# EXPO true draw odds released



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

A couple of guys worked really hard over on monster mulies to get these odds released--it sounded like it was pulling teeth. Here is the link:

http://www.huntexpo.com/odds2011.php

Some interesting stuff for sure. Odds are worse than I had thought they would be in 2011 (odds seemed a lot better in previous years). Looks like they took in a little under a million $ from the $5 application fees. Look at the non resident only tags--only 670-ish non residents coming to Utah to apply, maybe not a huge business lift to the economy after all--I honestly don't know what other types of Expos draw into the state so I can't say. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Right on the heels of a GRAMA request......


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Those odds are terrible. So a buddy of mine drew 2 of these, odds right around 1:1000 each. Is that lucky?


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Just did a quick 10 key count but if you take out the turkey tags and the non resident only tags the average one in whatever shot for all hunts it comes out to 1 in 1368 average. I did this fairly quickly so you can check my math but that is what I came up with.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

It's interesting how this played out. There are a few guys that have been working on this for quite some time. A few weeks ago the UWC made a GRAMA request and we were sent these odds yesterday along with some other information. It appears that roughly 82.3% of applications are residents and 17.7% are non-resident applications. The allocation of the tags to residents and non-residents is about the same percentages with 5 tags in 2009 and 2010 being reserved for non-residents only.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Those are some piss poor odds! By my quick count there's only one draw via the DWR that has worse odds than any single big game tag at the convention.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

From 2007 to 2010 there was $3,415,505 generated from application fees. In the documentation the UWC received Expo organizers have accounted for $795,287 of those fees in the way of listed projects and spend.

There are lots of projects listed such as predator control, weed control, youth hunts, winter feeding programs and other habitat projects that clearly directly benefit wildlife in Utah. There are other projects listed such as "SFW Wyoming $5000", "Wyoming/Pinedale $5450", "Lion Hunt Fees $666", "Toole-Kenidee Eye donation $5000", "Orem Pritchet/Tatloil Gift $20,000", "Chance Phelps Endowment Fund $10,000", "Jessica Clark Scholarship fund $14,000", "Kody Lowell Endowment Fund $7900", "Donations to Cancer Patients: $21,000", "Edwards-Beaver Property $14,000", "SITLA Grazing fee $3737" to name a few that have a little less clarity as to their benefit to Utah wildlife.

I am in no way stating that these are worthy or unworthy ways to spend money by expo organizers and I am unfamiliar with many of the programs listed. I am only passing along the information that should be public information and allowing you to make a personal decision on the matter.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I also want to know how sure we can be that tags haven't been directed to anyone in those groups. Wasn't there some SFW guy that has hit 2 or 3 of these? What are the chances that any one person gets even 2 of these? What are the chances that an SFW leader gets 2? Anyone have details? Who is in charge of how it's done, and how many tags have their leadership pulled in? 

It really isn't proper to be that nosy until the issue is a squarely conflicted one where government is handing out resources that benefit those special interest groups and businesses. It isn't like Utah is some big private ranch that doesn't have to be accountable. I'm really not a conspiracy theory guy, but those odds are STEEP.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

It's a legitimate question SteepNDeep and this was addressed in the expo audit results that the UWC recieved. The draw was deemed "random" in the audit but acknowledged that in a completely random process there will always be a few "lucky" individuals. 

Word for word from the documentation:

"In any truly random drawing there always seems to be a few "lucky" individuals. Statistically when we discuss randomness it is always possible to view the final result and pick out certain trends, especially with few historical data sets to observe. The key to these trends is that they cannot be predicted prior to the event or drawing. This is the very essence of random. Random is not an assurance that an event will be spread across a population evenly, or ditrubuted equally among participants."


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

I think this post should be a sticky on the big game forum. Thank you UWN for making the SFW publicly accountable. At least we have more of the real story of what is going on in this corrupt, bloated organization stealing public opportunity under the guise big game conservation and rehabilitation. A good portion of the money from these public tags is being paid strait to the individuals on the SFW parole. Then there are the "gifts" for cancer patients. Not real sure how this effects wildlife? Don't get me wrong cancer research needs to be funded, I just don't think public big game tags should be sold to fund such research. Very interesting to see the paper trail for the funds derived from the auction of your public tags.

Thanks again to the UWN for peeling back the vial on the SFW and exposing the real story behind the money.


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

Nothing to add to the discussion (yet), but wanted to say that the transparency of these funds is both enlightening and appreciated. 

I'm going to curl up with a bit of this o-|| and watch this soon to be epic thread.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

just thought I would let everyone know about my experience this year with the expo tags. I revived an e-mail saying I could apply online for the tags so I figured what the heck I would put in for a couple hunts. after paying for the hunts I was informed I needed to show up in person to register. I was leaving town that week so I sent them an e-mail telling them I would not be able to attend and I would like my money to be refunded. waited a week or so did not here back so I sent another e-mail another week or so went by no response. sent out a third e-mail this time I was not so nice, never got any reply. this was my first and last time doing business with those a-holes never again :evil:


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

sfw = crooked org that at one time was good for the hunting community. but now is just flat out greedy


----------



## GCKid (Sep 11, 2007)

Does the Audit indicate how the "Random" drawing was conducted?


----------



## ROI (Jul 13, 2009)

Who was the GRAMA filed with?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ROI said:


> Who was the GRAMA filed with?


The state of Utah.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GCKid said:


> Does the Audit indicate how the "Random" drawing was conducted?


Sort of, read below. It also states the company that does the drawing is GraySky Technologies.

Here is what they say:

"1)The process of the draw is reviewed for its soundness
2)The database structure is reviewed to make sure that a customer can't flood a certain hunt by making multiple entries
3)We look through the code to make sure there is no chance that a seeded record could exist in the database prior to assignment of random numbers. We want to see that a check is done to make sure the result table is empty and no records can be inserted independently of the drawing code. This ensures that a record with an abnormally low random number isn't placed in the table thereby guaranteeing a permit to a record.
5)We then look through the code for inserts that may occur after the drawing to make sure that a winning record isn't placed in the result table after the assignment of the random numbers take place.
6)We give a passphrase to the GraySky rep that is written into the code and displayed on the results page to ensure the code we reviewed was the actual code used during the drawing."


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

"The draw is then conducted by GraySky Tech and whereupon the following occurs:

1) The results of the draw are printed and immediately given to a Division rep to ensure that there are no edits to the results table.
2) That list is then given to the Division Law Enforcement and Licensing sections to validate eligibility before any results are posted.
3) Any applicants selected through the draw that recieve multiple permits for the same species are contacted by the Division and ask to select their preferred hunt choice. The unused permits are issued to alternates."


----------



## GCKid (Sep 11, 2007)

Any mention on who has access to the database. Seems all you would need to do is run a database script independently of the program and update the table prior to the printout being made.


----------



## ROI (Jul 13, 2009)

I could of guessed that it was the State of Utah. Which office within the State of Utah. Trying to determine who from the State of Utah put the pressure on these organizations.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ROI said:


> I could of guessed that it was the State of Utah. Which office within the State of Utah. Trying to determine who from the State of Utah put the pressure on these organizations.


The request was made with the Natural Resources, Utah Wildlife Resources.

Here is my best guess at what may have happened. Someone from the division calls someone from a conservation org to inform them that the division recieved a GRAMA request and by law they have to send out documentation that includes granular draw odds, where funds are going, etc and gives them a date when they will be released. Conservation group(s) decide that some individuals have been asking for draw odds for some time and decide that they better release draw odds before the GRAMA documentation is sent out to keep the appearance that they are being cooperative. Again just my best guess.

The conservation groups never had to release anything. I believe they only released that information because they knew that documentation was being released by the state. Whether they didn't want UWC to get credit for getting this info into the publics hands or they just wanted to appear to be cooperative and transparent is anybody's guess.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Bingo . . . we have a winner.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Don't miss UWC's VP at about 7:15 on 1320 tonight with Steve Brown. They'll be discussing the GRAMA request and the expo.


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

Good job Kris.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

I really liked the question by Jeff. 8)


----------



## ROI (Jul 13, 2009)

Thanks for the information.


----------



## deerlove (Oct 20, 2010)

How do I hear that interview? I just caught the beginning.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

http://1320kfan.com/index.php/audio/lis ... ooperative


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> http://1320kfan.com/index.php/audio/listen/kris_marble_united_wildlife_cooperative


Who is Steve Brown?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Atta boy, Kris. Well done!


----------

