# General Season Big Game Preference Points Changes



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

The following is an email I just sent to the members of the RAC as well as the Wildlife Board regarding the general season preference point system changes they'll be discussing the upcoming meetings (next week)

If you're unfamiliar with the proposed changes, you can find them in the following document:

https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2016-11_rac_packet.pdf

You can also follow my thread on this same subject on Facebook at:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/199351030257368/583573805168420/

With that, here's what I said in my email:

Hello RAC and Wildlife Board members. Thanks for everything you guys and gals do.

My name is Brandon Zundel,

I don't represent any particular organization, I'm just an avid hunter with an opinion on what will probably become a hot button issue&#8230; an issue that I think can be solved with the idea I'll present to you in this email.

I would also like to introduce you to Brandon Brakefield. (CC'd on this email) It's through our collaboration that we were able to come up with this idea together.

To start out, I want to address the current preference point system and why I agree that it is a "loophole", and why it isn't fair to those of us that don't "play games" with it.

I've always hunted a "very easy" unit to draw (#2)-on top of that, I choose "easy to draw" weapons. (archery now, muzzleloader before)&#8230; with all that, I've never needed to play the game.

That said, it's getting harder every year to draw a tag, even in an "undesirable unit". Many of the people I hunt with every year were unsuccessful drawing a tag, and it's because we're getting shut out of our FIRST CHOICE unit by people drawing their 2nd (maybe even 5th) choice. And it will only get worse if the point system isn't fixed.

The number 1 issue with the current system is that a person with points will draw their 5th choice before my 1st choice is even considered because I have no preference points. THAT part of things ABSOLUTELY MUST be done away with.

If I want to hunt the Cache, and I put it as my first choice, I shouldn't have to draw against the leftovers from people who would really much rather hunt the La Sal, but they drew MY tag as a second choice.

Now here's where you're going to get a whole lot of gruff over the DWR's proposal, and the solution to the problem.

Everyone I've talked to (we've had quite the discussions on Facebook) agrees that issue #1 above needs to be handled, and we agree with the way the DWR has proposed to handle that.

The contention over these proposed changes comes in the loss of preference points&#8230; and you ABSOLUTELY will have some mad hunters over that part&#8230; and for good reason.

Let's take "Joe Hunter" as an example character.

Joe REALLY loves to hunt the Thousand Lakes unit, but he also knows it takes 5 or 6 preference points to draw the tag. The thing is, Joe loves to hunt, and so he always has a 2nd and 3rd choice of places he doesn't mind hunting while he waits for his once-in-five-years experience at Thousand Lakes.

Under the DWR's proposal, Joe would have a "no choice"&#8230; Because of the amount of points it takes to draw the thousand lakes unit, he would only get to hunt once every 5 or 6 years&#8230; that's unacceptable for Joe, and it would be for 10s of thousands of other hunters.

Because Joe doesn't want to lose his points, he wouldn't choose a 2nd choice, but instead he would line up at the closest regional office/walmart/online/etc to "take a chance" on grabbing an over-the-counter tag.

This "monster" is exactly why the preference point system was made into what it is today. And we don't need to re-create Frankenstein to fix the real "problem issues"

The thing we need to keep in mind here is, PEOPLE WANT TO HUNT THEIR FIRST CHOICE&#8230; their second choice is just a backup so they can hunt.

So, let me explain the solution, and I hope I can make this clear. (it's really not an easy task to explain without creating an elaborate slide show  )

Joe Hunter has 3 points, and he wants to hunt the Thousand Lakes unit.

His second choice would be the Cache unit because that's where his cousin hunts, and it's a fairly easy unit to draw.

Now, even though he prefers to use his .300 win mag, he'd use a bow on the extended archery just to go hunting, so he'd like to put in for Box Elder archery because that tag's pretty much guaranteed for him to draw.

Under the current system, Joe would most definitely draw a Cache tag&#8230; probably taking away another any weapon hunter's 1st choice.

The new system would work like this:

Joe would go into a pool of people who chose the Thousand Lakes unit as their first choice, and if his 3 points held muster, he might draw a tag. (odds say he won't though)

After all of the first choices for every unit have been drawn, the points don't matter any more.

Joe would gain a point that will add to his 3 (making it 4) for next year, but that only counts towards his first choice.

Joe, Jack, Jane, Me, and every other hunter&#8230; when the computer pulls our 2nd choice (and 3rd, and so on), no one has a "point advantage"&#8230; THERE ARE NO POINTS, it's just an even draw of a "ticket" from the bucket.

Everyone has an equal chance of drawing a tag from the tags that are available, and everyone who didn't draw their 1st choice gains a preference point that gives them a boost in chances of drawing their 1st choice next year.

--------

That was a lot to spit out, and I hope it makes sense.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me back, or call.

Thank you very much for your time,

Brandon Zundel


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

John Bair brought up the issue of point creep, and here's some of my thoughts on that side of it.

Based on this year's draw odds report, hunters in 14 of the 29 units would be unaffected by both my idea and what the DWR has proposed... Because of the change of choosing first choice first, they would more than likely draw their first choice.

Of the remaining 15 units, 8 of them a hunter would need at least one point to draw, and the other 7, 3 or more points.

We have nearly twice as many people applying for tags than there are tags available, but it's apparent that the majority of the hunting public only likes to hunt half of the available units... those 15 units will most definitely sell out during the draw.

If those that want to hunt in those 15 "hard to draw" units lose their points if they draw one of the other 14 as a 2nd choice, they won't put in a second choice, and we'll have 14 units that are under sold.

In the immediate outset we would see a dramatic shift in point creep because hunters won't immediately come to the conclusion that it "isn't worth" losing their points on a second choice... they'll have to get "burned" first.

Given two or three years of the DWR's proposal though, and what I'm saying will definitely happen, and point creep will come back, and the cost/frustration caused by the under sold tags will land right in the lap of the DWR.

Allowing hunters to choose a 2nd choice without fear of losing their future opportunity to hunt a "tough to draw" hunt eliminates the undersold tags (well, except for Box Elder and Kamas... those will still be undersold just like they are now)

The only way to eliminate point creep is to eliminate the points--and then you'll really hear about "the Utah lottery"

Hunters want to hunt a particular area, and their reasons vary, however most will tell you it's because that's where they've always hunted, they're familiar with the area, and more than likely, it's close to home.

They also like to hunt, and they will drive further, or go to a new area just to hunt... they won't choose to not hunt their "home turf" though.

We need a balanced system that allows for both the quality people want and the opportunity people want without undue burden on the DWR.

I believe this idea achieves that.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

My biggest concern with the current proposal is the left over tags as well. It might take a couple years, but people will figure out that it isn't worth putting in for 2nd - 5th choices to loose your points on a non preferred unit. The result certainly will be lots of left over tags, favoring those who happen to be available at 8:00 a.m. on a weekday in July. Long lines at the stores, and servers crashing online.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

... tagging this for future reference. Thanks.


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

manysteps said:


> The following is an email I just sent to the members of the RAC as well as the Wildlife Board regarding the general season preference point system changes they'll be discussing the upcoming meetings (next week)
> 
> If you're unfamiliar with the proposed changes, you can find them in the following document:
> 
> ...


Thanks for reaching out and voicing your concern. I 100% agree with this. I thinks it's a happy medium for everyone!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

brisket said:


> My biggest concern with the current proposal is the left over tags as well. It might take a couple years, but people will figure out that it isn't worth putting in for 2nd - 5th choices to loose your points on a non preferred unit. The result certainly will be lots of left over tags, favoring those who happen to be available at 8:00 a.m. on a weekday in July. Long lines at the stores, and servers crashing online.


I will have a very hard time showing sympathy for someone that knowingly and willfully elects to NOT apply for a 2nd or subsequent choice so they can keep their points, and then is not available on the date the remaining tags go on sale and misses out.

That person intentionally played the game that way. If they are not available and miss out on a tag as a result, that is on them and is not a flaw in the proposed system.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> I will have a very hard time showing sympathy for someone that knowingly and willfully elects to NOT apply for a 2nd or subsequent choice so they can keep their points, and then is not available on the date the remaining tags go on sale and misses out.
> 
> That person intentionally played the game that way. If they are not available and miss out on a tag as a result, that is on them and is not a flaw in the proposed system.


No sympathy for a family emergency, loved one in the hospital, grandma dies, boss calls a meeting, unexpected work travel where no cell or wifi access is available? Unexpected shiz happens all the time.

Besides all that, my main point is, I believe most people will play the game that way. Especially after hunting non preferred units for a couple years, people will wise up. It's better in my opinion to divvy up all the tags during the draw, instead of having a hectic, first come first serve tag purchase.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

brisket said:


> No sympathy for a family emergency, loved one in the hospital, grandma dies, boss calls a meeting, unexpected work travel where no cell or wifi access is available? Unexpected shiz happens all the time.


Maybe I'm missing something, but how would any of those stop the person that took the time to fill out a first choice on their application *and completed the app* from selecting a choice 2-5?


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

johnnycake said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but how would any of those stop the person that took the time to fill out a first choice on their application *and completed the app* from selecting a choice 2-5?


Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the specific time when left over tags are available.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The time is here that if you want to hunt you better start putting down your choices 1-5 instead of waiting for the left over lines. The archery hunters learned this the hard way, they figured that there would always be left over tags for the areas that they hunt but now they are all gone in the drawings.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

brisket said:


> Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the specific time when left over tags are available.


So then why not just take the 2 secs in January to fill out choices 2-5?


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

brisket said:


> Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the specific time when left over tags are available.


I think that's their point, brisket. If you're going to try and play the game under the new system, there are going to be more risks. When you don't put a 2nd -5th choice down you are assuming that you'll be available to get where you need to be for a left over permit in the event you don't draw your first choice. Life happens and it may not go as planned.

I agree that if a hunter decides to roll those dice, I don't have much sympathy if something unexpected comes up and said hunter has to sit out a season. The risks were know before the application was filled out.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

johnnycake said:


> So then why not just take the 2 secs in January to fill out choices 2-5?


Because under the proposed system, you'll loose your points, and will never draw your preferred unit (if it takes at least one point to draw).

I like to hunt every year, and I'm certainly open and willing to hunt other units, but not at the expense of NEVER drawing my preferred. So if the system is setup to loose points on 2nd - 5th choices, I think a lot of people will feel the same, and not fill out those choices. Thus there will be leftover tags. I could be wrong on this, but that is what I believe will happen.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

They should make it simple, get a tag (left over or otherwise), lose your points.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

So my question on your analysis is do you think it will continue to take 5 points at least to hunt Thousand Lakes? Right now it takes that long because it was the highest demand unit, and so lots of people put that as their first choice, knowing they probably wouldn't draw it. How many people are going to sit out 5 years to build points? Not many. So the first couple years, people with 5 points will either have them go on second choice units, or only put in one choice until they draw their desired unit.

I'm betting most people will end up using points on choices 2-5, and the number of points required to draw the higher demand general units will come down. 

Frankly, I don't care either way. I would rather hunt a "poorer" unit each year, rather than the units that are perceived as superior every 2 - 3 years. I will do what I can to understand the rules and increase the probability of me being able to hunt. I think the majority of hunters will do the same thing. And if they choose to sit out for 2-3 (or even 5) years to draw specific units, cool, more probability of me drawing a tag.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

Idratherbehunting said:


> So my question on your analysis is do you think it will continue to take 5 points at least to hunt Thousand Lakes? Right now it takes that long because it was the highest demand unit, and so lots of people put that as their first choice, knowing they probably wouldn't draw it. How many people are going to sit out 5 years to build points? Not many. So the first couple years, people with 5 points will either have them go on second choice units, or only put in one choice until they draw their desired unit.
> 
> I'm betting most people will end up using points on choices 2-5, and the number of points required to draw the higher demand general units will come down.
> 
> Frankly, I don't care either way. I would rather hunt a "poorer" unit each year, rather than the units that are perceived as superior every 2 - 3 years. I will do what I can to understand the rules and increase the probability of me being able to hunt. I think the majority of hunters will do the same thing. And if they choose to sit out for 2-3 (or even 5) years to draw specific units, cool, more probability of me drawing a tag.


My personal opinion is there are a lot of "game players" using Thousand lakes in order to draw another "tough" unit... like say, Wasatch East.

It's certainly speculation, but I do think either plan (mine, or the DWR recommend) will put an end to the "game playing", and will make units like Thousand lakes and the other 6 "really hard to draw" units easier to draw.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

brisket,

Looks like you have some tough decisions to make. Hunt every year, or wait for your "preferred" unit. If you draw a tag, you should lose your points. Period. If you willingly try to play the game by not applying for choices 2-5, and something unforeseen happens that causes unavailability on the day tags go on sale, that is still on you, due to your own choice. It's not a flaw in the system. 

It seems like some just like to have their cake and eat it too. Those days are coming to a close. Supply and demand. It would be great for every person that wanted a tag to get one. It's just not possible. My opinion is the best system is if you draw a tag, you lose points. I have no issue if people don't draw, but buy a leftover tag keeping points. But, if you choose only to put one choice, that is a risk you are willingly taking.

manysteps- I agree the official proposal will make Thousand Lakes available much more quickly. Most people simply just want to hunt and will not wait to hunt every three-four years.


----------



## Gledeasy (Mar 23, 2014)

I spoke with a RAC member today about this. 

I'm going to try and express my thoughts and opinions. 

The "loophole" generated by our current system certainly isn't the best when it comes to feeling "fair". I've used it the past couple years after I felt that "unfairness" of not drawing my first choice with having a couple of points. 

With the proposed new system it may "fix" the "fairness" issue, but it certainly isn't without flaws IMO. I believe it was drafted entirely looking at the "loophole fairness" issue without thinking about all sportsmen and looking further down the road. 

I believe the best option to address the issues of both being "fair" concerning the preference point (PP) "loophole" and allowing people to increase their opportunity to draw their favorite unit and avoiding potential problems is found somewhere in the "middle ground".

1- Have the draw based upon the order of one's choices rather than their PP as it is now. 
Everyone's first choice is put into the drawing pool with their weighted PP attached.
If one draws their first choice they get the tag and lose their PP's.
If one does not draw their first choice they obtain another PP for next year. 

2- Now that everyone's first choices have been considered and are taken care of, we now move on to everybody's 2-5 choices (in that order). 
PP's are no longer considered for these choices and are obtained totally by random chance. 
If one draws one of their 2-5 choices they obtain the tag, but do not lose their PP's.

This would actually be a simple system to implement and takes care of the needs of those who want "fairness", those who want to hunt, and those who want to hunt specific units.
Would it please everyone? No, nothing ever does. 
Would it be better than our current system? Who knows.
Is it better than the proposed system to close the "loophole"? I think so.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Having choices 2-5 go in a completely random draw that does not use points after everyone has had a chance to draw their first choice has really no negative effect on anyone. It prevents the left over issue and allows hunters to still get a crack at their preferred unit ever few years. 

Colorado does this with great success. That is my vote.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

I'd be fine with the system proposed by manysteps, Gledeasy and silentstalker. As mentioned above, there really is no negative effect. All tags taken in the draw, still being able to hunt a preferred unit every couple of years, while maintaining the opportunity to hunt less popular units.

This is far better in my opinion than the current DWR proposal and what Vanilla is advocating for. Thanks manysteps for getting the word out on this.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You make it sound like I'm the one championing this cause. Look through this thread and many other "loophole" discussions and you'll see how much support that proposal has. As a lifetime license holder, none of the proposals effect me. Even the current system doesn't negatively impact me. I don't really have a dog in the fight due to my license status, just sharing my opinion on what I believe the best system for Utah would be. 

Reasonable people can disagree on such things.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

Gledeasy said:


> I spoke with a RAC member today about this.
> 
> I'm going to try and express my thoughts and opinions.
> 
> ...


That's exactly what I'm saying we need.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

After thinking about it some more, here is how I would do it.

- You lose points if you draw a first-choice tag, as always.

- On each choice 2-5, there is a box that says something like "I would like to use my preference points to be considered for this hunt choice." If you check the box, you acknowledge that if you draw this tag, you lose your preference points.

- Run the draw as it is run now, looking only at first choices and choices for which people have checked the box.

- If there are tags remaining after all the first choices and checked boxes have been evaluated, start drawing 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th choices randomly. People who draw these tags will not lose their preference points.

Does that make sense? If not, I apologize. I'm tired (just got done with a 4.5 hour standardized test a few hours ago), but I wanted to get the idea out there before I go to sleep and forget about it. It's technically more complicated than the average hunter would probably like, but I think with a few instructional pages/videos it wouldn't be too hard to grasp. That's the only way I can think of to do it that lets people use their preference points for whatever units they want while also giving people a shot at hunting the less-desirable units without having to sacrifice their points and without having to deal with the issues that come with leftover tags.


----------



## Slayer (Feb 3, 2013)

Also, I think they should look at all 5 of your choices before going to the next person in line regardless of points.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

Clarq said:


> After thinking about it some more, here is how I would do it.
> 
> - You lose points if you draw a first-choice tag, as always.
> 
> ...


That's a very interesting "wrench in the works", but a great idea at the same time.

The problem with this idea is the logistics on the Fallon, NV side of things.

I'm a web developer, so I know exactly what "those guys" will have to deal with in order to implement these ideas.

I actually like the checkbox idea, however, there's probably no way that would get implemented by next year's draw... and with that, it can't be "the way" to handle it next year.

Even still, I will make this idea part of my presentation to the Northern RAC next Wednesday, so thank you very much for the idea and the feedback.

For anyone who's actually still reading, there's something important to take away here... get to your RAC meeting next week or the following, etc, and make your voice heard.

You are more than welcome to use my exact wording (or any part) if it helps you express your idea... just get out there and let them hear you.

They actually want your input.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

They should combine point pools and have one draw. Then see what kind of whining there is.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Apply where you want to hunt #1

Apply for your second choice #2

Points applied and you go back to zero.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

manysteps said:


> My personal opinion is there are a lot of "game players" using Thousand lakes in order to draw another "tough" unit... like say, Wasatch East.
> 
> It's certainly speculation, but I do think either plan (mine, or the DWR recommend) will put an end to the "game playing", and will make units like Thousand lakes and the other 6 "really hard to draw" units easier to draw.


This is the data provided by the DWR on how many people actually draw their second choice.

I do not think it is as big of an issue as people play it out to be.

In 2016 less than 10% of all of the people in the draw drew their second through fifth choice.

Of that less than 10%, I am not sure how many people were using the loophole verses how many people put an easier hunt to draw as a 2nd through 5th choice.

With the data, you will be hard pressed to convince me that the loophole is significant.

Change it however you like, but it will not stop the fact that there is a population of 3 million in Utah and more people apply for tags than their are tags available.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I don't take too much issue with people using the loophole to their advantage, I personally never have but that's my choice.

I do think that closing it with some of the ideas on here would help to "take a little off the top" of the ever-growing points pool though. We definitely need a solid solution and reasonable method to get people through the point pool and back to the rear of the line.

I do not like the thought of someone drawing my preferred unit as their second choice before I've had a chance to draw it as my first...that just seems wrong to me.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The idea is to move hunters through the system and with the small amount of hunters that were using the loop hole it was causing a backlog for those that weren't.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

bugchuker said:


> They should combine point pools and have one draw. Then see what kind of whining there is.


This would create a massive point log jam for those wanting to hunt the Books, Pauns, Henry's etc.

Also, what would you do about lifetime license holders, dedicated hunters, and youth tags (18%) in the premium units?

Utah kind of has screwed the pooch in the realistic way of combining all the draws.

Also, You would have to choose between Elk, Pronghorn, and Deer - which would be a tissy fit.

Let's do it and watch the world burn.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Muscle,

10% is approximately 9,000 tags in Utah right now. I don't think 9,000 extra people losing their points every year, and therefore opening the draw up the following year for approximately 9,000 others to draw is de minimis. That is actually pretty significant when you put a raw number on it.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

90,675 = 9,068 permits

Now, 18% is youth - which is 16,321

90675-16321 = 74354

Lifetime License Holders took 3,627

74354-3627 = 70,727

Dedicated License Holders took 3,306 

70,727 - 3,306 = 67,421

(Not Sure if Dedicated Count everyone with one or just the ones that got one this year)

Assuming that dedicated take around 3,300 a year it could be either 9,900 or 3,300. 

10% of 67,421 is 6,742

10% of 60821 is 6,082

Which is a little less than the number you provided. 

I know a few people that have no idea the loophole existed and draw a 2nd-5th, so that number can be anyway from 1%-9% - (can't be 10%, because people are unaware - Can't be 0%, because people are aware) 

1% of 67,421 Is 674

1% of 60,821 is 608

9% of 67,421 is 6,068

9% of 60,821 is 5,474

The number is realistically in those ranges for residents. 

I think the number is probably closer to the 4.5 or 5.5 range rather than the extremes. Which, would put the total number of around 3-4,000 using the loophole. 

Which with 125,990 applying is not a lot. 

I would not argue that it is significant, but I would not mind it changing either as long as it changes before the draw and not during the draw.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I still don't understand why anyone--whether they draw their 1st choice or their 5th choice--should keep their preference points when they draw a tag. Help me understand. My thinking says that if you draw a tag, you should lose your points. Personally, I put in only for my 1st choice...if I don't draw, I wait.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> I still don't understand why anyone--whether they draw their 1st choice or their 5th choice--should keep their preference points when they draw a tag. Help me understand. My thinking says that if you draw a tag, you should lose your points. Personally, I put in only for my 1st choice...if I don't draw, I wait.


True.

Originally, people hunted general deer while waiting to draw their LEs. Everyone who wanted a tag could pretty much just go buy one (when we had 280,000 tags or whatever it was). When the state got divided up into 5 units, and reduced the number of general tags down to +90,000, the preference point system was put in place to give people general tags who had gone the longest without having a tag. It was deemed the most "fair" to people who, are still waiting on drawing that LE tag. The unit that required the most points to draw WAS the unit people most wanted to draw (Southern). It didn't matter that people didn't loose their points because their 2nd choice was for units that typically were undersold anyway.

When micro units came along... it offered up a loophole as people started putting in for a hard to draw unit that they really didnt care to hunt anyway, which gave them an advantage over other people due to how the draw process happened.

There is no problem or flaw with how the Preference Points worked in the actual draw, the problem was that people were gaming the system by getting tags WITHOUT loosing their points. THAT was what was in conflict with the original intent of the system (to get tags to those who had gone the longest without having one).

-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I get the loophole, and I certainly think it needs to be closed up. Those guys that are drawing one of their other choices shouldn't keep their preference points. But, unless I am misreading something, some people are suggesting that a system should be in place where you don't lose preference points for drawing your 2nd-5th choice. I disagree and don't understand the logic.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The flaw in how they implemented the preference points in the draw was that they would consider all of hunters A's picks with 5 preference points before they would consider any picks from hunter B's with only 3. 

Now if they would of considered hunter A and B's first choice before moving on to hunter A's second choice there would of been no loop hole. But since hunter A had 5 preference points all of his choices were considered before hunter B's first choice was.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Critter said:


> The flaw in how they implemented the preference points in the draw was that they would consider all of hunters A's picks with 5 preference points before they would consider any picks from hunter B's with only 3.
> 
> Now if they would of considered hunter A and B's first choice before moving on to hunter A's second choice there would of been no loop hole. But since hunter A had 5 preference points all of his choices were considered before hunter B's first choice was.


Ok, that makes perfect sense. But, once he draws, a hunter should still lose all his preference points regardless of which choice he draws.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I have no problem with hunters keeping their points if they go to a system where all first choices are considered first where they loose their points if they draw, and all 2-5 choices go to a random draw with no points considered.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I like yours (and others) thinking. Draw a 1st choice, loose your points and go hunt. Don't draw a first, gain a PP for next year and go into a random draw for choices 2-5 in the current year.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> This would create a massive point log jam for those wanting to hunt the Books, Pauns, Henry's etc.
> 
> Also, what would you do about lifetime license holders, dedicated hunters, and youth tags (18%) in the premium units?
> 
> ...


If they combined pools, a guy could still apply for elk or antelope, and deer. Plus hunt general elk.

As far as the lifetime licenses, make a LL worth a couple points, make them apply for 5 choices, if they dont draw, give them a left over. They are guaranteed a tag, not necessarily the one of their choice.

Theres too many youth tags already and theres the mentor program, give anyone under 18 a point, make them put in for 5 choices.

Cap every unit with a realistic percent for DH.

You get a tag you lose your points.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

Lifetime license & dedicated hunters COMBINED accounts for a whopping 12,214 applicants out of the 130,000 that applied this year... "screwing them over" won't help anything


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

How many tags did the DWR issue? Yet you'll screw over the few that use the "loop hole"? It roughly the same percentage.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

bugchuker said:


> How many tags did the DWR issue? Yet you'll screw over the few that use the "loop hole"? It roughly the same percentage.


The actual "loophole" guys is so small it's laughable. The big issue that everyone agrees with is that all of our 1st choices need to be drawn before anyone else's 2nd choice. I think we all agree on that. (if you don't you'd be the first one to say so)

I'm still communicating with the DWR for more data, but really, so far it doesn't seem to matter which plan you support for what to do when we get to 2nd choice and beyond.

It's a small number of tags, and if I had enough data, I could tell you how many people it will affect... hopefully I have that before next Wednesday's meeting.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

manysteps said:


> The actual "loophole" guys is so small it's laughable. The big issue that everyone agrees with is that all of our 1st choices need to be drawn before anyone else's 2nd choice. I think we all agree on that. (if you don't you'd be the first one to say so)
> 
> I'm still communicating with the DWR for more data, but really, so far it doesn't seem to matter which plan you support for what to do when we get to 2nd choice and beyond.
> 
> It's a small number of tags, and if I had enough data, I could tell you how many people it will affect... hopefully I have that before next Wednesday's meeting.


Oh, I agree it needs changed and that it is messed up that a guy can get his second choice before a guy can get his first. I always applied for the Thousand Lakes first, knowing it wasn't going to happen. Since I moved to Wyoming and can get a tag OTC, its not a huge deal to me. I like playing the "Devils Advocate".
I also think its messed up that LL holder get their choice of a tag, no matter which one it is they want. Bring that up too, will ya?


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

I'm not going to muddy the water by bringing up the LL guys... I would buy a lifetime license faster than you if they gave me a chance


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

bugchuker said:


> Oh, I agree it needs changed and that it is messed up that a guy can get his second choice before a guy can get his first.


Not if the first guy has gone several years without a deer tag when the 2nd guy got a tag every year. Thats what i keep trying to explain, that is why the system was designed the way it was originally to give "preference" to people who had gone the longest without a tag. It all went FUBAR when opt2 was hastily implemented.

-DallanC


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

I see the DWR's proposal as being divisive between the rifle hunters and the archery hunters. It's almost like the purist rifle hunters don't want anyone who is willing to obtain a "lesser" archery tag to be able to gain a point to get the rifle tag they really want in later years. DWR should just say no to the guy in the hat trying to run the show, and shouldn't have to put up with the massive leftovers coming if DWR proposal is passed. I support the original posters idea and the distribution of the tags through the draw...push it through. #nomorepuppetmaster #polyweaponhunterlivesmatter #whydoievencare? :mrgreen:


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

DallanC said:


> Not if the first guy has gone several years without a deer tag when the 2nd guy got a tag every year. Thats what i keep trying to explain, that is why the system was designed the way it was originally to give "preference" to people who had gone the longest without a tag. It all went FUBAR when opt2 was hastily implemented.
> 
> -DallanC


^^^ That right there is the inspiration behind my "check box" idea.

Let's say my neighbor has 3 preference points. If he decides that he really wants to go hunting this year, even if he has to draw on choice 5, isn't it fair that he should be able to use his preference points to jump in front of the guys who drew last year? After all, he's gone longer without a tag than they have.

That's where the power of the check boxes come in. The guys who have been in the system the longest without a tag have the power to jump in front of everyone who has drawn more recently than they have. At the same time, if they really want to draw one particular unit, they can take their chances in choices 2-5 with no point penalty. Everyone has the option to use their points to their advantage (which restores the intent of fairness to the system), and everyone has the option to hold out for a preferred unit and still have some chance at drawing an undersold tag without losing points (which eliminates the headache of trying to pick up a leftover tag).

I think that's the most fair way to go about it. But alas, the DWR seems to agree with most of you about evaluating everyone's first choice first. Here's an excerpt from their RAC packet:



DWR said:


> The Wildlife Board has requested to review the way general season applications are evaluated.
> The Division is presenting an option, which if approved, *would evaluate everyone's first hunt
> choice first*, beginning with the applications with the greatest number of preference points,* then
> everyone's second hunt choice, and so forth*. In addition, a person would lose their preference
> ...


Doing it this way would mean that I could draw my Wasatch West tag with 1 point on a first choice before my neighbor could draw it on a second choice with his 3 points. It doesn't quite seem right to me, since he's waited longer than I have.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Clarq said:


> Doing it this way would mean that I could draw my Wasatch West tag with 1 point on a first choice before my neighbor could draw it on a second choice with his 3 points. It doesn't quite seem right to me, since he's waited longer than I have.


And just maybe he has been hunting his 2nd or 3rd choice the last 3 years while waiting to to draw his first choice. And that is exactly how "the loophole" is currently working.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

I have a solution for leftovers. 

Make the fifth choice a regional take any leftover tag choice kind of like the 4th choice in New Mexico. 

With your fifth choice you can choose - Leftovers from the north, north east, central, south, or southeast


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm going to make one last comment and bow out of the discussion.

I love to hunt, and will always opt for the solution that gives tags to hunters at the highest rate. Size of the antlers, thats on me... people pull huge deer off of every GE unit in the state, its a matter of effort on the part of the hunter. Preference system initially was to run people through the system as fast as possible, hence hunters getting to hunt more often. I like that mentality. 

System "is what it is" though... so you just adapt to the rules given, and if you are clever you can find the loopholes and exploit them. There are other less known loopholes that still exist, so the clever people aren't hurt too much.

-DallanC


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Clarq said:


> _The Wildlife Board has requested to review the way general season applications are evaluated.
> The Division is presenting an option, which if approved, *would evaluate everyone's first hunt
> choice first*, beginning with the applications with the greatest number of preference points,* then
> everyone's second hunt choice, and so forth*. In addition, a person would lose their preference
> ...


 This is really strange.

I understand doing everyone's first choice and then moving onto the second choice.

I understand losing the points if you draw 1-5.

What I do not understand is why the two have to be combined.

The advantage in this system is for those with less points.

I currently have 4 shiny points and if I do draw my first choice of the southwest desert/ thousand lakes /whatever. I will then lose my 4 shiny points if I put Box Elder/Kamas archery as a fifth choice to hunt.

In this scenario, it would be better for me to put only one choice and fight for a leftover.

I think that you have to do either or.

Either evaluate everyone's first choice and then go onto the second choice (without losing points) or Look at all 5 choices of the top point holders and then move onto the next tier of points.

If Utah choses this, they better update their server - because the leftovers will grow every year.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> This is really strange.
> 
> I understand doing everyone's first choice and then moving onto the second choice.
> 
> ...


They haven't shown any sort of ability to handle what should be a very predictable traffic spike on days leftovers go on sale. I also like being able to plan reasonably in the draw.

I personally would prefer the option where everyone's 1st choice is considered before 2nd choices etc. I think the true injustice in the system currently is that people can draw a unit as a 2nd choice before someone who makes it their top selection.

Currently, I put my top choice unit number 1 every year, followed by my second choice which is a pretty high percentage draw. I hunt my top choice every other year when I have 1 point going into the draw.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> If Utah choses this, they better update their server - because the leftovers will grow every year.


Or, they don't sell the "leftovers" and they allow those bucks that would have been shot to live through the hunt. This would improve the quality of those hunts where leftovers existed and make them more attractive in the following years. This would eliminate the problem you are talking about.


----------



## swampfox (Dec 30, 2014)

I'm mostly just hoping that you all just keep coming up wth new ideas and keep bombarding the DWR with them. Then hopefully they will have to go through a lengthy evaluation process that spills over to the application period, which means they can't implement any changes in time. Then I'll get to use the loophole one more time. I'm very sad to see it go.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

swampfox said:


> I'm mostly just hoping that you all just keep coming up wth new ideas and keep bombarding the DWR with them. Then hopefully they will have to go through a lengthy evaluation process that spills over to the application period, which means they can't implement any changes in time. Then I'll get to use the loophole one more time. I'm very sad to see it go.


LOL

I don't think this is going to turn into a really lengthy debate/study... there are really two main ideas being thrown around, and I think the wildlife board will choose one of those ideas and implement it at the next board meeting.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Or, they don't sell the "leftovers" and they allow those bucks that would have been shot to live through the hunt. This would improve the quality of those hunts where leftovers existed and make them more attractive in the following years. This would eliminate the problem you are talking about.


Now thats just crazy talk.;-)


----------

