# 2019 Draw Odds



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Here you go if you haven't already seen them.

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


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

https://wildlife.utah.gov/bg-odds.html


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

I finally had some good luck this year. I drew a Wasatch LE Archery Elk Tag with 0 points. The odds of doing that were 1 in 22.9. Let's hope my good luck continues during the hunt!;-)

Hawkeye


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nice Hawkeye!
I would even hunt that with zero points..........
It just the 5 year waiting period I would have to ponder.....


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lots of jumpimg around, as expected.

A couple really caught my eye.
GS Pine valley late muzzy..18 pnts.
WOW.....GS.....Really?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Thanks for posting. It seems this came out earlier this year then in the past...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

FWIW, Notice that the odd permits are now bonus tags going to the highest point group(s) per the 50/50 rule. The DWR is rounding up, not down, this year. In other words, if there are only 3 tags available, 2 of them are now bonus tags, and only one is a regular tag. That will move the highest point holders out of the draw faster. Good move, IMO!


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

elkfromabove said:


> FWIW, Notice that the odd permits are now bonus tags going to the highest point group(s) per the 50/50 rule. The DWR is rounding up, not down, this year. In other words, if there are only 3 tags available, 2 of them are now bonus tags, and only one is a regular tag. That will move the highest point holders out of the draw faster. Good move, IMO!


Yup! Back in the day I used to love the extra chance in East Jesus that the extra tag in the random would give some of us low point holders. Now that I'm more edumacated, this makes more sense in the long run.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

3arabians said:


> Yup! Back in the day I used to love the extra chance in East Jesus that the extra tag in the random would give some of us low point holders. Now that I'm more edumacated, this makes more sense in the long run.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I like some of that education please. I don't see how 1 tag does anything for point creep in the max point pool but that same single point a HUGE chance to the odds in the random.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> FWIW, Notice that the odd permits are now bonus tags going to the highest point group(s) per the 50/50 rule. The DWR is rounding up, not down, this year. In other words, if there are only 3 tags available, 2 of them are now bonus tags, and only one is a regular tag. That will move the highest point holders out of the draw faster.


Did I miss the rule change that allows them to do this? Or the public process where they put it on the RAC packet, maybe did a survey, etc?

I don't think they should be able to change the drawing procedure with no advance notice and no public input.

I'm not happy about it. Odds of drawing a random OIAL tag went WAY down on some units because of this... and those who benefited from the change are already in a way more favorable position than the rest of us will ever be in. Screw that!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I skimmed thru the odds and am really surprised how many general season hunts take multiple years to be assured a tag.

Archery- 21 units with a 2+ year wait.
Any weapon- 18 units with a 3+ year wait.
ML- 21 units with a 2+ year wait. 
Early season- all but 1 are multiple year waits.
Youth Any Weapon- 21 units with a 1+ year wait.

Many General Season hunts are taking 5+ years to draw. Wild times to try to be a hunter in some areas.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Clarq said:


> Did I miss the rule change that allows them to do this? Or the public process where they put it on the RAC packet, maybe did a survey, etc?
> 
> I don't think they should be able to change the drawing procedure with no advance notice and no public input.
> 
> I'm not happy about it. Odds of drawing a random OIAL tag went WAY down on some units because of this... and those who benefited from the change are already in a way more favorable position than the rest of us will ever be in. Screw that!


I personally advised them to do it that way on this very forum, several times. 
Isn't that good enough?


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

ridgetop said:


> I personally advised them to do it that way on this very forum, several times.
> 
> Isn't that good enough?


Must be because they implement your plan. The highest point holders in the state bow down at your feet now!

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> I skimmed thru the odds and am really surprised how many general season hunts take multiple years to be assured a tag.
> 
> Archery- 21 units with a 2+ year wait.
> Any weapon- 18 units with a 3+ year wait.
> ...


Did you look at the antlerless odds? Our "opportunity" hunts don't provide much opportunity these days. With powerful forces trying to create even LESS opportunity, the outlook is a little bleak.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> Did you look at the antlerless odds? Our "opportunity" hunts don't provide much opportunity these days. With powerful forces trying to create even LESS opportunity, the outlook is a little bleak.


I'm not sold on the idea that there's less tags and that's the reason opportunities are harder to find these days on the antlerless. I think the whole "meat" movement and "fill the freezer" attitudes everyone seems to has these days is more to blame. Growing up, my dad never would hunt antlerless. He hunted the GS hunts and ducks. He was around for the 60s and hunted the glory days and after those numbers crashed, he and his family believed to kill a doe or cow was wrong and they wouldn't do it. Everyone they knew felt the same way. Times have changed and opinions have shifted. Now just going hunting is 'cool' so everyone is looking for more chances to go. If it wasn't for antlerless hunts, I doubt I would have given up waterfowl as much as I have because I would only have 1-2 tags a year, instead of the 5+ I've been having lately. In some places we are killing too many and in others not enough. It's kind of amusing every year about mid February when they start talking hunts and unit conditions. You never have the save thing twice


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Did you look at the antlerless odds? Our "opportunity" hunts don't provide much opportunity these days. With powerful forces trying to create even LESS opportunity, the outlook is a little bleak.


It seems like hunter interest is doing just fine but hey, let's create more opportunity for the youth to jump to the front of the line.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

weaversamuel76 said:


> I like some of that education please. I don't see how 1 tag does anything for point creep in the max point pool but that same single point a HUGE chance to the odds in the random.
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


HUGE chance in the random??? I disagree, 1 tag means a lot to the bonus point people and increases their odds way more than us random folk. It also gets them out and reset to zero with the rest of us peasants.

I look at it like investing in a stock. Top point holders have been invested for a long time in UPS, Apple, Starbucks, etc knowing it was going to be a long term hold but if they keep investing eventually they are going to get the return on their investment. The rest of us are buying penny stocks hoping to get rich quick. Who is most deserving?

It's quickly becoming a lose - lose for all of us but I think the smart money should have the advantage, as slight as this is and moving them out first is the right thing to do.

Full disclosure- I have never been a high point holder unless you count the antlerless moose draw.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

High point holders that aren't drawn are also entered in random draw for double chance at a tag. Are you saying those that waited longest are more deserving than everyone else? If so why have the random?

Giving a single tag to top point holders doesn't nothing for those even a single year behind but leaving it random gives EVERYONE not drawn in the max point draw a chance at drawing a tag. 

Pick any unit and give the numbers a little crunch. If half a point group draws tags in the max pass then those that missed out still have the best odds to draw a remaining random tag.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Clarq said:


> Did I miss the rule change that allows them to do this? Or the public process where they put it on the RAC packet, maybe did a survey, etc?
> 
> I don't think they should be able to change the drawing procedure with no advance notice and no public input.
> 
> I'm not happy about it. Odds of drawing a random OIAL tag went WAY down on some units because of this... and those who benefited from the change are already in a way more favorable position than the rest of us will ever be in. Screw that!


No, you did not miss the rule change that allows them to do this because there probably wasn't any. It wasn't/isn't required per current DWR Regulations R657-62 Drawing Application Procedures:

R657-62-8:
"(4)(a) Fifty percent of the permits for each hunt unit will be reserved for applicants with the greatest number of bonus points."

There are no provisions for odd numbers, so the DWR has the "administrative detail" option per R657-63-1 of placing the odd permit in each hunt unit wherever they think best serves their mandate to serve the public. They don't have to run EVERYTHING they do past the RAC's and Wildlife Board or public. In this case, all they probably did was notify the Fallon NV of the change so that the drawing took place with this change.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

weaversamuel76 said:


> High point holders that aren't drawn are also entered in random draw for double chance at a tag. Are you saying those that waited longest are more deserving than everyone else? If so why have the random?
> 
> Giving a single tag to top point holders doesn't nothing for those even a single year behind but leaving it random gives EVERYONE not drawn in the max point draw a chance at drawing a tag.
> 
> Pick any unit and give the numbers a little crunch. If half a point group draws tags in the max pass then those that missed out still have the best odds to draw a remaining random tag.


I am aware of that and yes I do. The random is there so that us low point holders still have chance. I have drawn 2 random tags in my life so far. Early rifle elk 8 points and mountain lion 0 points. I drew an LE turkey tag with 0 points also (not sure if those go into a bonus pool or not). I am 43 and doubt I will ever draw a bonus point tag. I currently have 14 bull moose points because I didn't start applying until I was 29. That sure was dumb of me. I could have and should have started applying much earlier. Many people were wise enough to start applying much earlier than me and are in the bonus point pool for a Bull Moose or have already drawn by now. They deserve a better chance than me because they were smarter than I was at 18 - 20 years old. Giving the odd tag to the bonus is the right thing to do in my opinion.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

I totally disagree with punishing people that for whatever reason applied for tags later than others. 
People with more points already had an advantage but of course it wasn't enough they deserve to draw they deserve to kill a monster they f--ing deserve it. I see the system for what it is a way to grade tags so they generate more auction money.
Oh I've drawn a Max point tag and a random tag but this way it sure puts my kids odds of a descent tag in the ****ter. 

Moose pool has suckered plenty of sportsman in this state, but if they continue to only give to highest point holders and in another 14 years you still won't have a unicorn farts chance at a tag.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Moose pool has suckered plenty of sportsman in this state, but if they continue to only give to highest point holders and in another 14 years you still won't have a unicorn farts chance at a tag.


This is a major over dramatization, and inaccurate description of what is happening. It's still a 50/50 split that Utah has always been. They have never "only given to highest point holders," so there is no way for them to "continue to only give to highest point holders." That is simply a false statement. But yes, the moose pool sucks. There are more applicants than we have moose, not just more applicants than we have tags. I assure you that leaving the odd tag in the random draw doesn't increase the missed pool from less than a chance of a unicorn's fart.

One of the major concerns that consistently comes up not only on this forum but also at RAC and WB meetings is point creep. This administrative change in how they allocate odd tags between bonus vs random pools will help with point creep. They addressed one of the major concerns the public has consistently had.

If anyone has ever complained about point creep here, to a friend at work, or even in your head, then they should NOT be complaining about this change. Unless you're just going to complain about anything and everything no matter what. Then by all means, be miserable and keep complaining about a change that addresses a previous complaint in a positive way.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

If there where more animals, there would be more tags-Supposedly, that is one way to fix the problem. 

This is what I don't get. If deer populations have gone up why haven't tags. 
The youth may have opportunities now but we can't retain them when they turn 18 cause they can't draw a general season tag. Unless they can buy the tag which is what hunting in utah has come to.

I don't see utah changing anytime soon. Think of all the money with applications fees, tags for the highest bidder etc.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> This is a major over dramatization, and inaccurate description of what is happening. It's still a 50/50 split that Utah has always been. They have never "only given to highest point holders," so there is no way for them to "continue to only give to highest point holders." That is simply a false statement. But yes, the moose pool sucks. There are more applicants than we have moose, not just more applicants than we have tags. I assure you that leaving the odd tag in the random draw doesn't increase the missed pool from less than a chance of a unicorn's fart.
> 
> One of the major concerns that consistently comes up not only on this forum but also at RAC and WB meetings is point creep. This administrative change in how they allocate odd tags between bonus vs random pools will help with point creep. They addressed one of the major concerns the public has consistently had.
> 
> If anyone has ever complained about point creep here, to a friend at work, or even in your head, then they should NOT be complaining about this change. Unless you're just going to complain about anything and everything no matter what. Then by all means, be miserable and keep complaining about a change that addresses a previous complaint in a positive way.


So 11 tags is addressing point creep in the moose pool?
Let's take a look-- there are 7435 applicants in the moose pool with 14 or more points. So using 58 bonus tags a year for 14 more years is 812 tags. Barely removing those with 20 points now. Of course there are 67 random tags almost half of those went to those with 14 or more points. If you factor in those 476 tags you still come up with a unicorn farts chance to draw a tag in another 14 years. 2480 people applied for moose this year with no points, that's more than the number of tags Utah is likely to issue in the next 14 years. 
Again how's those 11 tags address point creep?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The point creep is caused by too many applicants for a limited resourse.

And is expanding dramatically!

516, 000 big game apps this year.
HUGE increase from just last year!

Point creep on anterless is NOT mainly from fewer permits.
Its more hunters applying for them aswell.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

goofy elk said:


> The point creep is caused by too many applicants for a limited resourse.
> 
> And is expanding dramatically!
> 
> ...


I agree this is an excellent point more applications are added every year. That is exactly why the odd tags should go to the random pool instead of max pool. In max point pool those applicants get zero chance to draw and in the random pool everyone gets a chance at those same tags.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Oh I've drawn a Max point tag and a random tag but this way it sure puts my kids odds of a descent tag in the ****ter.
> 
> Moose pool has suckered plenty of sportsman in this state, but if they continue to only give to highest point holders and in another 14 years you still won't have a unicorn farts chance at a tag.
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


 I really don't think it hurts the random draw as much as you think. I agree our kids are at a huge disadvantage but what can be done about it? It sucks for everyone now and is only getting worse. I like many dads are taking the initiative and applying for or buying points for our kids without them having any idea or knowledge about anything. I talk to my daughter about what I'm doing and let her pick her animal of pursuit but she has no idea about her chances or how it works. I don't tell her about how bad it sucks for her and that she may never draw because I don't want her to get frustrated and lose interest.

To many aps and not enough animals.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

3arabians said:


> I really don't think it hurts the random draw as much as you think. I agree our kids are at a huge disadvantage but what can be done about it? It sucks for everyone now and is only getting worse. I like many dads are taking the initiative and applying for or buying points for our kids without them having any idea or knowledge about anything. I talk to my daughter about what I'm doing and let her pick her animal of pursuit but she has no idea about her chances or how it works. I don't tell her about how bad it sucks for her and that she may never draw because I don't want her to get frustrated and lose interest.
> 
> To many aps and not enough animals.


Sure it does in this moose example there are only 67 chances for anyone that does not max points to draw adding 11 more chances is a 10.7% increase. I've already shown the numbers how it doesn't hardly impact the max point pool. Remember in the random pool everyone including those that don't draw in the max pool are included in the draw.

My daughter wanted to apply for moose and to just say no chance to ever draw in your life time if you begin applying now. She applied for bison where the odds are increasing.
Only people still in moose pool really really believe they are lucky and can beat the odds or don't understand them.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

The odds aren't loading for me, is anyone else having that problem?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Only people still in moose pool really really believe they are lucky and can beat the odds or don't understand them.


... or the 3 or 4 of us here that are in the top couple tiers.

-DallanC


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

DallanC said:


> ... or the 3 or 4 of us here that are in the top couple tiers.
> 
> -DallanC


Yeah, I have 17 moose points so I could keep going and hope to get lucky or start over in another species and start at the bottom. I'm not sure what the better option is? I should have switch 10 years ago when moose tags started trending this way.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Sure it does in this moose example there are only 67 chances for anyone that does not max points to draw adding 11 more chances is a 10.7% increase. I've already shown the numbers how it doesn't hardly impact the max point pool. Remember in the random pool everyone including those that don't draw in the max pool are included in the draw.
> 
> My daughter wanted to apply for moose and to just say no chance to ever draw in your life time if you begin applying now. She applied for bison where the odds are increasing.
> Only people still in moose pool really really believe they are lucky and can beat the odds or don't understand them.
> ...


Or are to many years in to start over on a different animal so are hoping to get lucky. I'm in this group.  I put my daughter in for Bison as well.


----------



## torowy (Jun 19, 2008)

Can someone explain the preference point results to me? Why did some people with high numbers of points not draw? https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/2019/19_deer_odds.pdf Take the second page for example beaver archery. 20 of 23 people with 2 points drew.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

The draw odds report just depresses me all over again. 

We got rid of all the 15 and 16 point guys last year in the hunt I have been putting in for..............
okay that leaves me right there this year !! ........right ? 
Now this year there is guys with 16 and 17 points getting the tags. 
I know, I know, that is part of the draw deal........oh well. :mrgreen:


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

torowy said:


> Can someone explain the preference point results to me? Why did some people with high numbers of points not draw? https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/2019/19_deer_odds.pdf Take the second page for example beaver archery. 20 of 23 people with 2 points drew.


A couple reasons, they could have drawn a dedicated tag or a LE or CWMU deer permit.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

DallanC said:


> ... or the 3 or 4 of us here that are in the top couple tiers.
> 
> -DallanC


Hey...screw increasing odds for the random drawings, Dallan and I need our moose tags:shock::mrgreen:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

3arabians is in our tier too isnt he? Its going to be a fun year when all 3 or 4 of us hit the hills together.


-DallanC


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

gdog said:


> Hey...screw increasing odds for the random drawings, Dallan and I need our moose tags:shock::mrgreen:


Don't worry after doing the math if you have 20 or more points right now your a sure thing to draw in next 14 years. Unless of course Utah reduces tag numbers again. 
Kinda depressing for everyone in moose pool from top to bottom.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

DallanC said:


> 3arabians is in our tier too isnt he? Its going to be a fun year when all 3 or 4 of us hit the hills together.
> 
> -DallanC


Nah, I wish. I only have 14 bull moose points. I am at the top of the cow moose pool though so maybe I can hunt a cow while you guys are hunting bulls!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shaner (Nov 30, 2007)

Being in the top tiers of bull moose points, which I consider 19 points is(me), is not unlike playing the stock market.
You roll with the ups and downs and just pray one day you get lucky.
This whole thing is just legalized gambling in Utah.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Weaver,
I'll take a stab at answering some of your questions.

1-Are you saying those that waited the longest are more deserving than everyone else?
Absolutely, yes! Utah's draw is designed to reward those who have been applying the longest which is why they reserve 50% of permits for those who have been waiting the most years. 

2-If so why have a random draw? 
So that anyone who wants to apply can still have a CHANCE at drawing.

3-So 11 tags is addressing point creep in the moose pool? 
Yes, not very much but it does remove an additional 11 people from the top point pool. 

4-Again hows those 11 tags address point creep?
Again, by removing 11 people from the top point pool. 

You state that giving a single tag to top point holders does nothing for those even a single year behind. Wrong! The more tags allocated to the top point pool the quicker those applicants draw and are out of the max point pool, eventually resulting in the group that was 1 behind now becoming the max point pool. 
According to the law/rule 50% of tags are for those with the most points. Prior to 2019 that had not been happening! It was brought to the dwr's attention so they FINALLY fixed it which obviously has you and a few others upset. Since you disapprove of how they fixed the issue my question to you is how would you suggest the DWR go about fixing the over allotment of permits to the random draw over the last 2 decades?


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

huntinfanatic said:


> Weaver,
> I'll take a stab at answering some of your questions.
> 
> 1-Are you saying those that waited the longest are more deserving than everyone else?
> ...


I like to see the rule language you have it handy?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

My take is that the guys with the most points are going to die sooner than most of the guys with fewer points.

One way or another the top tier will start dropping.

And it is always possible to apply for a unit or hunt type that does not take as many points.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Sure it does in this moose example there are only 67 chances for anyone that does not max points to draw adding 11 more chances is a 10.7% increase. I've already shown the numbers how it doesn't hardly impact the max point pool. Remember in the random pool everyone including those that don't draw in the max pool are included in the draw.
> 
> My daughter wanted to apply for moose and to just say no chance to ever draw in your life time if you begin applying now. She applied for bison where the odds are increasing.
> Only people still in moose pool really really believe they are lucky and can beat the odds or don't understand them.
> ...


It seems odd to me that you don't believe these 11 tags will have any difference for the very few in the top point pool, but you think those same exact 11 tags will have some major impact for the infinitely larger amount of random draw applicants. Someone is going to have to explain that math to me.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Weaver,
R657-62-8 (4)(a) Fifty percent of the permits for each hunt unit will be reserved for
applicants with the greatest number of bonus points.
(b) Based on the applicant's first choice, the reserved permits will be
designated by a random drawing number to eligible applicants with the greatest
number of bonus points for each species.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> It seems odd to me that you don't believe these 11 tags will have any difference for the very few in the top point pool, but you think those same exact 11 tags will have some major impact for the infinitely larger amount of random draw applicants. Someone is going to have to explain that math to me.


Less impact in max pool correct. The people in that pool still get a chance at those tags in the random. They also still get a number for every year they have applied so keep thier advantage over those with less years. In the random those tags are open for anyone to draw or a greater impact on a larger user group.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

huntinfanatic said:


> Weaver,
> R657-62-8 (4)(a) Fifty percent of the permits for each hunt unit will be reserved for
> applicants with the greatest number of bonus points.
> (b) Based on the applicant's first choice, the reserved permits will be
> ...


That language doesn't get you greater than 50% which is how it currently stands.

Looks like it'll have to be only even number of tags or rotate years. Haha

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Weaver,
You just said, "That language doesn't get you greater than 50% which is how it currently stands". What are you talking about? Even with this change for 2019 the moose bonus point pool is still getting less than 50%. 60 tags went in the bonus draw and 71 in the random/regular draw. If I did my math right thats 45.8% of the moose tags to the bonus draw, 54.2% to the random/regular draw. So even with this change the DWR still isn't giving the bonus draw enough tags to comply with the rule!

Again, since you dont like the way the DWR addressed the issue. How would you suggest the DWR comply with 50% to the bonus draw rule?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

weaver, with all due respect, you're being completely illogical about this. It's one thing to disagree with what way they round for odd permit allocations, but the things you are citing, I don't believe are even factually accurate.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

R657-62-8(4)(a) states that 50% of permits will be reserved for applicants with the most bonus points. Through my research I could not find any rule/law that gives the random/regular applicants a guaranteed % of tags. So if they can not give an exact 50% to the bonus draw, for whatever reason, in order to stay in compliance of R657-62-8(4) any extra tag(s) should go to the bonus draw. 

I decided to crunch the numbers and figure out the allocation percentages for 2019.
Moose- 45.8% bonus and 54.2% random/regular
Deer- 49.1% bonus and 50.9% random/regular
Elk- 49.6% bonus and 50.4% random/regular
Antelope-50.5% bonus and 49.5% random/regular
Bison- 51% bonus and 49% random/regular
D.Sheep- 50.7% bonus and 49.3% random/regular
R.Sheep- 51.8% bonus and 48.2% random/regular
Goat- 50.8% bonus and 49.2% random/regular

So with the change for 2019 the DWR is finally allocating permits in accordance to the rule/law for sheep, goat, bison, and antelope. Even with the change they are still not giving enough tags in the bonus draw for moose, deer, and elk.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> weaver, with all due respect, you're being completely illogical about this. It's one thing to disagree with what way they round for odd permit allocations, but the things you are citing, I don't believe are even factually accurate.


I simply just don't agree with you. Which things aren't factual? Cardinal sin on this forum to not agree with a top ten poster I guess.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

huntinfanatic said:


> R657-62-8(4)(a) states that 50% of permits will be reserved for applicants with the most bonus points. Through my research I could not find any rule/law that gives the random/regular applicants a guaranteed % of tags. So if they can not give an exact 50% to the bonus draw, for whatever reason, in order to stay in compliance of R657-62-8(4) any extra tag(s) should go to the bonus draw.
> 
> I decided to crunch the numbers and figure out the allocation percentages for 2019.
> Moose- 45.8% bonus and 54.2% random/regular
> ...


Per unit might be an important descriptive addition but interpretation of the rules is what lawyers do.

Do you have a link to the rules? I would like see what's in there.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Weaver,

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/r657-62.html or go to the DWR home page and click on search and type in R657-62-8


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> I simply just don't agree with you. Which things aren't factual? Cardinal sin on this forum to not agree with a top ten poster I guess.
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


I think huntinfanatic has pointed out a major one. Along with the odds you're trying to play statistics gymnastics with. It's fine to disagree. We all disagree on something. I just don't think you're being accurate in your descriptions of what you are disagreeing with. That's all.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

My numbers are accurate.



Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

huntinfanatic said:


> Weaver,
> 
> http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/r657-62.html or go to the DWR home page and click on search and type in R657-62-8


Thank you.

I still don't agree with your assessment of how that rule gets the max pool the majority of tags when the number is uneven. Unfortunately we have the wildlife board which is driven by many things but accordance to the rules isn't one of them unless it benefits them. Perhaps it's time to push to get a rules clarification put on the agenda. Taking those tags does have great impacts to draw odds in the random pool and goes against the very purpose of a hybrid system.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

In an imperfect system we have to continue to do whatever we can to get the top point holders out of the draw. If that means rounding the odd tag numbers up to allocate an extra tag to the bonus pool then so be it.

There is no way to equally divide an odd number to maintain a perfect 50/50 ratio.

Personally and possibly in my case only, my luck sucks. My only hope for any tag is to work my way through the system until I am in the bonus pool. That will not happen if those ahead of me don’t draw and get out of my way.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

The solution to this would be to go full random.

:rapture:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Breaking away from the neverending debate about the draw system, when I review the stats from the bison draw, there is a lot of food for thought for applicants in the future. -Ov-

Doesn't look quite so gloomy as it used to.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I still don't agree with your assessment of how that rule gets the max pool the majority of tags when the number is uneven.


I don't know how this is something to disagree with. Copied and pasted straight from the rule:

*(4)(a) Fifty percent of the permits for each hunt unit will be reserved for applicants with the greatest number of bonus points.*

If there are 11 tags, and 5 go to the top bonus point holders, was the rule followed? That is only 45.45% of the tags reserved, not 50%. If there are 51 tags, and 25 go to top point holders, was the rule followed? Nope, that is only 49%. This is where I can't follow your logic. 45% is not 50%, and neither is 49%. To follow the rule as written, it has to be 50% minimum to even qualify. This is where I'm having a hard time with things you're staying as fact, that simply are not objectively accurate statements.

If you disagree with the rule, that's fine. We all have our opinions on the draw system and what we think is good and not good. But you can't say 45 and 50 are the same and be correct. The change to round in favor of the top point holders is the right thing to do as the rule is written. Work to get the rule changed if you don't agree with it.

Just one example, but I think the horse is dead enough now.

But now back to the subjective, opinion side of the debate: I think rounding in favor of the top point holders is the right thing to do regardless of the rule. Think about how many more top point holders would be out of the draw right now if they'd always done this. Every species, every unit, every hunt, every year. When talking about point creep, this adds up! Combine that with the 500+ tags they steal from the public every year in favor of "conservation" and we are talking a whole new game right now in our draw pools. But what do I know? I'm only a top 10 poster on UWN, not THE top poster. Life goals, I guess...


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

3655 applicants with 14+ deer points
7571 applicants with 14+ elk points

19332 applicants with 2 or less points for elk
13756 applicants with 2 or less points for deer

It's not a problem 11 or even 100 tags is going to fix. 

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Oh I'm padding my post count

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

weaversamuel76 said:


> My numbers are accurate.
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


They may (or may not) be accurate, but are they applicable to the odds?

The true odds are unit based, not statewide AND are based on the number of unit tags available, and the total number of points/chances used by all applicants who applied for that unit compared to (divided by) the number of points/chances the individual hunter uses. It is NOT based solely on the number of applicants.

For instance, the DWR odds published on this report are correct, but misleading because they are based only on the group that has the same number of points as the winner(s) and ALL of the non-winner groups are NA (Not Applicable) and their odds don't matter.

If we're going to talk about odds, let's stick to the true odds numbers!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> If we're going to talk about odds, let's stick to the true odds numbers!


Which is why his numbers were, in fact, not accurate. But I was going to just move on since I'm not a top 5 poster.


----------



## neverdrawn (Jan 3, 2009)

We really need to go back to the random draw.

Now that I have drawn my tag! :mrgreen:


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Packout said:


> I skimmed thru the odds and am really surprised how many general season hunts take multiple years to be assured a tag.
> 
> Archery- 21 units with a 2+ year wait.
> Any weapon- 18 units with a 3+ year wait.
> ...


Reading your post peaked my curiosity as I didn't realize GS was getting so difficult to draw. After looking over the stats I don't think odds are nearly as bad as you portrayed. Assuming your talking about resident draw odds either your misinterpreting the odds or I am misinterpreting what you mean by "+ year wait". Looking at the data I see:
Archery- 5 units take 2 or more pts. to assure a permit.
Anyweapon- 5 units take 3 or more pts.
Muzzy- 6 units take 2 or more pts.
Early rifle- Only 3 of the 8 units take 2 or more pts.

I only found 1 hunt takes 5+ pts. to draw.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

huntinfanatic said:


> Reading your post peaked my curiosity as I didn't realize GS was getting so difficult to draw. After looking over the stats I don't think odds are nearly as bad as you portrayed. Assuming your talking about resident draw odds either your misinterpreting the odds or I am misinterpreting what you mean by "+ year wait". Looking at the data I see:
> Archery- 5 units take 2 or more pts. to assure a permit.
> Anyweapon- 5 units take 3 or more pts.
> Muzzy- 6 units take 2 or more pts.
> ...


I took a quick look and came up with 21 ML units taking 2+ years, meaning not everyone in that tier drew a tag. I have no reason to doubt Packouts other numbers but it certainly looks correct.

-DallanC


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I must be looking at different numbers than some of you guys...

For resident archery general deer, I see:
- 19 of 29 units that have greater than 50% draw odds with 0 points
- 16 of 29 units that have greater than 75% draw odds with 0 points
- 11 of 29 units that have greater than 90% draw odds with 0 points
- 6 of 29 units that have 0% draw odds with 0 points and would absolutely require 1 or more points

- 26 of 29 units that have greater than 75% draw odds with 1 point
- 25 of 29 units that have greater than 90% draw odds with 1 point
- 0 of 29 units that have 0% draw odds with 1 point and would absolutely require 2 or more points

- all archery units are 100% draw with 2 pints

For resident any weapon deer (I'm combining the early hunts with the regular hunts), I see:
- 10 of 37 units that have greater than 50% draw odds with 0 points
- 7 of 37 units that have greater than 75% draw odds with 0 points
- 5 of 37 units that have greater than 90% draw odds with 0 points
- 18 of 37 units that have 0% draw odds with 0 points and would absolutely require 1 or more points

- 19 of 37 units that have greater than 90% draw odds with 1 point
- 6 of 37 units that have 0% draw odds with 1 point and would absolutely require 2 or more points

- 31 of 37 units that have greater than 90% draw odds with 2 points
- 1 of 37 units that has 0% draw odds with 2 points and would absolutely require 3 or more points

- 36 of 37 units that have greater than 90% draw odds with 3 points

- 37 of 37 units that have greater than 90% draw odds with _6_ points

For resident muzzleloader general deer, I see:
- 14 of 29 units that have greater than 50% draw odds with 0 points
- 12 of 29 units that have greater than 75% draw odds with 0 points
- 10 of 29 units that have greater than 90% draw odds with 0 points
- 8 of 29 units that have 0% draw odds with 0 points and would absolutely require 1 or more points

- 23 of 29 units that have greater than 90% draw odds with 1 point
- 2 of 29 units that have 0% draw odds with 1 point and would absolutely require 2 or more points

- 29 of 29 units that have greater than 75% draw odds with 2 points


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Which is why his numbers were, in fact, not accurate. But I was going to just move on since I'm not a top 5 poster.


I probably should move on too, and I will after this post.

I'll concede that moving the odd tags to the high point groups will not STOP point creep simply because we're bringing in more applicants than we're moving out, but it does help to slow it down. On the other hand, it makes VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE to the current and future unit random draw odds as some of you claim, and it certainly isn't a HUGE difference. AT THE MOST, it is a .5% (5 in 1,000) difference which is minimal, and restoring them to the random draw will not help but will only speed up the point creep!

Maybe we should go to total random draws so that ALL Utah residents have a:
-1 in 29.3 chance at LE deer which means we'll draw every 29 years.
or
-1 in 24.5 chance at LE elk which means we'll draw every 24 years.
or
-1 in 8.7 chance at LE Pronghorn which means we'll draw every 9 years.
or
-1 in 265.6 chance at OIL Bull Moose.
or
-1 in 78.5 chance at OIL Bison.
or
-1 in 150.2 chance at OIL Desert Bighorn.
or
-1 in 161.9 chance at OIL Rocky Mtn. Bighorn.
or
-1 in 85.1 chance at OIL Rocky Mtn. Goat

and ALL non-residents will have a:
-1 in 214.5 chance at LE Deer
or
-1 in 121.1 chance at LE Elk
or
-1 in 85.6 chance at LE Pronghorn
or
-1 in 2,484.8 chance at OIL Bull Moose
or
-1 in 464.2 chance at Bison
or
-1 in 4,328.3 chance at Desert Bighorn
or
-1 in 5,567.3 chance at Rocky Mtn. Bighorn
or
-1 in in 1,311.1 chance at Rocky Mtn. Goat.

Bring it on!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

elkfromabove said:


> which means we'll draw


Depends on how lucky you are 

And if you are a member of SFW...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> I'll concede that moving the odd tags to the high point groups will not STOP point creep simply because we're bringing in more applicants than we're moving out, but it does help to slow it down. On the other hand, it makes VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE to the current and future unit random draw odds as some of you claim, and it certainly isn't a HUGE difference. AT THE MOST, it is a .5% (5 in 1,000) difference which is minimal, and restoring them to the random draw will not help but will only speed up the point creep!


^^^^ Truth

Now, one can argue which way they'd prefer it to be, but they can't accurately argue the actual impact is greater to go to the random draw. That simply isn't true.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Triple or quadruple the LE / OIL tag costs. That will slow down it down. 


-DallanC


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> ^^^^ Truth
> 
> Now, one can argue which way they'd prefer it to be, but they can't accurately argue the actual impact is greater to go to the random draw. That simply isn't true.


If a tag isn't available in the random draw there is zero chance to draw THAT tag. Can we agree that zero has a greater impact on odds than ANY other number?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Dallan,
No offense but I believe your misinterpreting them as well. With the way the preference point system works if any permits went to applicants with 1 point that means 2 pts would have assured a permit. The few your seeing that didn't get a permit with 2 points is because they drew a DH permit or a LE deer permit. Had they not drawn a DH or LE deer tag they would have drawn the GS tag. 
The only muzzy hunts I see that took 2 or more points to draw were Monroe, Mt. Dutton, Boulder, Fishlake, S. Slope B/V, and S. Slope Yellowstone.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

weaversamuel76 said:


> If a tag isn't available in the random draw there is zero chance to draw THAT tag. Can we agree that zero has a greater impact on odds than ANY other number?
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


So in your perfect world the easy solution would be to change the rule so that there could not be an uneven number of tags recommended.

Then what happens when they round down to keep an even number? Remember as it sits now they are recommending the maximum tags that the unit can handle.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

I am defining bigger impact by saying that ANY number bigger than ZERO is a chance therefore has a bigger impact. 

Currently single tags go to the random pool which by thier interpretation is a rule violation. Arguing by the 50% rule it has to go to the Max point pool effectively bypassing everyone else forever unless they add another tag. 



Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> I'll concede that moving the odd tags to the high point groups will not STOP point creep simply because we're bringing in more applicants than we're moving out, but it does help to slow it down. On the other hand, it makes VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE to the current and future unit random draw odds as some of you claim, and it certainly isn't a HUGE difference. AT THE MOST, it is a .5% (5 in 1,000) difference which is minimal, and restoring them to the random draw will not help but will only speed up the point creep!


I would argue that it makes up to a 50% difference. That's pretty huge.

I apply for a sheep unit that is often allocated 3 tags. In the past, two of those tags were available in the random draw. This year it was only one. Just like that, the odds almost all applicants (except the few in the top tier) were reduced by 50%.

IMO that's a significant loss for a very small "gain" of removing one extra person off the top of a swollen pool of hundreds (which will have no meaningful effect on point creep). Especially when he is already in a much better position than most of us will ever have the opportunity to be.

Bad move for the OIAL draws IMO. I don't care as much when it comes to the deer and elk draws. There are enough tags in most units that it probably makes sense.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> The solution to this would be to go full random.
> 
> :rapture:


FULL RANDOM DRAW!!!!!!!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> FULL RANDOM DRAW!!!!!!!!


Simple, right?

"No one ever looks at the details"!

Lifetime license holders? Dedicated Hunters? 20% Youth tags? Youth only hunts? Only one LE and/or OIL app or draw? No more point purchases? Mentoring program? Trial program? Conservation permits? Expo permits? Turkeys? Bear? Cougars? Sage grouse? Sharptails? Sandhill Cranes, Swans, Antlerless? No more OTC? Waiting periods? First, second, third choices? Etc.?

Oh, those blessed details that have to be discussed and decided per the RAC and Wildlife Board process (and argued about on this and other forums). They should make for an interesting thread or two! And a meeting or two!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

elkfromabove said:


> Simple, right?
> 
> "No one ever looks at the details"!
> 
> ...


Blessed details?

Dedicated is an app - and fully random.

20% youth tags - fully random.

LE and OIAL- fully random. And throw out the waiting periods while we are at it lol.

No point purchases - you want to hunt? Apply for FULL RANDOM.

Screw the expo, we don't need it now. Let RMEF come in and actually help with CONSERVATION not pocket filling.

Trial program is just bypassing hunter safety - still random draw.

Mentoring doesn't impact the draw in any way.

All those animals you named, full random.

OTC for deer would likely disappear because people wouldn't be saving points. Any units under applied would be OTC though.

GS elk still OTC.

Control and private lands still OTC.

Lifetime only guaranteed draw.

Forget details -- FULL RANDOM -()/--()/--()/--()/--()/--()/-


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Clarq said:


> I would argue that it makes up to a 50% difference. That's pretty huge.
> 
> I apply for a sheep unit that is often allocated 3 tags. In the past, two of those tags were available in the random draw. This year it was only one. Just like that, the odds almost all applicants (except the few in the top tier) were reduced by 50%.
> 
> ...


Again, I'll concede that your 50% is theoretically a big number and in some cases looks significant. But practically speaking, +50% of a small number is still a small number and changes your actual odds very little.

Additionally, I'm sure the change wasn't made solely for the numbers or point creep. I learned on the Mule Deer Committee and when I attended the RAC and Wildlife Board Orientation meeting as an observer that there are 5 considerations whenever a change is to be made, whether by the RAC/Wildlife Board system or simply by an "administrative detail" per R657-62-1(2). It's a pentagon! And those 5 considerations have variable values depending on the situation. Those considerations are: (In the order considered, as I remember.) 1-Is it biologically sound? 2-Is it legal? 3-Is it financially sound? 4-Is it workable (logistically, technologically or otherwise) 5-Is it socially acceptable?

Now, you may argue on this forum on any one of those considerations, but, frankly, the decision has already been made by the DWR and will likely continue, at least until all the hunts have even numbers of tags or until they make some major changes to the draw, if they do.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’ll say it again, the reason for the change is simple: they had to come into compliance with the rule they were not following. There can be lots of discussion on the other benefits (or downfalls) of this adjustment, but the reality is they haven’t followed the rule for years...like, ever. Now they are.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I skimmed a little of this thread and come to this conclusion- Weaver has few points. Vanilla and Elkfromabove have lots of points. 

One day I may be 80 and have to read thru 2 pages of odds for one unit. People will have 45-50 points. Cap bonus points now at 25-30 and allow everyone to catch up and be playing on the same field.

..


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> I skimmed a little of this thread and come to this conclusion- Weaver has few points. Vanilla and Elkfromabove have lots of points.


That assumes that the only reason I takes the position I do is because of the way it personally benefits me. You know what they say happens when you assume. Yes, I have a higher amount of elk points. I'll draw a tag in the next 2-3 years one way or another, whether it's getting lucky on the unit I'm hoping for, or switching units. I'm not going to wait another 10 years for a tag. I want to hunt soon.

Then I won't be anywhere near the top in any species. I have 9 bison points. (Heaven help me...) I'll have 0 deer or pronghorn points. If your assumption was correct, my opinion of the system should change after I draw and go to the bottom of every pool. It won't.

Capping points is an interesting proposal I've seen you post here before. A reasonable change that can address some of the concerns that people have. Eventually that will lead us to a mostly random draw anyway, particularly with OIL species. I'm not opposed to changes at all, I just think the way Utah does it is a good way. It's just there are too many people seeking to utilize what seems like a dwindling resource. There is no silver bully to solving that issue.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> ... I'll have 0 deer or pronghorn points. If your assumption was correct, my opinion of the system should change after I draw and go to the bottom of every pool. It won't.


If you draw your elk tag and go into the deer or pronghorn pool with zero points that all on you... why haven't you been applying your grandma, grandpa, uncle, cousin, second step brother twice removed, or future great great grandchildren for those species and building their points up so that you can apply as a group with them?


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Vanilla 1 tag currently goes to random now so doesn't fulfill the 50% rule should the state move that tag to max point pool?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Again, I'll concede that your 50% is theoretically a big number and in some cases looks significant. But practically speaking, +50% of a small number is still a small number and changes your actual odds very little.
> 
> Additionally, I'm sure the change wasn't made solely for the numbers or point creep. I learned on the Mule Deer Committee and when I attended the RAC and Wildlife Board Orientation meeting as an observer that there are 5 considerations whenever a change is to be made, whether by the RAC/Wildlife Board system or simply by an "administrative detail" per R657-62-1(2). It's a pentagon! And those 5 considerations have variable values depending on the situation. Those considerations are: (In the order considered, as I remember.) 1-Is it biologically sound? 2-Is it legal? 3-Is it financially sound? 4-Is it workable (logistically, technologically or otherwise) 5-Is it socially acceptable?
> 
> Now, you may argue on this forum on any one of those considerations, but, frankly, the decision has already been made by the DWR and will likely continue, at least until all the hunts have even numbers of tags or until they make some major changes to the draw, if they do.


The state of all things changes. Here is what I think on those 5 considerations:....

1.- Is it biologically sound? 
YES because tag numbers and management objectives wouldn't change. What changes is the distribution method of the exact same resource. Random, preferential, auction or giveaway, the tag numbers and their allocation in the management areas would not be impacted.

2.- Is it legal?
Yes/Maybe! I don't know if there is a law that created the bonus point system or if it is just an administrative rule. Either way a law/rule can be changed.

3.- Is is financially sound?
YES, of course it is. It would probably increase the number of applicants and gather more revenue. IF young hunters knew their chances of drawing are the same as everyone else's I bet they would jump into the draw.

4.- Is it workable?
Another YES! Nothing changes other than the way the draw happens. if there are 100 tags a hundred tags will be drawn by someone.

5.- Is it socially acceptable?
I would think so but let's find out. Keep in mind that the people that want the point system to remain and the point creep to grow are the one's that have a vested interest in getting theirs. Many of us might draw an LE tag after waiting 20+ years, then we go through a waiting period, for argument's sake we started at 20 now we are 45 and will never draw another tag because the creep is so massive we won't even participate anymore. I know I wouldn't. So I say let's find out from the future of hunting, our kids and grand kids.

Here is a question I have asked before and will continue to ask anyone that that wants to keep the point creep going. Can you look at your grandson in the eye and say "Sorry son, you will never get to hunt an elk like grandpa because I am too selfish to let you have a chance at drawing a tag. I need to get my tag at the expense of you never getting yours." IF this is what you are telling your posterity then in my book you are a selfish person with a narrow vision for the future of hunting.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Vanilla 1 tag currently goes to random now so doesn't fulfill the 50% rule should the state move that tag to max point pool?


Tough to reserve 50% of 1 tag. I think you already know the answer to that.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> The state of all things changes. Here is what I think on those 5 considerations:....
> 
> 1.- Is it biologically sound?
> YES because tag numbers and management objectives wouldn't change. What changes is the distribution method of the exact same resource. Random, preferential, auction or giveaway, the tag numbers and their allocation in the management areas would not be impacted.
> ...


Or you could say, "Guess what, son. In about 2 years, you'll get to hunt moose with me on the mentoring program and you still might be able to hunt moose with your own tag later on."


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

elkfromabove said:


> Or you could say, "Guess what, son. In about 2 years, you'll get to hunt moose with me on the mentoring program and you still might be able to hunt moose with your own tag later on."


It's ok to admit you fall into the selfish it's all about me group.

I've been seeing on Instagram where some outfitters are inviting you to camp so you can mentor your tag to random youth/ client kids. Utah has already lost it's intent on this program hopefully the board passes a law where I can mentor for money soon.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Or you could say, "Guess what, son. In about 2 years, you'll get to hunt moose with me on the mentoring program and you still might be able to hunt moose with your own tag later on."


If you can say that with a straight face and actually mean it and believe it; you are some kind of talented or simply blind.

And I just got another TOTP!!!!!!!!


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

Packout said:


> One day I may be 80 and have to read thru 2 pages of odds for one unit. People will have 45-50 points. Cap bonus points now at 25-30 and allow everyone to catch up and be playing on the same field.
> 
> ..


a cap is a solution might be more palatable than removing everyone's points. it would give "seniority" to the group of long time applying residents while still giving a chance to the newcomers. with the population growth projected there needs to be some serious thought on what will work in the future and we need to work toward that goal.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

APD said:


> a cap is a solution might be more palatable than removing everyone's points. it would give "seniority" to the group of long time applying residents while still giving a chance to the newcomers. with the population growth projected there needs to be some serious thought on what will work in the future and we need to work toward that goal.


Where do you cap it? 25 years? That's a long time, especially for it to still never be a guarantee.

"I have 18 moose points, so I should be getting close" - It's always cute when I hear this. The guys odds are maybe the same as a full random draw. Someone once did some odds on here for us and it was only the tippy top guys with better odds.

But each year the top pool would get bigger and odds would go down. I've had solutions different from full random.... but still, FULL RANDOM.

(This isn't out of personal gain. I am big on analytics and operation management and the point creep literally gives me anxiety seeing a never ending statistical issue. The lottery makes more sense.)


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> You know what they say happens when you assume. Yes, I have a higher amount of elk points. .


Yes, I do know- I am correct. You have lots of points. So does EFA. I never assumed why you take the stance you do, nor did I disagree with you. But I was still right.

A Point Cap would allow those who have a lot of skin in the game to keep that skin- while still allowing those coming from behind to catch-up after they put their skin in the game. Giving 50-66% of permits to those with the most points, for hunts which take 2-5 lifetimes to draw, seems a little off-base to me.

If they are going to get rid of points then that package should include removing LL holders as well. (Sorry Nilla, I just had to rib you a little.) Neither of those are going to happen......

..


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

BlahBlahDrawBlahPointsBlahTierBlahBlahRandom... blah.

Rich guys still get to buy a moose tag in Utah every single year. Heck if they want, they can buy a LE Deer, LE Elk and even LE Pronghorn to go with that moose tag... _every_single_year. 

A healthy rich guy could kill 50-60 Utah Bull Moose over his lifetime.


-DallanC


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

Yeah! Good point. And what a bunch of BS! Stoopid rich guys!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

weaversamuel76 said:


> It's ok to admit you fall into the selfish it's all about me group.
> 
> I've been seeing on Instagram where some outfitters are inviting you to camp so you can mentor your tag to random youth/ client kids. Utah has already lost it's intent on this program hopefully the board passes a law where I can mentor for money soon.


And it's ok to admit you fall into the selfish remove or reduce someone else's time-earned and paid-for chances in order to increase my own chances a miniscule amount group.

As I stated, it's already done!


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

^^ + 1.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> BlahBlahDrawBlahPointsBlahTierBlahBlahRandom... blah.
> 
> Rich guys still get to buy a moose tag in Utah every single year. Heck if they want, they can buy a LE Deer, LE Elk and even LE Pronghorn to go with that moose tag... _every_single_year.
> 
> ...


in 2018 I added up all the expo + conservation tags. It was well over 500 LE and OIL tags taken out of the public draw. 500+ tags every year makes a difference across the board, certainly. Especially considering that every one of those people are acquiring a LE point to go along with that tag they bought/pulled. We're quibbling about way less than that, and only what pool it goes to, not just keeping it in public draw.


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

Quick question to those in the know! Are they our public tags? Or are they our public tags and DWR, SFW, and many other conservation groups tags, to do whatever they want with, whenever they want, how ever they want to make their money with our public tags? I find it odd by state laws which I know nothing about, that we are the only state with a crazy stupid amount of so called conservation tags. Are we (Utahns) naive to this and just let them all pimp our tags out at will and the other states aren’t. Therefore they don’t have our problems?? Cause I honestly don’t believe we are the Serengeti of the west...


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> in 2018 I added up all the expo + conservation tags. It was well over 500 LE and OIL tags taken out of the public draw. 500+ tags every year makes a difference across the board, certainly. Especially considering that every one of those people are acquiring a LE point to go along with that tag they bought/pulled. We're quibbling about way less than that, and only what pool it goes to, not just keeping it in public draw.


Exactly.

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Nobody seems to be taking account of natural attrition due to age, medical condition or the fact that they may be dead.
How about one of you run the actuary tables to see what the true number of people will still be able to hunt.
Seems to me there should be some way to determine that. As it stands if you don't apply you still show in the pool. Granted you would decline every year from the max pool.
You youngsters may get a tag before you know it.
Or do it the old American way and go to school, get a great job, and down the road you can out bid the other guy.


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

I wonder if the governor gets his cut too...


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

middlefork said:


> Nobody seems to be taking account of natural attrition due to age, medical condition or the fact that they may be dead.
> How about one of you run the actuary tables to see what the true number of people will still be able to hunt.
> Seems to me there should be some way to determine that. As it stands if you don't apply you still show in the pool. Granted you would decline every year from the max pool.
> You youngsters may get a tag before you know it.
> Or do it the old American way and go to school, get a great job, and down the road you can out bid the other guy.


You don't show in the "pools" we are looking at, because we are looking at the application pools! For points and specific units.. It's not that crazy to see without mathing that it's a major problem that is growing faster than people are dying. But the fact people die waiting in a never ending line sorta highlights the fact that it's a problem, and a pointless line (especially as time goes on).

Death/health isn't as steep as the supply and demand curve.

If the old American way is buying tags - why are all these old Americans waiting in this line? lol


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

DallanC said:


> BlahBlahDrawBlahPointsBlahTierBlahBlahRandom... blah.


blahblahblah*FULL*blahblahblah*RANDOM*... blah.



I'm going to speak it into existence like that book The Secret.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Nobody seems to be taking account of natural attrition due to age, medical condition or the fact that they may be dead.


We've talked attrition forever... and with the new mentor system its reduced, dramatically because grandpa doesnt have to hunt. Junior can get the tag through the mentor system. Now junior can put in his grandma, mother... others who dont even hunt, just to use the tag. Its made it worse for everyone else.

I know what the DWR was trying to do by attempting to make a system to attract new young hunters, but its a failure. The only ones who really use the mentor system are already hunting, the kid in the non-hunting family is SOL.



> How about one of you run the actuary tables to see what the true number of people will still be able to hunt.


Private info such as age is protected by law actually. Once upon a time all the draw info was printed out on paper and you could look over who drew in every unit... no more. Its all a SECRET.

-DallanC


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

some have more time than others to wait them out.







```
[MEDIA=youtube]aPwGvzhUkB0[/MEDIA]
```


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

DallanC said:


> BlahBlahDrawBlahPointsBlahTierBlahBlahRandom... blah.
> 
> Rich guys still get to buy a moose tag in Utah every single year. Heck if they want, they can buy a LE Deer, LE Elk and even LE Pronghorn to go with that moose tag... _every_single_year.
> 
> ...


And rich people can have Porsches to drive, land to own, yachts to sail and hot chics to sleep with.

I fail to see the problem with this.


----------



## RoosterKiller (May 27, 2011)

MadHunter said:


> And rich people can have Porsches to drive, land to own, yachts to sail and hot chics to sleep with.
> 
> I fail to see the problem with this.


I can only afford Elk hunting and an occasional hot chic.:mrgreen:


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Hunttilidrop said:


> Quick question to those in the know! Are they our public tags? Or are they our public tags and DWR, SFW, and many other conservation groups tags, to do whatever they want with, whenever they want, how ever they want to make their money with our public tags? I find it odd by state laws which I know nothing about, that we are the only state with a crazy stupid amount of so called conservation tags. *Are we (Utahns) naive to this* and just let them all pimp our tags out at will and the other states aren't. Therefore they don't have our problems?? Cause I honestly don't believe we are the Serengeti of the west...


Yes, in general the average Utah hunter is not just naive but completely ignorant to this...

Of the 151581 LE & OIAL resident applications and 128214 general season deer resident applications... what fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent even really give a crap about any of this?

I generally hunt with my family in a large group of 6 or 7... and none of them give a [email protected] about conservation tags, drawing odds, point creep, bonus tag/regular tag splits, bonus points, waiting periods, random draws, population estimates, management plans, age objectives, buck:doe ratios, and on and on and on... so long as their tag shows up in the mail.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

derekp1999 said:


> Yes, in general the average Utah hunter is not just naive but completely ignorant to this...
> 
> Of the 151581 LE & OIAL resident applications and 128214 general season deer resident applications... what fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent even really give a crap about any of this?
> 
> I generally hunt with my family in a large group of 6 or 7... and none of them give a [email protected] about conservation tags, drawing odds, point creep, bonus tag/regular tag splits, bonus points, waiting periods, random draws, population estimates, management plans, age objectives, buck:doe ratios, and on and on and on... so long as their tag shows up in the mail.


And on those years when that tag doesn't show up in the mail... hunting isn't high enough on their priority list to illicit enough righteous indignation within them to begin learning about all that stuff. They shrug their shoulders, say maybe next year, and get on with their yard work & projects around the house and figure they would have an extra weekend to go fishing instead.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MadHunter said:


> And rich people can have Porsches to drive, land to own, yachts to sail and hot chics to sleep with.
> 
> I fail to see the problem with this.


None of those things are publicly owned resources that are taken from the public and gifted to those "rich people" for their own use and benefit.

I have no problem with "rich people" and how any of them choose to spend their money. Heck, we could all be so lucky to be categorized with the other "rich people." They earned it, or someone who earned it gave it to them. Either way, that is no business of mine.

Publicly owned property and resources, however, is my business. And it's your business, and everyone else's business as well.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

derekp1999 said:


> And on those years when that tag doesn't show up in the mail... hunting isn't high enough on their priority list to illicit enough righteous indignation within them to begin learning about all that stuff. They shrug their shoulders, say maybe next year, and get on with their yard work & projects around the house and figure they would have an extra weekend to go fishing instead.


Exactly. Utah is unbelievably amazing with all the outdoor things we have the ability to do in this state. From Hunting to Fishing, to ATVs, Dunes, Mountain riding, camping, snowmobiling, ice fishing, skiing, target shooting, photography, hiking.

I used to not be able to imagine not being able to hunt... lately there is so much I want to do, I am finding it harder to find time to hunt.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Rich people will very seldom mess around with hunting in Utah unless it is for sheep, goats, or a Henry Mountain deer tag. 

They'll head north of the border for moose, brown bear, more sheep, and goats. 

But it does seam that there are quite a few that like spending money in Utah at the tag auctions.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> None of those things are publicly owned resources that are taken from the public and gifted to those "rich people" for their own use and benefit.
> 
> I have no problem with "rich people" and how any of them choose to spend their money. Heck, we could all be so lucky to be categorized with the other "rich people." They earned it, or someone who earned it gave it to them. Either way, that is no business of mine.
> 
> Publicly owned property and resources, however, is my business. And it's your business, and everyone else's business as well.


Yes, they are taken from the public but they are not gifted to anyone as huge amounts of money is paid for them.
Yes it is our business



Critter said:


> Rich people will very seldom mess around with hunting in Utah unless it is for sheep, goats, or a Henry Mountain deer tag.
> 
> They'll head north of the border for moose, brown bear, more sheep, and goats.
> 
> But it does seam that there are quite a few that like spending money in Utah at the tag auctions.


I think rich people hunt in Utah quite a bit. I'll try to find out where the highest dollar amounts for tags is paid. Does Canada offer auction tags for sheep and how much do they go for? How about Montana? Wyoming? What kind of money are these tags being sold for? That should say a lot.

I understand and agree with the point of view. But the problem is not rich people or what they buy. The problem is what's being sold and by who. Public tags and resources are being taken by politicians and bureaucrats with the intent to gather high dollar amounts for use in conservation in this case. Do these dollars actually make an impact and benefit the general public?

The answer to that is what should determine if we should be upset or not at the politicians and the bureaucrats not at the rich folks that buy what's for sale. IF there is no benefit to the general public by way of these sales then we need to hold those that sell them accountable.

What would the state of game/hunting in Utah be without those high dollar tag sales? I will not speculate on that but from what I heard and read it all depends on who you ask and what they agenda is.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Most if not all the animals that I listed can be had OTC. Not necessarily Canada but in Alaska 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MadHunter said:


> But the problem is not rich people or what they buy. The problem is what's being sold and by who.


This is 100% correct. My "rich people" response was only in response to the question asked, but to be more clear of where the problem lies, you are correct and I agree with this statement above entirely.

The problem is, who is behind the decisions to make those available? What powers that be would be shaken if they stopped? Who controls those making the decisions, and why? All relevant to further the questions you asked above.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

derekp1999 said:


> And on those years when that tag doesn't show up in the mail... hunting isn't high enough on their priority list to illicit enough righteous indignation within them to begin learning about all that stuff. They shrug their shoulders, say maybe next year, and get on with their yard work & projects around the house and figure they would have an extra weekend to go fishing instead.


So then, is it ok to throw them under the bus as hunters as long as they don't know about it or care? As far a they or you are concerned, are some of us wasting our time, energy, and money trying to curb or reverse the direction we find the changes are taking us (and them)? Or should we just sit down, keep quiet and go with the flow like your family and the majority of Utah outdoorsmen? Is that what you're trying to tell us?


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> So then, is it ok to throw them under the bus as hunters as long as they don't know about it or care? As far a they or you are concerned, are some of us wasting our time, energy, and money trying to curb or reverse the direction we find the changes are taking us (and them)? Or should we just sit down, keep quiet and go with the flow like your family and the majority of Utah outdoorsmen? Is that what you're trying to tell us?


Do you want my honest opinion or are you being overly defensive?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

derekp1999 said:


> Do you want my honest opinion or are you being overly defensive?


I want your honest opinion. Things around here have gotten more complicated and I have to make some changes.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> I want your honest opinion. Things around here have gotten more complicated and I have to make some changes.


I have a bunch of thoughts, most are convoluted & many are contradictory.

Honestly I am conflicted... on one hand I want all sportsmen & women lock step with me (us) in fighting for our right/privilege to hunt, fish, and recreate in the great outdoors... yet on the other I think of the time/energy/resources that I spend in studying/researching/scouting and I wonder if it is worth it. I love the discussions that I get into with friends that have the passion for these things like I do... we agonize over bonus points, analyze drawing odds, have 5 and 10 year plans for drawing multiple tags in several western states for ourselves and our children. Yet I also wonder how blissful it would be to not care about any of that, take what is given me when I'm fortunate enough to get it, and just go fishing or camping or mow my lawn when I don't.

I do wish there was a way to educate people on how things are done. The majority of "average hunters" I get into conversation with think that the DWR sets the tags numbers... they think that conservation/auction/expo tags are extras... they think that the most prevalent conservation organizations in the state want what is best for them the "average hunter"... they have no clue what a Wildlife Board or a RAC Meeting is let alone attended one or even streamed one... or that issues and laws related to any of this goes through the public process. I don't blame those who don't spend as much time/effort/energy as I do for the state of the State... in a way I envy them. I wish I could go back to being naive and ignorant... I'm a bit jealous of those that are.

I actually blame me/us the more I think about it. Would any of these conservation organizations even exist without guys who loved to do this stuff, spent all their time/effort/resources on passionately pursuing hunting? Would we have expo tags and the need for Wildlife Boards and RACs if there weren't guys willing to pursue this at all costs, or complicated bonus point schemes to seemingly assign an arbitrary values or sense of entitlement? I don't think that we would... I think we as avid, passionate "big time hunters" are probably the reason we are in the predicament in the first place.

I wish we as sportsmen and women would stop cannibalizing ourselves. We do more damage to ourselves and our own causes than any "environmentalist group" can do. I wish that we could stand up and fight for our right/privilege to participate in these activities without starting fights among ourselves. I wish that there was a way to mobilize the "average hunter" to the cause that had a voice with staying power. I wish that this was a battle that I felt like we even have a chance at winning... but since we are so divided with nobody willing/able to unite us with the "average hunter" I fear it's a losing battle so I'm not overly optimistic...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

derekp1999 said:


> I have a bunch of thoughts, most are convoluted & many are contradictory.
> 
> Honestly I am conflicted... on one hand I want all sportsmen & women lock step with me (us) in fighting for our right/privilege to hunt, fish, and recreate in the great outdoors... yet on the other I think of the time/energy/resources that I spend in studying/researching/scouting and I wonder if it is worth it. I love the discussions that I get into with friends that have the passion for these things like I do... we agonize over bonus points, analyze drawing odds, have 5 and 10 year plans for drawing multiple tags in several western states for ourselves and our children. Yet I also wonder how blissful it would be to not care about any of that, take what is given me when I'm fortunate enough to get it, and just go fishing or camping or mow my lawn when I don't.
> 
> ...


Pretty much sums up many of my own thoughts. Throw in there the very rapid population explosion of the rocky mountain states with those folks doing so bringing with them the very philosophies and politics they are trying to leave behind, and changing the cultural lifestyle of the states they move too. It saddens me greatly to think of what will happen...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Ok you folks with short memory.
( or too young to remember )

SFW was born because of the 'March on the State Capitol'
Done by POed Utah sportsmen.

Not only that,
But we had a random draw system at the time that was also abandoned.
AND replaced with the bonus point system.
Again, demanded by Utah sportsmen.......


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Ok you folks with short memory.
> ( or too young to remember )
> 
> SFW was born because of the 'March on the State Capitol'
> ...


The moral of the story, Goof, is people can't be pleased. We should be doing what is right, no matter who it pleases.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

As they say, the grass is always greener on the other side.

At least until you get there.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> We should be doing what is right, no matter who it pleases.


That there is the root problem of most all humanity's woes. "Who" gets to decided what is "right".

I have nfc.

-DallanC


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> Ok you folks with short memory.
> ( or too young to remember )
> 
> SFW was born because of the 'March on the State Capitol'
> ...


Exactly my point... guys just like us 25-30 years ago are the reason we are in this predicament...

Food for thought... what are we clamoring for today that 25-30 years from now our children/grandchildren will be asking us what the hell we were thinking?

There is a saying by the poet John Lydgate made famous by Abraham Lincoln (and a sign in the Jimmy John's I occasionally frequent for lunch)... "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all of the time"


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> That there is the root problem of most all humanity's woes. "Who" gets to decided what is "right".
> 
> I have nfc.
> 
> -DallanC


Agreed, on most things. While there is grey area and subjectivity, even in wildlife and hunter management, there is still right and wrong.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> That there is the root problem of most all humanity's woes. "Who" gets to decided what is "right".
> 
> I have nfc.
> 
> -DallanC


Specific to Utah wildlife, it's a combination of the State Legislators, the Governor, the Wildlife Board and the DWR, not necessarily in that order. (The RAC's are only advisors, they aren't allowed to "decide" anything and there are a few Federal agencies that also have management over some species.) But, since we all have access to those entities, ultimately, WE ARE THE ONES WHO DECIDE, either by our actions or inactions!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Ok you folks with short memory.
> ( or too young to remember )
> 
> SFW was born because of the 'March on the State Capitol'
> ...


You made DerekP's point perfectly. The human factor came into play and complicated things.

I remember the march on the capitol; I was there. That march was spearheaded by a guy that turned on the POed Utah Sportsmen. He pretty much hijacked the entire system and became a wealthy power broker at the expense of the sportsmen he was supposed to be fighting for. All in the name of power, greed, influence, etc.

All things being fair and equal and no matter where you align yourself ideologically on this issue; if you cannot see that then you are missing the forest for the trees.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

So.. because we made a change a few decades ago, we can't use hindsight?

If we think that way, go back to 5 regions and statewide OTC archery, ditch the mentor program, make ML primative, etc... and I am good. 


What was the right idea (or not) then, shouldn't keep us from making a logical change now.


----------

