# Preference point change



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I just noticed on the RAC agenda that a change is proposed to eliminate points for those who draw anything - first or fifth choice. Does Utah Wildlife Cooperative have a stance on this? 

I do not like the proposed change. It seems whenever I get a hunting system down it has to be changed. 

The reason I do not like this change is I typically put my first choice for a unit that is harder to draw. Then I put in for one that will likely be undersubscribed. 

This saves me a step of buying a tag in July. 

I think what will happen is everyone will put in one or two choices and a lot more tags will be left over and then we have to go over it again in July. 

Just figure it out on the draw period. At a minimum grant a tag to those who draw their 5th choice. Please government agency save me a trip.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I think this loophole is one of the first things that needs fixed. If guys choose to only put in for two choices that is up to them. If they don't draw they can buy a leftover tag, if there are any. If not the next year they can think twice about filling out all of the choices or face the same dilemma.The current system is a rathole and needs fixed.


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

Congrats to everybody who's benefited from this during recent years ... but I agree, the loophole doesn't make sense.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

This needs to happen for the general deer draw. Is it proposed for all draws?


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

This is from the RAC agenda -- looks like it is only for General Deer preference points. The general deer draw order and draw system is different than the bonus point system. This is a good change.

*TO: Utah Wildlife Board/Regional RAC Members
FROM: Lindy Varney
Wildlife Licensing Specialist*

*SUBJECT:* R657-62 Change of the Preference Point system

The Division would like to recommend a change to R657-62 in reference to the preference point system. 
The change would be that if an applicant drew out for a general season deer permit, that person would 
lose his/her preference points no matter what hunt choice they drew out on. 
The reason for this change is to address some public concern about hunters drawing a general season 
deer permit and also receiving a preference point that same year. 
In 2014, this is how the general season buck deer applicants applied in the drawing:
47% of our hunters only apply for one choice
21% of our hunters apply for two choices
12 % of our hunters apply for three choices
5% of our hunters apply for four choices 
15% of our hunters apply for all five choices


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't know why they can't do it the way a lot of other states do it now. 

If you draw your first choice then you loose your points.

If you don't draw your first choice you go into a general draw with no points for the rest of your choices and take your chances. 

I would also like to see just one set of points for the rest of the animals. No cow and bull points but just elk points, no buck and doe points just deer points. That would make the applicant actually sit down and decide on what he wants to hunt.

They are over complicating the whole draw process


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Critter said:


> I don't know why they can't do it the way a lot of other states do it now.
> If you draw your first choice then you loose your points.
> If you don't draw your first choice you go into a general draw with no points for the rest of your choices and take your chances.
> I would also like to see just one set of points for the rest of the animals. No cow and bull points but just elk points, no buck and doe points just deer points. That would make the applicant actually sit down and decide on what he wants to hunt.
> They are over complicating the whole draw process


I think it comes down to $$$... the DWR knows that the setup they have now will absolutely maximize the amount of money they can extract from the hunting public. 
If you combine points as you described, and say we even further consider combining the preference and bonus point pools for deer... you reduce the number of applications (and associated $10 application fees). Think of the cash left on the table if a guy has to reduce his application options and costs to $20 (one OIAL species and either deer or elk) from the current $70 (OIAL, LE, general deer, antlerless elk/deer/proghorn/moose).
That's a lot of money the gubment misses out on... and they don't like to miss out on much.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> *I would also like to see just one set of points for the rest of the animals. No cow and bull points but just elk points, no buck and doe points just deer points.* That would make the applicant actually sit down and decide on what he wants to hunt.
> 
> They are over complicating the whole draw process


I would hate this. I like being able to build points towards one of the harder to obtain hunts while still occasionally hunting an antlerless hunt.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Idratherbehunting said:


> I would hate this. I like being able to build points towards one of the harder to obtain hunts while still occasionally hunting an antlerless hunt.


I actually think that if they did it that way that there would be leftover anterless tags available to those who want to gain a point and still draw a second choice tag.

You have to remember that Utah isn't the only state that has a draw system in place for their huntable animals. But it is the only state that has things so screwed up that a person can't draw their first choice but someone else draws the same hunt as a second choice. That along with how they distribute left over deer tags is something to behold. A person can buy a tag over the counter after someone didn't get the same in the draw.


----------



## Gledeasy (Mar 23, 2014)

Somebody care to explain why they dislike the preference point system? 

Our family puts in for the same unit each and every year (have a cabin there). We've gone from being able to draw about every year, to every other year with the 5 general unit system. With the 30 unit system we were interested to see how this would be affected. Last year everyone in the family that had 1 PP drew (two tags). This year we had three, including me, with 1 PP. None of us drew. I put it for a second choice and drew a tag. Not the unit I look forward to hunting, but at least I had the opportunity to hunt.

The way I understand the PP system is that tags only go to second, third, etc. choice applicants if there are any leftovers from the first choice pool? Drawing with my second choice allows me to keep my PP so I have a better chance at drawing my preferred unit next year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything wrong with how I have understood the system. I am one who feels like having a tag in hand gives me a better chance at a nice buck, rather than thinking I need to wait 3-4 years between tags to better my chances. 

By taking away the PP system, how would my chances at drawing a tag be any better?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Gledeasy said:


> The way I understand the PP system is that tags only go to second, third, etc. choice applicants if there are any leftovers from the first choice pool?


Not so. If you have high preference points, you get your second, third or whatever choice pick before people with lower preference points get a chance with their first choice pick. That is the nature of the loophole. Folks were putting in for the Thousand lakes unit first, which is very hard to draw due to low tag numbers and lifetime licensees, etc and gaining a point every year, yet their goal was to hunt their second choice, which they could be guaranteed to do every year.

I for one am glad to see this loophole (hopefully) closed.

As for a "one point" system for elk, all deer, etc.. that is an entirely different discussion.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Only for General Deer is the point system like this. It's a preference point system and not a bonus point system. It considers all of your choices before going to the next hunter, and if you draw a 2nd choice or later you don't lose points. So someone with 5 points could put in and draw their second or third choice before someone with 4 points ever gets a chance. This needs to be corrected.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Gledeasy said:


> Somebody care to explain why they dislike the preference point system?


I don't hate the preference point system, but there is a glaring weakness in that system that this proposal will hopefully remedy.

I'll further Catherder's and svmoose's responses by providing a specific example:
My preferred unit is Pine Valley (not really, but it is for this example) and I prefer the muzzleloader season. It historically takes one preference point to draw so I should realistically expect to hunt every other year on my preferred unit. I look at the draw results from previous years and notice that the Plateau, Thousand Lakes rifle tag takes 4 preference points and with 0 points now it oculd take upwards of 19 to 20 years to draw it. So, I list the Thousand Lakes rifle tag as my first choice knowing that there is no way I could draw that tag and since it is my first choice I will get a preference point. I list my preferred Pine Valley muzzleloader as my second choice. Maybe I draw that second choice on my first try... maybe not.... but I still walk away with a preference point at minimum.
The second year I do the same, Thousand Lakes as my first choice and Pine Valley as my second. Since I don't draw the Thousand Lakes tag again I get a second preference point. I then get considered for the Pine Valley tag with 1 point since it was my second option.

Here is where the heartburn starts... since I'm in the 1 point pool, even though Pine Valley was not my first choice I get considered before all the 0 point guys that put Pine Valley as their first choice. That doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

Here's where the heartburn really gets going though... over the next several years I continue to do the same on my application putting Thousand Lakes first and Pine Valley second and I continue to accrue preference points because I do not draw my first choice. Every year, until I finally draw the Thousand Lakes tag, I am essentially guaranteed to draw that second choice (which is the one I actually want). Unfortunately, the guys that are not "working the system" draw a tag every other year (or even less frequently) while I hunt annually in the unit that I really want.

Kudos to those that figured out how to work the system in their favor early on and have benefitted from it, but I'll be glad to see this loophole close.


----------



## Rspeters (Apr 4, 2013)

I'll be glad to see it closed as well. In theory, if enough people exploit this loophole (which they have every right to do because they're playing within the rules), then the draw odds go down for those who are not exploiting it. 
For example, if there's 10,000 tags for an area, and the same 20,000 people putting in for that area every year, without the loophole everyone should typically draw every other year. If 5,000 of those people use that loophole, then they'll draw every year and the other 15,000 people are then fighting over the remaining 5,000 tags every year, which means they should typically only draw out every third year.


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Not so. If you have high preference points, you get your second, third or whatever choice pick before people with lower preference points get a chance with their first choice pick. That is the nature of the loophole. Folks were putting in for the Thousand lakes unit first, which is very hard to draw due to low tag numbers and lifetime licensees, etc and gaining a point every year, yet their goal was to hunt their second choice, which they could be guaranteed to do every year.
> 
> I for one am glad to see this loophole (hopefully) closed.


 Is this really how it has been done??? I thought second choice and so on only applied if it were under subscribed as well. If this is this way it has been running then *THAT IS THE STUPIDIST THING I'VE EVER HEARD!!* ( I absolutely love that commercial )

Someone please explain to me why something like that would *EVER* be put into place............


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

This change is long over due. I would prefer that the state run it like Colorado (see Critter's suggestion), but what they are recommending will be far better than the current program.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Not so. If you have high preference points, you get your second, third or whatever choice pick before people with lower preference points get a chance with their first choice pick. That is the nature of the loophole. Folks were putting in for the Thousand lakes unit first, which is very hard to draw due to low tag numbers and lifetime licensees, etc and gaining a point every year, yet their goal was to hunt their second choice, which they could be guaranteed to do every year.
> 
> I for one am glad to see this loophole (hopefully) closed.
> 
> As for a "one point" system for elk, all deer, etc.. that is an entirely different discussion.


This is exactly how it is being done now. Unfortunately, the proposed change actually does not even address the guy that draws his second choice before somebody else draws the same unit as their first choice. All the current proposal does is burns your points if you draw a tag on any choice. *Under the proposed change, a guy with 3 points WILL STILL DRAW HIS 2ND CHOICE before a guy with 2 points draws his first choice.* IMO, this is the bigger issue and the proposed change does not address it.

I believe the correct solution is as follows:

1- Process ALL first choice applications first. If you draw a tag on your first choice, lose your points. If you do not draw a tag on your first choice, gain a point.
2- Process all 2nd choice applications by random draw.
3- Repeat (2) for 3rd through 5th choice applications.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

archerben said:


> All the current proposal does is burns your points if you draw a tag on any choice. *Under the proposed change, a guy with 3 points WILL STILL DRAW HIS 2ND CHOICE before a guy with 2 points draws his first choice.*


Correct, and that gives the high point guys one more year to benefit from the current system, but once they draw any tag, their points are burned. IMO, that should fix the problem. The current system can then still work as constituted and I'd consider it "fair" with the proposed fix.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

What am I missing here? 

The best units go the first round with one point -(except 1000 Lakes.) That is not going to change. 

You guys think this is some sort of a "loophole" that will increase your odds once the change is implemented. The change isn't going to increase your odds of drawing your first choice one bit. It will just make a bunch of undersubscribed units that will sell out in July. 

I will still hunt my 2nd choice with a tag that I will buy over the counter. If you take away the point when I purchase a tag in July, then I will hunt my favored unit every other year and never hunt my 2nd choice. I don't see how this changes anyone's odds.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

provider said:


> What am I missing here?
> 
> The best units go the first round with one point -(except 1000 Lakes.) That is not going to change.


The current loophole is that some guys are maintaining a high preference point number and are still hunting their preferred hunts *every *year, while the rest of us have to sit out a year to get that point to draw the same unit.


----------



## Gledeasy (Mar 23, 2014)

Thanks for explaining this. That certainly doesn't make any sense why they would allow someone to draw a second or beyond choice above someone else's first choice. The theory behind it doesn't make any sense. Sounds right to change it to me.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Gledsey,

Most units you can draw with 1 point or less as a first choice. People unknowingly lower their points to 0 by putting in with others who have no points. 

Catherder. There is not a good unit that is guaranteed to draw the 2nd round - that's why almost half of the hunters don't bother putting in for a 2nd choice. The decent units are all close to sold out to the 1st choice. Thousand Lakes is the only unit where this will change some odds - and even that is questionable as there is hardly anything left after all the groups get theirs. 

If you put in for Thousand Lakes with 5 points and put Fish Lake as a 2nd choice you will not be hunting.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Archerben,

That sheds some light on the matter. I never thought about that. I agree that no preference given on a stage of the draw where a point cannot be burned.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

provider said:


> If you put in for Thousand Lakes with 5 points and put Fish Lake as a 2nd choice you will not be hunting.


False! If you put in for Thousand lakes with 5 and get declined and your 2nd choice is Fish Lake, the *ONLY* way you wouldn't get it would be if there are more guys with over 5 points putting in for FL than the total number of tags. (Not possible!) Remember, if you have 5 preference points, you get your first, second, third, or whatever choice *before anyone with 4 or less points even gets to pick their first choice!

*If you are cool with that, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is unadulterated BS and welcome the change.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

> False! If you put in for Thousand lakes with 5 and get declined and your 2nd choice is Fish Lake, the ONLY way you wouldn't get it would be if there are more guys with over 5 points putting in for FL than the total number of tags. (Not possible!) Remember, if you have 5 preference points, you get your first, second, third, or whatever choice before anyone with 4 or less points even gets to pick their first choice!


This is CORRECT!



> If you are cool with that, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is unadulterated BS and welcome the change.


Again, what you described above *IS NOT ADDRESSED* by the changes that are being proposed by the DWR at the RACs. The proposed changes only deal with whether or not you lose points on your 2nd through 5th choice.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

The change would be that if an applicant drew out for a general season deer permit, that person would 
lose his/her preference points no matter what hunt choice they drew out on.


----------



## Gledeasy (Mar 23, 2014)

Provider, we don't put in as groups. Never have. I was very surprised when not only me, but everyone else with 1 PP in the family didn't draw our unit. 

In fact when I saw my CC hit I thought for sure it was for my 1st choice, it wasn't until later that I found out otherwise. 

If someone else drew the tag as a 2nd, 3rd, etc. choice over my 1st just because they had an extra PP that's BS.

Sorry to those on this year as I potentially took someones first choice with my second.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

catherder,

You will not draw Fish Lake as a second choice with 5 points because there are no tags left over for the 2nd choice on Fish Lake.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Gledeasy,

The way I understand it, you didn't take anyone's 1st choice. If you did, I would be in favor of the change. To answer your question regarding how will your odds change in the future? We'll, you would have no points because you drew something this year. You'd be looking at drawing your preferred unit in 2 more years.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

> You will not draw Fish Lake as a second choice with 5 points because there are no tags left over for the 2nd choice on Fish Lake.


This is not correct. Under the current system a person would indeed draw Fish Lake as a 2nd choice with 5 points, ahead of everybody else with less points that put Fish Lake as a 1st choice.



> The way I understand it, you didn't take anyone's 1st choice.


I am sorry to say that you do not understand the current system correctly. But do not feel bad as most people do not understand it. Please go back to Post #11 and read Catherder's description of the current system.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

provider said:


> catherder,
> 
> You will not draw Fish Lake as a second choice with 5 points because there are no tags left over for the 2nd choice on Fish Lake.


The problem is that those with 5 points are not going into a draw for left over tags. They are going into the first draw with 5 points.

The way that I understand the way it works right now is:
You have 5 points and put in for Thousand Lake....You do not draw

Since you have 5 points you are in a high point pool and get to go into a drawing for your second choice hunt while others are in that same drawing as a first choice, and since you have 5 points you will draw your second choice before some draw the same unit as their first choice.

Now those who draw that unit as a first choice have their points reduced to 0 points while you went into that same draw as a second choice get to keep your points even if you drew the tag.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Catherder is spot on guys... attached is the "Current Client Preference Point Summary."

Step one is to organize each applicant into the point pool based upon the number of preference points he/she has.
Step two is to issue each applicant a random number within that point pool, determining the drawing order within the pool.
Step three is to evaluate each application in the highest point pool first in the order determined by the random numbers issued.
Step four each applicant has all their choices evaluated. If a tag remains for the first choice he/she is awarded a tag for the unit of their first choice. If there are no remaining tags available in the first choice unit the second choice unit is then awarded. If no tags are available for the second choice unit then the third choice is awarded. If no tags are available for the third choice unit then the fourth choice is awarded... and so on.
Unfortunately, by the time you reach the 1 and 0 point pools few of the more desired tags remain because they were issued as second, third, fourth, or even fifth choices to applicants in higher preference point pools.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I would love to see this change. Not really loving that in a short period of time some general areas are now LE. I like the pure luck yearly system when it comes to general season.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm glad we had this exchange. I'll be glad to go buy my 2nd choice tag over the counter in July.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I'm with Ben on this one. Why make changes that will not address the real problem? Seems on par for the way things are ran these days.

The way I see it, if it goes through as layed out, I will be driving down to buy me anyone of the many leftover tags. In the end, I will hunt and still get a point.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

But you'll only hunt a top unit once. That's how it should work, hunt left over tags and build points or hunt first choice units and spend points.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

derekp1999 said:


> Catherder is spot on guys... attached is the "Current Client Preference Point Summary."
> 
> Step one is to organize each applicant into the point pool based upon the number of preference points he/she has.
> Step two is to issue each applicant a random number within that point pool, determining the drawing order within the pool.
> ...


 Actually, step 4 is incorrect. All first choices within each group are evaluated and processed before they go on to the 2nd choices within the group, and the same with the 3rd, 4th, and 5th choices.

Per the Statement of Work which is part of DWR's contract with Systems Consultants out of Fallon NV: (This is for the fourth evaluation/draw following the Lifetime License Holders, Dedicated Hunters & Youth.) (Highlighted by poster.)

"The fourth evaluation considers individual or group applications of four or less applicants, beginning with the highest number of preference points and the lowest draw number within that preference point group and continuing in sequence, the first choice for a hunt is considered. If a permit, or in the case of a group the number of permits for the people in the group, is available for the hunt of first choice, the permit(s) is awarded. *If the number of permits is not available for the hunt of first choice, THE APPLICATION IS SKIPPED, and the first choice of the next application is considered.* After *all *first choices are processed, the second choice of applicants within the preference point group not receiving a permit in the first choice round are processed in the same manner as the first choices. This means that *all "first choices" for a particular preference point group will be evaluated before any "second choices". *This continues in the same way for the third through the fifth choice. When the applications with the highest number of preference points have been considered, the next preference point group is considered in the same fashion until all applications have been considered".

I hope this clears up a lot of misconceptions posted on this thread regarding the draw procedures. And maybe some of you may have to reconsider your opinion. In any case, this legal description of the process is worth knowing.

FWIW, All Lifetime License holders are given their first (and only) choice, but the other 3 evaluations are done as stated above.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I hope everyone does what they are saying and makes one choice then goes to OTC tags. I think it would clean a lot of stuff up. Would rock for us that don't care for rifle hunts.


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

I hope this doesn't pass this year and is proposed again next year to actually close the loop hole of someone drawing a 2nd choice before another guy's 1st choice.


----------



## jshuag (Jan 16, 2014)

This music should be played on repeat when reading this entire thread.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> Actually, step 4 is incorrect. All first choices within each group are evaluated and processed before they go on to the 2nd choices within the group, and the same with the 3rd, 4th, and 5th choices.
> 
> Per the Statement of Work which is part of DWR's contract with Systems Consultants out of Fallon NV: (This is for the fourth evaluation/draw following the Lifetime License Holders, Dedicated Hunters & Youth.) (Highlighted by poster.)
> 
> ...


Good to know, thanks elkfromabove... the way I outlined it was the way I understood it based upon the discussion in a recent WB Meeting when modifying the preference point system was brought up. Interesting how you get different things from different people even within the agencies but it's always better when you can go right to the documentation.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The difference in preference point systems between deer and antlerless screwed me 6-7 years ago. Well, my lack of knowledge of the difference screwed me. When I started hunting cow elk I had 4 points based upon two years I couldn't hunt so just bought points, and I put in a 4th choice for a poor unit that has tags left over every year, thinking when I drew it that it would save me a trip to buy OTC and also let me keep my points. 

Not so. Whatever they do, the preference point system needs to be consistent across the board. I like the idea of going consistent with the antlerless preference system.


----------



## SanJuanBoy (Sep 16, 2013)

I know there is a proposal in the works that has been met with good support concerning preference points and the draw system. The proposal is simply this: 1.) All first choices are awarded before anyone can draw a second choice and 2.) If you draw a hunt on your 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th choice you do not loose your points.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

SanJuanBoy said:


> I know there is a proposal in the works that has been met with good support concerning preference points and the draw system. The proposal is simply this: 1.) All first choices are awarded before anyone can draw a second choice and 2.) If you draw a hunt on your 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th choice you do not loose your points.


That is the current system for deer.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Random,

You are INCORRECT! That is not the current system for deer. Please re-read the thread to gain an actual understanding of the current deer preference point system. Posts #11, 32, and 37 are especially helpful.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

SanJuanBoy said:


> I know there is a proposal in the works that has been met with good support concerning preference points and the draw system. The proposal is simply this: 1.) All first choices are awarded before anyone can draw a second choice and 2.) If you draw a hunt on your 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th choice you do not loose your points.


This seems like the best solution to me. I think it's certainly a broken system currently, but changing it to penalize those who have forethought enough to put more than one choice when applying seems asinine.

I absolutely agree that all 1st choices should be awarded prior to someone with an extra point receiving their 2nd or even 5th choice.

I currently plan on hunting my preferred Unit every other year and always put it as my 1st choice. However, as an archer who likes to hunt the extended every year, I like to build in a contingency that if I don't draw my 1st choice, I like to be able to draw a less desired tag without having to mess with a flooded online system or lines at license sales location the day licenses go on sale. Also, I then get my 1 point and am able to hunt my preferred unit the following year by burning that 1 point.

Gaming the system should be done away with, i.e. people with a unit as their 1st choice should receive that choice before people receive it as a second. However, forethought and planning when applying should be something that is encouraged, not punished by losing points.

i think it's crazy that almost half the people that applied only put one choice. and only 20% of people put in for 4 or 5 choices. With proper planning, we do have a lot of opportunity to draw tags and hunt. I don't really want to rely on my place in line or my internet connection the day of the license sale to guarantee my hunting plans for the year. If that's what it comes to I'll deal with it, but it would certainly be less than ideal.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Kwalk3 said:


> I think it's certainly a broken system currently, but changing it to penalize those who have forethought enough to put more than one choice when applying seems asinine.


I would maintain that the current proposed fix would not penalize anyone that has played the system/loophole thus far as they would receive their benefit one more year, yet be on notice that the loophole is closed. From there I think the draw system would work equitably. I also recognize that proposals such as what Archerben has suggested are viable alternatives worth consideration, although personally, I feel if you draw a tag, you should burn your points. (Leftover OTC tags would be a different matter)

I also agree with TS30 that all so called preference point draws (general deer and antlerless elk) should work by the same rules.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Catherder said:


> I would maintain that the current proposed fix would not penalize anyone that has played the system/loophole thus far as they would receive their benefit one more year, yet be on notice that the loophole is closed. From there I think the draw system would work equitably. I also recognize that proposals such as what Archerben has suggested are viable alternatives worth consideration, although personally, I feel if you draw a tag, you should burn your points. (Leftover OTC tags would be a different matter)
> 
> I also agree with TS30 that all so called preference point draws (general deer and antlerless elk) should work by the same rules.


I'm not implying that the loophole with the draws shouldn't be remedied. I simply think that the difference between buying a leftover tag at a physical location(or online) at a set time and date, and being able to draw a 5th choice that would otherwise be leftover is really just semantics. If you should lose points for drawing a 5th choice, then perhaps you should also lose points for obtaining a tag in any manner in any given year.

There is a lot more human variability and possibility for error or lack of opportunity when you are required to have those who did not draw all vie for the few remaining tags simultaneously. It is no longer about an equitable draw with relatively equal chances for all(following an update to the priority given to 1st vs. 2nd choices.); it becomes a matter of what the traffic was like(road or internet) while trying to make the 8 AM tag sale beginning.

The better remedy in my own opinion(which I recognize is not universally infallible), is to apply a rule to the draw order regarding 1st choices and priority should be established that way. 1st choices should be processed first(across all preference point groups), and 2nd-5th the same way. This would remedy the greater injustice with the current system.

I absolutely concur that all preference point draws should function the same way. There are too many points of confusion as it is right now, and the system should be simplified and uniform to alleviate future points of concern.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

archerben said:


> Random,
> 
> You are INCORRECT! That is not the current system for deer. Please re-read the thread to gain an actual understanding of the current deer preference point system. Posts #11, 32, and 37 are especially helpful.


How is what sanjuanboy explained different from what elk from above said?

#1 of what sanjuan said " All first choices are awarded before anyone can draw a second choice" compared to elk from above saying all "first choices" for a particular preference point group will be evaluated before any "second choices". Unless, and without being a d***, you can answer that this means everyone with 5 points does in fact go through all their selections before the group with 4 points first choice is even considered?

#2 you currently don't "loose" points if you fail to draw your first choice.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

RandomElk16 said:


> How is what sanjuanboy explained different from what elk from above said?


From my understanding and reading of both. Sanjuanboy is suggesting that the system should be based upon priority of choice primarily. I.e. Not evaluating all 5 choices of 1 class before moving to a lower preference point class. Currently someone with 3 points and the fishlake as their 4th choice, could draw a tag while someone with 2 points and the fishlake as their 1st choice would go tag-less, if my understanding is correct.

I disagree with how it is currently set up solely for this reason. Fix this by evaluating all 1st choices across all preference point groupings before moving on to second choices etc.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> How is what sanjuanboy explained different from what elk from above said?
> 
> #1 of what sanjuan said " All first choices are awarded before anyone can draw a second choice" compared to elk from above saying all "first choices" for a particular preference point group will be evaluated before any "second choices". Unless, and without being a d***, you can answer that this means everyone with 5 points does in fact go through all their selections before the group with 4 points first choice is even considered?
> 
> #2 you currently don't "loose" points if you fail to draw your first choice.


ElkFromAbove's explanation of what currently happens: All 5 choices of the highest preference points are evaluated before the first choice of the next point pool is evaluated. From your example, yes, everyone with 5 points does in fact go through all their selections before the group with 4 points first choice is even considered.

I get that this is a difficult matter to both explain and understand over the internet. I believe that in this thread there have been good attempts to do so, but it can still be confusing. I did not understand it until very recently when it was explained to me in depth. I have sent you a PM with my phone number. If you would like to talk one on one, please feel free to give me a call. Also, I extend that invitation of a phone conversation to anybody else that would like a one on one conversation. Simply PM me your number along with a good time to call and I will accommodate as best I can.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

The current proposal, while in my mind not the best, does effectively shut down the loophole. If you are going to lose your points for drawing a tag, regardless of choice, it makes little sense to apply for a tag you don't want, but is hard to draw as your 1st choice and your actual first choice as your 2nd choice. The issue I see is now there is no random assignment of leftover tags...it will be over-the-counter, first come-first served.

The better solution to me would be to be use preference points only on first choice applications. If you draw your first choice you lose your points. All left over tags are placed into a random draw and drawn based on the the priority of choice, ie all 2nd choice apps, then 3rd, then 4th and finally 5th. No points are lost because no points were used to draw the tags. Any tags left over could then be sold over-the-counter.

In an interesting twist check out point *h* on page 21 (http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2014-11_rac_packet.pdf). This is the best solution, albeit a bit complicated to impliment because of choices Utah has made in the past.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

After having some time to sit back on chew on this proposal and some of the other thoughts floated out there... 

it's my opinion that the best solution would be as Catherder recommended in post #6 and now Dahlmer has described in post #52 (I'm sure it's mentioned elsewhere as well by others). Use the preference points to allocate the first choice selections for every applicant then use an unweighted random drawing for the 2nd through 5th choices.

I would totally buy in to this system & while they're at it harmonize the antlerless drawings to utilize the same system.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

IMO. You should only get to choose one (1) hunt Area. If you don't draw, your out of luck and have to wait until the next year. But, Your preference point remains with your Hunter ID #. If any of the Hunt Units are undersubscribed, and you want to purchase one of those Unit tags, You should forfeit your (preference point) to purchase that Permit.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

There is nothing wrong with banking points but those points should only be used on a first choice tag and should have nothing to do with any draws after your first choice. 

So if a hunter wants to bank 20 years worth of points and go into the second choice draw with 0 what is wrong with that? One year he will actually put in for a tag and draw it with his 20 points as a first choice and then be back to 0.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I'm always late to the party, I was finally planning on scamming the system this year and now its changing.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> There is nothing wrong with banking points but those points should only be used on a first choice tag and should have nothing to do with any draws after your first choice.


No sorry, the intent was to be different than the bonus point system, to give people who waited the longest first chance at a deer tag. Its a system that should have the highest turnover due to people getting tags quicker.

Once we went to the Option 2 system, people figured out how to game it really quickly. I'm very glad to at least see it being addressed. You get a Gen tag you loose your points. You want to bank points and try for a trophy tag, thats what the LE Bonus points system is for.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Critter said:


> There is nothing wrong with banking points but those points should only be used on a first choice tag and should have nothing to do with any draws after your first choice.





DallanC said:


> No sorry, the intent was to be different than the bonus point system, to give people who waited the longest first chance at a deer tag. Its a system that should have the highest turnover due to people getting tags quicker.
> 
> Once we went to the Option 2 system, people figured out how to game it really quickly. I'm very glad to at least see it being addressed. You get a Gen tag you loose your points. You want to bank points and try for a trophy tag, thats what the LE Bonus points system is for.
> 
> -DallanC


So what is going to happen to all of the archery hunters that put in for a point and then get a archery tag over the counter, should they also loose their points since the tag that they purchased would of been a draw tag if they had put in for the draw?

The state of Utah over complicated this draw system when they first implemented it. There were other states doing draws and doing it right where no person could game it other than banking points and then drawing a tag with 10 points that should only take 2 points to draw as a first choice. There is no reason to make them loose their points unless they draw a first choice hunt. Any other choice draw that they enter they go into they go into that draw with 0 points along with all the rest of the hunters that put in for that draw.

It is really quite simple, perhaps that is why the state of Utah screwed it up so bad.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

DallanC said:


> You get a Gen tag you loose your points. You want to bank points and try for a trophy tag, thats what the LE Bonus points system is for.
> 
> -DallanC


I agree with that statement as the draw is currently constituted. However,There is no difference in drawing a 5th choice tag and buying a leftover at Cabelas if the priority of the draw is changed to give true preference to choices. If we are going to "penalize" someone for obtaining a leftover tag through the draw, shouldn't that be the same across the board? The change being proposed is an imperfect solution to an imperfect system.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

DallanC said:


> No sorry, the intent was to be different than the bonus point system, to give people who waited the longest first chance at a deer tag. Its a system that should have the highest turnover due to people getting tags quicker.
> 
> Once we went to the Option 2 system, people figured out how to game it really quickly. I'm very glad to at least see it being addressed. You get a Gen tag you loose your points. You want to bank points and try for a trophy tag, thats what the LE Bonus points system is for.
> 
> -DallanC


I think the difference in bonus vs preference is primarily the 50% of tags allocated to the random draw. Losing points for getting any tag would make it a much bigger challenge for the DWR to sell out deer tags. Many people would rather sit out a year or two than lose their points for a tag they have limited or no interest in.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Dahlmer said:


> Losing points for getting any tag would make it a much bigger challenge for the DWR to sell out deer tags. Many people would rather sit out a year or two than lose their points for a tag they have limited or no interest in.


Perhaps so, but wouldn't a potential sales gap be made up by OTC sales for leftovers on the back end? 
(Assuming an OTC purchase doesn't cost points)


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Perhaps so, but wouldn't a potential sales gap be made up by OTC sales for leftovers on the back end?
> (Assuming an OTC purchase doesn't cost points)


Some are suggesting points should be lost regardless of how the permit is obtained. I prefer to issue left over tags through a draw as it keeps the distribution random and the fact that I live closer to a DWR office or have a better internet connection does not make it more easy for me to obtain a tag.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Catherder said:


> Perhaps so, but wouldn't a potential sales gap be made up by OTC sales for leftovers on the back end?
> (Assuming an OTC purchase doesn't cost points)


If they are going to cost points in the draw then they should do the same thing if you purchase a OTC tag that should of went in the draw.

But then that is just my opinion, and I know about opinions.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> There is nothing wrong with banking points but those points should only be used on a first choice tag and should have nothing to do with any draws after your first choice.
> 
> So if a hunter wants to bank 20 years worth of points and go into the second choice draw with 0 what is wrong with that? One year he will actually put in for a tag and draw it with his 20 points as a first choice and then be back to 0.


This is called LE. Most of us don't want a GENERAL SEASON LE draw.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Not if they just want to hunt the general seasons. I may of exaggerated the number of points but I wasn't talking about a LE hunt.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

The simple reality of it is that Utah "general" hunts are in fact limited. Not to the extent that traditional limited entry is, but still limited.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> This is called LE. Most of us don't want a GENERAL SEASON LE draw.


We already have LE general season tags. It's only going to come down to how we are allowed to play the game


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

swbuckmaster said:


> We already have LE general season tags. It's only going to come down to how we are allowed to play the game


Exactly. Except if you lost points anytime you got a tag it would help.

I thought GS was about opportunity to hunt and LE was about quality. That doesnt seem to be the case anymore...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The only thing different in are LE system and general system is is lifers can hunt general every year. If it weren't for lifers the whole system could be more stream lined and quicker. Worst mistake utah could have ever made was creating those tags.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm not trying to be insensitive to the lifetime license holders, because they were promised a certain thing when they bought their licenses. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the state. However, at what point does that extremely preferrential treatment end? 

What was the cost of a lifetime license? With increases in tag costs and dramatic changes to game management practices across the board the guarantees associated with the tag seem a little out of balance with how the current system is set up. 

Maybe I'm overestimating how many holders there are and how much of an effect it actually has, but it sure seems like a significant issue. Maybe my biggest issue is that even though its not the lifetime license holder's fault, they hold a tag with guarantees that no other group in Utah even has the possibility of buying.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Here is the breakdown on Lifetime Licenses that I got from Amy last summer:

Cost was $500.00
4606 sold
4484 still active
3869 tags issued this year to LL holders

So in the whole scheme of things there really are not that many out there. Also a lot of the LL holders are also Dedicated Hunters.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Critter said:


> Here is the breakdown on Lifetime Licenses that I got from Amy last summer:
> 
> Cost was $500.00
> 4606 sold
> ...


Thanks! That's good info. I do think that 3900 deer tags has to have an effect on the draw results though. Percentage wise it's not that much, but that's not a tiny number either. Thanks for sharing that.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Critter said:


> Here is the breakdown on Lifetime Licenses that I got from Amy last summer:
> 
> Cost was $500.00
> 4606 sold
> ...





Kwalk3 said:


> Thanks! That's good info. I do think that 3900 deer tags has to have an effect on the draw results though. Percentage wise it's not that much, but that's not a tiny number either. Thanks for sharing that.


You also have to figure in Dedicated Hunters into the equation. For everyone of them there are 3 tags for only 1 animal each year except for the year that they sit out. That actually adds up to a lot more tags than are issued to Lifetime License holders.

I have actually met up with more Dedicated Hunters in the field than I have with Lifetime License holders but a lot of the Dedicated Hunters are also Lifetime License holders.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Considering there are about 7000 tags on the Wasatch west unit I think 4000 tags is a high number and affects odds considerably. Granted there not all on that that unit but it gives perspective to how many tags there really are.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Critter said:


> You also have to figure in Dedicated Hunters into the equation. For everyone of them there are 3 tags for only 1 animal each year except for the year that they sit out. That actually adds up to a lot more tags than are issued to Lifetime License holders.
> 
> I have actually met up with more Dedicated Hunters in the field than I have with Lifetime License holders but a lot of the Dedicated Hunters are also Lifetime License holders.


I have zero problem with the dedicated hunter program. I think it is relatively well set up and it doesn't give a tag to an individual in perpetuity. It is a 3 year block if I'm not mistaken.

I don't have any problem with the lifers themselves, I just think it was a serious lack of foresight on the division to offer the licenses. And it does disadvantage everyone else, however slightly, who never had the opportunity to obtain one. On the other hand, everyone has a chance to draw dedicated.

How does the draw for dedicated work for those that hold a lifetime license?

Thanks again for digging up info. Just trying to educate myself a little better.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'd like to see a breakdown of how many lifetime licenses went to each unit. My guess is only a handful of units are impacted at all. The lifetime license factor is one of the weaknesses of the 30-unit system the state went to. And it is one of the several reasons that I, as a lifetime license holder, opposed option 2 when it surfaced. Individually it benefits me. But on the whole, I hated option 2. Don't blame lifetime license holders that the state did something stupid by implementing the 30 unit system. 

These discussions always devolve into hating on lifetime licenses. But when it comes down to it, lifetime licenses aren't the problem or the enemy. I can understand why non-lifetime holders don't like them. But the amount of attention they receive is not equal to the impact on the system.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

We have this data for this year from the drawing statistics on the DWR website:
Lifetime Licenses: http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2014/14_lifetime_general_deer.pdf
Dedicated Hunters: http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2014/14_dedicated_hunter_deer.pdf

Interesting to see.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I would assume that the average age of the people that purchased the lifetime licenses would have been around the 30-35 range given the cost of them. Since they quit selling them 20 years ago they are going to have less impact as each year passes.

They were a stupid idea as far as management goes but I don't think that anybody blames those that purchased them. I gained residency in Utah about 6 months after they quit selling or I would have one as well.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Since they quit selling them 20 years ago they are going to have less impact as each year passes.


Doubt it... we now have this lovely new thing called "The Mentor system".



> They were a stupid idea as far as management goes but I don't think that anybody blames those that purchased them. I gained residency in Utah about 6 months after they quit selling or I would have one as well.


No it made sense, tag sales weren't generating alot of money, even at 280k sales. It was a way to get what seemed to be alot of $$$ out of people at the time. No-one at the time would have predicted that herds would drop so quickly, forcing tag cuts and thereby putting tags in such high demand.

I don't know what kind of solution can be done to address it.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

derekp1999 said:


> We have this data for this year from the drawing statistics on the DWR website:
> Lifetime Licenses: http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2014/14_lifetime_general_deer.pdf
> Dedicated Hunters: http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2014/14_dedicated_hunter_deer.pdf
> 
> Interesting to see.


Interesting, indeed. And just as I thought. The impact is not nearly proportional to the outrage. Thanks for posting that. I didn't know they published that data.

I bought my lifetime license when I was 13. I had a paper route from the time I was 8 and I bought it with my own money. Best investment I have EVER made. As Cousin Eddie says, it's the gift that keeps on giving!

The mentor program won't do any good for lifetime license holders that are no longer living or no longer even hunt. Also, keep in mind that many bought the license for non- big game purposes, as evidenced by the 14% of active lifetime holders that weren't issued a deer tag.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

DallanC said:


> Doubt it... we now have this lovely new thing called "The Mentor system".
> 
> No it made sense, tag sales weren't generating alot of money, even at 280k sales. It was a way to get what seemed to be alot of $$$ out of people at the time. No-one at the time would have predicted that herds would drop so quickly, forcing tag cuts and thereby putting tags in such high demand.
> 
> ...


The people that purchased those tags would have been buying them every year anyhow. There was no gain of money due to sales. It's not as if it drew in a lot of money from non hunters and recruited a lot of extra people. Over the span of ten years it raised $2.3 million.

Cost was $500.00
4606 sold
4484 still active
3869 tags issued this year to LL holders

20% drop from tags sold to to tags issued already.

I am sure the mentor system will have an affect but if the average age was 30-35 those same people will have a very limited time to utilize those tags on youth that fall into the age requirements and then they get to wait for grand kids to reach that same age.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I am sure the mentor system will have an affect but if the average age was 30-35 those same people will have a very limited time to utilize those tags on youth that fall into the age requirements and then they get to wait for grand kids to reach that same age.


I know 2 people who bought them for themselves. Everyone else I know with one was a kid at the time who's dad bought it for them.

-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Never mind


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I totally get where you guys are coming from but don't the lifetime tags represent about 6% of the total general tags? On top of that the mentored program only allows for a 5 year window to use them on a child or grandchild? The mentor must share them with somebody between the ages of 12-17 right?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

swbuckmaster said:


> Never mind


Not looking to argue swbuckmaster. I am just not seeing the huge impact. If I am missing something I would like to know what it is.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The numbers are what they are. They were posted here. The impact does not correlate to response in these discussions. 

In trying to 'fix' Utah's draw system, it would behoove people to focus on the major issues, not the minuscule ones.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Not looking to argue swbuckmaster. I am just not seeing the huge impact. If I am missing something I would like to know what it is.


I don't think the impact is significant with separate bonus and preference point systems. The real impact comes if the state decides it should combine both systems into one. Now you have a problem.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

If my family income increased 6% I could afford a truck. So 6% seems like a lot to me.

4000 tags one year
3 years later and 12000 people could have moved through the system. To the guys sitting out not hunting I'm sure it seems like a lot.

I see 4000 tags and think over half of the camps on the Wasatch west could be are getting tags every year. That's a lot of tags, camps and land locked up!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

swbuckmaster said:


> If my family income increased 6% I could afford a truck. So 6% seems like a lot to me.
> 
> 4000 tags one year
> 3 years later and 12000 people could have moved through the system. To the guys sitting out not hunting I'm sure it seems like a lot.
> ...


You either make a pretty good living or want a very cheap truck.:grin:

I see your point. 4000 tags is a chunk when you break it down like that. Good news is fewer are going to be actually issued as years go by. Like I said before I never have agreed with them being issued in the first place. Poor short sighted management.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I'd like a cheap truck. It's hard hunting with my cars.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

It looks like what is going to happen per the RAC's is that ALL first choices will be drawn first using (and losing) points, but with all other choices being drawn without using or losing points. In other words, everyone will have their first choice considered before anyone has their second choice considered and only first choice winners will lose their points. Beyond that, it gets a little murky, but no one loses points after that.

It'll be interesting to see how that pans out considering the lifetime license holders (no quota), the Dedicated Hunters (15% quota) and the Youth (20% quota) get evaluated before the average hunter. Those numbers may not seem like much in the overall picture, but for the most popular units they could be significant.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Here is a conspiracy for you, the loophole was placed there on purpose when the draw was put into play, so select people in the know would be able to take advantage. The intent was to leave it until it was apparent a certain percentage of the public were doing the same and concerns about it raised with the RAC, at which time another change with some other hidden loophole will be implemented so that same select group will be able to continue to hunt the unit of their choice. 

The bigger issue not being addressed is the lifetime lisence holders taking the bulk of the tags on the best units, severly limiting opporunity in the draw, which will only get worse now if you have any desire to hunt a decent unit over the next 5 years. they need to rewrite the rule for LL, they continue to get their tag for free, but like DH, only a percentage of tags (i.e. 10%, 15%) go to LL hunters on a specific unit. 

Also, does anyone know if this change would affect DH? It works the same as the general season draw with regards to points and draw order, correct?


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Here is a conspiracy for you, the loophole was placed there on purpose when the draw was put into play, so select people in the know would be able to take advantage. The intent was to leave it until it was apparent a certain percentage of the public were doing the same and concerns about it raised with the RAC, at which time another change with some other hidden loophole will be implemented so that same select group will be able to continue to hunt the unit of their choice. 

The bigger issue not being addressed is the lifetime lisence holders taking the bulk of the tags on the best units, severly limiting opporunity in the draw, which will only get worse now if you have any desire to hunt a decent unit over the next 5 years. they need to rewrite the rule for LL, they continue to get their tag for free, but like DH, only a percentage of tags (i.e. 10%, 15%) go to LL hunters on a specific unit. 

Also, does anyone know if this change would affect DH? It works the same as the general season draw with regards to points and draw order, correct?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Flyfishn247 said:


> Here is a conspiracy for you, the loophole was placed there on purpose when the draw was put into play, so select people in the know would be able to take advantage. The intent was to leave it until it was apparent a certain percentage of the public were doing the same and concerns about it raised with the RAC, at which time another change with some other hidden loophole will be implemented so that same select group will be able to continue to hunt the unit of their choice.


Nah, it was a good idea back when we had the main 5 units (and statewide archery)... the wheels fell off when specific units were allowed to have super long draw times.



> The bigger issue not being addressed is the lifetime lisence holders taking the bulk of the tags on the best units


The best units are LE's, which the LL holders cannot apply for.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is always interesting to me that some still think that the LL holders are getting all the tags, and perhaps they may be right in ONE unit but if you go back to post #71 to see just how few there are and post #77 to see the percentages you will see that isn't the case for all the units. 

When I purchased mine back in the 80's $500 was a whole lot of money to invest in a deer and fishing license, and in most cases it was more than a weeks work or wages. Perhaps that is why there were not too many sold until they announced that they were going to end them in 1994. I still know hunters that wanted one but didn't want to put out that amount of money at that time.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

More like go back and read my posts showing how bad they do affect the regular draw. If you forced all the lifers to pick one unit, more than half the hunters on the Wasatch west and their camps get a license every year. That's a lot of tags! 

To the guys getting the bone and not hunting an extra 4,500 tags is a big deal.

To a lifer it's not that big a deal.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> More like go back and read my posts showing how bad they do affect the regular draw. If you forced all the lifers to pick one unit, more than half the hunters on the Wasatch west and their camps get a license every year. That's a lot of tags!
> 
> To the guys getting the bone and not hunting an extra 4,500 tags is a big deal.
> 
> To a lifer it's not that big a deal.


If you look at the Bonus Point Draw Results for 2013 and the Wasatch Mountains west you will see that there were:

4850 eligible resident applicants
4077 drew tags
70 eligible non resident applicants
70 drew tags.

100 Lifetime License holders got tags for the Wasatch West in 2014

So from what I can tell there were less than 100 resident applicants that didn't draw a Wasatch Mountains West tag in 2013. With the odds being 1:2, not bad odds if you ask me.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I agree Dallan, the best units are LE, but there are GS units that are comparable to lower tier LE that the LL do stack in. Probably not many LL putting in for West Desert Tintic, but Thousand Lakes, Beaver, Boulder, all have their fair share. And the fact it is unlimited, and you add in DH and youth, there are very few tags left for the GS draw on some select units. So if a hunter wants to hunt one of the select, and try and bank the points to do so, with the proposed plan they could go 5 or more years without a tag in the draw, waiting to gamble on something decent OTC, just to hunt a GS unit. 

If this is indeed the plan, combine LE and GS (as someone pointed out in the RAC agenda) and make the whole State LE with bonus points. because really it wouldnt matter much, you pick the unit you want, if you draw regardless of choice, you lose all points and start over. Special rules would have to govern LL and DH, but I would support some youth allocation. Or just do like Idaho, make the whole thing lottery with no points awarded, everyone goes into every draw on the same level.

Regardless, I have 4 GS, 4 DH, 3 LE, and 8 Colorado points, so I am looking at 5-6 more years good hunting before this really affects my unit of choice. Admittedly I took advantage of the loophole, but where I didnt benefit much since my preferred unit and choice of archery didn't require points until last year, I did so with the intent one day draw a good rifle hunt, since points are required to complete with LL and DH on the better units in the State.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Critter said:


> If you look at the Bonus Point Draw Results for 2013 and the Wasatch Mountains west you will see that there were:
> 
> 4850 eligible resident applicants
> 4077 drew tags
> ...


What I'm saying went over your head. maybe it's because I thought there were 7,000 tags on the Wasatch west. It doesn't matter. 
If I use your numbers and put all the lifers on one unit they would be the only ones hunting that unit. if anyone hunts that unit they would understand that is a ton of hunters and camps. It's also a ton of country locked up every year by lifers in this state.

My analogy has nothing to do with where lifers actually hunt! Its just a visual showing how many hunters 6% really is.

You can spin it however you want but 4,000 plus tags is a lot of tags. You would flip out if another 4,000 tags went to SFW and locked out the general hunter waiting in line.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I agree with the spin, but no matter how you look at it the chance of all the LL holders putting in for one unit in one year is highly unlikely. I will agree that there are a lot of LL holders putting in for Thousand Lake Mountain but they are also dedicated hunters and that is a sub par unit in my opinion.

So lets look at what is actually happening with tags and not what might happen that doesn't.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> My analogy has nothing to do with where lifers actually hunt! Its just a visual showing how many hunters 6% really is.


Translation: Your analogy has nothing to do with actual reality...but just more spin and misinformation to try and right some imagined injustice.



Flyfishn247 said:


> Probably not many LL putting in for West Desert Tintic...


Hey now, I know two. (my brother, and me) You saying we should change to a better unit next year?

Like I said before, the numbers (IE-facts) are here for us to see. The lifetime license holders are not what is wrong with Utah deer hunting. But by golly, keep at it!

For the record, I would not completely oppose a provision in place limiting the amount of LL tag allocations in each unit. But honestly, I think dispersing them would have a greater impact across the board than having 1 unit impacted.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Plugged in a few numbers on Lifetime License holders. Statewide the total 5.35% for permits issued to LL holders. The total percentage of tags that are issued to LL holders per unit:

Beaver - 6.25%
Box Elder - 4.19%
Cache - 4.62%
Central Mountains, Manti/San Rafael - 3.78%
Central Mountains, Nebo - 2.59%
Chalk Creek/East Canyon/Morgan-South Rich - 3.93%
Fillmore, Oak Creek - 9.80%
Fillmore, Pahvant - 7.71%
Kamas - 2.70%
La Sal, La Sal Mountains - 2.39%
Monroe - 8.73%
Mt. Dutton - 8.65%
Nine Mile - 4.00%
North Slope - 4.37%
Ogden - 4.77%
Oquirrh/Stansbury - 4.25%
Panguitch Lake - 6.65%
Pine Valley - 11.27%
Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowitz - 10.82%
Plateau, Thousand Lake - 50.80%
San Juan, Abajo - 4.81%
South Slope, Vernal/Bonanza - 6.07%
South Slope, Yellowstone - 4.06%
Southwest Desert - 12.63%
Wasatch Mountains, Currant Creek Avintaquin - 6.13%
Wasatch Mountains, West - 2.73%
West Desert, Tintic - 4.38%
West Desert, West - 7.10%
Zion - 8.97%


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Na that's not a lot of tags. Sarcasm!!


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

TS30, no offense intended, I hunted Wasatch West for the first 15 years of my big game hunting, still do on occasion for elk, love the unit, hate the recreationalists. If Tintic is your unit of choice, great. I was just assuming if hunters have a choice to hunt any unit they want, it wouldn't be at the top of many hunters list. 

derek, thanks for posting the numbers. I knew Thousand Lakes was bad and assumed others were worse than displayed in the percentages. I also realize that LL will have a tag regardless, my grandfather is still kicking himslef to this day as he wanted to buy a LL for all the grandsons and waited too long. While those percentages alone are not a concern, if you add in 15% dedicated and up to 20% youth, some units approach 50% (over 85% for Thousand Lakes) of tags gone before they are available to the majority. 

But there isn't reason to think the sky is falling, I'm mostly playing devils advocate. I don't like the fact you lose points for drawing choices 2-5 or try and get a left over tag. I do think that the draw should be done by hunt choice not point tier. Regardless of what is decided, those of us committed to the tradition will make it work. Everyone said the sky was falling when we went to 30 sub-units, I think I like it. Loss of Statewide was the end for archers, I admit it would be nice to still have, but instead I just schedule more time off to stay in the area of my choice now. As long as we continue to find ways to increase opportunity for all and not take it away, thats what is important.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't have the numbers but a lot of LL holders are also dedicated hunters. I know a couple of years ago when I was on the Thousand Lake hunt every hunter that I talked to were both. Granted it was only about 10 hunters but it was interesting at the numbers.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Flyfishn247 said:


> While those percentages alone are not a concern, if you add in 15% dedicated and up to 20% youth, some units approach 50% (over 85% for Thousand Lakes) of tags gone before they are available to the majority.


You can't add the 15% for the dedicated. Anybody can put in for DH.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Critter said:


> I don't have the numbers but a lot of LL holders are also dedicated hunters. I know a couple of years ago when I was on the Thousand Lake hunt every hunter that I talked to were both. Granted it was only about 10 hunters but it was interesting at the numbers.


What would be the advantage of both? I don't think Lifetime licenses are the problem with the draw, but they are a piece of the draw that has to be considered alongside the others. It's interesting to see those percentages. I would say that those numbers are substantial.  Especially when considered with youth and dedicated, etc..... I would like to know what percentage are both lifetime and dedicated, and how they would be considered in the draw.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Kwalk3 said:


> What would be the advantage of both? I don't think Lifetime licenses are the problem with the draw, but they are a piece of the draw that has to be considered alongside the others. It's interesting to see those percentages. I would say that those numbers are substantial. Especially when considered with youth and dedicated, etc..... I would like to know what percentage are both lifetime and dedicated, and how they would be considered in the draw.


You would have to get in touch with someone at the DOW to dig into the percentages of LL that are also DH's. I know that if I was still a resident where I was able to hunt all 3 seasons I would consider it myself.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I think its silly. I could be pissed at all the guys that purchased loads of microsoft stock in the 80's, but hey, that was their investment! I never had the opportunity to purchase a LL tag(too young) and I am not even mad. I applaud the folks back then that made a large commitment to hunting. I am more curious what the DWR did with the major funds received from the sale.

These guys made a good investment. Its silly to see the same people on here who complain about the DWR saying they should now go against their word. In reality any man shouldN't suggest that. A man, an entity, whatever is only as good as their word. My pops taught me about that. Taught me principles. For my strong belief in that, I could never ask that the word made to these men and women be taken away.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm not asking that it be taken away at all. Just saying there needs to be a discussion about how to best consider them and still ensure reasonable opportunity for the rest of us who were not able to buy one. It's a unique circumstance that while certainly not that big of a deal, still does at least warrant the discussion.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

When I bought my lifetime license I could hunt statewide. I still have the same license. I think I should be able to hunt statewide with the license I bought.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I will revise my previously posted numbers. I went back and looked at the number of successful DH applicants from 2012, 2013, and 2014 to get a complete picture of the number of resident permits distributed. It was easier to take a screenshot instead of typing everything in so the image is attached.

A couple things I noticed:

There are 10 units where the percentage of LLs is greater than DHs, so therefore there are 20 units where the percentage of DHs is greater than LLs. I would have thought that DHs would have been greater in every unit, but for 1/3 of the units that is not the case.
There are only 8 units that are at the maximum number of DH (based upon the 15% cap), all other units are below that cap. And 17 units are below 10% of the total tags.



Flyfishn247 said:


> derek, thanks for posting the numbers. I knew Thousand Lakes was bad and assumed others were worse than displayed in the percentages... While those percentages alone are not a concern, if you add in 15% dedicated and up to 20% youth, some units approach 50% (over 85% for Thousand Lakes) of tags gone before they are available to the majority.


Excluding Thousand Lakes, I don't think that ANY unit even comes close to approaching 50% of total tags issued between LL, DH, and youth. I realistically cannot see the youth impact as any greater than LL or DH so in my mind there are many units where the impact of LL, DH, and youth combined is less than 25%. How much of an impact do you really think youth have on the tag pool?
I'm not implying that the impact is negligible, but the impact is likely less than what we expect. Like I said, I would have thought the DH impact would have been greater in ALL units, so I was expecting to see percentages higher than what the numbers showed me.

The topic of LLs comes up frequently in discussions with my grandpa, he purchased one just weeks or days before they we discontinued and he regrets not buying one for his grandkids but at the time he didn't know if we would be interested in hunting or fishing so he opted not to... but boy do I wish that he had.



Critter said:


> You would have to get in touch with someone at the DOW to dig into the percentages of LL that are also DH's. I know that if I was still a resident where I was able to hunt all 3 seasons I would consider it myself.


The number of guys that "are both" is completely irrelevant... you are either one or the other in terms of the drawing statistics posted by the DWR. If my grandpa put in for his general deer tag with the rest of my family in a group... he would forfeit his LL and be required to pay the $10 application fee and the $40 permit fee. A LL holder that applies for the DH program also forfeits his LL perks for those three years while he participates in the DH program. If he elects not to reapply for the DH program once his three year tenure is up he can reassume his LL perks if he so chooses.


----------

