# Drawing Odds Discussion.....



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I want to debunk a myth today. I invite mathematicians, statisticians, scholars or your next door neighbor who is really smart to tell me I'm wrong and prove it.

The myth that I would like to debunk is the myth that by changing our point/draw system we can improve permit drawing odds for hunters and relieve pressure on general units from a reduction in hunters and so on.... To kick off the conversation I have a question.

Which system gives hunters better drawing odds?

System # 1 
Number of hunters applying is 100
Number of tags available is 80 
Rules: There are 4 hunts. 20 permits in each hunt. All hunters can apply for all for hunts but a hunter may only draw one tag. Drawing odds look like this:

Hunt 001 - 100 applicants, 20 tags, 1 in 5 draw
Hunt 002 - 100 applicants, 20 tags, 1 in 5 draw
Hunt 003 - 100 applicants, 20 tags, 1 in 5 draw
Hunt 004 - 100 applicants, 20 tags, 1 in 5 draw

System # 2 
Number of hunters applying is 100
Number of tags available is 80 
Rules: There are 4 hunts. 20 permits in each hunt. Hunters may only apply for one hunt. Draw odds look like this:

Hunt 001 - 25 applicants, 20 tags, 4 in 5 draw
Hunt 002 - 25 applicants, 20 tags, 4 in 5 draw
Hunt 003 - 25 applicants, 20 tags, 4 in 5 draw
Hunt 004 - 25 applicants, 20 tags, 4 in 5 draw

Again which system gives an individual hunter better odds at drawing a tag?

I do have a bigger point here....but I'll make it after some conversation.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well, in system one you'd have 100 trying to draw 001, 80 drawing 002, 60 trying for 003, etc..... 

And--- well you list that there are only 80 tags yet there are 5 hunt options with 20 tags each so that equals 100 tags so everyone gets a tag under each scenario! That sounds GREAT!


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

well currently your math is off. you said there are 4 hunts for 80 tags... right now you have 5 hunts for 100 tags...


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

If you add up the total number of hunters in system 2 its actually 125. Also, if you add the total number of tags in System 1 it is 100. So System 1 overall results is going to be 100 out of 100, or 100% and system 2 is 4/5 or 80 percent. I think you need to change your numbers so the two systems can be better compared side by side.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Got carried away with the cut and paste....look again.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Bullsnot we be but humble hunters... I read your story problem twice and I got nothin.

You are making this harder than it needs to be. By changeing the draw/application system so you could only apply for one type of hunt you WILL improve the draw odds for both GS and LE hunts. That is a fact.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

For scenario one you have to factor in that each level looses 20 applicants due to them already having a tag.
Scenario 1-
001- odds are 1 in 5
002- odds are 1 in 4
003- odds are 1 in 3
004- odds are 1 in 2


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10000ft. said:


> You are making this harder than it needs to be. By changeing the draw/application system so you could only apply for one type of hunt you WILL improve the draw odds for both GS and LE hunts. That is a fact.


10k sorry my friend but that's simply not the case. Applying for more than one hunt at lower odds give you the same chance of drawing some sort of tag than applying for one hunt at better odds.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Packout said:


> For scenario one you have to factor in that each level looses 20 applicants due to them already having a tag.
> Scenario 1-
> 001- odds are 1 in 5
> 002- odds are 1 in 4
> ...


I understand the concept but I don't think that's how the division reports the odds to us. They only check if someone has drawn something else AFTER they pull their name out of the hat. At least that's how I understand it.

Heck it doesn't matter....you could report it either way. Actually this kind of lends itself to this consversation...all this odds stuff is just numbers. People need to really understand what would REALLY change with this system.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

It has nothing to do with math, the odds are always against me.. :|


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Mull this over. I hope my math is consistent. If not let me know:

Comparison of 2 hypothetical draw systems:
Bonus points are left out of the equation for simplicity's sake. Comparing 4 general and 4 LE units with fabricated tag numbers and application numbers. Each unit has equal number of tags within each category. Percent of Total applying population is consistent between the two systems.

*Utah's current system* is pretty complicated but goes something like this (simplified version)

*Limited Entry Unit Breakdown* - this happens before the General draw so it removes 100 hunters from the general hunt pool:

1000 hunters
100 tags

4 LE units for simplicities sake. Same number of tags per unit (25)

Unit LE_001: Very popular: 60% of hunters apply for it: 25 tags/600 hunters = 4.2%
Unit LE_002: 20% of hunters apply for this tag: 25 tags/200 hunters = 12.5%
Unit LE_003: 15% of hunters apply for this tag: 25 tags/150 hunters = 16.7%
Unit LE_004: 5% of hunters apply for this tag: 25 tags/50 hunters = 50%

*General Season Breakdown* - happens after the LE draw but the same hunters are applying for these tags as well.

The 900 leftover hunters who didn't draw LE tags
800 general season tags
100 LE tags

Unit 001: 40% of hunters apply for this unit (first choice), there are 200 tags = 200/360 = 55% success. 160 people didn't draw

Unit 002: 30% of hunters apply for this unit (first choice), there are also 200 tags = 200/270 = 74% success. 70 people didn't draw

Unit 003: 20% of hunters apply for this unit (first choice), there are also 200 tags = 200/180 = 100% success plus 20 leftover tags

Unit 004: 10% of hunters apply for this unit (first choice), there are also 200 tags = 200/90 = 100% success plus 110 leftover tags.

2nd choice drawing would be the remaining 230 people competing for 130 remaining tags so 56% of them would draw leaving 100 people without tags.

*A proposed Combined Points system:*

Now for a revised system with combined points. This is strictly hypothetical and I don't know how this would work out but we know some people are going to stick with LE hunts, let's say its only 30 percent that stick with LE - the rest want to hunt every year.

1000 total hunters, 300 will go after LE tags tag numbers and application trends remain the same.

*LE Unit Breakdown:*

300 hunters
100 tags

4 LE units for simplicities sake. Same number of tags per unit (25)

Unit LE_001: Very popular: 60% of hunters apply for it: 25 tags/180 hunters = 13.8%
Unit LE_002: 20% of hunters apply for this tag: 25 tags/60 hunters = 41.6%
Unit LE_003: 15% of hunters apply for this tag: 25 tags/45 hunters = 55.6%
Unit LE_004: 5% of hunters apply for this tag: 25 tags/15 hunters = 100% With 10 leftover tags available for sale or a leftover drawing

*General Season Breakdown* - happens after the LE draw but the same hunters are applying for these tags as well.

The 700 leftover hunters who opted to apply for a general season hunt.
800 general season tags

Unit 001: 40% of hunters apply for this unit (first choice), there are 200 tags = 200/280 = 71% success. 80 people didn't draw

Unit 002: 30% of hunters apply for this unit (first choice), there are also 200 tags = 200/210 = 95% success. 10 people didn't draw

Unit 003: 20% of hunters apply for this unit (first choice), there are also 200 tags = 200/140 = 100% success plus 60 leftover tags

Unit 004: 10% of hunters apply for this unit (first choice), there are also 200 tags = 200/70 = 100% success plus 130 leftover tags.

2nd choice drawing would be the remaining 90 people competing for 190 remaining tags so 100% of them would draw leaving 100 tags available to over the counter purchase by the 300 who opted to only hunt LE.

I realize that this scenario isn't "real life", But with just 3 out of 10 people wanting a "trophy hunt" it really changes the dynamics of the drawing odds using the same number of tags and the same number of total hunters/applicants. I don't see how this is a bad system. It will help drawing odds in every case because we will see people sitting on the sidelines Choosing to not hunt. When people get to choose that they arent' hunting they will be happier than being forced to not hunt because they can't draw a tag.

Its a Win/Win/Win IMO.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I've said it before that twice the odds at half the opportunity doesn't change anything but I see what you're saying now sv. Like 10000 ft your point is you must choose to either be a "trophy" hunter or an "opportunity" hunter?

So I guess my bigger point is do we really want to encourage a CLEAR separation between "opportunity" hunters and "trophy" hunters? Is that really a good thing to have to choose which one you are? Heck how many of you could be labled as one or the other?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> I want to debunk a myth today. I invite mathematicians, statisticians, scholars or your next door neighbor who is really smart to tell me I'm wrong and prove it.
> 
> The myth that I would like to debunk is the myth that by changing our point/draw system we can improve permit drawing odds for hunters and relieve pressure on general units from a reduction in hunters and so on.... To kick off the conversation I have a question.
> 
> ...


The odds in your ideal systems are the same! In system #1, you have 4 chances to draw 1 of the 80 tags available in 4 hunts. That's a 1/20 ratio. In system #2 you have only 1 chance to draw 1 of the 20 tags in a specific hunt. That's also a 1/20 ratio. And since the tag to application ratio is the same in both systems (80/100 & 20/25) , the odds are the same.

The problem with reality is that we don't know from year to year what the tag to application ratio is or will be, especially once we go the 30 unit system. And we have to remember that some of those 30 units are still GS and some are LE. And we'll still have 3 seasons to apply for. The only ways to increase your odds are to stay away from CWMU units, popular units and units with lots of public land, and by applying for archery or muzzy tags, and with lots of luck trying to outguess all the other Utards.

FWIW, these same odds apply to the OIL systems of our surrounding states vs. Utah's. In Utah, you're allowed to apply for and draw only 1 OIL species per year. In EVERY ONE of our surrounding states, residents are allowed to apply for ALL OIL species every year. Their odds of drawing a tag for any _specific_ OIL species are higher than ours, but the odds of drawing a tag for _some_ OIL species is the same or better than ours. We're the only western state (and maybe the only state in the US.) that limits applications.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> I've said it before that twice the odds at half the opportunity doesn't change anything but I see what you're saying now sv. Like 10000 ft your point is you must choose to either be a "trophy" hunter or an "opportunity" hunter?
> 
> So I guess my bigger point is do we really want to encourage a CLEAR separation between "opportunity" hunters and "trophy" hunters? Is that really a good thing to have to choose which one you are? Heck how many of you could be labled as one or the other?


I see no problem in doing that. Some people are elk hunters, some are deer hunters. Most would shoot a trophy over a smaller buck if they were standing side by side. I don't see it as a seperation, rather a preference or a choice, which is the whole problem in the first place right? If hunters have a choice, they feel more in control and more satisfied. Isn't that what the DWR is managing for anyway -- hunter experience?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The odds are the same in the 2 systems, that is what I was driving at.

I think my bigger point is it's true that some hunters are only "trophy" hunters and some hunters are only "opportunity" hunters. However I don't think most hunters fall into a category. My point is that creating classes amongst hunters and further dividing is not good. I like the idea of everyone being on the same playing field for all tags. Choosing a species doesn't create "classes" but choosing "trophy" or "opportunity" to me does. It further divides and creates conflicting agendas at RAC and WB meetings.

Colorado's system doesn't do this IMO opinion because you can put an "opportunity" unit as a second choice. That's ok to me. But separating GE and LE hunts and only being able to apply for one is not a healthy direction to me. It's divisive IMO.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I have thought a lot about this lately with the state deer hunts going to the micro units next year. It is my opinion that the entire states deer units, general season and limited entry, should be combined into the same *preference* point based system. I think this is the best way to remedy our current dismal bonus point draw system for LE hunts. Keep the current policy that if you don't draw your first choice you earn a preference point, even if you draw your second choice. This idea, IMO, will separate those who are content waiting years to hunt a premium area, those who would like to hunt a good area every other year, and those who just want to hunt every year; at the same time reducing or eliminating the current (in the words of SW Buckmaster) butt plug of a system we have now. The only problem I foresee is what affect it would have on the LE elk draw. If every deer hunt is based on a preference point system, that would allow hunters currently putting in for LE deer to change and put in for LE elk instead. If the deer units (LE and general season) are cominbed in to the same system, I think that each LE elk choice should be counted as one of your choices on the deer application (could rename it as a "big game" application). This could also increase odds of both deer and elk LE hunts... Otherwise, a ton of hunters that have been putting in for LE deer would now be freed up to put in for LE elk too, creating even more of a "butt plug" in the elk draw. These are just my thoughts and feelings on the subject.

On a more general note, if you want to increase odds for LE hunts without totally restructuring the system, price is the key. The last thing I want is to make hunting a "rich man's sport", but when a LE tag cost about the same as a general season tag, of course everyone and their dog will put in for the LE. Increase the cost of the tag and the bonus points (i.e. $150 for LE, $300 for premium, $20 for a bonus point), you will see odds increase.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Problem solved! Let's just go back to OTC, first come-first served, with the tag (one per person) bought online with the store/shop computer hookup/code, and let the troops fist fight out in the Walmart parking lot for their place in line!!! That'll separate the real hunters from the wannabe's. It might turn somewhat into a rich man's sport, because the local rich guy can hire the local bouncer to pick up his tag, yet the bouncer would have to bounce a whole bunch more people than he/she (I have to be politically correct) would at the bar, so most of the tags would still go to us common folk. Each hunt would have it's own site and the DWR computer would keep track of the number of tags sold and would shut down each site when the quota was reached. And if we held it on the 4th of July, we'd be off work and done by the time the fireworks started.

OR, we could go to some system much more exotic and complicated than the one we have now and drive away many more hunters who are barely able and/or willing to deal with the nonsense we currently have, and our odds of drawing could go way up. But no matter what we come up with there will be those who will figure out a way to beat the system to their advantage, so maybe our odds will just stay the same or get worse.


----------



## Fritz (Mar 1, 2011)

I like the Walmart idea! My wife is the ultimate Black Friday shopper. I would just need to bring her along and I would be hunting the Henry's every year. Out of the way boys!
:O--O--O:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

One way that I personally believe would drop the number of applicants on any and all of the hunts is to require payment up front again along with the application fee. A lot of states do it this way and I imagine that the interest that they make off of the money while it sits in the states bank accounts would make up for the lost applicants. This way I don't think that you would have as many hunters putting in grandma and their little sister on the LE and OIL hunts. Perhaps it would swing a lot of them back into the general deer hunt but who knows. Also let the residents of Utah put in for any and all hunts that they can afford like a non-resident can.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

As an engineer and analytical brain guy i completely understand bullsnots scenarios. I agree that changing the system doesn't change the odds. The overall odds remain the same. The specific hunts do change. In the end you are still dividing X amount of tags amount Y amount of hunters. The monster is in the details.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I want to debunk a myth today. I invite mathematicians, statisticians, scholars or your next door neighbor who is really smart to tell me I'm wrong and prove it.
> 
> The myth that I would like to debunk is the myth that by changing our point/draw system we can improve permit drawing odds for hunters and relieve pressure on general units from a reduction in hunters and so on.... To kick off the conversation I have a question.
> 
> ...


Bullsnot,

I appreciate your example, but it does not effectively represent the situation in Utah for a few reasons.

1st, there are not equal odds of drawing all permits.
2nd, LE permits currently equal about 1% of of the total tags allotted.
3rd, it's not about changing the overall odds. 100 applicants for 80 tags will always result in the same odds regardless of how you divvy them up. It's about giving hunters the best odds of drawing the type of hunt they prefer as a 1st choice.

This will oversimplify the issue, but given those two factors, let's look at the math this way. I will use Utah numbers as closely as possible.

100 applicants applying for 80 tags.

Current:

LE
100 applicants for 1 tag = 1% odds

Gen (99 applicants remain for 79 tags)
14 applicants for 23 tags = 100% odds w/ 9 left over
14 applicants for 11 tags = 79% odds
18 applicants for 15 tags = 83% odds
16 applicants for 14 tags = 86% odds
37 applicants for 16 tags = 43% odds

Now let's assume that we change it so that there is only one point system and all tags are drawn under one system. I will assume 50% of the applicants choose to apply for what are currently LE tags (I have no idea what the real number would be, this is illustrative only). It would now look like this.

50 applicants for 1 tag = 2% odds
7 applicants for 23 tags = 100% odds w/ 16 left over
7 applicants for 11 tags = 100% odds w/ 4 left over
9 applicants for 15 tags = 100% odds w/ 6 left over
8 applicants for 14 tags = 100% odds w/ 6 left over
19 applicants for 16 tags = 84% odds

In each scenario 20% of the population will not be able to hunt. However, under the second scenario the odds of drawing what is currently an LE tag doubled albeit the odds are still bad. For those who are happy with what is currently a general season tag, odds have improved to 100% in all but the southern region and the odds have improved there from 43% to 84%.

This scenario also leaves 32 tags that may be distributed as 2nd choice tags or over-the-counter sales on a first come first served basis.

While ultimately the same number of hunters will be in the field, this type of distribution system causes us to consider what type of hunt we prefer and allows us to make that our first choice. If we fail to get our first choice there may still be a chance of getting an opportunity to hunt but only after all those who have forgone their opportunity to pursue deer on "higher quality" units.

Given the recent changes in Utah's management this type of system becomes even more effective as management can allow for opportunities at both extremes as well as everything in between.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Dahlmer said:


> Bullsnot,
> 
> I appreciate your example, but it does not effectively represent the situation in Utah for a few reasons.
> 
> ...


It's amazing how simple we all make this sound when in reality we are simply making it much, much more complicated, especially with a single point system! I have a grandson who is almost 9 and who loves to hunt with his grandpa and his mom. The point is that I'm currently a trophy deer hunter, but once I get a P&Y deer (I only need 1) or he becomes old enough to hunt, I'll become an opportunity hunter. So what would happen to my LE points if I apply for a GS tag? Could I set them aside and try for a GS tag with no points or would I be forced to use them on the GS tag? And would 50% of the tags in each unit go to the applicants with the highest points, regardless of whether they were originally LE points or GS points? And would we combine the points for a total?
And would the points be used only for our 1st choice, but not our 2nd, 3rd, 4th......30th? And could we mix the LE and GS choices any way we wanted without losing our points except for the 1st choice, even if we were to draw an LE unit as our 2nd choice? And if I draw my 1st choice LE tag and use all my points and 50% of all the hunters continue to apply for 1st choice LE tags, and I continue to be a trophy hunter, how many years before I draw another LE tag? And the big question! How does this draw system help the deer herds???


----------



## creature22 (Jul 25, 2011)

Well if the math were right. all I gather from this is looks like you have it wrong and backwards. option 2 would never be 4/5 odds if you could only apply for 1 hunt. you would never get 20 people to apply for each hunt. some hunts would be like 1/10 odds, while other hunts would be 100% odds (which would be areas that are almost all private lands that restrict the public). with your first option, if it is like you wrote it and each hunter can only draw 1 tag. odds would always be 4/5 if you put in for all hunts. you must have stayed up too late trying to figure this out.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Math makes my head hurt!!! -)O(-


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I am trying to figure out what bullsnot and some of you are missing in your math and I think some of you are forgetting, IF YOU EVEN PUT IN FOR LE AND DON'T DRAW YOU CAN NOT APPLY FOR A GS HUNT (or vis versa). 

The odds will improve if people like me who are currently both hunting the GS every year and putting in for LE can only apply for one. If I only do one or the other that frees up a GS tag or improves the draw odds for some LE applicant. 

Also I'm offended that I wouldn't be considered a "Trophy Hunter" for the years I would choose to hunt GS. All the real trophy hunters I know choose to persue trophy animals every year on the GS (and are often succesful) rather than feel there only chance at a trophy animal will be on a high fence type hunt ever ten to twenty years.

I mean lets be honest, LE units and high fence hunts have a lot of similarities.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

stillhunterman said:


> Math makes my head hurt!!! -)O(-


IMO, that's the whole point to these changes and proposed changes! Once you get to where you have too much difficulty figuring this all out, you, like a lot of people already, will give it up and increase the odds of those who stay! The WB (and some of you) is doing everything they can to bring the youth (especially the archers) through the front door, only to kick them out the back door when they turn 19!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

If there is a way to screw it up sfw/dwr will find away to do it and make it harder for the average family guy that wants to hunt.

Right now you have to throw in the lifetime licenses into the odds mix. Once you do that those guys will totally stuff up any good general season area with their every year chance. Further plugging up the system. 

As far as I can tell its a SNAFU!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*I KNOW YOU ARE ALL SICK OF STORY PROBLEMS but just give this one a chance...*

Utah has *220* hunters.

We have *180 GS *tags and *20 LE *tags.

If all hunters apply for a GS tag and LE tag *11%* (20) of hunters would draw a LE tag and of the remaining 200 hunters *90%* (180)would draw a GS hunt.

*IF YOU COULD ONLY APPLY FOR ONE HUNT.... *

*50* hunters choose not to hunt GS and apply for a LE point. Of the* 50 *the top *40%* with the most points draw (I think all tags should go to max point holders) the 20 LE tags.

The remaining *170* hunters all draw a GS tag leaving* 10 *tags undrawn. These tags go unused and buck doe ratios improve on the GS units and reduce the number of hunters in the field.

As a hunter under this draw system over a ten year time period I could hunt the GS 7 years and Apply for LE 3 of the years and draw a LE tag on that third year.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Besides, its just an idea at this point. Who knows if any changes will ever be made. 

Combining point pools simply allows hunters to choose a unit that they want to use their points on to hunt. If it takes 15 points to draw the henries, then they wait 15 years and draw the henries, if it takes 3 points to hunt one of the new subunits that were considered General Season historically, then they can use 3 points to draw that tag. Points are spent if you draw your first choice hunt. There's bound to be some leftovers, and everyone that didn't draw their first choice would be put in for their second/third/fourth choices accordingly. There's bound to be some leftover tags after everyone's applied for their first choice - just like we see currently in the Northern region. If someone put in for the henries as a first choice, but wanted to hunt any unit if they could draw their second, they would be smart to choose a unit that typically goes undersubscribed as a first choice and they would have a chance at drawing it as a second choice and not affect their points.

This is how it works in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico...etc. 

I think it makes the whole system much more simple to combine the points. It might take someone about 10 minutes to sit down and understand it - and to those who apply in other states it will be easy to understand. 

I like the idea and I do feel like it will INCREASE odds of drawing tags - by eliminating applicants who were previously double-dipping into Limited Entry and General Season hunts.



Its the lifetime license holders that make things a little more complicated - but Packout has the right idea IMO.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

svmoose said:


> Combining point pools simply allows hunters to choose a unit that they want to use their points on to hunt.


Now hold on....you've said two different things in this thread. Combining points pools is NOT the same as making a hunter choose between applying ONLY for a LE or a GE season tag.

I'm fine with combining the points pools. It would have very litte effect on our overall experience in drawing a tag other than to simplify things a bit. You have the option to put an LE tag as your first choice and a GE tag as your second. I'm fine with that system.

The problem I have is the idea that hunters should only be able to apply for a general hunt or an LE hunt. That's divisive and not ok to me.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

creature22 said:


> Well if the math were right. all I gather from this is looks like you have it wrong and backwards.


The scenarios that I posed were intended to show that you could devise 2 different points systems that show completely different odds in drawing a singular hunt however at the end of the day the same amount of hunters get the same amount of tags. I think I was successful in that point. The numbers are right.

Obviously the real world isn't so simple however the concept still applies. You can manulipulate the system in different ways to "change" the odds but at the end of the day you have the same amount of hunters going after the same amount of tags. You can fiddle with it so that you can make one hunt (or several) easier to draw. But since you have the same amount of hunters going after the same amount of tags if you make one hunt, or many hunts, easier to draw mathematically you make others harder to draw so you have essentially gained nothing.

Critter - I understand that by charging up front you would discourage hunters from applying. I think you are just solving one problem by creating another. While making odds lower would be nice, I do not see the long term benefits of discouring hunters from applying. Hunter recruiment is something that Utah is trying to improve.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> You can manulipulate the system in different ways to "change" the odds but at the end of the day you have the same amount of hunters going after the same amount of tags. You can fiddle with it so that you can make one hunt (or several) easier to draw. But since you have the same amount of hunters going after the same amount of tags if you make one hunt, or many hunts, easier to draw mathematically you make others harder to draw so you have essentially gained nothing.


You are still missing one main point--if you stopped allowing deer hunters to apply for both a GS and a LE tag, you would essentially decrease the number of applicants and therefore increase the overall odds of drawing a deer tag. As is, some applicants are applying for two different tags.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Hunter recruiment is something that Utah is trying to improve.


So probably a stupid question from a normal guy who loves the GS deer hunt and didn't agree with tag cuts:

Why are they worried about deer hunter recruiment while at the same time reducing general season deer tags?

It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that they are worried about deer hunter recruiment when tags are being reduced (unless they are creating more demand to drive the price up). Maybe you mean they are trying to increase hunter recruiment in other species hunts/upland game (elk I gues would be the main one I can think of).


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

10000ft. said:


> I am trying to figure out what bullsnot and some of you are missing in your math and I think some of you are forgetting, IF YOU EVEN PUT IN FOR LE AND DON'T DRAW YOU CAN NOT APPLY FOR A GS HUNT (or vis versa).
> 
> The odds will improve if people like me who are currently both hunting the GS every year and putting in for LE can only apply for one. If I only do one or the other that frees up a GS tag or improves the draw odds for some LE applicant.
> 
> ...


It may increase the odds of drawing a deer tag, but will decrease the odds of drawing an LE elk or pronghorn tag because we'll be pushed much more into other species hunts. And, I, for one, didn't forget that we're allowed to apply for one or the other IN ANY ONE YEAR, but if we combine/mix points, change our minds about LE or GS from year to year, draw 2nd choices, switch weapons or move to another unit, all bets are off on the odds!

And I too currently am a "trophy hunter" hunting GS units and we're not labeling you or me one or the other, but it's a pretty sure thing that those who apply for LE units are indeed trophy hunters and that's where the division comes from. The current changes are creating the divisions. Many of us believe those trophy hunters definately have their place and should have a say in the management of the system. We just don't think they should continue to run the system as they have been for many years. Forcing us to make a choice on LE or GS and combining points makes their odds better and that's what they are after.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> So probably a stupid question from a normal guy who loves the GS deer hunt and didn't agree with tag cuts:
> 
> Why are they worried about deer hunter recruiment while at the same time reducing general season deer tags?
> 
> It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that they are worried about deer hunter recruiment when tags are being reduced (unless they are creating more demand to drive the price up). Maybe you mean they are trying to increase hunter recruiment in other species hunts/upland game (elk I gues would be the main one I can think of).


The "they" needs to be clarified. Remember, tag cuts and the switch to unit-based hunting was dictated by the WB and not necessarily the DWR. "They", the DWR, are worried about hunter recruitment...but, I don't think the WB as a whole and SFW are.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10000ft. said:


> The remaining *170* hunters all draw a GS tag leaving* 10 *tags undrawn. These tags go unused and buck doe ratios improve on the GS units and reduce the number of hunters in the field.


So under your system if someone applies for an LE tag you could not go buy a leftover general tag after the draw?

I understand your system but given the number of hunters and the recently cut 13,000 tags I don't envision a scenario where tags will go unsold after the draw. I think demand is simply too high.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > You can manulipulate the system in different ways to "change" the odds but at the end of the day you have the same amount of hunters going after the same amount of tags. You can fiddle with it so that you can make one hunt (or several) easier to draw. But since you have the same amount of hunters going after the same amount of tags if you make one hunt, or many hunts, easier to draw mathematically you make others harder to draw so you have essentially gained nothing.
> ...


No, you are not increasing the overall odds of drawing a tag. By limiting your application to one or the other, you now have only one chance to draw a tag instead of two.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

But you are decreasing the number of applicants for the same number of tags....

Let's put it this way: In the current system, you may have 100 total applicants. OF that 100, 50 could put in for an LE hunt as well as the General hunt. So, overall, you would have 100 applicants applying for the limited GS tags and 50 applying for the limited LE tags (or, essentially 150 total applicants). If you did not allow all applicants to double-dip, your 100 applicants would have to choose between LE and GS...so, if 25 of the 50 applicants above decided to apply for LE and forego their chance at a GS tag, you would improve the odds at drawing the limited number of LE tags. At the same time, you would have 25 fewer applicants applying for the limited number of GS tags...thus improving the odds of drawing the general tags as well.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > So probably a stupid question from a normal guy who loves the GS deer hunt and didn't agree with tag cuts:
> ...


W2U

I understand that and was very ticked off when I listened to the decision on my computer. However, when it comes to "Deer Hunting" it seems that still focusing on "hunter recruitment" would be counter-productive of the WB's mandate with the new plan? I'd really like to have kept things like they were, but until we can get things changed the plan is stuck. I'm definetly not saying we should limit hunter recruitment, but saying that it is something to improve seems like trying to shove Count Rugen's six fingers into a five finger glove (Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. :mrgreen: I love that movie)


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> 10000ft. said:
> 
> 
> > The remaining *170* hunters all draw a GS tag leaving* 10 *tags undrawn. These tags go unused and buck doe ratios improve on the GS units and reduce the number of hunters in the field.
> ...


It is unknown how many would opt out of the GS hunt for a LE point so who knows how many tags would go undrawn if any. That is why I have said "potentially" GS hunters could hunt every year. Tags left over or not the GS units should be manage for maximum opportunity (12-15/bucks to 100 doe) and that just happens to be the ratio that will fastest grow a heard of animals allowing for the maximum number of animals to be does that will fawn. I guess I am not opposed to tags selling over the counter that go undrawn as long as hunters who applied for a LE point were not eligable.

I know it sounds like I have a personal vendeta against LE applicants but I beleive this system would put the LOST OPPORTUNITY where it belongs, on the hunters who want to reduce hunter opportubnity in a given area to increase buck/bull ratios. For the record, I could see building points towards LE one out of five years.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

I see we're back to "simplifying" the system... O*-- 

Thank god most of my hunting in this state is behind me (which statistically WILL improve somebody's odds, for a minute anyway...).


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Also...

Regarding *One point system * vs. *One application for either LE or GS *I would take the LE or GS.

This is why.

With one point system the powers that be will always be lobbying to cut tags and increase buck to do ratios.

In a choose GS or LE system the GS tags would always be determined each year based on allowing the maximuim number of hunters to hunt while maintaining a minimum of 12-15 bucks to 100 does. There would be years that certain units would climb above this ratio and more tags could be alloted the following year. If they continually went un sold eventually hunters will go to where people are having greater success and so the cycle goes.

The LE units will still be lobbyed as they are now to further reduce opportunity in the name of higher buck/bull ratios but at least the GS hunts would not be protected from this. At some point even LE hunter will need to say enough is enough! The general season guys our out having a great time each year and the wild life board and their buddies keep reducing tags!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> You are still missing one main point--if you stopped allowing deer hunters to apply for both a GS and a LE tag, you would essentially decrease the number of applicants and therefore increase the overall odds of drawing a deer tag. As is, some applicants are applying for two different tags.


This is the very concept I proved in my first post. You are in fact NOT deacreasing the number of applicants. You are decreasing the number of applications. But since each applicant can only get one tag you DO NOT improve anyone's overall odds. This is the very point I made in my first post. You have the same amount of hunters going after the same amount of tags in both systems and each hunter can only draw one tag.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

10000ft. said:


> It is unknown how many would opt out of the GS hunt for a LE point so who knows how many tags would go undrawn if any.


It is my beliefe that the LE tags would see a reduction in applicants. I think most hunters want the opportunity to hunt every year. The fact that most of us apply for LE tags is because we can also apply for a GS tag. I for one would not apply for an LE tag if it meant that the GS was not an option after applying for LE. Based on this if only 50% of hunters stop applying for LE and apply for GS the odds of drawing GS just shot up. Probability and Statistics are a BEE-OTCH. Especially to most of the general population that do not understand it's not just about numbers of tags and numbers of hunters. Hunter psycology and mindset affect the draw odd more most people realize. Even those that are suposedly *THE PROs* are left scratching their heads after implementing something and not seeing the results they expected.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> svmoose said:
> 
> 
> > Combining point pools simply allows hunters to choose a unit that they want to use their points on to hunt.
> ...


I've been saying the same thing the whole time. Combine LE and General hunts point pools. It doesn't matter if you call one LE and one General, each unit is a distinct geographic area. When you apply for one unit as a first choice, you can't apply for another unit as a first choice. There's no need to designate a unit as LE or General. They're all combined, those that go undersubscribed move into the second choice drawing to those who chose that unit.

So essentially what you're saying I said as 2 different things are the same thing. If someone puts in for a unit that used to be a LE unit, then that's their choice. If someone puts in for a unit that used to be a general unit, that's their first choice.

They are all deer hunts, not seperated into LE and General because the are all Limited Entry - and already have been for several years. By Limited Entry -- I mean not OTC - you can't just go buy one.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> You are in fact NOT deacreasing the number of applicants. You are decreasing the number of applications. But since each applicant can only get one tag you DO NOT improve anyone's overall odds.


To a statistitian these are words of logic and reason (BTW I barely passed Prob & Stat). the data sample doesn't change. The only thing that changes are the affecting variables within the sample.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10000ft. said:


> With one point system the powers that be will always be lobbying to cut tags and increase buck to do ratios.


You have a very valid point here. In fact it has already happened to a certain degree. In fact some of my comrades may even agree with you wholeheartedly based on this point alone.

After some time though I feel that the divisiveness would be worse under a GE vs LE system. It then becomes a fight of who gets what resources. You will see a "friends of LE units" type of situation where they'll lobby for more dollars to be allocated to LE units and taken from GE units and vice versa. As it sits now most hunters are both LE and GE hunters, they are just deer hunters, so this situation just doesn't exist to a large extent.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

svmoose said:


> I've been saying the same thing the whole time. Combine LE and General hunts point pools.


Ok fair enough. When I read you're proposed system on page 2 it read differently to me but I'm fine with a combine the points system as long as they take care of the lifetimers. I can live with that. I'm not ok with a system where a hunter must choose either to apply for a GE unit or an LE unit but he/she cannot put both as different choices on their app.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> 10000ft. said:
> 
> 
> > With one point system the powers that be will always be lobbying to cut tags and increase buck to do ratios.
> ...


This would be true accept that you would still have many hunters who participate in both systems. Some because they want to and others because they can't hunt in a given year for one reason or another or they are focusing on helping a younger hunter fill his GS tag.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > You are still missing one main point--if you stopped allowing deer hunters to apply for both a GS and a LE tag, you would essentially decrease the number of applicants and therefore increase the overall odds of drawing a deer tag. As is, some applicants are applying for two different tags.
> ...


That is why I said "essentially". You are decreasing the number of applications and, therefore, "essentially" the applicants. It is simple: Let's put it this way: In the current system, you may have 100 total applicants. OF that 100, 50 could put in for an LE hunt as well as the General hunt. So, overall, you would have 100 applicants applying for the limited GS tags and 50 applying for the limited LE tags (or, essentially 150 total applicants). If you did not allow all applicants to double-dip, your 100 applicants would have to choose between LE and GS...so, if 25 of the 50 applicants above decided to apply for LE and forego their chance at a GS tag, you would improve the odds at drawing the limited number of LE tags. At the same time, you would have 25 fewer applicants applying for the limited number of GS tags...thus improving the odds of drawing the general tags as well.

Explain to my why I am wrong.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I could live with a ONE POINT SYSTEM as long as they designated a large percentage of the units as "maximum opportunity units" and manageed them with a 12-15 buck per 100 doe ratio and made it so if you draw a maximum opportunity unit you do not retain a point for the nex years drawing. Those who are serious about building LE points will not "waist" an application on a maximum opportunity unit.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

+ 10,000 W2utah


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> But since each applicant can only get one tag you DO NOT improve anyone's overall odds.


Sorry, but I am not buying this at all. Look at it this way: My wife puts in for a GS tag virtually every year but never puts in for a LE tag. If you reduced the number of applicants of the General draw by disallowing people to double dip, how would her odds not improve at drawing?

I think you are making the assumption that all applicants are double-dipping--that everyone that applies for a general tag is also applying for a LE tag and vice versa....but that is simply not true.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Is the WB proposing that application for LE hunts and GS hunts become mutually exclusive or that the bonus and preference point systems for deer be combined into one pool? These are very different proposals and while I fully support the second option I am completely opposed to the first. 

Wy2ut, Bullsnot's argument is accurate. You cannot change the odds for an entire population simply by changing the distribution process. However, individuals within the population will experience different odds due to those changes. This scenario has been over simplified for illustrative purposes, there is simply to much data to be able to process for this forum. I've illustrated the odds on page 3 if you are interested.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> In the current system, you may have 100 total applicants. OF that 100, 50 could put in for an LE hunt as well as the General hunt. So, overall, you would have 100 applicants applying for the limited GS tags and 50 applying for the limited LE tags (*or, essentially 150 total applicants*)


The flaw in your thinking there, statistically speaking, is that you do not have 150 applicants. You have 150 applications. That is a big distinction because each applicant can only draw one tag no matter what.

If you take 10 hunters and 8 tags you can give each applicant 50 chances or you can give them 1 chance each to draw and 80% of your hunters will draw a tag under ANY scenario. The only thing you can manipulate under a new system is which 80% of the population draws more often.

That's the point that 10000 ft is making. Even though I don't agree with him his argument is to make it is so general hunters draw more tags and LE hunters draw less tags. LE hunters will get more LE tags but they will get less, if any, GE tags depending on how they choose to put in from year to year.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10000ft. said:


> I could live with a ONE POINT SYSTEM as long as they designated a large percentage of the units as "maximum opportunity units" and manageed them with a 12-15 buck per 100 doe ratio and made it so if you draw a maximum opportunity unit you do not retain a point for the nex years drawing. Those who are serious about building LE points will not "waist" an application on a maximum opportunity unit.


That brings up an interesting point. I'd have to think through that to see how I feel about that.

The scenario I was thinking originally would be you don't lose your points if you don't draw your first choice and you accumulate another but your points only apply to your first choice. That way if you only want to hunt an "opportunity" unit you would probably draw just about every year if you marked that as your first choice since anyone applying for an LE unit will have that as thier second choice. If you don't draw then you'd be all but guaranteed the next year. Does that make sense?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> Is the WB proposing that application for LE hunts and GS hunts become mutually exclusive or that the bonus and preference point systems for deer be combined into one pool? These are very different proposals and while I fully support the second option I am completely opposed to the first.
> 
> Wy2ut, Bullsnot's argument is accurate. You cannot change the odds for an entire population simply by changing the distribution process. However, individuals within the population will experience different odds due to those changes. This scenario has been over simplified for illustrative purposes, there is simply to much data to be able to process for this forum. I've illustrated the odds on page 3 if you are interested.


I don't think Dahlmer and bullsnot are on the same page as I am when it comes to the math. To be honest I don't care about the math. Either of the alternative draw systems described would reduce the wait for a LE tag (GS hunters can't put in for LE under one system or bank a point in the other) and reduce the number of hunters applying for a GS tag. These systems would force people to go without a tag to aquire points where right now all you have to do is pay your $10 application fee to get a point. More hunters would willingly go without a GS tag each year and more hunters would willingly step out of the LE line in a given year.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10000ft. said:


> Either of the alternative draw systems described would reduce the wait for a LE tag (GS hunters can't put in for LE under one system or bank a point in the other) and reduce the number of hunters applying for a GS tag.


You are correct about this part of the equation. I'm just saying I don't think it's right to tell hunters you have to choose to be a part of one program or another. You can do what you had said earlier in this thread and put in for an LE point 1 out of 5 years but in that case you are playing the new system to work the same way the current was does, in a nutshell. What have you gained? Again think like the masses.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Dahlmer said:


> Is the WB proposing that application for LE hunts and GS hunts become mutually exclusive or that the bonus and preference point systems for deer be combined into one pool? These are very different proposals and while I fully support the second option I am completely opposed to the first.


They have not. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if this comes up in the near future. There is A LOT of talk about it and it's my personal belief that most of the talk comes from many people not understanding how the odds really work. I believe that most will come to the same conclusion you have if they understand them.

I believe most people think they'll be able to draw an LE tag in 2 years and then hunt a GE unit every year for five years then draw another LE tag in another 2 years and so on. My larger point is mathematically it won't work that way. Something has to give.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok....I see what you guys are saying. And, you are right. Overall, the odds won't improve; however, the odds do improve for some. Am I right in thinking that the odds for general season hunters would improve because some applications will be taken out of the pool? That is correct, right?

I just think that those who say they are willing to sacrifice opportunity for quality will be putting their money where their mouth is and not be able to put in for both general and LE deer hunts. Then, people like my wife who don't care so much about special hunts, will have a greater opportunity at drawing a general hunt.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

You're right W2U but to me it would make more sense to combine the points systems to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. To me you have 3 categories of hunters in Utah:

1 - Pure opportunity hunters
2 - Pure trophy hunters
3 - Varying degrees of both

I believe the masses fall into category 3 and that's the category the "choose" system hurts the most. The "combine" system helps everyone, if we have to change it at all. The "combine" system gives preference to what ever your first choice is on your application, and that's where you choose what your priority is. A person that is only interested in drawing a GE tag will do so much more often by putting that as their first choice than the person that puts a GE hunt as their second choice every year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Well, I agree and disagree...it all depends on how the units are managed. If there are various types of units with varying levels of opportunity/quality, you could still appease both. For example, you could have premium units, you could have high opportunity units, and you could have units in the middle. So, a premium unit might manage for high buck/doe ratios (45+/100), the next unit would manage for buck/doe ratios say 35-45/100, the next would manage for buck/doe ratios around 25-35, the next would manage for ratios from 15-25. Obviously, the higher the buck/doe ratio the less tags and less opportunity. So, each hunter would pick the type of unit that matches his/her expectations. The units with the least opportunity will also be the most difficult to draw...and vice versa. This is what I would envision with the new unit management....


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm an opportunity hunter who wants a chance at a good LE hunt. If I'm stuck in the middle with points I would have to make a choice to stick with the dream of a LE hunt, and miss out on the opportunity of hunting every year. Once I had my LE hunt I would stick with the GS, and I'm sure that would lighten up the load on LE draws. Not to mention the people who would get discouraged and not even try for LE or even want to hunt at all because of all the red tape.

Someone new to hunting would need a years schooling to know how the system works. Maybe longer, but if they start putting in for LE they will have 15 long years to figure it out.  

If you are new to the system why would you wait for LE when you can hunt every year? This is just making a system that is on the down slide more suited for the elite hunter. $$$

I think most still want the opportunity to hunt every year, but want the chance at a good LE unit while waiting. You will discourage more hunters again.

While your at it make it so you can put in for more than one OIL point/chance a year.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

This whole post is worse then mental masturbation!

After reading it it makes me feel like you just put me on a merry go round and spun it till I passed out and fell off. 

I seriously want to puke!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Why should someone with vested elk points be allowed to put in for any deer hunt when you combine the point system? I can't put in for elk!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Why should someone with vested elk points be allowed to put in for any deer hunt when you combine the point system? I can't put in for elk!


Don't cloud the issue any more :mrgreen: They have to figure out how bad to screw up the hunt drawing on deer before moving on to other species. 

o-||


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Make the whole state LE for deer, like it already is. Some units can be drawn every year, some will take 25 years. Leave the agency part of it to the applicants.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I for one want to thank all you who have participated in this discussion in a civil way. These types of threads in the past have gotten a little out of control (I have been a part of that). I rarely comment on this forum anymore but have been educated and had my opinion on wildlife management change over the years from what many of you have said. I think it is healthy to talk about ways to improve the current system as it is the first step in moving toward future action. 

Sometimes these threads become stail when certain issues have been beat to death and they start to branch out into multiple topics.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

What Tree said--



> Make the whole state LE for deer, like it already is. Some units can be drawn every year, some will take 25 years. Leave the agency part of it to the applicants.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Here is a wild idea. Lets create 4 rifle hunting seasons for deer with XYZ amount of tags for all seasons combined in each of the 30 units. Let the hunter decided if you wants to try the easier but harder to draw tag in November or if he wants to put in for the good weather hunt in early October. 

Wow I just thought of something else. That is what Colorado does now. The system in in place in another state so if you want to check it out it is there. Also it is one point system. Some hunts you can draw every year others it will take you upward of 15-almost 20 years to draw the better tag. If you want to look at the statistics on how this system works they are on the Colorado web site.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Make the whole state LE for deer, like it already is. Some units can be drawn every year, some will take 25 years. Leave the agency part of it to the applicants.


This goes along the same lines as to what I think...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> Here is a wild idea. Lets create 4 rifle hunting seasons for deer with XYZ amount of tags for all seasons combined in each of the 30 units. Let the hunter decided if you wants to try the easier but harder to draw tag in November or if he wants to put in for the good weather hunt in early October.
> 
> Wow I just thought of something else. That is what Colorado does now. The system in in place in another state so if you want to check it out it is there. Also it is one point system. Some hunts you can draw every year others it will take you upward of 15-almost 20 years to draw the better tag. If you want to look at the statistics on how this system works they are on the Colorado web site.


Then you would be reducing the LE/GS tags to probably about 20,000 to 25,000 tags total tags even. People would be complaining that their arent many mature bucks because he would be killing them in November. This would reduce tags even further. Colorado and Utah are very different.

Colorado system isn't growing their deer herds either. I think they made a bad choice when they added the 4th season.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

No, I believe that you could do it with the same amount of tags. It is just that each season will have its restrictions on tag numbers. So the first season will have 200 the second will have 250 the third will have 100 and the fourth will have 10 for an example. That fourth season deer tag is not that easy to draw and 90% of the hunters that will hunt it are holding out for that booner I will agree that the deer herd is hurting here in Colorado as it is in the whole west. Even if you look at the statistics most of Colorado is above the 20 bucks to 100 does and in a lot of areas it is above 30 bucks to 100 does but the herd is falling. As far as the Utah LE hunts just set them up to where it requires 15 points and you can only put in for one season to gain a point. That will separate the trophy hunters and meat hunters. Also if you work it right as I said you can hunt deer every year and gain a point. I now have 16 deer points here in Colorado and have hunter deer every year that I got a point. 

The big problem is that there is something happening to the deer herds and something needs to be done. There are a thousand different ideas on what is happening and just that many people that believe that they have the fix for it.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Packout said:


> *What Tree said*--
> 
> 
> 
> > Make the whole state LE for deer, like it already is. Some units can be drawn every year, some will take 25 years. Leave the agency part of it to the applicants.


Yep...that'll do for the time being. But, I just wish more of a concerted effort could be put forth to benefit the health and growth of the deer herds, instead of so much effort being put towards satiating hunters. Once the herds are in better shape, we can have our cake and eat it too...



Critter said:


> The big problem is that there is something happening to the deer herds and something needs to be done. There are a thousand different ideas on what is happening and just that many people that believe that they have the fix for it.


I fully believe that the western game agencies have a pretty good handle on why the mule deer have declined over the decades, they aren't dummies. Problem is, they are trying to appease a very loud and demonstrative group of hunters who want their cake NOW, though it can only be done at the detriment of the deer herds health and sustainability and through the reduction of general opportunity to hunt yearly. Takes a lot of money and time, and if the game agencies lose their income by reducing tag numbers, they don't have much of a choice but to recoup those losses through conservation tag auctions. It is becoming a vicious, dizzying circle of defeatist circumstances and actions. :roll:


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Let them manage the herds accordingly, but don't let things go in the way of micro-management. If it keeps going the way it is headed it will be sub-units managed to Premium LE Units. Your tag numbers will keep decreasing and your odds of drawing a tag will get much worse. Not to mention the size of the area you will be able to hunt.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

horsesma said:


> Let them manage the herds accordingly, but don't let things go in the way of micro-management. If it keeps going the way it is headed it will be sub-units managed to Premium LE Units. Your tag numbers will keep decreasing and your odds of drawing a tag will get much worse. Not to mention the size of the area you will be able to hunt.


+1


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Make the whole state LE for deer, like it already is. Some units can be drawn every year, some will take 25 years. Leave the agency part of it to the applicants.
> ...


Maybe this is just semantics but this is basically the argument I was making, going to the "combine" system. For some reason I thought, like 10000 ft, you were saying making the rule that you could only apply for either a "LE" unit or a "general" unit but you could not apply for both types of units in a singular year. (As a first, second, what ever choice.)

Your previous post about different units with different buck to doe ratios already exists. Premium LE (40-50 bucks/100 does), LE (25-35 bucks/100 does), and general units (18 bucks/100 does) and would fit nicely into a "combine the points" system. Having said that there may be an opportunity to make even more tiers like making some units 12-15 bucks/100 does.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10000ft. said:


> I for one want to thank all you who have participated in this discussion in a civil way. These types of threads in the past have gotten a little out of control (I have been a part of that). I rarely comment on this forum anymore but have been educated and had my opinion on wildlife management change over the years from what many of you have said. I think it is healthy to talk about ways to improve the current system as it is the first step in moving toward future action.


Ditto my friend. The math part of it was boring but I thought it was a good conversation with lots of good input.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Well, this is a whole different issue than combining points and drawing odds, but what should the herd be managed for? I think we should manage herds for overall population. Buck to doe ratios should be considered, but not the primary management objective -- unless you're talking about a true "trophy unit" like the Henries.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Maybe this is just semantics but this is basically the argument I was making, going to the "combine" system. For some reason I thought, like 10000 ft, you were saying making the rule that you could only apply for either a "LE" unit or a "general" unit but you could not apply for both types of units in a singular year. (As a first, second, what ever choice.)
> I am advocating the idea that each hunter may have only one deer application. I don't care if the hunter has a second or third choice on that application, but I don't want hunters having multiple applications for the same species. I don't believe a hunter should draw a second choice unless that second choice hunt is undersubscribed.
> 
> Your previous post about different units with different buck to doe ratios already exists. Premium LE (40-50 bucks/100 does), LE (25-35 bucks/100 does), and general units (18 bucks/100 does) and would fit nicely into a "combine the points" system. Having said that there may be an opportunity to make even more tiers like making some units 12-15 bucks/100 does.
> I would advocate a system with more tiers developing units with a larger variation from what is currently in place.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Your previous post about different units with different buck to doe ratios already exists. Premium LE (40-50 bucks/100 does), LE (25-35 bucks/100 does), and general units (18 bucks/100 does) and would fit nicely into a "combine the points" system. Having said that there may be an opportunity to make even more tiers like making some units 12-15 bucks/100 does.
> > I would advocate a system with more tiers developing units with a larger variation from what is currently in place.


Why?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Right now, if I am correct, we basically have 3 options--premium LE, LE, and GS. I am fine with keeping the premium LE units and LE units the way they are, but the GS units are going to be bumped up from 15 bucks/100 does as a minimum to 18 bucks/100 does as a minimum. I don't think there would be anything wrong in keeping some units below that 18/100 (say 12-18/100) to maintain more opportunity. So, I would advocate having at least 4 options.

Remember, though, I would rather have the management as it is now...than what we are heading towards.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am advocating the idea that each hunter may have only one deer application. I don't care if the hunter has a second or third choice on that application, but I don't want hunters having multiple applications for the same species. I don't believe a hunter should draw a second choice unless that second choice hunt is undersubscribed.[/color]


Yep we are saying the same thing and I agree with you, IF we even need to make a change. 10000 ft is making a different argument altogether which is ok but I just wanted to make the distinction.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


To get more hunters out hunting.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

svmoose said:


> Well, this is a whole different issue than combining points and drawing odds, but what should the herd be managed for? I think we should manage herds for overall population. Buck to doe ratios should be considered, but not the primary management objective -- unless you're talking about a true "trophy unit" like the Henries.


I think this would be a good topic for it's own thread. It will be a long winter... :mrgreen:


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> svmoose said:
> 
> 
> > Well, this is a whole different issue than combining points and drawing odds, but what should the herd be managed for? I think we should manage herds for overall population. Buck to doe ratios should be considered, but not the primary management objective -- unless you're talking about a true "trophy unit" like the Henries.
> ...


If it is discussed during winter, the thread will get hostile (based on past experiences). Seems to be more civil during hunting season.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

JuddCT said:


> If it is discussed during winter, the thread will get hostile (based on past experiences). Seems to be more civil during hunting season.


Are you saying all the roudy, beer drinking, low IQ, ******** are out hunting? Cause I happen to know that Tree is in town right now.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > If it is discussed during winter, the thread will get hostile (based on past experiences). Seems to be more civil during hunting season.
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


I understand what "W2U" indicated, but to get more hunters out hunting "LE 20-30 and "GU 12-15" or better yet "Premium LE 40-50" and everything else "GU 12-15".


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Right now, if I am correct, we basically have 3 options--premium LE, LE, and GS. I am fine with keeping the premium LE units and LE units the way they are, but the GS units are going to be bumped up from 15 bucks/100 does as a minimum to 18 bucks/100 does as a minimum. I don't think there would be anything wrong in keeping some units below that 18/100 (say 12-18/100) to maintain more opportunity. So, I would advocate having at least 4 options.
> 
> Remember, though, I would rather have the management as it is now...than what we are heading towards.


Ditto! Other than pretty much everything is now LE. No real GS anymore.


----------

