# 2019 big game antlerless draw odds



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Saw these were posted. Kinda surprised how much point averages jumped to draw certain units that have historically taken very few points to get a tag. Other units weren't as popular as they have been in the past.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/2019/19_antlerless_drawing_odds_report.pdf


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t even know if I can look at these after this year’s debacle!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

And of course, I looked. I only have one word:

Wow.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> I don't even know if I can look at these after this year's debacle!


What debacle?


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

in my units the available tag numbers decreased significantly, which would likely account for some of the uncharacteristic jump in points to draw.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I see a "non-pointer" drew my antlerless moose tag.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

High Desert Elk said:


> I see a "non-pointer" drew my antlerless moose tag.


Random tags have got to go.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

7MM RELOADED said:


> Random tags have got to go.


You could move to change the rules, you selfish son of

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ns450f said:


> What debacle?


I don't have a better word to describe the state of Utah's antlerless hunts. Debacle seems to fit.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Unbelievable.
Headed quickly to where it will take 8 to 10 points on many units to pull an antlerless permit!


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

weaversamuel76 said:


> You could move to change the rules, you selfish son of
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


Maybe I will , seems to me the guys without enough points and want to draw a tag early without standing in line are selfish and Totfp!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Four points to draw a vast majority of the doe antelope tags?!?!?! WOW!


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

7MM RELOADED said:


> Maybe I will , seems to me the guys without enough points and want to draw a tag early without standing in line are selfish and Totfp!


Perspective is everything in this discussion I guess. I have no interest into going to that type of system, I'd personally much rather see Utah go back to full random draw

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Perspective is everything in this discussion I guess. I have no interest into going to that type of system, I'd personally much rather see Utah go back to full random draw


I've made pretty clear my disagreement with this notion, but watching the antlerless draw become a true limited entry hunt may be enough to push us to that system, which is an utter tragedy, in my opinion. The preference point system is a crappy system once demand starts to vastly outnumber the supply. At least the bonus point system gives every a "little" chance to hunt.

A hunt I applied for was a 2 point unit last year. It took 5 to draw it this year. I will have almost as good of odds to hunt a cow elk with 3 points next year on Deseret as I do on a public land tag on a unit with the largest elk herd in the state. It's just nuts.

Pretty unreal what has happened to these hunts the last 5-10 years. Antlerless used to be termed an "opportunity" hunt here in Utah. I'm going to punch anyone in the face that I hear say that anymore.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

11,837 applicants/point buyers for 1,744 antlerless deer tags? Then add the depredation/landowner tags? That'll ruffle some feathers!


----------



## muddydogs (Oct 7, 2007)

But hunter numbers are decreasing so how can we be getting point creep across the board? Riddle me that Batman.

Even for the so so unit I hunt deer and cow elk in its looking like its now an every 3 year hunt instead of 2, might even be closer to every 4 years.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

From what I see the unit I put In for. The tags dropped by 2/3rds. But at the same time the private land owner tags for same unit increased. Seems funny to me. 

If they really want to lower the cow population the tags wouldn’t go down. 

Once again it seems they are catering to the landowners again.

Just realize we will all be bitching about general bull in 2 years. This is part of the reason Utah is the joke of the western states when it comes to hunting. And religion


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Every Utahn over the age of 50: I can't believe how crowded our state is becoming..so much traffic!...can't draw a tag!...Horrible!

Also every Utahn over the age of 50: has 4+ kids

Shocked :shock:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Hoopermat said:


> Just realize we will all be bitching about general bull in 2 years. This is part of the reason Utah is the joke of the western states when it comes to hunting. *And religion*


Tell us how you really feel. Seems like a worthwhile discussion on a hunting forum...


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

hogg65 said:


> I'm not sure how accurate these draw odds are. My son drew a cow elk tag with 2 points. On the unit he drew, it shows nobody with 1,2,or 3 points drew the tag. I had 4 antelope points going in to the draw, with this year making 5 points total. Everyone with 4 plus points drew the tag, except for me. Soooooo, I'm not sure how accurate these odds really are. Nice tool to see, but not 100% accurate. Good luck to everybody.


Look at the youth draw page for your sons odds. He probably drew with the 20% allocation for youth.

Also, you don't get an extra point for this years draw. If you went in with 4 points, then you were in the 4 point draw bucket, not 5.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

brisket said:


> hogg65 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure how accurate these draw odds are. My son drew a cow elk tag with 2 points. On the unit he drew, it shows nobody with 1,2,or 3 points drew the tag. I had 4 antelope points going in to the draw, with this year making 5 points total. Everyone with 4 plus points drew the tag, except for me. Soooooo, I'm not sure how accurate these odds really are. Nice tool to see, but not 100% accurate. Good luck to everybody.
> ...


Here's the link to the youth odds: https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/2019/19_youth_antlerless_drawing_odds_report.pdf


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I’m in the 2 point pool...😞


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

KineKilla said:


> I'm in the 2 point pool...&#128542;


You'll draw sometime in the next 5 years!


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

It didn’t used to be this way. There are tons of elk. Not sure what the biologists are seeing but what’s a guy to do?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Feel sorry for those that thought antlerless tags would be unlimited.
What would be your solution? 
Should we now be forced to not only pick a weapon but pick a species and sex?
You can't hunt if you don't apply. Isn't that the mantra?
Well it appears that people are listening. Limit the application to one species?
Careful what you wish for.


----------



## hogg65 (Apr 5, 2018)

Brisket, thanks for your clarification. I need to be more diligent with the preferences point rules. I was unaware of the youth only allotments, my own fault there. Good luck to all this year.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

hogg65 said:


> Brisket, thanks for your clarification. I need to be more diligent with the preferences point rules. I was unaware of the youth only allotments, my own fault there. Good luck to all this year.


No worries, the draw is complex and can be confusing. Hopefully you'll draw next year with 5 points.


----------



## mycoltbug (Jan 21, 2013)

I won't lie, I was pretty bummed when I was unsuccessful with 1 bonus point for the GS deer on Wasatach and Oquirahs buck tagas, both Rifle and Archery. Then I thought that there was no way with 3 bonus points I wouldn't draw the Deseret Cow tag, guess again. No hunting for me this year.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Feel sorry for those that thought antlerless tags would be unlimited.
> What would be your solution?


I'm not sure anyone thought antlerless tags were unlimited. Being disappointed that a hunt type that has been categorized as an "opportunity" hunt in Utah turning into a once every 3-5 year hunt shouldn't be blown out of proportion and mis-characterized as anything other than disappointment.



middlefork said:


> What would be your solution?
> Should we now be forced to not only pick a weapon but pick a species and sex?


No, I would not like to see us go to that extreme. But we may have to look at the preference point system. Preference point system only works when the supply is somewhat comparable to the demand. Unlike the bonus point system that gives a percentage of priority for those with the most points, but everyone has a chance, the preference point system makes it so you have no chance unless you are a top point holder. Which is fine if you're pulling a tag every other year. A Manti cow elk tag is taking 3+ points as of this writing to draw. Hunting the largest elk herd in the state every 4 years at best? C'mon man.



middlefork said:


> Well it appears that people are listening.


I hope they are. As the Wildlife Board has continued to strip public tags out of the public draw for conservation organizations (over 500 last year...and increasing), they have preached all the "opportunity" Utah still has available. This is total crap, and these draw odds are showing that beyond a reasonable doubt. We are losing opportunity in the opportunity hunts. It was mentioned above, but how long until the general season over the counter bull tags go to a draw? Eventually Utah sportsmen need to fight back over this stuff. We'll see how bad it gets before we demand change.

"Don't worry about us taking 600 public tags out of the public draw next year, you have plenty of opportunity. Just go jump in line for a cow elk tag you'll draw in the next 4-6 years! Hey Don, you want a few cow elk tags to add to all those trophy bull tags we gave you?" -Wildlife Board


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Utah's whole PP and BP system could stand for a complete revamping.

Even in Colorado there is only one set of points per species. If you have 10 points and want to use them on a cow instead of a bull, go ahead and use them. You are now just hunting cow elk. While there is the opportunity to hunt both the same year those chances are getting slimmer.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don't look to Colorado as the standard for an awesome draw system, though.I actually don't look to Colorado for wisdom in just about anything these days. Your state is screwed up! No offense intended, Critter. 

There will be some difficult decisions made in the next 5 years for wildlife/hunter management in Utah. I simply hope that the majority is considered in those decision, and not just what small interest groups think should happen.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The thing with Colorado is that there is just one draw system and not half a dozen. It is simple enough that even a caveman can figure it out 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Soligue (May 28, 2013)

Simple law of supply and demand. Utah and the rest of the western states have rapidly increasing populations. I am a northern Nevada lifetime resident. Timeline for Nevada...early 70’s residents and non-residents buy buck deer tags over the counter, over crowding/hunting ruins the experience and decimates herds. NDOW forced to take action. Draw system established in 1975 and all buck tags are by draw in 1976. Since that time all big game tags have, in general, become harder to draw, even with tweaking of the system and a change from the Preference Point system to the Bonus Point system in the early 1990’s. Both herd health and hunter population/participation influence the odds of drawing a tag under any quota system. Make your opinions known and hope for the best but just be aware that as Utah’s population grows your individual hunting opportunities will shrink. Sorry to appear negative but sometimes understanding the facts can lower expectations to a reasonable level.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Soligue said:


> Simple law of supply and demand.


It's really not supply and demand (as a normal market good would be considered) because the price of tags stays fixed. At least I can't remember the last time tag prices were raised.

If there was a free market in hunting tags, with increased demand and limited supply, the price of tags should rise until the true market price is discovered.

Tags are issued by the government with price controls put on the goods, which results in long queues as the price is artificially low which increases demand. It would be interesting to see what the prices would be if the market was allowed to work. Who knows, Pine Valley GS rifle deer tags could cost $300, Box Elder archery might be $10, but you could hunt it every year if you had the money, not every 3 years.


----------



## prumpf (Apr 8, 2016)

brisket said:


> Soligue said:
> 
> 
> > Simple law of supply and demand.
> ...


Well there you have it, externalities of government intervention. Positive for some negative for others... and in the long run negative for any newcomer.

Who said those economics classes didn't pay off? Right brisket? &#128514;


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Man, my economics classes would have been much more entertaining had the professors talked about the supply and demand of hunting tags instead of widgets.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I'm not reading this all. I will just queue the usual:


FULL RANDOM.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> I'm not reading this all. I will just queue the usual:
> 
> FULL RANDOM.


Full random is NOT better than Utahs 50/50 split on bonus pts.

Further more,
Utah should switch preference points to bonus points.
The BP system would be better for antlerless draw

We had random draws in Utah for many years.
Those of us that delt with that are glad it's gone.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> Full random is NOT better than Utahs 50/50 split on bonus pts.
> 
> Further more,
> Utah should switch preference points to bonus points.
> ...


We don't split on Antlerless.

Not everyone draws every tag in the state like you goof. For those of us that are young, what you got to do is not a reality. Shoot, for those that are old they are just hoping for one more tag. When they switched to points I am sure it was a good idea and worked for awhile. Those days are GONE.

If you look on big game odds blog, there are a lot of units that take 100+ years to be guaranteed, That's just LE. There are even quite a few pushing 350 years. OIAL moose would take what, 1000 years if you started today?

Anyways. Full Random(elk), over and out!


----------



## PEAK777 (Aug 26, 2018)

So I talked to a biologist this week about a similar topic. I asked why there wasn’t an abundance of doe tags available for units with lots of public land like La Sal, yet we probably saw 200 does last year in our six days of elk hunting. We only saw 4-6 bucks. The answer I got was that a few years ago the DNR sent out surveys to hunters asking what they would rather have, a chance to kill big mature bucks or the opportunity to have more antlerless hunts. According to the biologist the feedback was the former (mature bucks) so they decided not to issue more antlerless tags. They also said that Utah manages it’s deer herd based off of what the hunters want and not science/deer population densities. I don’t know what hunters they’re referring to because everyone I’ve seen post on this forum and talked to around town say they would love more “opportunity” hunts. Second, why aren’t they using science to manage the deer population?! There’s a difference in a big deer population and a healthy deer population. We also discussed CWD and guess what... The highest CWD percentage in Utah is in the La Sal unit where there’s overcrowding of deer herds. I don’t know how they’ve never put those two together since it took me two short conversations to figure it out. And I am in no way, shape, or form a genius. And if they have noticed it and still aren’t doing anything about it, then that’s poor leadership and poor management. Any thoughts on this stuff?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

This is my personal opinion - the system is not broken. People just have unrealistic expectations and, generally speaking, are lazy. 

Can’t draw a tag? Budget $20-$100 bucks a month and buy a landowner voucher. There a quite a few listed on KSL right now. Can’t save $20-$100 a month? Get rid of Spotify, Hulu, Netflix, don’t buy a new iPhone every time a new version comes out, etc. 

Can’t draw a tag? Don’t put all your eggs (options) in one basket (state). There are plenty of opportunities elsewhere.

TOTP!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Read my post again random,
I'm saying,
We SHOULD 50/50 split antlerless .


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Sounds like they need to put a Cap on Preference Points for antlerless hunts. 

Here is an idea I have heard discussed- everyone should only be able to get one big game tag before a certain date or after others get their first choices. Draw a tag in the Big Game draw- can't apply for a first choice in the antlerless draw. Draw an antlerless tag, can't purchase an OTC tag until 1 week after they go on sale. Just something to allow those without a tag a chance to hunt, but still allow people to hold multiple tags if there are leftovers. 

..


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Packout said:


> Sounds like they need to put a Cap on Preference Points for antlerless hunts.
> 
> Here is an idea I have heard discussed- everyone should only be able to get one big game tag before a certain date or after others get their first choices. Draw a tag in the Big Game draw- can't apply for a first choice in the antlerless draw. Draw an antlerless tag, can't purchase an OTC tag until 1 week after they go on sale. Just something to allow those without a tag a chance to hunt, but still allow people to hold multiple tags if there are leftovers.
> 
> ..


As long as we're only talking about the Utah Public Draw, that seems like a workable solution with a tweek or four or five, since we'd have to consider points, two animal tags, weapons, split hunts, timing, quality, ages of hunters, draw sequence, etc. But, in addition to leftover tags from the Public Draw, there are opportunities to obtain tags through auctions, landowners, depredation, CWMU purchases, control elk & EXPO. Of course, the devil is in the details, but I'd be in favor of it being considered by the Wildlife Board.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

CPAjeff said:


> This is my personal opinion - the system is not broken. People just have unrealistic expectations and, generally speaking, are lazy.
> 
> Can't draw a tag? Budget $20-$100 bucks a month and buy a landowner voucher. There a quite a few listed on KSL right now. Can't save $20-$100 a month? Get rid of Spotify, Hulu, Netflix, don't buy a new iPhone every time a new version comes out, etc.
> 
> ...


Is drawing more than one good tag in your lifetime an unrealistic expectation?

Is a doe antelope taking 7-8 years realistic? Is wanting to hunt cows even twice every ten years unrealistic?

While I agree that you can go to other states, or pay $1500-$2000 for a $50 cow elk, or $300+ for a doe.... I disagree that it's unrealistic to expect some opportunity. A lot of us have figured out how to make that happen. I have a handful of tags every year and am still a vocal advocate for opportunity, because I know workarounds aren't forever, don't work for everyone, or have the bandwidth for all of us. Case in point is looking at wyomings odds for NR each year lol. It's not getting better.

Idaho just switched their allocation percentage because residents got pissed, colorado and wyoming make changes frequently and are becoming more conscious of in-state vs out-of opportunity.

I think it's fair to ask more of Utah, rather than to let the other states solve Utah's problem.

A system that is built to heavily favor long time applicants, and they still hardly draw(some never will), is broken. The odds on random draw improve for almost everyone. The tippy top 22+ point guys go down a little bit, but I would trade 99% of peoples odds going up, to have the top 1% go down a little. If their odds aren't a 100% (which seems to be disappearing, thus point creep), it's a worthless system.

I get it, we can all play the game different or be filthy rich... If the system never changes, that's ok. I think it's sad where every other state is happy hunting in state, and we are happier hunting their states. Which is inevitably going to create a problem for them. I don't mind being one of the disrupter voices in hope of something different.

The convo comes up enough (monthly) that something isn't right.


----------



## Buckfinder (May 23, 2009)

What should Utah do different with doe antelope? There are only so many and obviously more people that want to hunt them then there are animals. It sucks for sure but what’s the solution?


----------



## elkantlers (Feb 27, 2014)

I would like to know what percentage of people B!t(hing about not enough opportunity, Which means not enough animals to go around, have ever gotten off their butts and worked on a habitat conservation project to try to help increase our wildlife? 

What I see is Take, Take, Take...


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Buckfinder said:


> What should Utah do different with doe antelope? There are only so many and obviously more people that want to hunt them then there are animals. It sucks for sure but what's the solution?


Everyone having an increase in Outcome would require tag increases, yes...

Equal opportunity just requires going random.

I will make a concession and say we can add a waiting period, why not.


----------



## Buckfinder (May 23, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Everyone having an increase in Outcome would require tag increases, yes...
> 
> Equal opportunity just requires going random.
> 
> I will make a concession and say we can add a waiting period, why not.


Those things would help a bit I suppose. But it is hard to swallow the possibility of never drawing a tag. There are folks in other states that have put in for 20 years and never drawn a tag. Both hard pills to swallow for sure.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Buckfinder said:


> But it is hard to swallow the possibility of never drawing a tag.


We are already facing that possibility.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

elkantlers said:


> I would like to know what percentage of people B!t(hing about not enough opportunity, Which means not enough animals to go around, have ever gotten off their butts and worked on a habitat conservation project to try to help increase our wildlife?
> 
> What I see is Take, Take, Take...


You are reading, not seeing. You don't know what any of us do to help wildlife.

You know what would be an even better thing for conservation? Take back the millions from expo and auction tags to do real projects and cut out the BS lining peoples pockets.

Changing a draw system isn't greedy, or take take take. I could literally NEVER draw a tag on a full random system. That's not taking anything more. Like I said, I have a bunch of Utah tags, even put a couple off for other seasons... I am actually advocating for others.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Random,
We all ready have a RANDOM draw for 50% of the BP permits!
Then 50% for those standing line line for MANY years.
Whats not fair about that?

Antlerless now need to be the BP System aswell.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

goofy elk said:


> Random,
> We all ready have a RANDOM draw for 50% of the BP permits!
> Then 50% for those standing line line for MANY years.
> Whats not fair about that?
> ...


What's unfair about getting an extra chance in draw for every year you wait and seeing how your luck holds in a straight up bonus point draw system. Much more fair to everyone no matter the stage of the game they enter. Why do we have to go above and beyond and reserve half the tags?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

:argue:


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> Random,
> We all ready have a RANDOM draw for 50% of the BP permits!
> Then 50% for those standing line line for MANY years.
> Whats not fair about that?
> ...


Never said it wasn't fair. I don't like a system that was designed with a purpose that it fulfills less and less as time goes on. It's a diminishing return setup. A system that gives preference the more years you wait makes sense on the surface, until these people are dying waiting for it to pay off.

Look at moose. I almost think the hope of the system is evil - when people have 18 moose points and say they are going to draw in the next couple years, it's sad. They don't know that isn't the truth. Over 98% of people would have had better odds on a full random. So my stance is if the purpose of the system isn't really being met, maybe it's just time to change the purpose? All the while making things incredibly simple.

I like Idaho requiring the money upfront. People won't put in for stuff just because. Tag returns the week of the hunt would happen less because you can't just say "next year I get a better deer". I would still be ok guaranteeing the tag if the same stipulations are met that are required now (major health typically, although that's a broken system sometimes).

Again, if it stays that's fine. It's not bad to have people pushing for different things. With the quick sale of the OTC elk this year, that path is finally coming to odds where it's oppty will diminish, maybe even go to a draw.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I've got 3 big game tags in my pocket right now. Two of them are archery tags. I accept that I might not put any venison in the freezer this year. Didn't last year, with the same tags. That's on me. With that said...

There are 3 factors that account for just about every complaint hunters have about hunting in Utah.

First, due to public input (SFW), Utah management shifted from hunting to manage wildlife to managing wildlife to hunt, aka ranch management. Works great in Texas or Illinois, but not so good in Utah where 64% of the land is public. That's a dang big ranch. No matter what the Wildlife Board dictates, Nature rules. That's just the way it is.

Second, Utah decided that limiting hunter numbers equated with "quality" hunting = more animals, bigger animals and easier hunts (higher success rates). Often does, but that also means you don't get a tag. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Third, Utah hunters have ridiculously unrealistic expectations. Fact is, hunting is a challenge...or at least should be. It's amazing how many elk hunters actually expect to draw a tag for a place they've never been and then kill a trophy bull in a single weekend. When that doesn't happen, they whine for more limitations. Then they whine because they can't draw a tag.

So now we have hunters squabbling over antlerless draw tags? Gosh, how did that happen?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof, I haven't been around as long as you have, but I've been around a while. What I see is that most people just want a different draw system than the one they have. 

Unless the tags were all over the counter and everyone could have one, people are going to be upset at the system, regardless of what the system is. 

I have stated many times on this forum, and I'll say it again, while I don't believe the bonus point system with a 50/50 split is perfect, I think it's the best system out there when the supply is vastly exceeded by the demand. 

I'd be in favor of putting antlerless (and general deer for that matter) into that system and getting rid of the preference point system entirely. Make it all the same.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Why not just go to one animal species per hunter per year. Bull elk or cow, buck or doe deer, no buck and doe tag or bull and cow tag. And if you have a bull or buck tag you are not eligible for the doe or cow draws and points. 

Lets do something radical.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Goof, I haven't been around as long as you have, but I've been around a while. What I see is that most people just want a different draw system than the one they have.
> 
> Unless the tags were all over the counter and everyone could have one, people are going to be upset at the system, regardless of what the system is.
> 
> ...


I like saying full random to fire the crowd up... and I still lean that way. BUT:

I would feel substantially better about the current system if it wasn't infinite. There needs to be some cap on it. I proposed a few times that every 5 years you get an extra point, cap it at 5 points. Your odds would like like a staircase, but there would be a top stair. Right now it's a straight line going to infinity. Also, would maybe even change the allocation rates. Or do the above with a full random no bonus point guarantee. You just get a couple extra entries.

I don't think we should put antlerless on it, until after we tweak it. All it would do is accelerate antlerless point creep that's already happening.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TS
I agree, GS deer should be bonus point aswell.
The whole preference point system needs to covert to BPs.......

I'LL say it right here.
One point system for Utah draws.
Bonus point. 50/59 
Across the board.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I think that the bonus point pool should go to at least 70/30 if not 80/20 in favor of the high point holders. Lets start moving some of us that are over 60 through the system before we are planted.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> I think that the bonus point pool should go to at least 70/30 if not 80/20 in favor of the high point holders. Lets start moving some of us that are over 60 through the system before we are planted.


Lol... WIIFM, right? While I feel for the older generation, most of the ones 60 and over actually saw the benefits of the old system, and this one when it was in place. I feel for the generation that will be 60 before they get their first tag. That's the present we live in.

I would be curious, those of you over 60 - How many LE and OIAL tags have you had? Honestly? And how long have you been a resident as well as hunting in Utah?

How many GS deer tags have you had? Many archery units now take multiple years..


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

When I was a resident of Utah years ago and it was a random draw I put in every year for bison, moose, and then started to put in for Mt goats. I had over 20 years invested in those draws without a single tag being drawn. I also saw applicants that I know draw the first or second year that they put in, but that was a random draw then and you could expect something like that.. I also know a hunter who drew every OIL tag that Utah has to offer, some the first few years of putting in and towards the end others with very few points. 

Now as a non resident any LE or OIL tag is just a pipe dream of mine. I did manage a Book Cliff elk tag with 9 points and a LE Book Cliff ML deer tag with 15. But at the time in both drawings I had max points for a NR and on the deer I had to wait for the second year being at max points to draw the deer tag.

I won't even say how many bison, moose and antelope points I have now, it is almost embarrassing to have so many points and not draw a tag.

For GS deer tags I am a lucky one who scraped together $500 and purchased a LL when they first became available. At the time that was over a weeks wages.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Critter - just move back over to a Utah for three years and burn the rest of those points.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

RandomElk16 said:


> Is drawing more than one good tag in your lifetime an unrealistic expectation? Good question, define "good" - I drew a doe antelope tag with one point and had chances to kill a doe numerous times. Each time, the doe had fawns with her. I'm completely satisfied with my hunt and consider my experience better than good.
> 
> Is a doe antelope taking 7-8 years realistic? Honestly, there is NO reason to wait that long for a doe tag. Is wanting to hunt cows even twice every ten years unrealistic? Same comment as directly before - there is NO reason to wait five years for a cow elk tag. A tag is a license to hunt, not a guarantee kill. I know you know this, and I apologize for the redundancy.
> 
> ...


Great post - see my comments in red.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

CPAjeff said:


> Great post - see my comments in red.


Thanks for the replies Jeff. My good tag comment was more referring to antlered species, both LE or OIAL. Even for antlerless, the points pool is on the rise. It stayed for a long time but now that it's going up, and likely won't stop.

Again, you and I both know how to get tags. I just fear for those that don't, or when they figure it all out and then we are back in the same boat lol.

It's also the future of Utah with things like GS elk. I don't want it to become part of the same BS system everything else is.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

RandomElk16 said:


> My good tag comment was more referring to antlered species, both LE or OIAL. Even for antlerless, the points pool is on the rise. It stayed for a long time but now that it's going up, and likely won't stop.


I agree that the points pool is on the rise and won't likely stop. I wonder how the mentoring system has impacted this phenomenon? My Dad isn't much of a big game hunter, yet I put him in for points every year so that my son will have a LE hunt early in his teenage years, I do the same with my wife for my daughter. I'm not saying this strategy is correct, and this is like the pot calling the kettle black, but I don't think I'm the only one in this state doing this ...

On the topic of a "good" LE and OIAL tag, we could debate this until the end of time and I think "good" is in the eye of the beholder. I started building points in 2004 and by 2021 I'll have drawn all three LE species tags - I don't go for the top tier units, but units that'll meet my expectations (neat area, opportunity to see plenty of animals, etc.).

The point creep might be decreased if the state didn't take so many tags from the regular draw and roll them into auction/expo tags ...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> The point creep might be decreased if the state didn't take so many tags from the regular draw and roll them into auction/expo tags ...


Not only LE and OIL point creep, but they're putting cow tags there now too!

Funny- I wonder how many people have thought about this? They draw 200 tags at the expo. It used to be 200 OIL and LE tags. They still draw 200 tags, yet a handful of those became cow tags last year. What tags did they take out of the "public" expo draw and put into the auction pool to make room for those highly coveted cow tags?

Every year we get hoodwinked in a worse way. They count on two things:

1- Nobody will pay attention; or 
2- Nobody who isn't paying attention will pay attention to those that are and sound the siren.

One day we'll re-take Utah wildlife. I wonder how bad it will have to get before we do it? Or will it get so bad and we'll cross the tipping point and people will just give up and Don and the privatization crew will finally get all "their" tags to kill "their" animals.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

CPAjeff said:


> This is my personal opinion - the system is not broken. People just have unrealistic expectations and, generally speaking, are lazy.
> 
> Can't draw a tag? Budget $20-$100 bucks a month and buy a landowner voucher. There a quite a few listed on KSL right now. Can't save $20-$100 a month? Get rid of Spotify, Hulu, Netflix, don't buy a new iPhone every time a new version comes out, etc.
> 
> ...


There are plenty of us who can't afford to even apply for both the big game and antlerless lottery every year. Heck, it took me 2 years to buy an entry level O/U. When you factor in student debt, inflated cost for first time home buyers with no equity, and medical debt (all very common for people 40 and younger) than you quickly see how untenable the above proposition is for many.

I know at least a few others like myself who are likely giving up big game hunting because of the current state of affairs. Good in the short term for other hunters but definitely not good to bleed existing hunters when we are claiming we need higher recruitment.



Critter said:


> Why not just go to one animal species per hunter per year. Bull elk or cow, buck or doe deer, no buck and doe tag or bull and cow tag. And if you have a bull or buck tag you are not eligible for the doe or cow draws and points.
> 
> Lets do something radical.


This. I would forgo ever hunting a trophy buck or bull to just have the chance most years to hunt a single doe or cow to fill the freezer. I see no reason the antlerless draw should a completely different system. As it stands, it's hard for me to justify $40-80 a year just to stay in the running for a permit every few years. Even the great option of being a dedicated hunter adds up in cost.

But as someone else hinted...as long as we prioritize trophy animals in Utah we are going to have a big deficit in permits.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

CPAjeff said:


> I wonder how the mentoring system has impacted this phenomenon?


I think a lot. My wife is the proud point holder for LE Elk so 1. I get a headstart while I am on my waiting period and 2. My son can go with me when said tag is drawn.

It's a win-win, but I will be taking an extra tag at some point. We don't put her in for anything else, but I know we could and it's not far fetched to think a lot of others do that. Grandma, Auntie, etc... It happens for "mentoring" but I don't know to what degree.

Multiple OIAL and no LE waiting is one thing... But the fact they can shoot two antlered animals of the same species each year doesn't help (or make ANY sense).


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

RandomElk16 said:


> I think a lot. My wife is the proud point holder for LE Elk so 1. I get a headstart while I am on my waiting period and 2. My son can go with me when said tag is drawn.
> 
> It's a win-win, but I will be taking an extra tag at some point. We don't put her in for anything else, but I know we could and it's not far fetched to think a lot of others do that. Grandma, Auntie, etc... It happens for "mentoring" but I don't know to what degree.
> 
> Multiple OIAL and no LE waiting is one thing... But the fact they can shoot two antlered animals of the same species each year doesn't help (or make ANY sense).


There was an increase in applications due to the mentoring program, but it wasn't as much as many of you think and it only bumped the point creep up by a couple of years or so. In fact, the big bump happened in 2015, the year after the mentoring program started. I guess it took a year for it to catch on.

Per some info I GRAMA'ed from the DWR:

Total Big Game Draw Applications: (not counting antlerless)
2010 - 251,894
2011 - 248,247 (-3,647) -GS deer regions
2012 - 260,933 (+12,686) - GS deer units
2013 - 273,911 (+12,979)
2014 - 288,255 (+14,344) - mentoring program started
2015 - 319,983 (+31,729)
2016 - 334,278 (+14,295)
2017 - 358,083 (+23,805) - new LE hunts for bison, deer, elk & pronghorn
2018 - 369,074 (+10,991)
2019 - 381,075 (+12,001)

Of course there are other factors that may have contributed to the numbers and each species have their own numbers, but the mentoring program was a major factor in all of them. And as you can see, changing from deer regions to units per Option #2 was also a major factor in the GS deer point creep.

Given the general increase in applications per year, the 2015 spike in numbers would only add a couple of years to the point creep. I guess that may or may not be a problem depending on your individual circumstances. I'm 78 with issues typical of hunters my age, but since I'm not a die-hard trophy or nothing hunter, I'll just deal with those personal challenges as best I can. However, I will continue to speak against the unnecessary social regulations that hinder or stop me from legally hunting my way.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

The jump in 2017 is partially due to allowing 12 and 13 year olds to apply for OIL. The minimum was 14 years old prior to that. 
At least I think it was 2017 when that rule changed.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

backcountry said:


> There are plenty of us who can't afford to even apply for both the big game and antlerless lottery every year. Heck, it took me 2 years to buy an entry level O/U. When you factor in student debt, inflated cost for first time home buyers with no equity, and medical debt (all very common for people 40 and younger) than you quickly see how untenable the above proposition is for many.


Maybe these next comments will be misdirected, if so, I apologize in advance.

Life isn't fair, it hasn't been since the beginning of time and it won't be through the end of time. As a society, we have transitioned into this "me, me, me" metamorphosis. Why should all the rules change, simple because some can't afford to play by those rules?

Also, my proposition isn't EASILY obtainable for many, but it is obtainable. It all depends on priorities. Let's be honest - for the vast majority of the population of hunters, hunting IS NOT an economical way of acquiring meat. The meat from last antelope hunt I was on, had I killed a doe, would have cost ~$25.00 a pound. I hunt for the experience, and because of that, I am willing to pay for the experience.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

CPAjeff said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of us who can't afford to even apply for both the big game and antlerless lottery every year. Heck, it took me 2 years to buy an entry level O/U. When you factor in student debt, inflated cost for first time home buyers with no equity, and medical debt (all very common for people 40 and younger) than you quickly see how untenable the above proposition is for many.
> ...


To be honest, I think the "me,me,me" criticism isn't a accurate one for an issue involving a public resource that is managed based on public demand. Nor does it relate to my comment as it dealt with a willingness to compromise for multiple stakeholder needs to find a better compromise. This type of system is ever changing and the socio-economics of average hunters has always been a foundational issue for justifying the North American Model; there is a reason the list of tenets for our model of hunting almost always includes, if not starts with, democratic access to wildlife. Striving for (not necessarily obtaining that fickle beast) "fairness" is baked into that philosophy.

And I definitely disagree with the concept that an appropriate solution is to expect more people to pay for hunting public resources on private lands via expensive access. I don't blame anyone for using those opportunities as they currently exist but it's simply not viable for the vast majority of citizens.

Hunting for the experience and hunting for meat aren't mutually exclusive. Most of us seem to value both to some degree. But the more of our wildlife that is auctioned off or only accessible via commercial fees for access the farther we stray from the democratic norms of our wildlife model.

To put it simply, there is a fundamental difference between making the most of what currently exists and advocating that as an ideal structure. We are far from an ideal right now as it takes longer to get through the queue and exponentially more money to do so. I don't expect a free lunch or more access than my fellow citizens, I just want the system to work better and be truly equitable. It's not right now and the idea you are advocating highlights that reality. Pay to play is simply not equitable.

PS...I appreciate your edit but I challenge your concept of "priorities". I will never blame anyone with the means in using the opportunities you describe; but assuming it's about priorities and not means is extremely problematic when it comes to building systems like this one.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> And I definitely disagree with the concept that an appropriate solution is to expect more people to pay for hunting public resources on private lands via expensive access. I don't blame anyone for using those opportunities as they currently exist but it's simply not viable for the vast majority of citizens.


 So what percentage of the 11.5 million hunters in the US do you think are not paying for access to hunt public animals?

People west of the Mississippi are more than a little spoiled by their access to public land and not needing to pay for play.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

middlefork said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> > And I definitely disagree with the concept that an appropriate solution is to expect more people to pay for hunting public resources on private lands via expensive access. I don't blame anyone for using those opportunities as they currently exist but it's simply not viable for the vast majority of citizens.
> ...


It's a generic critique of CPAJeff's generic recommendations; it's to the notion we should accept the need to pay a $1200 access fee to hunt our public resource. Don't have much data to your question other than the number of tags auctioned each year and the samples I've seen of opportunities listed online.

I don't know many hunters who pay explicit fees for access to private land but I don't know many people that can afford to do so. Only known 2 friends to pay for auction entries or the annual Sportsman's tag auctioned to the public. And that includes friends and family in the Midwest and south. My father and grandfather use to do some work in kind for access to fields (back in the 60s) but they never paid the fees like CPAJeff is describing we see in the West.

If the question is more broad and implies the true cost of hunting like excise tax, etc than I believe we all absorb those to a certain sense. Just paid $65 myself. I think more than that is beyond the scope of Utah's unique structure.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

backcountry said:


> To be honest, I think the "me,me,me" criticism isn't a accurate one for an issue involving a public resource that is managed based on public demand. The reality of this is that public demand has vastly exceeded public supply. When the public demand exhausts the supply, people begin with the "I've waited 25 years for this tag" rhetoric - which completely falls into the "me, me, me" cycle. The entitlement attitude is real and rampant. Nor does it relate to my comment as it dealt with a willingness to compromise for multiple stakeholder needs to find a better compromise. Which is what? Limit current opportunity even further? This type of system is ever changing and the socio-economics of average hunters has always been a foundational issue for justifying the North American Model; there is a reason the list of tenets for our model of hunting almost always includes, if not starts with, democratic access to wildlife. Striving for (not necessarily obtaining that fickle beast) "fairness" is baked into that philosophy.
> 
> And I definitely disagree with the concept that an appropriate solution is to expect more people to pay for hunting public resources on private lands via expensive access. I must have miscommunicated my intent - I don't believe that EXPECTING more people to pay to play is THE answer, but it is ONE answer to the never-ending lack of supply. I don't blame anyone for using those opportunities as they currently exist but it's simply not viable for the vast majority of citizens.
> 
> ...


Great insight - see my comments in red.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I better understand your take on the issue now. To your question:

"Which is what? Limit current opportunity even further?"

Not at all. Rolling the antlerless tags into a single lottery maintains the exact same opportunity, ie # of tags, but actually plays to your "priority" more. Those who want to go for trophy animals apply for those permits. Those who want meat as a priority, myself, go for those permits. Limit the number you can apply for each year. Those who want both experiences have to strategy differently (obviously playing to gross stereotypes).

The system above would likely increase the number of people able to hunt each year, reduce point creep over time (through diffusion because we'd be forced to prioritize the experience we want) and address the issue of more hunters than animals. As it stands right now the lottery inherently privileges those who can afford to apply for the maximum number of tags, fosters point creep and doesn't effectively address the worsening demand issue. 

In my opinion, the current lottery is actually making the average hunters experience worse and possibly untenable. If we truly want to know why we are losing hunters to attrition (per capita) than you have to look no further than how the current system disfavors the hunter themselves. Fewer hunters are able to constantly dump an increasing amount of money into a system whose odds are getting worse each year. And bailing on that system eventually becomes rational for many of us. That is fine if you don't believe we need to maintain or increase recruitment but counterproductive if you hold the common belief that we need to not just maintain but increase per capita participation. 

I think American big game hunting (especially western) is at an important crossroads and decisions we make in designing these lotteries have broad impacts for the future. This definitely all ties into habitat quality/fragmentation, herd sizes, etc but the human dynamics of this are critical. We are seeing increasing frustration and less buy-in (per capita) to the very systems needed to maintain our herds by younger generations. We are going to see a major aging out and drastic decrease in hunter numbers within 20 years if something doesn't change. That should be a major red flag for anyone interested in sustaining this tradition. The political implications are not exciting (see the number of other threads hovering around these themes.)

Per other comment....I had to delay Master Gardener this year but hope to have it this winter. We produce a fair number of veggies every year and are now expanding into berries and fruit. We've tried chickens but it's a difficult operation to be worthwhile in city boundaries. That type of self-sufficiency (will always be limited) is why I started focusing on upland game last year and ice fishing this winter. I wouldn't be shocked if we see an inversion of the current (1990s onward) hunting trend myself, ie decrease in big game hunters and increase in small game. And maybe that's more sustainable anyways. 

To wrap up my long winded response, I believe the current lottery systems aren't sustainable for the average Utah hunter. I predict it will eventually lead to more attrition from the younger generation of hunters the state claims they need. And with fewer big game hunters comes less conservation funds and fewer advocates, both of which are the lifeblood of our wildlife model. And I think all the indicators are there that this is already happening.

(I'll shut up for a while now. Thx for chatting CPAJeff).


----------



## elkunited (Aug 16, 2019)

Definitely didn't draw this year. But the numbers are clear why. Maybe next year. Decided against OTC anyway as I just started a new job so maybe it's good I didn't draw this year.:mrgreen:


----------



## PEAK777 (Aug 26, 2018)

So I guess my original post must’ve gotten misconstrued. Here we are talking about draw odds and fairness of the draw system, but my post was more directed towards proper management of our wildlife. I don’t know about y’all, but I want these animals and natural resources to be here for my family’s future generations. Utah should not be managing wildlife based off of what the people want. It should be managed off of biology and population densities to start with. Then worry about how to please the masses and move forward from there.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

PEAK777 said:


> So I guess my original post must've gotten misconstrued. Here we are talking about draw odds and fairness of the draw system, but my post was more directed towards proper management of our wildlife. I don't know about y'all, but I want these animals and natural resources to be here for my family's future generations. Utah should not be managing wildlife based off of what the people want. It should be managed off of biology and population densities to start with. Then worry about how to please the masses and move forward from there.


Not a single state manages wildlife that way except maybe Missouri who has a state tax that funds thier Conversation Dept. Every one else bows down to the almighty dollar.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

PEAK777 said:


> So I guess my original post must've gotten misconstrued. Here we are talking about draw odds and fairness of the draw system, but my post was more directed towards proper management of our wildlife. I don't know about y'all, but I want these animals and natural resources to be here for my family's future generations. Utah should not be managing wildlife based off of what the people want. It should be managed off of biology and population densities to start with. Then worry about how to please the masses and move forward from there.


You're right. Sometimes we do get sidetracked.

First off, the DWR manages wildlife based on a five sided (pentagon) approach, ie; (1) biologically sound, (2)legal, (3)financially sound, (4)workable and (5)socially acceptable. Projects, proposals, regulations, policies, schedules, etc. each have to pass those criteria, but sometimes those sides are very uneven and one or more of them takes precedence over the others depending on the decision to be made and who's making it. And, even each side has it's own proponents and opponents, so you get conflicting views from different individuals and/or organizations, thus your somewhat tainted conversation with the biologist.

Your original post (#40) mentions a DWR survey sent out a few years ago which I assume was the 2014 Mule Deer Committee survey. I was on that committee and most of us thought the majority of the respondents were trophy hunters who felt like they had more of a stake in the results than the non-respondents. And, since we only got a 30% response anyway, there were a lot of opportunity hunters not included in the survey. In other words, it was slanted towards the trophy mentality.

Then the DWR took that raw survey data into the tag allocation process and came up with the numbers based mostly on the social side of the pentagon and took the proposals for tag numbers through the RAC & Wildlife Board system which passed the numbers.

So, if we don't like those numbers (or any other proposal that comes up), what can we do about it? I know I sound like a broken vinyl record, but I'll say it again until *enough of us* catch on to make a difference. "Show up and speak up at the RAC & Wildlife Board meetings!"


----------

