# 2022 draw odds



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

They are up 





__





Big game drawing odds and points report


Download all reports in PDF format




wildlife.utah.gov


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t even want to look!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> I don’t even want to look!


It’s bad. Real bad.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Yep real bad


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Yep. *** creep strikes again. Not that I was at the top of my point pool but still.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)




----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

The numbers are always depressing.

Glad I got my Book Cliffs tag last year.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Well there ya have it--Nebo Muzzy Elk Bonus Point tags went 17, 18, 19, 20 points--one each. No wonder my paltry 16 points went unrewarded! Time to come up with another plan for next year.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

Airborne said:


> Well there ya have it--Nebo Muzzy Elk Bonus Point tags went 17, 18, 19, 20 points--one each. No wonder my paltry 16 points went unrewarded! Time to come up with another plan for next year.


People decided to cash in their points. I'd expect there might be more tags turned back in this year the way things are going. Don't lose all hope yet.


----------



## Sidviciouser (9 mo ago)

Only 623 people in my Moose point pool and above. Around 62 bonus point tags a year = tag in ~9 years? Is that math correct or am I missing something?


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Sidviciouser said:


> Only 623 people in my Moose point pool and above. Around 62 bonus point tags a year = tag in ~9 years? Is that math correct or am I missing something?


So you have 24 points and you are looking at the overall point holders I think? You need to break it down by the unit you want and use the same math. It could be a longer wait or shorter wait depending on the hunt you want. 

Chalk creek shows 20 guys with 24 points going for 1 bonus tag = tag in 20 years for example. 

CPAjeff or someone way smarter than me with numbers can break it down further. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidviciouser (9 mo ago)

I'll hunt any unit that has better odds. I was just trying to figure out how long it would be until I'm the last guy with max points.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Sidviciouser said:


> Only 623 people in my Moose point pool and above. Around 62 bonus point tags a year = tag in ~9 years? Is that math correct or am I missing something?


Did you include the folks that only purchased points? That's my guess on the source of a lot of "pool jumpers" most years. Plus, it does depend quite a bit on how those other people choose their units. You might end up where they are all clustered in the same unit(s) you want to apply for, but your math is based on the aggregate total bonus permits. So folks could be in the bonus pool with the same or fewer points (in theory) than you on certain units and those tags are part of the 62 bonus tags, but they wouldn't remove any of the +623 people above you.


----------



## Sidviciouser (9 mo ago)

johnnycake said:


> Did you include the folks that only purchased points? That's my guess on the source of a lot of "pool jumpers" most years. Plus, it does depend quite a bit on how those other people choose their units. You might end up where they are all clustered in the same unit(s) you want to apply for, but your math is based on the aggregate total bonus permits. So folks could be in the bonus pool with the same or fewer points (in theory) than you on certain units and those tags are part of the 62 bonus tags, but they wouldn't remove any of the +623 people above you.


Good point about the clustered point holders. Your truth bombs are painful  LOL. I would be happy with a less popular unit. It's not like we have yukon moose with giant antlers. One mature shiras is as good as the next to me. I mostly want to eat it.

I believe this is ALL point holders. But I'm not 100% certain.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)




----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Sidviciouser said:


> Good point about the clustered point holders. Your truth bombs are painful  LOL. I would be happy with a less popular unit. It's not like we have yukon moose with giant antlers. One mature shiras is as good as the next to me. I mostly want to eat it.
> 
> I believe this is ALL point holders. But I'm not 100% certain.
> View attachment 152249


Nope. That is just the people who didn't apply for a tag and only purchased a bonus point. 

You need to look at that page, and the next one combined to see the total scope of folks applying. I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you've got more than 623 people with more points than you.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

These numbers are depressing. Ya, I think I'll bow out after this year and let the rest of you fight it out. I will for sure sit back and read the squabbling remarks after the 2023 draw results are out though. That's always a good one.

I've always said they need to change how one gains points. The way it is now....If you apply for unit "A" for five years, you have five points. Then, you begin applying for unit "B" and carry those five points to that unit draw. ELIMINATE the unit "pool" jumping. Every time you apply for a unit, that point stays with that unit and IS NOT transferable to other units. 
Don't know how to eliminate "point stackers" from buying points every year and then cashing them in after they have 26 for whatever species. Maybe....If your buying a point, it has to be attached to a hunt Unit ?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

The really discouraging thing is looking at how a general season archery deer tag in many units is starting to look like a once every few years kind of thing. As this house of cards we call our draw system starts to fall I keep consoling myself by saying that as long as I can keep buying an OTC archery elk tag every year I will be content. But at what point does even that ol' reliable start to $hit the bed?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> View attachment 152226


From now on I am going to picture you doing that little booby shake at the end every time you remind us how bad our situation sucks.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Or this:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Is it really that bad? I have a friend that in the past 10 years as drawn a moose, desert bighorn , a couple pronghorn, a premium LE elk, an archery LE elk, and several general season tags. I remember about 8 years ago that he was telling me how crappy his draw luck was, I don't hear that any more. As for me, I've never missed out on a general season deer tag yet in the past 38 years. Most people just don't understand the system well enough to increase their odds.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> Is it really that bad? I have a friend that in the past 10 years as drawn a moose, desert bighorn , a couple pronghorn, a premium LE elk, an archery LE elk, and several general season tags. I remember about 8 years ago that he was telling me how crappy his draw luck was, I don't hear that any more. As for me, I've never missed out on a general season deer tag yet in the past 38 years. Most people just don't understand the system well enough to increase their odds.


I agree that most people don't understand how to increase their odds for maximum opportunity. As far as your friend goes, that is what is called incredible luck. You could study draw odds and strategize your arse off and still not be able to touch what your friend did if you don't have a little (or a lot of) luck entering the equation. My next door neighbor while I was growing up drew OIL bison and moose within a couple years of each other. He killed a so so moose and a great bison bull. One year around that same time my dad and I were hunting GS bull elk and we heard a shot that was so close my dad decided to go investigate. A few moments later he came back to get me and we spent the rest of the morning helping ol' Randy pack out his 7x7.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Just shy of 3,000 people with 20+ moose points. The draw odds are a mess. It seems we are going to have to print off 2 pages for each hunt's odds......


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

It's getting closer to being random draw despite the bonus point pool. Give it a few more years and even the max point pool will have slim odds of pulling a tag for most OIAL hunts.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Packout said:


> Just shy of 3,000 people with 20+ moose points. The draw odds are a mess. It seems we are going to have to print off 2 pages for each hunt's odds......


True but you need to look at all the moose units and see what it takes to draw them. Top tier are hard. Go down the list and not so much.
People being picky about drawing specific units or using metrics such as scoring potential or success rates really shouldn't complain.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Unless you have 25+ points in the bank there are no moose units that are not that hard to draw. And even if you have 20 points right now, that doesn't mean in another 5 years or so you will be in good shape because the log jam of top point holders all competing for the tiny number of Utah moose tags each year are going to drive what is needed for max points higher and higher with every passing year.

I am right around the 20 point mark and if there were some lesser unit I could put in for that would give me a decent chance at a legal bull I would be all over it. But....there isn't one. If I could go back and do it all over I would put in for pretty much any other OIL species. Unfortunately I don't see any benefit to switching horses midstream now. I have two possibilities for hunting moose. 1) I have insane luck and overcome some incredibly stiff odds by drawing one of the random draw tags.
2) outliving a lot of the people who have more points than me.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I looked at all the draw odds last year (not this year) for moose for some silly reason (I don't care or apply). There were more than a few that took less than 8 points.
No worry. That's what it is all about. Complain.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

It really is bad. If you look at the point holders with 23-25 point’s for bull moose praying for a CWMU hunt for a unit with one tag that goes random that is no where near a quality hunt you get an idea of how desperate the situation is. With my measly 17 points I can only hope for a lottery type win to ever hunt a bull before my life runs out. I did it to myself by not getting in when I was eligible instead of waiting until I was 28 to start applying. I realized long ago I can’t ditch a decade + worth of points to try another species, so I will just cross my fingers. Woasme! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

middlefork said:


> I looked at all the draw odds last year (not this year) for moose for some silly reason (I don't care or apply). There were more than a few that took less than 8 points.
> No worry. That's what it is all about. Complain.


Not complaining, just correcting your bogus claim. Show me the units where a guy can draw a moose tag with 8 points that doesn't require a stupid amount of luck. For every guy that draws a lucky tag in the random draw pool there are scads that don't and never will. Does it happen? Sure. People also win the lottery, catch lightning in a bottle, etc.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

3arabians said:


> It really is bad. If you look at the point holders with 23-25 point’s for bull moose praying for a CWMU hunt for a unit with one tag that goes random that is no where near a quality hunt you get an idea of how desperate the situation is. With my measly 17 points I can only hope for a lottery type win to ever hunt a bull before my life runs out. I did it to myself by not getting in when I was eligible instead of waiting until I was 28 to start applying. I realized long ago I can’t ditch a decade + worth of points to try another species, so I will just cross my fingers. Woasme!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Stop being such a downer. According to middlefork you just need to put in for the right unit and stop bitching.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Stop being such a downer. According to middlefork you just need to put in for the right unit and stop bitching.


Like I said I don't really care. I don't apply. But do your homework. I'm not doing it for you. But there were multiple units that were drawn with far less than max points. I have no idea if they were random draws but the points involved were much less than max.
Will it take a little luck? Maybe.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Will it take a little luck? Maybe.


It took a little coaxing, but I think you're starting to get it.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

middlefork said:


> Like I said I don't really care. I don't apply. But do your homework. I'm not doing it for you. But there were multiple units that were drawn with far less than max points. I have no idea if they were random draws but the points involved were much less than max.
> Will it take a little luck? Maybe.


You're talking about people who draw tags from the 50% random pool. Everybody else is talking about the 50% of tags in the bonus pool that goes to the max point applicants. Or you really don't understand what those spreadsheets represent. To put it another way, just because I know somebody who won $1m with a $5 scratcher does not mean I should ever expect to be able to do the same, even if I drop way more $$$$ on scratchers than $5. It's there a chance? Technically, yes. Is winning likely? Nope.

The odds of drawing any moose tag in any unit that is from the random pool is generally less than 1% even if you have (max points - 1) and get the advantage of all your points giving you extra chances to pull the low number needed to get the tag.

For many units, particularly with moose, everybody outside the top point pool would have an increase in odds of drawing if 100% of the tags were random.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Cap points, which in turn will start to make it more random........


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Me thinks middlefork doesn’t understand the bonus point system. 

That’s is all for now.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Packout said:


> Cap points, which in turn will start to make it more random........


Before we start doing chit like this, let’s send out a survey to ALL utah hunters and take a vote. This rogue WB/RAC gang doing whatever they please without any public opinion considered is getting out to hand. especially with all the carefully selected “committee” members who are all deciding our fate behind closed doors without any public consideration. It’s very disappointing to see who they have “representing” the different user groups. Like that isn’t all coincidental 🙄 these big decisions are made long before the official meetings are being held.

PO, the “technology” committee that is having backroom meetings is complete bullchit. Especially given the topics and ideas being discussed. I know you know what I’m talking about. Play dumb, as I’m sure you’re instructed to. But this isn’t how this whole thing was designed to work. It’s being abused by hand picked powers to get the votes swung the way they need to that fits their agenda. There are TONS of other options to try before they do the things they are talking about. Your job is to fight for the public. Everyone. Not just the ones who’s name is followed by a 3 letter special interest group when they get up to speak. I hope to see you take a harder stance in the future. Many meetings go by without you saying any more than “yes” on agenda motions.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Unless you have 25+ points in the bank there are no moose units that are not that hard to draw. And even if you have 20 points right now, that doesn't mean in another 5 years or so you will be in good shape because the log jam of top point holders all competing for the tiny number of Utah moose tags each year are going to drive what is needed for max points higher and higher with every passing year.
> 
> I am right around the 20 point mark and if there were some lesser unit I could put in for that would give me a decent chance at a legal bull I would be all over it. But....there isn't one. If I could go back and do it all over I would put in for pretty much any other OIL species. Unfortunately I don't see any benefit to switching horses midstream now. I have two possibilities for hunting moose. 1) I have insane luck and overcome some incredibly stiff odds by drawing one of the random draw tags.
> 2) outliving a lot of the people who have more points than me.


3) Somehow increasing Moose herds in Utah= more tags/increasing drawing odds by increased tag allotments.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Screw capping points and full random draw.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

MrShane said:


> 3) Somehow increasing Moose herds in Utah= more tags/increasing drawing odds by increased tag allotments.


Yet here we are still shooting cow moose. You’d think after managing wildlife for close to 100 years, the state of utah would have figured out by now that male ungulates do not give birth. Only the females do. But oh no, shoot the cow moose that birth calves, up in the mountains on FS land that aren’t bothering a thing. Great idea!

and this is coming from a guy with max cow moose points.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Wow Moose, that is a very interesting take. Are you sure you know who I am? 
"Many meetings go by without you saying any more than “yes” on agenda motions." This is a one of your most backward statements- seeing as I'm told I talk too much. Anyone can go back thru the minutes and they will see you are once again misinformed. 

I am human and have an opinion- just like you and Vanilla and Shane and every other person breathing. You sure enjoy calling me out every time I post my opinion or thoughts- but only if it is something you don't agree with. hahaha You really need to start getting your hands dirty if you think the process is that corrupt, rather than throwing bottles from the stands. I live in northern UT County and you are welcome to stop by and we can talk face to face. We can still do the bbq at Cal's, too.

As for technology committee- I'm not on it. I found out they put one together after they held their first one or two meetings. I have no information on what they are discussing or considering. Do tell us all what you have heard "they are talking about". I'd also like to know what the Elk Committee is discussing. I haven't heard much about it either.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Packout said:


> Wow Moose, that is a very interesting take. Are you sure you know who I am?
> "Many meetings go by without you saying any more than “yes” on agenda motions." This is a one of your most backward statements- seeing as I'm told I talk too much. Anyone can go back thru the minutes and they will see you are once again misinformed.
> 
> I am human and have an opinion- just like you and Vanilla and Shane and every other person breathing. You sure enjoy calling me out every time I post my opinion or thoughts- but only if it is something you don't agree with. hahaha You really need to start getting your hands dirty if you think the process is that corrupt, rather than throwing bottles from the stands. I live in northern UT County and you are welcome to stop by and we can talk face to face. We can still do the bbq at Cal's, too.
> ...


I know exactly who you are, Mike. And I know which group you are supposed to represent. I’m not misinformed. I watch all the meetings. Get my hands dirty? I would, except like I previously stated, my name isn’t followed by a 3 letter organization to mention if I stand up to speak. Anyone who doesn’t have a title from a 3 letter wildlife prostitution agency, that has something to say, isn’t heard by the RACs or WB. That’s been made very clear. The surveys conducted are just a formality. The committee meetings needs to be held in the publics view while happening. Not just after the decisions have been made. There’s a lot more hunters out there that share the same opinions as me on that subject. We aren’t heard. Or considered.

for instance, austin atkinson from huntin fool is on the technology committee. I haven’t heard them discussing banning the use of those types of technology platforms to pimp out wildlife and sell information about units, hotspots, trophy potential… any of it. Just pay your yearly annual fee and the information is all yours. Does that not give certain hunters an unfair advantage over the animals in units they aren’t familiar with? Of course it does. But they don’t want to talk about that. It’s much easier to ban range finders, multi pin sights on bows, scopes, scope magnifications, etc… and it doesn’t impact those who are on this committee, in any financial way.

the elk plan is phucked as it is too. Until they pull the rifle hunt out of the rut or agree to manage them closer to a 15:100 bull-cow ratio, and not the 1:1 on many units like it currently is, nothing will change except the public getting boned out of even more hunting opportunities. Knock the bull numbers down by issuing more tags. Replace that bull void with the cow numbers that actually are beneficial to the landscape every year and. Not just taking up space, and you’ll have more elk and opportunities. Yet that isn’t the route they are going. So is the public or the wildlife really in their best interest? Doesn’t seem like it.

like I said, play dumb. I just find it really hard to believe that I’m getting more information on what is being discussed in these committees than what you are claiming to know about.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Moose--have you tried to get on the central RAC? You should. Even if you think RACs are BS, you should still try to get on one. The only way to play the game is to participate. Its not fun, but starting at the RAC would give you better insight into stuff maybe? 

With politics, from HOA's to City Councils, to state legislators---it's the folks that get involved and do the work that make the decisions. I would like to see you on the central RAC, you should pursue this if you have the time


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’d be willing to serve on the Central RAC. I have no connections to put me there. 

I don’t blame the RACs for our issues. I think for the most part they try hard even when I don’t agree with their decisions. But the nomination process does favor the folks Moose referenced in getting their people on the RAC. 

It really is a huge flaw in the system that was set up to give certain groups power. It has worked as designed.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> the elk plan is phucked as it is too. Until they pull the rifle hunt out of the rut or agree to manage them closer to a 15:100 bull-cow ratio, and not the 1:1 on many units like it currently is, nothing will change except the public getting boned out of even more hunting opportunities. Knock the bull numbers down by issuing more tags. Replace that bull void with the cow numbers that actually are beneficial to the landscape every year and. Not just taking up space, and you’ll have more elk and opportunities.


I wish they would consider this on most units. They could keep a couple trophy units the way they are and see if nature finds a way...just like the original Jurassic Park. Those trophy units sure are a sausage fest.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I did the math on me drawing a moose permit as a bonus tag once. I believe I was near 300 years from the goal.

I still apply just in case but really, don't ever expect to draw a tag.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Airborne said:


> Moose--have you tried to get on the central RAC? You should. Even if you think RACs are BS, you should still try to get on one. The only way to play the game is to participate. Its not fun, but starting at the RAC would give you better insight into stuff maybe?
> 
> With politics, from HOA's to City Councils, to state legislators---it's the folks that get involved and do the work that make the decisions. I would like to see you on the central RAC, you should pursue this if you have the time


Im all for it. I wouldn’t have the time, I’d MAKE the time. There is not a single 3 letter circle jerk group that would nominate a convicted “poacher”, that isn’t scare to speak his opinion and thoughts, no matter how against the grain it might be. to be in on those meetings, you need that backing. And that’s the only reason why there isn’t more “public” no body’s sitting on the board.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> Im all for it. I wouldn’t have the time, I’d MAKE the time. There is not a single 3 letter circle jerk group that would nominate a convicted “poacher”, that isn’t scare to speak his opinion and thoughts, no matter how against the grain it might be. to be in on those meetings, you need that backing. And that’s the only reason why there isn’t more “public” no body’s sitting on the board.


Everyone has to start somewhere. Look at Trump, not many folks thought he'd make the Whitehouse and he did for 4 years.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

You might know my name, but that doesn't mean you know me. 
Anyone can look at the minutes of the RACs since I've been on and even before that show my involvement and how much I've spoken up for the past 25 years. And my RAC involvement has never had anything to do with a "3 letter organization". 
As for who I represent- I officially represent the "Public at Large". It isn't specific to fishermen, hunters, antis, vegans, women, children, men, etc. I take all kinds of input before the meetings on which I base my decisions- from people of all walks of life. 
Your statement that I'm "playing dumb" about what is going on in those committees- you are wrong. I stand by what I said- call me a liar, but you'd still be wrong. I can tell you what is happening on the LOA Committee. I've invited you to call, stop by, or try to meet up. Offer still stands if you are willing to take it. 

I've invited people from this forum to reach out to me anytime and share their thoughts on issues. Call, stop by, email, etc... Many have taken me up on that and hopefully people will continue to do so. 
I said my peace and will bow out of the conversation.


----------



## Sidviciouser (9 mo ago)

johnnycake said:


> Nope. That is just the people who didn't apply for a tag and only purchased a bonus point.
> 
> You need to look at that page, and the next one combined to see the total scope of folks applying. I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you've got more than 623 people with more points than you.


I double checked and my total was from both pages. The bonus total is only 140. You gave me a heart attack. I'm really hoping to hunt moose before I can't walk.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Packout said:


> You might know my name, but that doesn't mean you know me.
> Anyone can look at the minutes of the RACs since I've been on and even before that show my involvement and how much I've spoken up for the past 25 years. And my RAC involvement has never had anything to do with a "3 letter organization".
> As for who I represent- I officially represent the "Public at Large". It isn't specific to fishermen, hunters, antis, vegans, women, children, men, etc. I take all kinds of input before the meetings on which I base my decisions- from people of all walks of life.
> Your statement that I'm "playing dumb" about what is going on in those committees- you are wrong. I stand by what I said- call me a liar, but you'd still be wrong. I can tell you what is happening on the LOA Committee. I've invited you to call, stop by, or try to meet up. Offer still stands if you are willing to take it.
> ...


And you just know my name, but you don’t know who I am. It’s a circle of best friends who take care of each other and their best interests. I’ve shared my thoughts in public, I don’t need to do it in private.

if you truly don’t know what’s being discussed, maybe you need to ask some more questions and be involved. Or maybe you just simply don’t care. If you do ask questions and they refuse to answer you, then that raises a bunch of more red flags that should create some more questions.

like I said, I’d love to be on the central RAC. The odds of that happening for me are slim to none.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Sidviciouser said:


> I double checked and my total was from both pages. The bonus total is only 140. You gave me a heart attack. I'm really hoping to hunt moose before I can't walk.


Gotcha, so at 24 points you have 561 other residents with the same or more points than you that applied for a tag in 2022 but were unsuccessful. Plus the 140 residents that only bought a point and are in the 24 and up pool. So you are now one of 702 residents going forward applying for moose. At 62 bonus permits per year, theoretically that means you'll be guaranteed to draw within 11 years. Possibly more, possibly less depending on where all the point holders cast their applications. 

So by 2033 the max point pool for moose (holding current tag numbers constant) should be 34 points, and it'll take about another 12 years to clear out that class (current 23 point holders). By 2045 Utah will start to churn down the current 22pt class and take about 15 years to clear it. 

Yep. This is such a great system /s


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

My moose tag was 1 in 4.8 chance to draw out of top tier (for the unit I applied for). I misread the info earlier when I thought I drew random.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Gotcha, so at 24 points you have 561 other residents with the same or more points than you that applied for a tag in 2022 but were unsuccessful. Plus the 140 residents that only bought a point and are in the 24 and up pool. So you are now one of 702 residents going forward applying for moose. At 62 bonus permits per year, theoretically that means you'll be guaranteed to draw within 11 years. Possibly more, possibly less depending on where all the point holders cast their applications.
> 
> So by 2033 the max point pool for moose (holding current tag numbers constant) should be 34 points, and it'll take about another 12 years to clear out that class (current 23 point holders). By 2045 Utah will start to churn down the current 22pt class and take about 15 years to clear it.
> 
> *Yep. This is such a great system* /s


Listen here, cake...you moved to Alaska and get to enjoy a situation that is unique to any situation, anywhere. We all get it. But just because you have that as your hunting reality, don't pretend that you all the sudden know something none of the rest of us know about our draw system. We're never going to be able to have 5 Utah antlered big game tags. You can. That's awesome for you, but again, doesn't mean you know something more about draw systems than anyone else. So get off your high horse before I shoot that horse and give it to my friends that like to eat horse!

Fact 1: Any time the demand exponentially outweighs the supply, you will never have a system that is great. Fact 2: Utah's bad system is the least bad of all the systems. Over time, and with increased demand and decreased supply, it will only get worse. We can change it to an even worse bad system if that makes your sensitive feelers feel better? But it's still going to be a terrible system. Fact 3: Just because you're in Alaska doesn't mean I won't fly up there in July and kick you in the junk. Fact 4: Shut up, jerk!

That's all for my facts at the moment. Other than cake is a dufus and I'm going to kick him in the junk shortly. I'll find you. I've got connections.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Listen here, cake...you moved to Alaska and get to enjoy a situation that is unique to any situation, anywhere. We all get it. But just because you have that as your hunting reality, don't pretend that you all the sudden know something none of the rest of us know about our draw system. We're never going to be able to have 5 Utah antlered big game tags. You can. That's awesome for you, but again, doesn't mean you know something more about draw systems than anyone else. So get off your high horse before I shoot that horse and give it to my friends that like to eat horse!
> 
> Fact 1: Any time the demand exponentially outweighs the supply, you will never have a system that is great. Fact 2: Utah's bad system is the least bad of all the systems. Over time, and with increased demand and decreased supply, it will only get worse. We can change it to an even worse bad system if that makes your sensitive feelers feel better? But it's still going to be a terrible system. Fact 3: Just because you're in Alaska doesn't mean I won't fly up there in July and kick you in the junk. Fact 4: Shut up, jerk!
> 
> That's all for my facts at the moment. Other than cake is a dufus and I'm going to kick him in the junk shortly. I'll find you. I've got connections.


Fact 1: I ain't skeered of you Soft-serve 
Fact 2: the only horse I trust is a dead horse. Preferably grilled high heat to a nice rare. 
Fact 3: Utah's draw system creates a sense of entitlement that is growing more unrealistic each year. 
Fact 4: going to random draw would at least be transparent, on top of not relegating those born after a certain arbitrary date to a permanent disadvantage in the draw.
Fact 5: Packout's position of capping points might be the best middle road option. I'd still prefer it to be a cap with elimination of bonus pool tags--just give folks the extra chances based on the number of years they've been a loser. 
Fact 6: You've got an open invitation to come up North and carry my dead animals out for me, any time you'd like. They're a bit heavier than just carrying points around forever


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

johnnycake said:


> Fact 4: going to random draw would at least be transparent, on top of not relegating those born after a certain arbitrary date to a permanent disadvantage in the draw.


This is the only part I would debate about a random draw. We have a randow draw, it's called the Utah Hunt Expo. It is not transparent.

Every year, despite the random draw of this particular pool of tags we get people crying foul. This is because some people don't believe the draw is truly 100% random and they seem to be able to put together draw histories that are fairly convincing.

If all of Utah's draws were random, the same thing would happen. Some people would draw tags over and over while others never or seldom do.

Random draw only favors those with good luck. Points allow those of us with **** luck a little better odds and also gives us false hope (hope nonetheless) that we are getting closer to drawing each year.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

KineKilla said:


> This is the only part I would debate about a random draw. We have a randow draw, it's called the Utah Hunt Expo. It is not transparent.
> 
> Every year, despite the random draw of this particular pool of tags we get people crying foul. This is because some people don't believe the draw is truly 100% random and they seem to be able to put together draw histories that are fairly convincing.
> 
> ...


The expo and transparency is a whole other can of worms, and one that I genuinely think is actually random--but given the histories, players and overall disgruntlement with how the last expo contract process went, I'll be the first to admit I'm biased and suspicious of anything that SFW has a finger in. 

But I don't think there would be a credible claim for improprieties if Fallon continued running the draw if Utah switched to 100% random draw.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> Gotcha, so at 24 points you have 561 other residents with the same or more points than you that applied for a tag in 2022 but were unsuccessful. Plus the 140 residents that only bought a point and are in the 24 and up pool. So you are now one of 702 residents going forward applying for moose. At 62 bonus permits per year, theoretically that means you'll be guaranteed to draw within 11 years. Possibly more, possibly less depending on where all the point holders cast their applications.
> 
> So by 2033 the max point pool for moose (holding current tag numbers constant) should be 34 points, and it'll take about another 12 years to clear out that class (current 23 point holders). By 2045 Utah will start to churn down the current 22pt class and take about 15 years to clear it.
> 
> Yep. This is such a great system /s


But a full random draw system does very little to improve my odds of getting a moose tag. At least under the current system, if I live long enough I'll eventually draw. Probably 20+ years from now.

The point pools are aging as well. At some point, people are going to die or quit hunting. The odds aren't great for people getting started now, but they're not good for anyone that isn't in the max point pool. At lease right now they have a chance however slim it might be. The traditional preference point systems being run in most western state provide no opportunity for anyone that doesn't have max points.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Dahlmer said:


> But a full random draw system does very little to improve my odds of getting a moose tag. *At least under the current system, if I live long enough I'll eventually draw. Probably 20+ years from now.*


Which is wonderful for you, and those who were eligible to start applying at or before you did. If you really will be able to draw in the next 20 years or so, then you are probably sitting on 23 points. Assuming you were 14 when you started applying and never missed a year, that puts you at 57-60ish years old by the time you should draw. The person who was 1 year younger than you won't have those same expectations until they are +75 yrs old. Given average ages these days the first group to likely really benefit in a significant way from outliving the other losers is the class of 21 point holders, as their expected age of guaranteed draw is about 90 yrs old. It only takes a few more years to get to the folks that would have to become the oldest human on record to be guaranteed a moose tag. Basically, anybody who started applying after 2003. 

So for those folks, they've had their lucky draw odds cut in half forever in order to benefit the folks who created and adopted this system. Golly gee, ain't that a swell way to live? But soon enough without changes the practical reality will be that even with comparatively double the possible tags to draw from, the top point holders will only have a pyrrhic advantage in the draw. At the end of the day going from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% doesn't really make a huge difference.

I do enjoy hunting in Utah, and I hope to one day take my kids hunting in the various places that our family has hunted for generations. That is 100% the reason I still keep up my points down there; it's the only way my kids might ever have a squeak of a chance of drawing a tag and hunting those places (either as a group draw or on a mentored tag) before they have children (or grandchildren) of their own. Would a random draw help that change? No, it wouldn't. But at least to me it would put their chances on even footing with everybody else.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Whats interesting is that the only two completely random draw states in the west (if I have my intel right) of Idaho and New Mexico are rumored to start going to a point system soon. If that is the case I will be for absolutely certain to plant myself right in the front of the line (myself and thousands of others who see what most be done) the very first year they do it, and at least be no worse off than being tied with the top point holders hence forth and forever.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Whats interesting is that the only two completely random draw states in the west (if I have my intel right) of Idaho and New Mexico are rumored to start going to a point system soon. If that is the case I will be for absolutely certain to plant myself right in the front of the line (myself and thousands of others who see what most be done) the very first year they do it, and at least be no worse off than being tied with the top point holders hence forth and forever.


I've heard similar rumblings, but haven't cared to dig into it. It'll leave Alaska as the only remaining random draw state if they do. And it'll be a damned shame if they do. Anybody want to bet that folks in those states have sold it as "this way you'll eventually be guaranteed to get your tag. Just wait your turn"?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Okay, get your tar and feathers ready because I'm about to propose a very radical idea: Maybe instead of worshiping inches we overhaul the whole **** thing and just manage for whatever maximizes people's opportunity to hunt. We could still compare salaries, see who can bench press the most, measure our wieners (girth>length fight me!) and all that other good stuff. Am I alone in this? Yeah, I figured so. Even if a lot of you agreed with me, the people whose voice actually matters would never allow it to happen anyway.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

We’re already trying to move the elk hunts around so we can “grow more 400” bulls.”

I wish I remembered the specific meeting, but SFW Pres (the good one that many of us credit for positive changes in the organization) stated we needed the rifle hunt out of the rut specifically for that reason.

Not to give people more opportunity, but we’re missing a chance to grow bigger elk and the state is not maximizing its profit margins because of that.

I think we should give a lot more LE tags out. And I don’t think we need to swap seasons to do that. Just do it. 20% minimum increase on every unit and every hunt type. Some units where the bull:cow ratio is like was reported on the Beaver we’ll increase by 100%.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> Which is wonderful for you, and those who were eligible to start applying at or before you did. If you really will be able to draw in the next 20 years or so, then you are probably sitting on 23 points. Assuming you were 14 when you started applying and never missed a year, that puts you at 57-60ish years old by the time you should draw. The person who was 1 year younger than you won't have those same expectations until they are +75 yrs old. Given average ages these days the first group to likely really benefit in a significant way from outliving the other losers is the class of 21 point holders, as their expected age of guaranteed draw is about 90 yrs old. It only takes a few more years to get to the folks that would have to become the oldest human on record to be guaranteed a moose tag. Basically, anybody who started applying after 2003.
> 
> So for those folks, they've had their lucky draw odds cut in half forever in order to benefit the folks who created and adopted this system. Golly gee, ain't that a swell way to live? But soon enough without changes the practical reality will be that even with comparatively double the possible tags to draw from, the top point holders will only have a pyrrhic advantage in the draw. At the end of the day going from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% doesn't really make a huge difference.
> 
> I do enjoy hunting in Utah, and I hope to one day take my kids hunting in the various places that our family has hunted for generations. That is 100% the reason I still keep up my points down there; it's the only way my kids might ever have a squeak of a chance of drawing a tag and hunting those places (either as a group draw or on a mentored tag) before they have children (or grandchildren) of their own. Would a random draw help that change? No, it wouldn't. But at least to me it would put their chances on even footing with everybody else.


Doubling no chance is still no chance of drawing a tag. In reality, that's what the eliminating bonus points would do. Given the way Utah publishes odds, it is impossible to know exactly what they are. The reality is for OIL tags, by removing bonus points you now have 24,555 people applying for 131 moose tags instead of 69 tags. The current system doesn't help guys just getting into the game, but it doesn't materially hurt them either.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Dahlmer said:


> Doubling no chance is still no chance of drawing a tag. In reality, that's what the eliminating bonus points would do. Given the way Utah publishes odds, it is impossible to know exactly what they are. The reality is for OIL tags, by removing bonus points you now have 24,555 people applying for 131 moose tags instead of 69 tags. The current system doesn't help guys just getting into the game, but it doesn't materially hurt them either.


Put another way, cutting the odds in half in perpetuity for +22k people so that ~2,500 people who were eligible first would be eventually guaranteed a tag before the system doesn't work that way anymore. Reasonable minds can certainly differ as to whether that is a material harm. 

As for knowing the odds based on how Utah publishes them, it is possible, but it does require some statistical analysis and running a formula. It isn't as straightforward as the data is published, but it is possible to know--it just makes the odds look far more depressing for anybody looking to buy into the pyramid scheme this late in the game.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Not to give people more opportunity, but we’re missing a chance to grow bigger elk and the state is not maximizing its profit margins because of that.
[/QUOTE]
Why provide hunting opportunity to $25 tag buying knuckleheads when there is money to be made off of 400" bulls?


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Simple fix:
Step one: Do not allow purchase of a point only, you must apply for tag. If you can’t hunt that year, don’t put in.
Step two: Absolutely no returning tag, No exceptions, no dr’s note, no military/college, nothing. You don’t use it, you lose it.
Step three: Do not allow any exceptions to steps one and two.


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

Step one, I could get behind although there are ways around it. I don't think I could get behind step two.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

MrShane said:


> Simple fix:
> Step one: Do not allow purchase of a point only, you must apply for tag. If you can’t hunt that year, don’t put in.
> Step two: Absolutely no returning tag, No exceptions, no dr’s note, no military/college, nothing. You don’t use it, you lose it.
> Step three: Do not allow any exceptions to steps one and two.


If you completely eliminated the point purchase only data, you still have point creep that exceeds average lifespan for OIAL and multiple LE tags. You shave 10-30% off the max theoretical period, but when that number is already +300 years for somebody starting from scratch, going to +270 years has all the practical effect of a toddler pissing on a forest fire.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

But… make it so they have to apply every year or they lose their points… that’ll eliminate at least several hundred from the point pools every year. I feel that number is conservative too


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Raptorman said:


> Step one, I could get behind although there are ways around it. I don't think I could get behind step two.


I agree it is not an easy pill to swallow, but it helps slow our problem and takes out those not willing to commit to the sport.
It is a way to get the ‘serious’ players up to bat quicker.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

MooseMeat said:


> But… make it so they have to apply every year or they lose their points… that’ll eliminate at least several hundred from the point pools every year. I feel that number is conservative too


I’m all for that.
Your idea just became step three and my step three just became step four.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

johnnycake said:


> If you completely eliminated the point purchase only data, you still have point creep that exceeds average lifespan for OIAL and multiple LE tags. You shave 10-30% off the max theoretical period, but when that number is already +300 years for somebody starting from scratch, going to +270 years has all the practical effect of a toddler pissing on a forest fire.


Doesn’t matter, any step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Here is my question: 

What is the "right direction?" 

Everyone is trying to come up with ways to adjust the draw system to fix point creep, or in other words, make it easier for people to draw tags more often. Adjusting the draw system will NEVER fix or even help with making it easier for more people to draw tags. 

There is nothing that can be done to the draw system itself that can accomplish what people want accomplished. We have draw systems of all types in the states surrounding us. Which one of those systems are people overall happy with? Full random draw states are trying to go to point systems. Point system states are wanting to go to full random draw. You can keep banging your head against that same brick wall expecting to get a different result, or we can realize the reality in the west that we are facing. 

Figure out a way to put more animals on the landscape to offer more tags. That is the single thing that can assist with this problem, but even then, we are never going to be in a place where you can hunt LE type situations regularly unless you're going to use the SFW loophole and just buy them. When I say never, I mean never. Depressing to think about, but that is our reality. 

Bang your head again if you want, though.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Vanilla said:


> Here is my question:
> 
> What is the "right direction?"
> 
> ...


Vanilla,
The ‘right direction’ to me is to eliminate those that are not serious about this game we all consider ourselves to be players in.
These ‘three steps’ mentioned WILL cut down on lazy hunters and WILL up YOUR odds of getting to be put in the game instead of sitting on the bench.
Do you believe it will not help?
Find ways to increase the amount of animals running around?
Fantastic!!
If that can’t be done, let’s find other ways to create opportunities.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

As for the SFW loophole you mention, here is how to solve that but will be much less popular than my simple steps to help slow creep:
Adopt same rules for point forfeiture for bucks/bulls as was adopted for cow/does, if you buy a mitigation voucher/private lands tag you forfeit your bonus points.
See, told you it would not be popular!


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Here is my question:
> 
> What is the "right direction?"
> 
> ...


There's a lot of this that I do agree with. My position about going to random draw (I'll set aside my absurdist FULL random for the time being) is about longterm equity, with no illusions of making it "easier" for more/specific people to draw tags. Giving all applicants a level playing field is my version of your least favorite F word in these discussions, "fair". Fair is subjective and certainly can have differing definitions among rational parties, and there is merit to all of that. But random draw is the only system that gives all applicants an equal opportunity to obtain access to a public resource, in both the short and long runs--and that is an objective fact. I personally ascribe to the philosophy that public resources should have equal opportunity to access by all of the public. Can you imagine the outcry if National Park access (which in many places is already turning into lottery draw) gave preference to a particular subset or demographic in the population? Point based draw systems are precisely that though. 

Working to increase herd populations, land capacity, and tag numbers is a separate (and arguably more important) issue. But even at maximum theoretical achievement under the existing land and water use constraints, as you stated, we will never be in a place to hunt LE type situations "regularly." Which is why states have been coming up with access allocation systems for the past several decades. But because people as a whole tend to be selfish, shortsighted bastages, the all too common result is adoption of a system that gives the voices at the time of action a permanent advantage at the expense of everybody else going forward. "At least I'll get mine, but point creep is my kids/grandkids' problem." That inequity leads to disenfranchisement with the system over time as people realize just how small the pool of benefactors from a point-based system is. Eventually, those voices get loud enough and things are shaken up. And we'll screw it up some other way no doubt.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

MrShane said:


> As for the SFW loophole you mention, here is how to solve that but will be much less popular than my simple steps to help slow creep:
> Adopt same rules for point forfeiture for bucks/bulls as was adopted for cow/does, if you buy a mitigation voucher/private lands tag you forfeit your bonus points.
> See, told you it would not be popular!


Honestly, I think this is the best of all your suggestions right here. Forfeiture of points and imposition of waiting periods regardless of the source of the tag (draw, auction, etc.) Landowners that get x tags per year have to either use them personally, give to family/friends, or sell and whoever ends up with the tag loses points and gets the waiting period. 

Overall, I don't think it would have a huge impact, as the number of people who buy these tags regularly is relatively small compared to the tens of thousands of applicants--but it is a way to level the playing field.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Johnnycake, thank you for moving away from the word "fair" to "equity." I don't even have an issue with your position. I will say that by your own admission, Utah's bonus point system will not be a permanent advantage for much longer.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Mr Shane, your ideas may work to get those "lazy" hunters out of your way, I'm just not sure I agree that is the right direction. 

As for your other proposal, I'd prefer them putting all those tags back in the public draw, but if they were going to keep them up for the expo and auction, applying bonus points and waiting periods is a FANTASTIC idea. I think there are very few people that would be unpopular with, actually.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Someone call up J Pow and have the federal reserve print us some more animals.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Top of the page.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

MrShane said:


> Vanilla,
> The ‘right direction’ to me is to eliminate those that are not serious about this game we all consider ourselves to be players in.
> These ‘three steps’ mentioned WILL cut down on lazy hunters and WILL up YOUR odds of getting to be put in the game instead of sitting on the bench.
> Do you believe it will not help?
> ...


Hey !!!
Us lazy hunters have rights too !!


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Vanilla said:


> Mr Shane, your ideas may work to get those "lazy" hunters out of your way, I'm just not sure I agree that is the right direction.
> 
> As for your other proposal, I'd prefer them putting all those tags back in the public draw, but if they were going to keep them up for the expo and auction, applying bonus points and waiting periods is a FANTASTIC idea. I think there are very few people that would be unpopular with, actually.


I respect that you don’t agree, having discussions/proposing ideas like these will hopefully lead us to a solution one day.
Just thinkin’ out loud is all it is.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Maine has an interesting process and a lot more moose.





__





Moose Permit: Moose: Game Species: Hunting: Hunting & Trapping: Maine Dept of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife






www.maine.gov





But the only logical solution is to move to Alaska until the demand out paces the supply.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Johnnycake, thank you for moving away from the word "fair" to "equity." I don't even have an issue with your position. I will say that by your own admission, Utah's bonus point system will not be a permanent advantage for much longer.


Close, but not quite. It will be a permanent advantage but the value of that advantage diminishes (drastically) over time--and we're nearly at the point where the *practical result of that permanent advantage* is essentially nothing (i.e. the .001% vs .002% odds). But that still causes 1/2 of the winners to come from a small subset, at the cost of the rest of the population. And that is fundamentally inequitable.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

The Utah bonus point system will come full circle when half of the hunters on any given unit are the lucky random draw winners and the other half are so old that they're incapable of seeing, hearing, or walking well enough to have a meaningful chance at harvesting an animal. At that point, we can increase tag allocations because success rates will go down accordingly.

It sure will be fun to draw my sheep tag when I'm 95 and relegated to road hunting.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

johnnycake said:


> Close, but not quite. It will be a permanent advantage but the value of that advantage diminishes (drastically) over time--and we're nearly at the point where the *practical result of that permanent advantage* is essentially nothing (i.e. the .001% vs .002% odds). But that still causes 1/2 of the winners to come from a small subset, at the cost of the rest of the population. And that is fundamentally inequitable.


Nothing in life is, or should be, equitable for all.
That would be Socialism.
The harder you work at school, the better paying job you get.
The more quick you move to Alaska, the more big game tags you get.
The more diligent in tracking application dates and correctly filling out your applications, the more chances at pulling a lower draw number you get.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Here's another thought: How about since our weapons are getting increasingly high tech, which leads to higher harvest rates, which I would assume would lead to less tags available in future hunts, why not throw a bone to hunters who are willing to hunt with a handicap. A portion of the muzzleloader tags go to guys who are willing to hunt with sidelock muzzleloaders with open sights only. A portion of archery tags go to guys shooting only longbows and recurves. What could the success rate of a stick bow hunt be? Give guys the option to go with truly primitive weapons, reduce the success rate, and move a bunch of guys through faster. 

Hell, there's a guy with a YouTube channel that's out there killing stuff with an atlatl, and then you got Josh Bowmar and Tim Wells killing stuff with hand thrown spears. Tell me I may never hunt moose in Utah ever or at least not with any degree of youth on my side OR I can do my OIL hunt within 5 years if I use a spear. Guess what I'm doing...

Edit: I can see one litte problem with my idea and that is that some hunters wouldn't put forth nearly the amount of effort required to become proficient with these primitive weapons. Learning to shoot a compound bow well enough to hunt at typical bowhunting distances is like learning to ride a bike with training wheels. A stick bow is more like learning to ride a unicycle while juggling chainsaws. Spears whether hand thrown or with an atlatl is a whole nother level most of us mortals would have a really struggle with.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

MrShane said:


> Nothing in life is, or should be, equitable for all.
> That would be Socialism.
> The harder you work at school, the better paying job you get.
> The more quick you move to Alaska, the more big game tags you get.
> The more diligent in tracking application dates and correctly filling out your applications, the more chances at pulling a lower draw number you get.


Sounds like you need to re read about what socialism is. You're off by at least 1776 freedom units.

Providing an *equal/equitable opportunity* for all is a fundamental tenet of the American experiment. Random draw does precisely this. 

Ensuring an *equitable outcome* is completely different, and requires the government to pick winners and losers based on whatever metric it so chooses. Such as, guaranteeing half of the available access to a public resource that is owned by all citizens part, present and future, to only those people born before a certain date. Point systems are designed and have routinely been (falsely) sold to the public as a way to provide equitable outcomes--i.e., wait your turn long enough and you will all get the tags you want*

Now, neither of these are accurately described as being within the socialist philosophy. But generally, socialism is concerned with outcome equality, not opportunity equality. 


*Terms and conditions apply. Guarantee not subject to realistic human lifespans. Subject to tag availability and herd populations. Future tags may be reduced to benefit shady private entities that suckle on the teat of public resources and ignore the rules that govern the peasants, hereafter referred to as knuckleheads. Knucklehead tags subject to reductions to solely benefit Whatever Lame Huckster catches the eye of the Wildlife Board. Give us your money.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Here's another thought: How about since our weapons are getting increasingly high tech, which leads to higher harvest rates, which I would assume would lead to less tags available in future hunts, why not throw a bone to hunters who are willing to hunt with a handicap. A portion of the muzzleloader tags go to guys who are willing to hunt with sidelock muzzleloaders with open sights only. A portion of archery tags go to guys shooting only longbows and recurves. What could the success rate of a stick bow hunt be? Give guys the option to go with truly primitive weapons, reduce the success rate, and move a bunch of guys through faster.
> 
> Hell, there's a guy with a YouTube channel that's out there killing stuff with an atlatl, and then you got Josh Bowmar and Tim Wells killing stuff with hand thrown spears. Tell me I may never hunt moose in Utah ever or at least not with any degree of youth on my side OR I can do my OIL hunt within 5 years if I use a spear. Guess what I'm doing...


The rumored Technology Committee is supposedly doing exactly what you suggested.
I wonder if we will see a split archery season: first half of season would be longbows/recurves.
Second half would be crossbows/compounds?
I wonder what state they are using atlatls and spears?
Those are illegal weapons here and would be deemed poaching I assume?


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

johnnycake said:


> Sounds like you need to re read about what socialism is. You're off by at least 1776 freedom units.
> 
> Providing an *equal/equitable opportunity* for all is a fundamental tenet of the American experiment. Random draw does precisely this.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the clarification, that is exactly why we have a RANDOM DRAW in Utah!
Like so many have said, that is why Utah has the best, most equitable, draw system going.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

I'm afraid you're all wrong. This is the answer to getting a tag in Utah:


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

MrShane said:


> The rumored Technology Committee is supposedly doing exactly what you suggested.
> I wonder if we will see a split archery season: first half of season would be longbows/recurves.
> Second half would be crossbows/compounds?
> I wonder what state they are using atlatls and spears?
> Those are illegal weapons here and would be deemed poaching I assume?


Well that is the best news I have heard in awhile! As far as your question about which states, Tim Wells killed an Alaskan brownie with a spear, Josh Bowmar killed a black bear in Idaho with a spear and there was a huge uproar from the animal rights people about it. Either he or his wife lost an under armour sponsorship over it. The atlatl guy lives in the midwest somewhere. I have seen pigman kill a pig with a spear in what I assume was Texas.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

What


colorcountrygunner said:


> ...why not throw a bone to hunters who are willing to hunt with a handicap. A portion of the muzzleloader tags go to guys who are willing to hunt with sidelock muzzleloaders with open sights only.


What advantage do you think a open sights inline has over a open sight sidelock? I mean I rebarreled my Hawkin 25 years ago with a fast twist 1/28 "Sabot barrel", and I have a 209 primer adapter. You think its inferior to a inline? How? They shoot the same projectile, the same speed... and with the same accuracy. There simply isnt a reason for two seasons based on just the gun.

The issue I have with forcing things to more primitive means is that incurs more dead-loss from wounded game. Too much of that and you will see more tag restrictions with less animals harvested.

There's no free lunch here, no "silver bullet". Its a complicated issue hence not being addressed before now. IDK what the technology group will recommend. There wasn't a noticeable uptick in harvest rates when ML scope power restrictions were removed, IDK what moving it back to 1x might accomplish.

Same with bow restrictions, what really can you do to make a difference without causing more wounded game?

-DallanC


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

DallanC said:


> What
> 
> 
> What advantage do you think a open sights inline has over a open sight sidelock? I mean I rebarreled my Hawkin 25 years ago with a fast twist 1/28 "Sabot barrel", and I have a 209 primer adapter. You think its inferior to a inline? How? They shoot the same projectile, the same speed... and with the same accuracy. There simply isnt a reason for two seasons based on just the gun.
> ...


Okay, flinters only then! And yes, a higher wound rate is a consideration with more primitive gear. Is it enough to mean more animals killed overall? Who even knows?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> There wasn't a noticeable uptick in harvest rates when ML scope power restrictions were removed, IDK what moving it back to 1x might accomplish.


I actually went and tabulated the data for every unit in the state, and you are absolutely correct. I suspect reducing scope power back to 1x will do little to nothing to harvest rates based upon what I learned.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Okay, flinters only then! And yes, a higher wound rate is a consideration with more primitive gear. Is it enough to mean more animals killed overall? Who even knows?


Over 25 years ago TC came out with the "Black Mountain Magnum" flintlock. It was specifically designed to shoot pyrodex pellets, sabots, had fiber optic sights, composite stock and a special flint system that was extremely reliable in dry conditions. Does that sound primitive to you?

Look, I'm not trying to be overly difficult but the line has been so blurred with smokepole technology that its incredibly hard to "draw a line" with respect to creating different systems under the guise of one method is more primitive than an other.

Honestly, and I've said this for 30 years now... the biggest revolution in muzzleloading rifles were the advent of high tensile strength coil springs. Before that everything was flat spring, and it used cast iron springs that frequently broke, got out of alignment... and had all kinds of issues. But find any replica that is based on those primitive metals and spring types. There isn't any.

White was turning out muzzleloader barrels on there multi million $$$ CNC machines, and those barrels went on both inline and sidelock actions. There just isn't a difference anymore in terms of performance. Both types are so far advanced over the weapons they try to emulate its ridiculous.

The only ML rule changes to limit performance that would make sense is requiring iron sights, full bore projectiles, loose black powder of pyrodex substitutes, and exposed ignition. That would really limit things... but guess what, I have rifles that currently shoot amazingly well with all of those things. It wouldn't impact me in the slightest, nor would it change my harvest rate. I'll bet I'm far from the only one as well... so again, why bother with the changing the regulations.

-DallanC


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

The reality of it is, no matter the restrictions they deem necessary, the guys who know what they are doing will always find a way to be successful. The guys who always kill with a bow, will still kill with a bow. The guys who always kill with a muzzleloader, will always kill with a muzzleloader. The size of animals they do kill might vary from year to year with new restrictions, but that’s about it. And anything gained by such restrictions will be wiped out by rifle hunters, winter, drought, predators, old age, or a combination of all of it. You’ll still have your guys that get stupid lucky and kill every now and then. You’ll still have your guys who never kill anything. The technology used won’t change that. It’s not the weapon used, it’s the guy holding it. You could tie one to a tree, tell them the general area it’s in, and some guys will still not be able to kill it with the most advanced technological weapon available. It’s just how it is. This whole thing is stupid. We didn’t go from 25% success across the board with 1x scopes to 90% success with magnified scopes. It stayed relatively the same the entire time. Ups and downs depending on the year. It’s been that way through all the harvest data I’ve seen going back for years, way before scopes were allowed. With tag increases and decreases, it’s all been close to the same. A change isn’t warranted biologically. Socially? That’s all this is. That should be the last thing considered when managing wildlife and the methods used to do so. Guys want LE quality on GS units and weapon restrictions is what they think the right answer is now. 

the does available on the landscape are being bred. There’s plenty of bucks post hunt to accommodate that need. As long as that’s being done, I don’t see anything changing drastically until we can figure out how to make bucks give birth or get more does on the ground. Until then your pizzin in the wind on a hot day, enjoying the cool mist on your face.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

The arguments you guys have given me for my proposal are thoughts that were already floating around in my head, so yes, I don't disagree that it is flawed. I am mainly trying to create more opportunities for myself to hunt with a recurve. Self-serving interests? In this day and age?!?!?!

Anyway, the whole thing is a mess. One guy proposes an idea and 10 guys tell him why it won't work. Another guy proposes an idea and yet another guy says, "whoa! Put that manifesto away, comrade!" Just a great big fuster cluck. The optimists in the room can say the glass is half full, the pessimists in the room will say it is half empty, the realists are gonna say this glass is full of pi$$!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

colorcountrygunner said:


> The arguments you guys have given me for my proposal are thoughts that were already floating around in my head, so yes, I don't disagree that it is flawed. I am mainly trying to create more opportunities for myself to hunt with a recurve. Self-serving interests? In this day and age?!?!?!
> 
> Anyway, the whole thing is a mess. One guy proposes an idea and 10 guys tell him why it won't work. Another guy proposes an idea and yet another guy says, "whoa! Put that manifesto away, comrade!" Just a great big fuster cluck. The optimists in the room can say the glass is half full, the pessimists in the room will say it is half empty, the realists are gonna say this glass is full of pi$$!


Not only pizz, but cat pizz. And has been for some time now. Yet the cat keep pizzin and dudes still keep takin sips thinking the flavor will magically change


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

The way I see it when it comes to putting in for OIL and the more heavily subscribed to LE hunts with our current system it already is a random draw for all but a minute percentage of the top point holders. If we move to a full random draw it merely turns it into a true random draw for all those people and gives them only slightly to infinitesimally better draw odds while giving the top point holders a wicked springboard mushroom stamp across the face. It doesn't really matter what we do, minus the tiny number of top point holders we are all playing the Powerball at this point. 

Anyone wanna go shoot some piggies off a feeder in Texas with me?


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

*Anyone wanna go shoot some piggies off a feeder in Texas with me?*

You driving or flying to Texas?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Anyone wanna go shoot some piggies off a feeder in Texas with me?


Add whitetails and turkeys, and I’m in!


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> *Anyone wanna go shoot some piggies off a feeder in Texas with me?*
> 
> You driving or flying to Texas?


My brother in Christ, with the cost of fuel and airfare these days I am probably walking to Texas!


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> Add whitetails and turkeys, and I’m in!


Might as well round it out with some javies and nilgai.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Might as well round it out with some javies and nilgai.


I wanna kill a javi soooooo bad. It’s higher on my list than anything else at the moment haha


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

MooseMeat said:


> I wanna kill a javi soooooo bad. It’s higher on my list than anything else at the moment haha


Those skunkpigs are a lot of fun!


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Mmmm chorizo!


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

My wife has whacked a couple down on the San Carlos Apache reservation down in Arizona from when she would go there with her grandpa as a kid. We talked about going down and doing it ourselves, but never quite get around to it. Her grandpa's friend who got them started hunting down there said drought or flood or some kind of calamity has taken a toll on the place and the little baztards are few and far between now.


----------

