it bonus or preference and square or whatever but if there are only 40 sheep tags then a bunch of us will be staring at "UNSUCCESSFUL" each year and odds are some of us will die without drawing that particular sheep tag. My odds with applying for a ram tag in several states is not quite 5% in total in a given year to draw one ram tag somewhere. That is an expected 20 years on average for me to draw and that is about where I am so while I have stared at lots of UNSUCCESSFULs I am not unlucky and any point system would have only benefited me if it punished someone getting into the game behind me. You have so many tags to award. Points merely punish those stepping into line behind you. Mandatory waiting periods for OIL species will prevent Lucky Joe from drawing 10 ram tags in 10 years.

Final bottom line, max points in WY for deer does not do much when there are 10 tags in a Blue Chip unit yet there are 2500 NR with max points.

Good luck in your draws. I feel the pain of the unlucky. Point games are not the answer, though.

 

[piper]

I'm beyond caring much anymore, but the bottom line is this, over a multiple year time frame, point systems distribute a set amount of tags to a larger group of people.

That's what they do, the idea behind a point system is to give preference to those that have not drawn tags previously.

That's not evil or bad, its just what point systems are mainly designed to do.
If you don't like that idea, then fine, if you think they create more problems than they solve, that's fine also.

 

[feduptwo]

I agree with outdoors but a Squared bonus point system with a three year waiting period if you draw a hunt area that has under 50% odds (odds for three consecutive years at the time you put in for the draw)

If your trying to draw a tag like HA 100 that has 5% odds your chances will eventually become much better because not only are successful applicants out for 3 years (which doesn't make much difference) but he is out of the points accumulation game for 3 years meaning when he is eligible for the draw he now has 1 chance in the draw vs. the guy who hasn't yet drawn who has 17 chances.

This doesn't penalize people who are content with cow tags and easier to draw permits.
Any person that is sitting out after being successful would also be eligible for all general season and leftover permits. The same way that leftover permits are currently allocated.

Points should be taken on any successful application meaning if you draw a cow tag on your second choice you lose your points. As long as you didn't draw a unit that had <50% odds you would be eligible for points the next year.

I'm think all LE units should have type 9 tags. We need to utilize lower success rates that accompany archery permits to issue more permits while keeping the demand on the resource at the same level. This also allows the G&F to increase revenue which is still needed.

I'm also in favor of Nonresidents paying special price for all limited entry type 1 & type 9 permits (leave the price the same on general and Region related units). In concert with this residents should pay 50% more for the same Type 1 & Type 9 permits. This discourages residents for putting in wives, relatives and friends that don't really have a burning desire to hunt these limited draw areas or hunt at all. Every couple of years you hear of someone having the coveted tags that really has no interest in hunting. I have a friend at work who he and his wife drew 100 elk. His wife never went one day and not for a valid reason she just didn't want to go. Youth prices should remain the same and Type 4 and 6 cow tags should also remain the same.

I really hope JM77 and the group of sportsmen he represents and other concerned sportsmen will come together and come up with a solution that takes into account that we have a small population base. Wyoming's preference points are not a good solution but either is leaving the current status quo.