Idaho needs a point system now

[N_Corey]

I’m going to start the thread early this year.

“I didn’t draw tag xyz which I feel I should have drawn because I’ve been putting in for x number of years and if it was a point system I’m sure I’d have drawn by now.”

don’t laugh because I’m“entitled” to this tag.

 

[ElkManDan]

Maybe they should make it retroactive back 20 years, if you have applied for the last 20 years you start out with 20 points ?

 

[LookinFor30]

.......don't forget the bonus point if you donate the Democratic National Fund

 

[Hunter4life]

I hope this thread is a joke.

 

[Weiserbucks]

Anyone who wants a point system is a selfish bastage that hates their kids and grandchildren. If you don't like Idaho draw system, quit applying and save your money.

 

[swampmule]

+1 for D6native

 

[swanpig]

There is no need for a point system in Idaho. Everyone has the same chance every single year. The point systems in other states should be abolished and those folks should receive refunds depending on how many points they have accumulated. It is ridiculous.

 

[N_Corey]

Maybe the point lovers won’t chime in until after the draw and they see if the current system is fair or not.

 

[300MIKE]

I'm with most of the comments on NO. "If" and when that time comes lets hope for bonus system not preference. If you have to model one, Nevada would be it. That license is at least worth a few extra names in the hat down the road since I have to buy one just to play the game.

 

[EVILNR]

No points is the only true fair system.

 

[DownThePipe]

The math for a bonus point system, even if it the points are squared, really only starts to work if the limited entry / controlled hunt odds of that particular unit are 33% or more, because then hunters filter through every 3-4 years. When you drop below those odds for each particular hunt, the amount gained with the point does not outweigh the severely decreased odds for the next generation or the people that get in late. I’ll admit I’m as sad as the next guy that I haven’t drawn an antelope tag in 17 years, but the fact is 5% odds means I’ll draw every 20 years on average, so it’s all about expectations... I would be just fine with bonus points for non residents and random for residents. That could allow non residents to plan their hunts out a bit better... but, that slippery slope is still not worth it.

 

[Elkman80]

Having never drawn an antelope tag in my home state of Idaho in 40 years, (Maybe this will be the year) I will say No Point system. My favorite state to apply is New Mexico.

 

[Blank]

Nope, no points vote from me. Keep it random, increase the wait out for lucky people to 3-5 years, and guarantee 10% for NR (instead of UP to)

 

[Deerlove]

I'm with you Blank no points but make the waiting period longer, but the f@g like that NR hunting licence $.

 

[LookinFor30]

Nope, no points vote from me. Keep it random, increase the wait out for lucky people to 3-5 years, and guarantee 10% for NR (instead of UP to)

I believe this to be the correct route

 

[BrianID]

Anyone that has been applying in multiple states for tags for several years would be a fool to think a point system in Idaho would be good for residents or nonresidents. The only winners in a points system would be those that get in on the ground floor and only want to draw Idaho once before they give up on applying in the state. I wouldn't be surprised if politicians see the $$ value of a point system and force one on us for our own good.

 

[andrew12gauge]

I'm with most of the comments on NO. "If" and when that time comes lets hope for bonus system not preference. If you have to model one, Nevada would be it. That license is at least worth a few extra names in the hat down the road since I have to buy one just to play the game.

ew no, bonus points are almost worse than preference points, the mathematical increase in drawing odds year over year is not large enough to outweigh the increase in total applicants. I would guess a lot of hunters get busy and forget to apply for the draw each year or just don’t worry about it because of the fact there is no point system but the minute any type of point system is implemented everyone who cares even a little bit will be applying religiously each year because in a point system you can’t afford to fall behind everyone else. Odds will tank and we will all be worse off for it

 

[huntindad4]

I will humbly, hat in hand enter the thread and admit that I once argued in this forum for point systems in Idaho...

I now feel like an idiot for doing so. The point systems are all garbage.

Fight for all your worth to keep them out of Idaho. They kill our kids chances at drawing the best tags and thus kill the future of hunting.

Bill

 

[kalielkslayer]

I will humbly, hat in hand enter the thread and admit that I once argued in this forum for point systems in Idaho...

I now feel like an idiot for doing so. The point systems are all garbage.

Fight for all your worth to keep them out of Idaho. They kill our kids chances at drawing the best tags and thus kill the future of hunting.

Bill

Me too. BUT I argued for a Wyoming type system where residents don't get points and non-residents do since there was so much opposition to a point system from residents. But that would require a "Guarenteed 10%" in stead of "up to 10%."

When Idaho moved it application deadline to after Memorial Day, it allowed us to know about Nevada and Colorado results and decide if I'm applying that year instead of having to apply because of the ponzi scheme point system.

No more on-line rants about point system in Idaho from me.

I will say demand is way up. Starting in the 90s, I applied for the late Unit 40 deer tag 12 times in 15 years. The draw odds then were roughly 10%. Now they are about 3%. That tells me about 3Xs as many people are applying now versus then.

 

[idhikker]

The OP was joking. The clear majority here have stated for years that a point system would be terrible and encourage point creep (leap).

 

[Researcher]

Idaho can do what it wants. I dont see much of a difference though. No point creep but they have application creep like everyone else. Tags are harder to get regardless of point creep or just more people applying.

 

[huntindad4]

Idaho can do what it wants. I dont see much of a difference though. No point creep but they have application creep like everyone else. Tags are harder to get regardless of point creep or just more people applying.

Yes but they get harder for EVERYONE to draw in an equal amount. My kids have a chance be it slim or not, they have a chance.

Bill

 

[idhikker]

Idaho can do what it wants. I dont see much of a difference though. No point creep but they have application creep like everyone else. Tags are harder to get regardless of point creep or just more people applying.

Compare Idsho odds which are way better than many states with point creep (leap). What you say here is totally false.

 

[Researcher]

Yes but they get harder for EVERYONE to draw in an equal amount. My kids have a chance be it slim or not, they have a chance.

Bill

I look at it as a point system gives you some idea of when you could draw where as a non point system you have no idea. Some people like to plan and have an idea of when a tag could come in. However like I said Idaho can do what it wants. I am not for or against either system.

If you have a point system I am generally against a preference point system, I prefer a bonus point system where at least technically you have a chance. I also dislike how people game the point system by having people with high points apply in a party then the party gets a tag and the high point person back out gets their points restored and they do it year after year after year.

 

[Researcher]

Compare Idsho odds which are way better than many states with point creep (leap). What you say here is totally false.

I would like someone to actually post numbers, if you have some or a reference to where they are id like to see them before agreeing its "totally false". I think it would be an interesting exercise.

I did take a few minutes to compare Idaho and Nevada. Two states I hunt and have some knowledge about but I am by no means an expert. I only compared changes in draw odds for the controlled hunts of the 2018 and 2019 seasons.

I'd also like to say that the Idaho website is a lot easier to pull data from, so kudos to them.

I pulled the 2019 and 2018 mule deer controlled hunt data from IDFG and took the average of the "drew" columns for residents and non residents in an effort to get the average draw rate for residents and nonresidents. After that I took the 2018 average minus the 2019 average and divided that number by the 2018 average. This gives you a rate of change.

The rate of change from 2018 to 2019 for Idaho residents to draw a controlled hunt tag decreased 9.756%. Non residents decreased 18.519%.

The rate of change from 2018 to 2019 for Nevada Residents to draw a controlled unit tag increased 4.842% while non residents decreased 4.411%.

Nevada residents did apply for more tags in 2019 but more tags were also issued over 2018. There are lots of reasons as to why this difference, if true, exists and I would be more than happy to nit pick them to death but if true these basic simple numbers tell a story of these two states. I may branch out to other state as I like numbers. It would be interesting to add a true preference point system to this data.

 

[idhikker]

I would like someone to actually post numbers, if you have some or a reference to where they are id like to see them before agreeing its "totally false". I think it would be an interesting exercise.

I did take a few minutes to compare Idaho and Nevada. Two states I hunt and have some knowledge about but I am by no means an expert. I only compared changes in draw odds for the controlled hunts of the 2018 and 2019 seasons.

I'd also like to say that the Idaho website is a lot easier to pull data from, so kudos to them.

I pulled the 2019 and 2018 mule deer controlled hunt data from IDFG and took the average of the "drew" columns for residents and non residents in an effort to get the average draw rate for residents and nonresidents. After that I took the 2018 average minus the 2019 average and divided that number by the 2018 average. This gives you a rate of change.

The rate of change from 2018 to 2019 for Idaho residents to draw a controlled hunt tag decreased 9.756%. Non residents decreased 18.519%.

The rate of change from 2018 to 2019 for Nevada Residents to draw a controlled unit tag increased 4.842% while non residents decreased 4.411%.

Nevada residents did apply for more tags in 2019 but more tags were also issued over 2018. There are lots of reasons as to why this difference, if true, exists and I would be more than happy to nit pick them to death but if true these basic simple numbers tell a story of these two states. I may branch out to other state as I like numbers. It would be interesting to add a true preference point system to this data.

Haha well you can obtain controlled hunts tags in Idaho pretty easily, especially if you go away from rifle antlered tags, and there are also some very hard to draw tags. Nevada is not like that at all. If you need a research paper on it, find one but if you compare the point states to the random ones you’ll find the draw odds in the point states are way worse. WY for example in many of the less than max points units has point creep of 2-3 points every year.

As a nonresident please keep your Nevada ideas to yourself.

 

[Researcher]

Haha well you can obtain controlled hunts tags in Idaho pretty easily, especially if you go away from rifle antlered tags, and there are also some very hard to draw tags. Nevada is not like that at all. If you need a research paper on it, find one but if you compare the point states to the random ones you’ll find the draw odds in the point states are way worse. WY for example in many of the less than max points units has point creep of 2-3 points every year.

As a nonresident please keep your Nevada ideas to yourself.

Didnt really present any "Nevada ideas" just data. I also think Ive said more than once that Idaho can do what it wants I don't care that is a "Nevada idea" I guess. I dont live there, yet hahahaha, and I dont vote there. If I did live there and got a chance I would vote against. I apply in enough point states already I like a different game to play. We are gamblers here in Nevada so I'll play odds the best way I can.

Back to the numbers the data I presented above is for all controlled hunts offered in both states regardless of season, weapon, or sex. If it was a mule deer controlled hunt in went into the data.

It is easier to get a tag in Idaho in 2018 residents had a 41% chance to get a tag and non residents had a 27% chance. In 2019 those dropped to 37% and 22% respectively. In Nevada in 2018 residents had 28% and non had 8.1% (poor souls) and in 2019 29.5% for residents and 7.8% for non residents.

However we aren't discussing easiness of getting a tag we are comparing "point creep" in a point system versus just a simple increase in applications in a true random draw system. The appropriate way to compare those would be to look at the rate of change. The rate of change in getting a tag is what "point creep" is. Year after year its gets harder and harder to draw a tag. In this specific example with a very small data set of the last two years (not really representative of a trend) the increase in application in Idaho has outpaced those in Nevada resulting in a greater rate of change. Once again Idaho can do what it wants and if you think somehow I have presented new ideas that Idaho hasn't seen you're wrong. No ideas here just numbers and a friendly discussion of them. I prefer to take opinions out of discussions when numbers are relatively easy to get and look at. Numbers, if done correctly, dont lie and they dont care about anyones feelings.

 

[treedagain]

Yep idaho is the shining model of F/G perfection.

Kinda like the whole BLM/rioting situation the vocal minority run around holding signs , turning and burning cop cars and speaking for everyone while the rest of us sit and shake our heads in disbelief.

 

[idhikker]

Didnt really present any "Nevada ideas" just data. I also think Ive said more than once that Idaho can do what it wants I don't care that is a "Nevada idea" I guess. I dont live there, yet hahahaha, and I dont vote there. If I did live there and got a chance I would vote against. I apply in enough point states already I like a different game to play. We are gamblers here in Nevada so I'll play odds the best way I can.

Back to the numbers the data I presented above is for all controlled hunts offered in both states regardless of season, weapon, or sex. If it was a mule deer controlled hunt in went into the data.

It is easier to get a tag in Idaho in 2018 residents had a 41% chance to get a tag and non residents had a 27% chance. In 2019 those dropped to 37% and 22% respectively. In Nevada in 2018 residents had 28% and non had 8.1% (poor souls) and in 2019 29.5% for residents and 7.8% for non residents.

However we aren't discussing easiness of getting a tag we are comparing "point creep" in a point system versus just a simple increase in applications in a true random draw system. The appropriate way to compare those would be to look at the rate of change. The rate of change in getting a tag is what "point creep" is. Year after year its gets harder and harder to draw a tag. In this specific example with a very small data set of the last two years (not really representative of a trend) the increase in application in Idaho has outpaced those in Nevada resulting in a greater rate of change. Once again Idaho can do what it wants and if you think somehow I have presented new ideas that Idaho hasn't seen you're wrong. No ideas here just numbers and a friendly discussion of them. I prefer to take opinions out of discussions when numbers are relatively easy to get and look at. Numbers, if done correctly, dont lie and they dont care about anyones feelings.

Your numbers aren’t very relevant or helpful. The chance that Idaho draw odds become like Utah and it’s a 20-30 year wait for a draw tag now is way too problematic. And, again, if your not an Idaho resident don’t tell Idaho how to run the draw.

 

[kalielkslayer]

Your numbers aren’t very relevant or helpful. The chance that Idaho draw odds become like Utah and it’s a 20-30 year wait for a draw tag now is way too problematic. And, again, if your not an Idaho resident don’t tell Idaho how to run the draw.

please help me out, please.

I read Researcher’s post 3 times trying to find out where he was telling Idaho how to run there big game draw. I still can’t find it. I actually got tired of him saying “Idaho can do what it wants to do.”

what am I missing? Paragraph and line please. I think I’m going blind.

 

[IDbulls]

I’m going to start the thread early this year.

“I didn’t draw tag xyz which I feel I should have drawn because I’ve been putting in for x number of years and if it was a point system I’m sure I’d have drawn by now.”

don’t laugh because I’m“entitled” to this tag.

Can you also start a “I drew a coveted tag is such and such unit and have never in my life been there, can I get some pointers? Of corse, no honey holes.”

 

[idhikker]

please help me out, please.

I read Researcher’s post 3 times trying to find out where he was telling Idaho how to run there big game draw. I still can’t find it. I actually got tired of him saying “Idaho can do what it wants to do.”

what am I missing? Paragraph and line please. I think I’m going blind.

lol his whole message is “points are better.” Even if he qualifies that by saying Idaho can do what they want, he’s replying to an Idaho thread and sharing his thoughts with many words.

 

[Researcher]

lol his whole message is “points are better.” Even if he qualifies that by saying Idaho can do what they want, he’s replying to an Idaho thread and sharing his thoughts with many words.

My whole message is not “points are better” never said that anywhere. My first post I said they are pretty much the same no real difference in random versus points. You called it “totally false” presenting no evidence other than your thoughts. Instead of responding by sharing my thoughts / personal experience I spent 20mins making an easy statistical calculation. To show that ya they are pretty much the same with no real difference.

 

[IdahoHntr]

I would like someone to actually post numbers, if you have some or a reference to where they are id like to see them before agreeing its "totally false". I think it would be an interesting exercise.

I did take a few minutes to compare Idaho and Nevada. Two states I hunt and have some knowledge about but I am by no means an expert. I only compared changes in draw odds for the controlled hunts of the 2018 and 2019 seasons.

I'd also like to say that the Idaho website is a lot easier to pull data from, so kudos to them.

I pulled the 2019 and 2018 mule deer controlled hunt data from IDFG and took the average of the "drew" columns for residents and non residents in an effort to get the average draw rate for residents and nonresidents. After that I took the 2018 average minus the 2019 average and divided that number by the 2018 average. This gives you a rate of change.

The rate of change from 2018 to 2019 for Idaho residents to draw a controlled hunt tag decreased 9.756%. Non residents decreased 18.519%.

The rate of change from 2018 to 2019 for Nevada Residents to draw a controlled unit tag increased 4.842% while non residents decreased 4.411%.

Nevada residents did apply for more tags in 2019 but more tags were also issued over 2018. There are lots of reasons as to why this difference, if true, exists and I would be more than happy to nit pick them to death but if true these basic simple numbers tell a story of these two states. I may branch out to other state as I like numbers. It would be interesting to add a true preference point system to this data.

Your Idaho "data" is literally meaningless. There are a thousand reasons it doesn't mean anything, but here are a few.

1. It takes into no consideration that in the years mentioned many easy to draw antlerless tags were converted to OTC tags (Side note: I'd like to see that happen in any points state. Does Nevada even have OTC opportunity?). This alone accounts for thousands of relatively easy to draw tags dropping out of the system between the two years you mention. This skews your percentage heavily into making it look like it was a lot harder to draw tags in 2019 than 2018.

2. It doesn't consider the winter kill and reduction of tags for mule deer in Idaho over those years. Especially mule deer doe tags in response to the winter of '17. Nevada doesn't deal with winters like Idaho and didn't have tag reductions to deal with in that same time.

3. There are also a whole bunch of controlled Idaho tags that no one, resident or non-resident, put in for. It places these drawing odds as 0% in the information, when they should in fact be 100%. These can be heavily influenced from year to year in the numbers, because if one person puts in for the hunt it jumps from 0% odds to 100% odds or vice versa in a single year. Unlimited tags can be thrown in this category as well. I don't think Nevada has any unlimited tags, but Idaho has many. If you look at the data between 2018 and 2019, you'd see that the number of applicants jumped up by a very large amount just on these unlimited tags alone. Idaho also changed the rule on how many non-residents could draw an unlimited tag between those years. In 2018 the tags were truly unlimited for non-residents and in 2019 they were limited to certain percentage of tags. This skewed your data heavily as well.

4. It also doesn't account for the fact that the non-resident odds portion of the information provided by the Idaho fish and game is an not an accurate depiction of what the actual draw odds are for non-residents. Same with the resident odds for that matter. Because of the way Idaho allocates non-resident draw tags, it is basically impossible to calculate actual draw odds for non-residents and residents separately. Your best indication of odds is the combined odds as residents and non-residents compete against each other for the same tags in the Idaho system. Whenever the 10% non-resident limit has been met then residents only compete against other residents, but it is impossible at one point in the draw that happens. Either way, non-residents ALWAYS compete against residents for their tags and don't have their own draw odds.

5. Idaho puts their regulations out for 2 years at a time. From 2018 to 2019 was a regulation change year, so this alone accounts for different numbers of tags and rules when applying. 2017 to 2018 would provide for less change from at least a regulation/rule changing perspective.

If you wanted to do it right you would have to compare draw percentages only on tags that remained the same between the two years. It is much more complicated than you make it seem. I don't have the time to sift through all the numbers, as it would take some real hours to make the comparison you are trying to make, if you want to do it right.

You can pull some basic information for Idaho from the fact that in 2018 Idaho had 67,762 applicants for deer (59,849 Residents and 7,913 Non-Residents).

In 2019 Idaho had 70,477 applicants for deer (61,182 Residents and 9,295 Non-Residents).

That's 2,715 more applicants (1,333 more Residents and 1,382 more Non-Residents). And thus the odds would go down between those years, but nothing close to the percentages you described.

I would compare the total number of applicants for deer to Nevada's total, between the years, but they don't have exportable microsoft excel files for their bonus point information and I don't have the time to input all that information by hand. Just don't do some half-ass job on comparison and then act like you have "data". Real data takes time and effort and elimination of bias. You did none of that and do not have any real data supporting your claim.

Point creep is real. Is drawing odds "creep" still happening in Idaho? Of course. In either system if you get more applicants every year on a limited resource there will be creep. Tags are going to get harder to draw no matter what system you have including Idaho's. Anybody can look at the drawing odds of 10-20 years ago and see that. Point systems just exacerbate the problem.

They add creep from added applicants and from higher and higher point holders. In a random system the number of applicants is the only thing that effects creep and thus limits creep more so than a point system. You only have to battle the other applicants and not a whole ponzi-scheme like in a point system.

 

[idhikker]

^ Yeah I was too tired of this to spell out why he has produced nothing of substance. It’s very well known that points create way more point creep at this point. If you are ignoring that, it says a lot.

 

[excaliber]

I'd like to know how many of you have drawn controlled hunt tags here as residents in the last 15 years.
I've been putting in since 2006 and have drawn one controlled Elk hunt. 1 archery pronghorn hunt and one early pronghorn limited entry archery hunt.

 

[idhikker]

I'd like to know how many of you have drawn controlled hunt tags here as residents in the last 15 years.
I've been putting in since 2006 and have drawn one controlled Elk hunt. 1 archery pronghorn hunt and one early pronghorn limited entry archery hunt.

One person is a tiny sample size. And if you’ve allied for the top units this is right in line with what it is to be expected given the odds.

 

[Weiserbucks]

In the last few years my household of three has drawn 2 cow tags, an extra cow tag, 3 bear tags and 1 buck tag. Our applications are always a mix of high and low odds hunts.

 

[Blank]

I'm a resident and usually draw a controlled hunt every year, sometimes even two or three. That is because I like to hunt, I put in for lesser demand units, and for tags that have a REASONABLE chance of drawing. Sometimes I have to switch up and use a bow or muzzleloader too. I might also be happy with a cow elk, and just pictures of a bull!

Unlike my friend who applies for the same late hunts for deer and elk every year, with 5-10-20 tags. There are 400/800/1200 applicants for those pie-in-the-sky hunts, and even with a points system chances are good that you will never live long enough to get one of them. If you do not draw, you can still go hunt a fabulous area over the counter, just one month earlier.

Of course, I did draw my sheep, mt. goat, and moose three years in a row, so now I just do Deer/elk/antelope!

 

[idahohuntr]

I'd like to know how many of you have drawn controlled hunt tags here as residents in the last 15 years.
I've been putting in since 2006 and have drawn one controlled Elk hunt. 1 archery pronghorn hunt and one early pronghorn limited entry archery hunt.

Several for me. Some low odds and some moderate odds tags. One things for sure, its a heck of a lot more tags than any other state I apply in, including those I've been a resident in that have bonus point systems.

 

[Blank]

Haha. I have 24 deer and 21 moose in Utah, and you can see how well that's working for me!

 

[treedagain]

Idaho needs to go away from the random draw. If you dont see that your blind and happy to never draw.?

 

[swanpig]

Having never drawn an antelope tag in my home state of Idaho in 40 years, (Maybe this will be the year) I will say No Point system. My favorite state to apply is New Mexico.

I drew one of the Challis Antelope tags twice in 4 years....why can't I draw elk tags with an 8% chance? ?

 

[swanpig]

Idaho needs to go away from the random draw. If you dont see that your blind and happy to never draw.?

My wife drew the second or third hardest to draw elk tag in the state her first year applying and then did it again on a 10% draw odds two years later. For some it happens, for others it doesn't and that is ok when there are plenty of OTC tags.

 

[Researcher]

Your Idaho "data" is literally meaningless. There are a thousand reasons it doesn't mean anything, but here are a few.

1. It takes into no consideration that in the years mentioned many easy to draw antlerless tags were converted to OTC tags (Side note: I'd like to see that happen in any points state. Does Nevada even have OTC opportunity?). This alone accounts for thousands of relatively easy to draw tags dropping out of the system between the two years you mention. This skews your percentage heavily into making it look like it was a lot harder to draw tags in 2019 than 2018.

2. It doesn't consider the winter kill and reduction of tags for mule deer in Idaho over those years. Especially mule deer doe tags in response to the winter of '17. Nevada doesn't deal with winters like Idaho and didn't have tag reductions to deal with in that same time.

3. There are also a whole bunch of controlled Idaho tags that no one, resident or non-resident, put in for. It places these drawing odds as 0% in the information, when they should in fact be 100%. These can be heavily influenced from year to year in the numbers, because if one person puts in for the hunt it jumps from 0% odds to 100% odds or vice versa in a single year. Unlimited tags can be thrown in this category as well. I don't think Nevada has any unlimited tags, but Idaho has many. If you look at the data between 2018 and 2019, you'd see that the number of applicants jumped up by a very large amount just on these unlimited tags alone. Idaho also changed the rule on how many non-residents could draw an unlimited tag between those years. In 2018 the tags were truly unlimited for non-residents and in 2019 they were limited to certain percentage of tags. This skewed your data heavily as well.

4. It also doesn't account for the fact that the non-resident odds portion of the information provided by the Idaho fish and game is an not an accurate depiction of what the actual draw odds are for non-residents. Same with the resident odds for that matter. Because of the way Idaho allocates non-resident draw tags, it is basically impossible to calculate actual draw odds for non-residents and residents separately. Your best indication of odds is the combined odds as residents and non-residents compete against each other for the same tags in the Idaho system. Whenever the 10% non-resident limit has been met then residents only compete against other residents, but it is impossible at one point in the draw that happens. Either way, non-residents ALWAYS compete against residents for their tags and don't have their own draw odds.

5. Idaho puts their regulations out for 2 years at a time. From 2018 to 2019 was a regulation change year, so this alone accounts for different numbers of tags and rules when applying. 2017 to 2018 would provide for less change from at least a regulation/rule changing perspective.

If you wanted to do it right you would have to compare draw percentages only on tags that remained the same between the two years. It is much more complicated than you make it seem. I don't have the time to sift through all the numbers, as it would take some real hours to make the comparison you are trying to make, if you want to do it right.

You can pull some basic information for Idaho from the fact that in 2018 Idaho had 67,762 applicants for deer (59,849 Residents and 7,913 Non-Residents).

In 2019 Idaho had 70,477 applicants for deer (61,182 Residents and 9,295 Non-Residents).

That's 2,715 more applicants (1,333 more Residents and 1,382 more Non-Residents). And thus the odds would go down between those years, but nothing close to the percentages you described.

I would compare the total number of applicants for deer to Nevada's total, between the years, but they don't have exportable microsoft excel files for their bonus point information and I don't have the time to input all that information by hand. Just don't do some half-ass job on comparison and then act like you have "data". Real data takes time and effort and elimination of bias. You did none of that and do not have any real data supporting your claim.

Point creep is real. Is drawing odds "creep" still happening in Idaho? Of course. In either system if you get more applicants every year on a limited resource there will be creep. Tags are going to get harder to draw no matter what system you have including Idaho's. Anybody can look at the drawing odds of 10-20 years ago and see that. Point systems just exacerbate the problem.

They add creep from added applicants and from higher and higher point holders. In a random system the number of applicants is the only thing that effects creep and thus limits creep more so than a point system. You only have to battle the other applicants and not a whole ponzi-scheme like in a point system.

Thanks for posting some info and things to consider I appreciate it. I never looked at systems before besides stories and opinions people say. Im not claiming to be an expert at all nor am I under any illusions as to the quality of what I wrote. I did it in 5 mins, it took longer to get the data from Nevada then the calculation took. I didnt intend to present it as conclusive in any way. I think I even said "if true" meaning I dont really believe it either but I wanted more info than "totally false" which is all I got up to that point.

Now to your points
1) I stated I only did controlled hunt data, its the easiest to do. Simple as that. This thread was about point system so I ignored OTC. If Idaho put the OTC tags in the draw it would blow all states out of the water with maybe the exception of Colorado.

2) Idaho does have tough winters. I have family in the Boise area and Pocatello and they've been there over 50 years. trying to incorporate this into a statistical calculation would be incredibly difficult. While Idaho maybe have tough winters Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico have no water, severe droughts, and did I mention poor habitat especially when compared to Idaho and other blessed states. Colorado has CWD issues. I dont think controlling for habitat and seasonal differences would be useful plus it would take way to long to research and actually formulate.

3) valid point on the 0% although looking at it again it shows the same 0% for residents and non residents usually. I actually took the unlimited tags out. Unlimited tag in Nevada? Youre not drunk are you? In Nevada your lucky if you max out on ducks in a day. Nevada has no water and no habit. In no way am I saying Nevada is better.

4) You're right here and i did consider that but like I said it was a simple and dirty way to do it the way I did it and I think I presented it that way and wasn't trying to hide anything or present it as gospel but I wanted to start somewhere. Idaho is more generous in my opinion by combining the two groups. It means I can put in with my family in Idaho and we dont suffer because I am a non resident where as in most point based states, including Nevada, a mixed party gets thrown into the non resident pool where the odds are significantly worse.

5) Idaho does do that but most states also have similar things if you wanted the most accurate possible number you would do that but that isnt something I am interested in doing. Too hard, too long and no pay in it. I only attempted a very simple way to do it. Nevada changes every year and they actually allow people to apply for tags without telling them how many are available that year (which is strange to me). I also remember a recent year here in Nevada where one unit that is primarily a winter range unit and it burned down in the summer and they came out and had an emergency draw to issue more tags because they assumed with all the winter range burned down the land couldn't support the normal level of animals and have them survive the winter. Trying to account for all this would drive you crazy statistically.

I actually do have that basic calculation you mention 2019 70477 applicants and I have 18693 winners 18693/70477 is 26.524%. 2018 has 67762 applicants and I have 19859 winners for 29.307% which is a rate of change of 9.496%.

Yes Nevada export sucks and Idaho makes is o so easy. I did a pdf to excel convert on Nevada papers. Their new formatted data is easier than the old stuff so some credit there I guess.

I combined Nevada residents and non residents apps for 2019 I have 69647 total applications with 16837 winners for 24.175% to draw. 2018 has 58814 total apps with 13833 winners for 23.520% to draw. It was actually easier to draw a controlled hunt tag in 2019 than 2018 which makes me unhappy cause I drew neither years on easy tags but somehow did this year on a really hard tag to get. However like I said earlier this is one two year sample size youd have to do even this simple calculation over may more years to draw any simple general conclusions. I didnt cherry pick any data its just the way it worked out for this two year period, for controlled hunts, for mule deer.

 

[Researcher]

Id rather have half ass data than no ass data which is all that was presented. I think someone says "totally false" without presenting any evidence is no ass data. If I knew where the totally false was coming from like a game biologist or someone who would have knowledge I would be more ok with totally false but as far as I know its just some guy on the internet with his opinion. My half ass data got a response from you which I truly appreciate so totally worth looking like an idiot to learn something. It gives me something to learn which is all I am really after. The only way to get smarter is to have discussion so truly thanks.

I also did find today an interesting short article from the Kentucky government on their thoughts on implementing a bonus point system for their elk draw. Check it out. I do wish they compared it to the odds of a random system though.

Ammo Against Point Systems!!!!!!!!!

https://fw.ky.gov/Hunt/Documents/examinationofelkpreferencepoints.pdf

Yes I do use many words and Im sorry it comes from being an engineer and having to write long emails to customer explaining how things work. They make use be as specific and clear as possible and it carries over to other parts of my life.

 

[Homer]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/7XoTE46IZsSY0GVlxZ/giphy.gif

 

[idhikker]

Id rather have half ass data than no ass data which is all that was presented. I think someone says "totally false" without presenting any evidence is no ass data. If I knew where the totally false was coming from like a game biologist or someone who would have knowledge I would be more ok with totally false but as far as I know its just some guy on the internet with his opinion. My half ass data got a response from you which I truly appreciate so totally worth looking like an idiot to learn something. It gives me something to learn which is all I am really after. The only way to get smarter is to have discussion so truly thanks.

I also did find today an interesting short article from the Kentucky government on their thoughts on implementing a bonus point system for their elk draw. Check it out. I do wish they compared it to the odds of a random system though.

Ammo Against Point Systems!!!!!!!!!

https://fw.ky.gov/Hunt/Documents/examinationofelkpreferencepoints.pdf

Yes I do use many words and Im sorry it comes from being an engineer and having to write long emails to customer explaining how things work. They make use be as specific and clear as possible and it carries over to other parts of my life.

Your data goes nowhere. If you want something reliable and relevant, go look at the draw odds from 10-15 years ago in Idaho versus now. It’s not wildly different and you can start applying now and have reasonable odds. Then compare Utah which takes 25-30 years to draw any decent deer or elk le tag. Look at the crazy point leap in WY where many units take 3x more points versus 5-10 years ago. Look at Nevada where nonresidents won’t draw forever. It all comes down to this simple point-more people apply with draw systems so there’s more people trying to get the same tag.

 

[Hunt4more]

I’ve applied for deer and elk as a nr about 5 times. Haven’t drawn a tag yet but I get excited every year. This year I applied my son for a youth mule deer tag. That’s even more exciting.

 

[Ridge86]

Lottery draw is the best thing going!

 

[Mallards_Only]

My wife drew the second or third hardest to draw elk tag in the state her first year applying and then did it again on a 10% draw odds two years later. For some it happens, for others it doesn't and that is ok when there are plenty of OTC tags.

And anybody who thinks F&G doesn't allocate a special pool of women and junior applicants improving their draw odds is completely delusional.

 

[idahohuntr]

And anybody who thinks F&G doesn't allocate a special pool of women and junior applicants improving their draw odds is completely delusional.

Sorry, but lacking any credible evidence I think its delusional to suggest such a conspiracy.

 

[Blank]

Sorry, wish that were true, and then my wife and kids would have been a lot more successful!!!

 

[IdahoHntr]

Thanks for posting some info and things to consider I appreciate it. I never looked at systems before besides stories and opinions people say. Im not claiming to be an expert at all nor am I under any illusions as to the quality of what I wrote. I did it in 5 mins, it took longer to get the data from Nevada then the calculation took. I didnt intend to present it as conclusive in any way. I think I even said "if true" meaning I dont really believe it either but I wanted more info than "totally false" which is all I got up to that point.

Now to your points
1) I stated I only did controlled hunt data, its the easiest to do. Simple as that. This thread was about point system so I ignored OTC. If Idaho put the OTC tags in the draw it would blow all states out of the water with maybe the exception of Colorado.

You completely missed my first point. You are taking a year in Idaho (2018) where thousands of applicants drew easy to draw antlerless tags over a wide range of different hunts, and comparing it to the following year (2019) where those thousands of tags no longer are apart of the draw because they became OTC opportunity. This would drastically decrease the overall drawing odds between those years, but if you count the fact that thousands of people were still able to "draw" those tags OTC then the percentage would have remained more stagnant. This skews your results.

It shows that tags did get harder draw overall between the two years you chose, but it isn't because of the random system or the increase in applicants. It is because thousands of tags were taken out of the draw system. If this is what you are trying to prove, then you did it, but if I'm understanding you correctly, your point is to show that point systems and random draws get harder to draw equally each year or that a random system gets even harder to draw with increased applicants?

You would have to compare the same tags, with the same tag allotment, over the course of many years to do what you are trying to do. Because of regulation changes from year to year, a two year comparison isn't good enough as other things besides the number of applicants changed the odds from year to year. Only years of data could reduce the error associated with regulation changes from year to year. The numbers you come up with mean nothing when talking about a draw systems ability to deal with increased applications.

I'm curious if you are accounting for point only applications as well? I don't see where Nevada has posted these numbers, but they do happen and should still be calculated as applicants who aren't drawing tags as they are still apart of the application system and will be competing for tags over future years.

Also in the Kentucky study you posted it is really easy to see the comparison to a random system. The odds are the same EVERY year in a random system. The 1:136 odds would hold for new applicants and everyone alike ten years down the road. Is getting 1:125 odds 10 years down the road like you do in a bonus point system like Nevada's really worth decreasing new applicants odds to 1:1387?? I think most rational people would look at that and say no. The bonus point system improves odds by .07% over the course of 10 years! And that's only if you got in on the ground level and put in every single year. Anything less than 10 years of points and you have worse odds than if it was just a random draw.

A random system is by far the fairest way to distribute tags, especially when there is high demand. That study really shows how little a bonus point system actually improves your odds, and how badly it effects the odds of new applicants.

In the end as they express in the article, point systems work well when there are enough tags to guarantee drawing every few years. This is why they work well in many Eastern whitetail states, because the demand has remained relatively static while the whitetail deer continues to thrive. The can guarantee tags every few years and point creep doesn't effect them like it does western states.

The issue is that not a single western state has been able to provide this without point creep. The closest I would say is Colorado deer and even on low point units there we are starting to see more and more creep (and they still can only accomplish that by completely getting rid of OTC deer tags). Every point system in the west is relatively young and they ALL are having point creep problems and not a single one has figured out how to address it.

 

[chrisamx]

Point systems are a way for States to make money and divide hunters into haves and have-nots.

 

[excaliber]

I'd be all for waiting periods but what hunts should get this elevated status and how long should the wait be? I think they should make all the best Elk hunts a 5 year waiting period.

How about any rifle Elk hunt drawn has a 2-3 year wait to apply again?
the best archery elk hunts a 2 year waiting period.

Same could be done for Deer hunts.
Now everyone is going to say this will only make the OTC hunts way overcrowded. How about tripling Resident tags fees and then cutting resident tags by 1/3?

Cut NR tags to 10% max per hunt unit.

 

[IdahoHntr]

I'd be all for waiting periods but what hunts should get this elevated status and how long should the wait be? I think they should make all the best Elk hunts a 5 year waiting period.

How about any rifle Elk hunt drawn has a 2-3 year wait to apply again?
the best archery elk hunts a 2 year waiting period.

Same could be done for Deer hunts.
Now everyone is going to say this will only make the OTC hunts way overcrowded. How about tripling Resident tags fees and then cutting resident tags by 1/3?

Cut NR tags to 10% max per hunt unit.

I don't think waiting periods effect OTC crowding at all. The same number of people are hunting controlled every year leaving the same number of people to hunt OTC every year. Assuming that most people who don't draw controlled hunts will go hunt OTC of course. All the waiting period does is make sure it is different people drawing the tags every year.

With all the OTC opportunity Idaho has, I think increased waiting periods make a lot of sense to help alleviate the increased applications.

 

[Mallards_Only]

Sorry, but lacking any credible evidence I think its delusional to suggest such a conspiracy.

You want credible evidence? Take a look at the the numbers of women and juniors applying and the numbers drawn and compare it to the same numbers of adult men. Trust me, it's no conspiracy. The "conspiracy" is the lack of public awareness and fact that various F&G organizations do not actively "publish" this information for fear of the backlash.

 

[idhikker]

You want credible evidence? Take a look at the the numbers of women and juniors applying and the numbers drawn and compare it to the same numbers of adult men. Trust me, it's no conspiracy. The "conspiracy" is the lack of public awareness and fact that various F&G organizations do not actively "publish" this information for fear of the backlash.

Sounds anecdotal and small sample size.

 

[swanpig]

And anybody who thinks F&G doesn't allocate a special pool of women and junior applicants improving their draw odds is completely delusional.

I never said that I didn’t believe your conspiracy theory (I actually do but I think it is first time applicants not women and children). My child entered the draw for the first time this year and did not draw. On the contrary, I drew my first 44 deer tag yesterday!

 

[swanpig]

Also, I have a theory about how to make drawing odds more manageable for residents at least. Every unit in the state should have a rut rifle hunt (5 tags) for both deer and elk (if they don’t have one already). I would think this would spread out the applicant pool significantly. Am I missing something with this?

 

[Blank]

Gee, I don't know. Units 70 and 73 each have a 5 tag rut hunt for deer, and only a thousand people put in for them!

 

[idahohuntr]

You want credible evidence? Take a look at the the numbers of women and juniors applying and the numbers drawn and compare it to the same numbers of adult men. Trust me, it's no conspiracy. The "conspiracy" is the lack of public awareness and fact that various F&G organizations do not actively "publish" this information for fear of the backlash.

Yes, if there were consistently skewed results where women and children were receiving tags disproportionate to their application numbers that would be credible evidence. I've not seen that.

It appears your statement is based off a few internet posts...which, in all fairness, women and children may be drawing a high number of really great tags. I know lots of people who put their kids and wives in for the home run tags...they usually have more mild terrain, better experience, easier hunting etc. So even if the internet posts are representative of the hunting applicants (a big leap) - I think it could well be explained by the fact they are a high portion of the applications. I'm all for transparency in public drawings for public resources, but the burden of proof should be on the accuser, and you've not provided credible evidence or even a motive.

 

[treedagain]

Sounds anecdotal and small sample size.

Personal experience?

 

[swanpig]

Gee, I don't know. Units 70 and 73 each have a 5 tag rut hunt for deer, and only a thousand people put in for them!

Yep. Some do but not all.

 

[DeerMadness]

14 years I have drawn-
2 late buck tags
1 Antelope tag
2 Cow tags
2 late bull tags

 

[broomd]

I'd like to know how many of you have drawn controlled hunt tags here as residents in the last 15 years.
I've been putting in since 2006 and have drawn one controlled Elk hunt. 1 archery pronghorn hunt and one early pronghorn limited entry archery hunt.

As an Idaho resident, I've never drawn a premium elk or deer tag 3-4 tries.... But...in the 11 years total that I've been putting in I've drawn two cow elk tags, one moose tag, one mountain goat tag, California bighorn and Rocky bighorn. The OIL system is sheer perfection, but guys are too dumb to realize it and put in for it.

Points systems have ruined every state using them....

 

[hawkbill]

As an Idaho resident ,I guess I’ve been lucky, I agree with broomd, you can’t beat the oil tags. I’ve drawn a lot of great tags in Idaho and around the west, but I’ve always looked at hunting as a lifetime investment. The new oppurtunity hunters have no patience to wait for there turn. Idaho has become the dumping state for anyone who has not drawn a tag else where and the woods are becoming packed. If you don’t like preference points or waiting periods, it’s going to get a lot tougher to draw tags in Idaho.

 

[5K]

The beauty of a random draw.
Idaho will not have a points system on my watch. We have all of the surrounding states to thank for their shining examples. A ponzi scheme of a growing pool of applicants and a finite resource is fools gold leading to not being able to get out from under a disaster.
The bottom line is that certain, particular hunts people will never draw regardless of a point system or not.

 

[cacklercrazy]

I’m going to start the thread early this year.

“I didn’t draw tag xyz which I feel I should have drawn because I’ve been putting in for x number of years and if it was a point system I’m sure I’d have drawn by now.”

don’t laugh because I’m“entitled” to this tag.

No Idaho doesn't need a pt system. Anyone that thinks so ponder this. I was 30 years old when California started a pt system. I'm now 50 and have never drawn a tag yet. No premium deer tag. No elk, no antelope and no big horn sheep. 20 years of nothing think about that.

 

[Mallards_Only]

Yes, if there were consistently skewed results where women and children were receiving tags disproportionate to their application numbers that would be credible evidence. I've not seen that.

It appears your statement is based off a few internet posts...which, in all fairness, women and children may be drawing a high number of really great tags. I know lots of people who put their kids and wives in for the home run tags...they usually have more mild terrain, better experience, easier hunting etc. So even if the internet posts are representative of the hunting applicants (a big leap) - I think it could well be explained by the fact they are a high portion of the applications. I'm all for transparency in public drawings for public resources, but the burden of proof should be on the accuser, and you've not provided credible evidence or even a motive.

And if you ever decide to pull your head out of the sand, try asking F&G for the data. They won't give it to you. You know why? Because it proves exactly what I'm claiming. They'll use excuses like "they can't filter the information for that data" which is a lie. They can filter the application data for all kinds of things and to make that claim is absurd. I have it from a reliable source inside the F&G who is unwilling to go on record for fear of losing his/her job that this is indeed the case. Anybody who blindly believes any govt entity these days should have their head examined. I suppose you believe sharp-shooting those elk down in 44 was the only viable management option too???

 

[chrisamx]

No Idaho doesn't need a pt system. Anyone that thinks so ponder this. I was 30 years old when California started a pt system. I'm now 50 and have never drawn a tag yet. No premium deer tag. No elk, no antelope and no big horn sheep. 20 years of nothing think about that.

California should be the glaring example why point systems are horrible. Most people with Max points in CA for sheep and elk, will die with Max points.

It also creates a division among hunters.

It is a big money maker for the DFW. They love it.

 

[BCarper]

Point systems suck! Point creep is real. Idaho does NOT need a point system.

 

[idahohuntr]

And if you ever decide to pull your head out of the sand, try asking F&G for the data. They won't give it to you. You know why? Because it proves exactly what I'm claiming. They'll use excuses like "they can't filter the information for that data" which is a lie. They can filter the application data for all kinds of things and to make that claim is absurd. I have it from a reliable source inside the F&G who is unwilling to go on record for fear of losing his/her job that this is indeed the case. Anybody who blindly believes any govt entity these days should have their head examined. I suppose you believe sharp-shooting those elk down in 44 was the only viable management option too???

So what's the motive? Why are state officials committing crimes (risking jobs and jail time) in order to give more tags to women and children they dont even know?

 

[treedagain]

Idahohuntr, I would have thought you would be drawing every year?

 

[ELKOHUNTER]

Do. Not. Do. It.
CO, UT, NV, you name it, all have one! Dont break idaho.

 

[Mallards_Only]

So what's the motive? Why are state officials committing crimes (risking jobs and jail time) in order to give more tags to women and children they dont even know?

Well, since they won't even admit it, no one can know the true motive. Although, I suspect they would claim something like it being beneficial to recruiting more hunters to the sport. Unfortunately, that has never been shown to be true as most women only hunt because of their husbands or family members and would not purchase a hunting license if they didn't draw the tag their husband put them in for and would not continue to apply for tags if they got divorced from their hunting husband. There is no data to support juniors continuing to hunt just because they drew a lucky tag either. Just like "junior waterfowl hunts," there is no correlation between hunting on one of these special hunts and continuing to hunt as adults. Children who continue to hunt as adults come from hunting families and have a passion for the outdoors and would hunt regardless of whether they drew a special tag or went on a special hunt.

 

[missalot]

One thing that I realize is how foolish it is to argue the same topic with the same clueless folks. However, I did read one reply that said "if you get away from the antlered rifle tags, your odds greatly increase". DUH!!!! We don't enter controlled hunts to hunt antlerless animals. We are talking about quality tags not meat tags. And if you look at the low number of options for archery/muzzleloader antlered tags, these do little to relieve the demand for rifle tags.

 

[missalot]

I suspect that women and kids (mostly kids) draw more tags simply due to odds. One man puts his wife and four kids in the draw which gives them 5 chances to draw to his 1. The tag transfer is another thing that causes unusual demand. a person can put all non-hunting relatives (licenses holders) in the draw then transfer the tag to the hunting junior. I know quite a few families who do this.

 

[missalot]

What I think is funny is that guys use the hardest to draw tags in the state when citing examples of point creep in other states but when they want an example of a tag you can actually draw, they cite doe tags.....clueless.

 

[huntindad4]

Well, since they won't even admit it, no one can know the true motive. Although, I suspect they would claim something like it being beneficial to recruiting more hunters to the sport. Unfortunately, that has never been shown to be true as most women only hunt because of their husbands or family members and would not purchase a hunting license if they didn't draw the tag their husband put them in for and would not continue to apply for tags if they got divorced from their hunting husband. There is no data to support juniors continuing to hunt just because they drew a lucky tag either. Just like "junior waterfowl hunts," there is no correlation between hunting on one of these special hunts and continuing to hunt as adults. Children who continue to hunt as adults come from hunting families and have a passion for the outdoors and would hunt regardless of whether they drew a special tag or went on a special hunt.

Although this is a fair reply I would say that if this was their motive it is something most hunters would get behind. Especially the junior hunters.

That being said, you are probably right about there not being sufficient evidence to support the benefit so they may be acting covert about it to keep from losing the argument in favor of it?

I would think if they wanted the odds to favor juniors and women they could do a separate draw for tags for them, either extra tags or remove a portion of existing tags.

Bill

 

[idahohuntr]

Well, since they won't even admit it, no one can know the true motive. Although, I suspect they would claim something like it being beneficial to recruiting more hunters to the sport. Unfortunately, that has never been shown to be true as most women only hunt because of their husbands or family members and would not purchase a hunting license if they didn't draw the tag their husband put them in for and would not continue to apply for tags if they got divorced from their hunting husband. There is no data to support juniors continuing to hunt just because they drew a lucky tag either. Just like "junior waterfowl hunts," there is no correlation between hunting on one of these special hunts and continuing to hunt as adults. Children who continue to hunt as adults come from hunting families and have a passion for the outdoors and would hunt regardless of whether they drew a special tag or went on a special hunt.

So they are committing crimes for something that doesn't work? Sorry, the draw is random, you've provided zero evidence to the contrary and only personal rumor/speculation for a motive that doesn't make sense. I don't have any blind faith in government, but I also don't put any faith in people on the internet pushing conspiracy theories with zero evidence or even a reasonable motive.

 

[Mallards_Only]

Where is the crime??? They can do whatever they want. It ain't illegal. It's truly astonishing to me how naive and ignorant people choose to be when it suits their own agenda.

 

[Keepkickin_19]

Having never drawn an antelope tag in my home state of Idaho in 40 years, (Maybe this will be the year) I will say No Point system. My favorite state to apply is New Mexico.

Did you draw?

 

[Arrowelk]

I suspect that women and kids (mostly kids) draw more tags simply due to odds. One man puts his wife and four kids in the draw which gives them 5 chances to draw to his 1. The tag transfer is another thing that causes unusual demand. a person can put all non-hunting relatives (licenses holders) in the draw then transfer the tag to the hunting junior. I know quite a few families who do this.

Bingo! My kids draw more quality and meat tags than I do, by far. My two daughters drew good deer tags, one outright, one by way of a non hunting grandfather.... BTW I am just fine with that. The thought of a point system in Idaho gives me the creeps. Best i can see from the other states that have them is that they are just a scam. Only way I would ever be inclined is if they were a tangible one time use item. Meaning when you use the "point" it is gone weather or not you draw the tag or not. A point is, is simply another "chance" in a random draw. There should be no guarantee of anything when the resource is less than the demand.

 

[treedagain]

Heard points are being actively talked about. It is only time now. It will happen. Sooner than later

 

[Deepcolor]

I see a lot of these capped elk zones going to a draw next year.

 

[Elkman80]

Did you draw?

No, and I still don't want a point system.

 

[andrew12gauge]

I see a lot of these capped elk zones going to a draw next year.

I don’t know why, aside from sawtooth which will sell out day 1 tomorrow and diamond creek the demand still isn’t really there. Most zones will still have tags remaining come Wednesday morning when the applicants can start to buy

 

[freebird63]

I have heard IDFG does not want nor consider a points system.

 

[treedagain]

I have heard IDFG does not want nor consider a points system.

Not sure who your talking with? All my contacts say the opposite. Lots of $$$ on the table, to much to not look at and make a choice. And seeing that most hunters want it, most likely it will pass

 

[N_Corey]

How are you figuring that “most hunters want it”?

 

[freebird63]

I have not come across one Idaho hunter that wants a point system.
I will have to do some digging, I will see if I can find where IDFG doesn't want a points system.

 

[EVILNR]

Screw points.

 

[IDoutdoors]

No point system!! Keep it random like it is now.

 

[idahohuntr]

I have not come across one Idaho hunter that wants a point system.
I will have to do some digging, I will see if I can find where IDFG doesn't want a points system.

Former F&G Director said they are a ponzi scheme on a meateater podcast just before retirement...current Director I recall at an open house saying a points system is a no go.

I think 5-20 years ago, there were some very close calls on whether we'd get a points system. At this point, and with the experience of several states point systems...I'd say the chances of a points system in Idaho are slim to none...and you can probably throw slim out the window.

 

[Deerlove]

Main problem is once some NR draws a tag they will get out of the game. No more 150$ hunting license etc.

 

[BrianID]

It is good to read so much opposition to a point system in Idaho. I remember arguing about how I didn't want a point system in Idaho 15 years ago. Back then many hunters were not as informed about how bad point systems are and many seemed open to the idea of a point system in Idaho.

A point system is just like socialism, people argue for both because they keep things "fair". You have to look at the long term consequences of point systems and socialism to see how bad they really are.

 

[Mallards_Only]

I wonder how many will change their position once the draw odds for residents steepen with the massive influx of new resident hunters entering the draw and making it even more difficult to draw tags that were once attainable.

 

[elkster123]

Why does every state have some type of system except flipping Idaho AKA the only fair system my butt. Fish and Game could raise the price to 1000.00 for each tag and license and still all the retarted out of state hunters with deep pockets would buy them. There new rule this year royally back fired on them. 30 years is a long time to go with out a permit Screw all you who disagree I could care less...