Bonus Point Proposal for Idaho – PLEASE READ!
by Corey Jacobsen
June 17, 2010
Despite the voices of a majority of sportsmen in Idaho, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is adopting a bonus point system for 2011 and is currently taking input on the specifics of such a system. Please read the proposed ideas from the Department, followed by the Bonus Point Proposal by Elk101.com. Our Proposal is still in draft form, so please comment and add your thoughts and ideas on how to make this system work for sportsmen. Please forward this to anyone you know who may be interested as we only have until June 30 to comment.
Bonus Point System for Idaho (Proposed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game)
Bonus Points: A Bonus Point System is a way to reward hunters who have applied for controlled hunts for several years and have not yet drawn a tag.
In controlled hunts, a limited number of tags for a specific species in a specific location is allocated by a random drawing. A hunter’s odds of drawing a tag depend on the number of tags available and the number of applications. Under the bonus point system, the more years hunters apply for controlled hunts without drawing, the more “points” they accumulate, and the more times they are entered in subsequent drawings – thus the better their odds are of drawing in the following years.
The 2009 Idaho Legislature authorized a bonus point fee of $4.50 (plus $1.75 vendor fee for each transaction), generating the revenue to cover the cost of the program and perhaps raise additional funds for other programs.
- Hunters would receive one bonus point for each species in each year they apply but do not draw.
- In the following year, the number of points would be “squared” to determine the number of chances the hunter has to draw for that species.
- For example, if a hunter has five points for deer from previous years, then in the next year, the hunter would have five times five plus one for the current application, or 26 chances to draw.
- Hunters can accumulate points separately for each species. The points for that species would be reset to zero when the hunter successfully draws a first-choice tag for that species or fails to apply for a bonus point for two consecutive years.
- Persistence is rewarded by increasing the number of chances in the drawing over time, but it never guarantees a tag.
Additional Information: In 2009 there were a total of 3,723 applicants for once-in-a-lifetime tags, not including cow moose tags. Because applicants are not allowed to apply for multiple species if they apply for a “once-in-a-lifetime” hunt, there were 3,723 individual applications (673 for Mountain Goat, 2,226 for Sheep, and 5,179 for Moose).
In 2009 there were also 36,835 1st choice applicants for deer, 45,411 applicants for elk, 18,114 applicants for Pronghorn (Antelope), 1,239 applicants for Spring Bear, and 1,541 applicants for Fall Bear.
Elk101 Proposal for Bonus Point System in Idaho
Bonus Points: A Bonus Point System is a way to reward hunters who have applied for controlled hunts for several years and have not yet drawn a tag. Additionally, it should maintain opportunities for new hunters coming into the draws in future years to have a chance of drawing tags each year that they apply.
Lastly, a Bonus Point system should not drastically lower the draw odds of a particular species.
In controlled hunts, a limited number of tags for a specific species in a specific location is allocated by a random drawing. A hunter’s odds of drawing a tag depend on the number of tags available and the number of applications. Under the bonus point system, the more years hunters apply for controlled hunts without drawing, the more “points” they accumulate, and the more times they are entered in subsequent drawings – thus the better their odds are of drawing in the following years.
The 2009 Idaho Legislature authorized a bonus point fee of $4.50 (plus $1.75 vendor fee for each transaction), generating the revenue to cover the cost of the program. A Bonus Point system should not strictly be a fund-raising effort for the Department, but should balance the concerns and needs of sportsmen with the need for additional revenue for the Department.
Elk101 Proposed Bonus Point System
- Hunters may apply for one “once-in-a-lifetime” hunt OR they may apply for hunts in the general draw (deer, elk, antelope, bear, turkey, etc) – no change to the current draw process).
- Applicants who are unsuccessful in the “once-in-a-lifetime” draw (moose, sheep, goat) will receive one bonus point for the species they apply for in each year they apply but do not draw.
- Applicants who are unsuccessful in the general draw (deer, elk, antelope, bear, turkey) will receive one bonus point for each species they apply for in each year they apply but do not draw.
- The points for each species would be reset to zero when the hunter successfully draws a first-choice tag for that species or fails to apply for a hunt for that species for two consecutive years.
- Bonus points may NOT be purchased and are only awarded for each species a hunter applies for during the controlled hunt draw process.
- 33% of available tags for each hunt will be set aside in a maximum point draw pool. Only applicants with maximum points will have a chance of drawing these tags.
- The remaining 67% of available tags for each hunt will be placed in a general pool draw, and those who do not have maximum points, as well as those with maximum points who do not draw in the maximum point draw, will have an opportunity to draw these tags (i.e., an applicant with 1 point will have one chance, and applicant with 7 points will have 7 chances).
- Non-residents will still not be able to draw more than 10% of the available tags in each hunt or for each species – no change to existing process.
- Successful applicants in a general hunt draw will be required to sit out one year before they may apply for that species again – no change to existing process.
- Bonus points will not be set to zero when applicants are successful in unlimited hunt or 2nd choice hunt drawings.
Validation for Proposed System: In 2009, there were 45,411 1st choice applicants for elk. Those applicants were not allowed to apply for any “once-in-a-lifetime” hunts. Under the Department’s proposal, all 45,411 elk applicants would be able to “purchase” a bonus point for mountain goat, a point for sheep, and a point for moose, while still applying for deer, elk, antelope, bear, and turkey. This could create an absolute disaster for the draw odds not very far down the road, particularly in “once-in-a-lifetime” hunts. At only $4.75 per species, it could be fairly assumed that a high percentage of those currently applying for elk and deer would also “purchase” a bonus point for all 3 “once-in-a-lifetime” species each year. A new hunter entering the draw in 10 years would receive one chance in the draw where several thousand applicants would have 100 chances in the draw. This system does not encourage new hunters or youth hunters to apply, and is very short-sighted and selfish, only benefitting those who jump in on the ground floor.
The Bonus Point system proposed by Elk101 would reward those who have waited the longest for a tag, as well as create a better chance for those who are entering the draw for the first time. At the same time, it wouldn’t drastically affect the draw odds one way or another. Hard-to-draw hunts and “once-in-a-lifetime” hunts would give those who faithfully apply a guaranteed tag at some point in the future, while still giving everyone else a weighted chance based upon how long they have applied. This system also would not bog down the “once-in-a-lifetime” draws, while rewarding those who apply faithfully for a species AND giving first-time applicants the same decent odds they have today.
We strongly urge the department to consider the long-term ramifications of implementing a bonus point system, especially one similar to the system they have proposed. While it will generate a great deal of money, it will not be a benefit to sportsmen today or in the future.
Marcus,
If you like wyomings system so much then focus your attention on hunting in that state and leave idaho alone. Most hunters in Idaho are meat hunters who consider antlers to be a bonus. I’ve done the math and run the numbers on as many scenarios as I can think of, and in all of them the odds of drawing a tag go down, and the odds don’t increase significantly for those with max points for at least 8 yrs.
I don’t see #2. I’ve tried refreshing the page and there is still nothing there. Do I need to go to another page to see it?
Marc
Marcus,
Thank you for continuing to post. Although I don’t agree with your opinion and logic behind it, it is good to see all sides layed out and it helps when trying to come up with a plan that will serve everyone without excluding anyone. I have worked seemingly around the clock for the past 4-5 days, running models on different hunts with different systems, comapring actual odds for new hunters as well as odds for max point holders in each system and have compiled a new draft proposal to be given to the Department based upon the findings.
I also obtained a copy of the 2005 survey conducted by F&G from Brad Compton and have included those facts along with the proposal(s). Please see the new link “Idaho Bonus Point Proposal – Part 2″ and comment on the new thoughts.
Travis,
I like the ideas that you have concerning setting children up with points to get them started. I wasn’t going to post any more on this topic until I saw your thoughts. Your correct that Idaho’s concept the same as NV as it sits right now. I firmly believe that you are also correct that once the ball gets rolling people will start to cash in their chips on better odd units instead of continuing to build points for the typical trophy units that will be hard to draw no matter what system you have. Some non-residents will appreciate the point system and some will not. Idaho has always been their fall back state when they don’t draw other states. Now we will be another one of those states that will be charging them for points. On that note, I think its going to lessen the pressure in some areas because less non-residents will be hunting areas that they usually hunt with an OC tag. I like the concept that you have about areas with less than 5% draw odds not being a part of the point system. I completely agree that their should be no preference points what so ever. Nothing good can come from that. Thats why I used WY as an example earlier. I would just change the fact that they have any preference points what so ever. Just make it all Bonus points so that no matter what you will always have a chance of drawing even though your odds are very slim. Those individuals that want to try and compete for top tags and go top war with the masses can do so. Those of us that like better odds and are happy with good tags can use our points.
The system F&G has proposed is a money grab at best and in reality it will ruin our hunting heritage and lifestyle and most importantly opportunities for our children and other first time hunters to fall in love with hunting as we have. F&G is pushing this because license and tag sales are down especially out of state/non resident sales in recent years, however they have been combating decreased numbers of new and younger generation hunters for years. The real problem is the decrease in game numbers due to the wolves leading to decreased success; that is what is driving people away. Different topic for a different day. However many non-residents say that they would still hunt Idaho or apply for hunts if they received a bonus point. That in my opinion is why they are pursuing this. However they are going about it the wrong way. The system they have proposed is goofy and trying to reinvent the wheel. I like the system that Corey has proposed, it makes sense, gives points appropriately and preserves opportunities for residents and especially for future generations. Everyone that applies has a legitemate chance, that is what is fun about applying for a hunt. My only change would be that non-residents should have to pay the full tag fee, bonus point fee and out of state license fee at the time of application, if unsuccessfully drawn the tag fee would be refunded or even the license fee as well, but I say keep it like other states do. The state would bring in more revenue, making interest on the tag fee as well as increasing non resident license sales and bonus point sales. Everyone would be happy as well as have an opportunity to draw. You could still have a bonus point only option as well, buy a non-res license and pay for your point and wait to draw for another year. Whatever system chosen HAS to make sense for the long term viability of hunting and that means protecting residents’ opportunities and most importantly protecting our future generations opportunities.
Your proposal may be more palatable than the one offered by F&G but the current system is still the most fair to everyone involved. Pure chance, equal odds for all applicants. I fail to see why applying more than once rates favoritism.
As the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
what about this idea….
any unit or hunt with draw odds of less than 5% draw odds will not be in point system the following year. Instead anyone that applies for it as a first choice will only be entered into the drawing 1 time (reguardless of points already accrued) and will NOT receive a bonus point even if they are unsuccessful. that would be the exact same way it is today. this may keep some from applying because they would want to accrue bonus points. for all the other units with better odds, let them use bonus points.
what do you guys think of that?
Cory.
I have mixed emotions about points. i go back and fourth all the time. First thing i see that i dont like tho about your proposal is the 33% to top point holders or 33% preference. I quote you “a non-resident getting in now (heck, a non-res with 8 points right now) has no statistical chance of ever drawing that tag.” with your 33% preference point proposal you would also never get there. they dont offer enough tags.
IF, and i say “if” i wanted bonus points and again have not yet made my decision ( if it matters ) i think the best system is NV which ID is basically mimicking. You could be the sole top point holder in the country and are not guaranteed the tag….everyone has a chance, but the ones that have been applying longer have a better chance.
Maybe the should offer every 12 year old kid a first time 5 or 10 automatic points so they can get started. square that and its 25 or 100.
also, i can only think that once this points game starts, if it does, people will look at it and say to themselves, statistically i have such a horrible chance of drawing that they will move on to other units with better odds, therefore increasing the odds for the younger generation. increasing meaning probably better than you would think they would be. people will change the way they apply once things get rolling.
One thing for sure…. many many more residents will be applying because now they will get something for their big license fee.
Just my thoughts.
a point system would not be good for idahos kids in the future just saying.
Marcus,
Let me be clear that nowhere in my rambling have I mentioned anything about losing opportunity to hunt…that is the great thing about Idaho. Even if we don’t draw, we can still go hunting. You said “How are you loosing any ground right now if we go to a point system of any kind if you get in on the ground floor. It’s obvious that you don’t understand the meaning of the future.”
This is a very selfish statement that completely ignores the REAL future of our hunting. I am not worried at all about me…I’ll get in on the ground floor for sure if this is forced upon us. But when my youngest son starts hunting in 9 years, he won’t be able to get in on the ground floor.
But I guess he, and every new hunter that is introduced to the sport, are in the same vote…”But that is your own fault. If you cant get your priorities straight and decide what you wish to do then your only hurting yourself.”
With comments like these, I don’t think anyone needs to be telling anyone else about not being able to see past their own nose.
My illustration of unit 45 is absolute best case…if no one else gets into the draw. You’re right, no one knows for sure how many people will apply in the future, but it is safe to say there won’t be fewer people buying points and applying with the F&G’s proposal. But we’ll still use todays numbers and assume no one else gets in the draw. For those with max points, the odds of drawing will definitely get slightly better each year. For those that are even one point behind, the odds do not get better than they currently are. Everyone who is 1 point ahead of them will have a 4X better chance of drawing the first year if no one else puts in…the odds do not get better for anyone other than those who get in on the ground floor, and that is failure to look down the street.
Colorado is also a “Preference” Point state, and I would hate to use them as an example as well. 7 years ago when I started collecting points there, I was about 8 years away from drawing a GREAT archery elk tag. Today, with 7 Preference Points, I am 11 years away from that same tag and still counting…but if we want to talk about taking away opportunity…Colorado’s rifle hunts are less than a week long! Again, for a non-resident of Colorado who gets to hunt OTC tags in Idaho every year, waiting for a good tag in Colorado is OK. But their Points system has not provided more opportunity or quality. That has come by limiting season lengths and overall tag quotas.
“It’s simple math of course, if you don’t include the future.” That’s my worry…the simple math for the F&G’s Proposal was done without including the future, and that is scary.
It’s obvious there is a group or groups who has gone behind sportsmen’s backs and pushed this Bonus Point idea through, against the vote of Idaho’s sportsmen 2 years ago. I think our system is working just fine as it is. However, my hunch is that F&G has had their mind made up for them and we will have a system in place next year. The system that is proposed by them is a BAD deal and will completely ruin the draw process in Idaho. It won’t take away hunting opportunity or do anything to the quality of the herds, but it will ruin the draw process and the opportunity to draw controlled hunt tags for new hunters in the future.
The IDFG point system proposal has absolutely nothing to do with management of game herds. It addresses only human/societal issues. To think otherwise you are confusing yourself. That kind of talk sounds familiar though, similar to the kind of babble that the SFW leadership has used in states like Utah to push their wealth tag program.
Attempting to use Wyoming as an example of the model for a limited Draw point system is laughable. Wyoming is the poster-child state for proving point systems are complete folly. Wyoming has modified their system many times, and continues to do so. Why? Because by the admission of their own game department, the Wyoming system is broken. They recently sent out fresh surveys asking for input to address the major problems with the point system. This, after a major overhaul just 4 years ago.
And it all could have been avoided IMO, had they simply kept their limited tag system a random draw from the get-go.
By the way Corey,
My statements to you are based on dealing with the fact that I think Bonus points are coming wether we want them or not and your suggestion to allow points only to those species you are applying for.
Marcus,
“But thats OK, we can blame it on the point system if you would like. ” Please be sure to read what I wrote before you type your argument. Here is what I said… “Which in reality the implemented pref point system doesn’t have anything to do with shape of the herds”.
Cory,
I think part of the problem people have with a bonus point system in this state is that we only have a handful of hunts that are truly worth putting in for and holding out for a tag. The 40 and 45 tag have worse odds to the sheep hunts. And you are absolutely right about those units and having a chance to draw because there are not enough tags over a ten to twenty year period to get everybody a chance to draw. Will your kid ever have a chance to draw those tags? Probably not until he is in his late 30′s to mid 40′s unless they open a youth season. So in those cases I don’t think bonus points will help anybody for a long time, but in those 20% draw units it will work. I do think with the system that your son will have a chance on those OIL tags though since when people draw they can never reapply.
I’ve been reading through these posts and the main thing I notice is all the numbers and comparisons with other states that people are making, along with thoughts of the future of hunting in our state if this bonus system is implemented. To me predicting that is like trying to predict the rain. I would imagine that a lot of hunters thought their future, and the future of their kids looked pretty bright too before the wolves were reintroduced. I use this just as a simple comparison that is easy to visualize.
I also notice a lot of talk about the odds on OIL and the system producing more trophy animals I’m not sure how this system will accomplish that if they are giving out the same amount of tags. From what I’ve read this system is all about making sure that at some point you actually get the hunt that you are putting in for…if you keep at it, someday you will be successful.
So I guess I’ll be the guy that brings a new outlook to the table. I’m not the guy who puts in for hunts every year or reads all the odds on the units and tries to play them. Mostly I just hunt the general season. Although it would be nice to shoot a trophy bull elk or deer I’ve always been a meat hunter more than anything else, and the time I get to hunt big game each year is fairly limited, which means I don’t always get the opportunity to put meat in the freezer. There are units were I grew up that people have put in for year after year and usually get drawn year after year because they aren’t high demand trophy units, although they certainly could yield one. But a lot of these hunters put in for them because it offers them their best chance of putting meat in the freezer for their family. Which to a lot of people, thats all that matters, and also in this economy is an added bonus, not to be confused with the same system we are talking about In the case of this “Bone-Us” system that we are talking about, I just don’t see this as being benefical to them. Especially if we went with the guideline that if you draw one year, you have to sit the next year out. That definetly is not helping out a family.
Maybe in the future I’ll have the money and time to spend chasing trophy animals. But right now in this economy with so many Idahoans out of work, and the hunting season being something they can look forward to in helping out their situation. I ask myself is this really the best time to be stirring all this up and trying to implement this system? I’m sure the proponents will be saying there is no better time to get started than RIGHT NOW! But I would have to say I disagree. There has to be better ways of managing game than using this system, not to say that this system is going to accomplish that. I would rather pay more money for my license and tags to help out with getting more revenue then resort to this point system.
Cory,
As usual here it comes. Another argument that people are loosing there opportunities. Explain this to me. How are you loosing any ground right now if we go to a point system of any kind if you get in on the ground floor. It’s obvious that you don’t understand the meaning of the future. All of your numbers are based on current data and nothing more. If everyone that has been applying for 45 still applies tomorrow with a point system then you have the same chances as usual. The next year your chances will get better and so on. If you get in a year or two behind schedule then you will have to wait longer yes. But that is your own fault. If you cant get your priorities straight and decide what you wish to do then your only hurting yourself.
Your right about the the numbers if nothing changes. However, the entire meaning of a point system is about change and making things better or we would not being trying to implement new ideas. I think your looking at the end of your nose and not down the street as most people who argue against the point systems do. The major of trophy units will always be hard to draw no matter what state it is in. Lets just use CO as an example because they just implemented changes to there point system and there tag number have been changing every year in several units. This has created demand in other units therefore opening up opportunity in other places of the state for quality hunting with less points. Certain areas of the state were hit harder than others during the winter of 08 which created demand in other areas. While some people used up there points to hunt areas that would otherwise be dead head units. Season dates have changed and that opened up even more opportunity for people to cash in their chips this year and hunt the third season that lands where the fourth season was last year. 2nd season tags have become more desirable for those that don’t want to wait. Deer number before the winter of 08 were at an all time high and CO was becoming one the greatest trophy buck states in the west if not the best.So as you can see, by making a few adjustments they have increased your odds, even if you are behind the eight ball. Now that the point system has allowed them to make several changes to the regulations and they have more money in their pocket they can manage the herds much better by feeding game and keeping predators in check. Not to mention creating more jobs all at the same time. They also do a good job of working with land owners to generate more trophy landowner tags and bring in more cash to the state from non residents.This brings in cash to the small towns and communities that we all visit as non-residents.
When my son turns of age he will be applying for points in CO and he too will see changes come and go. He will still have ample opportunity to pick hunts with 1 or 2 points that will give him chances at 180 class bucks and lots of deer if nothing drastic hurts the herd numbers such as disease, predation and weather. He will more than likely have the chance to hunt quality bucks with archery tags for 0 points as well.
It’s simple math of course, if you don’t include the future. You can pull all the numbers out of the calculator that you want and you will be wrong, wrong, wrong every time. Why????? Because you don’t know what will happen in the future and neither do I. But I will go off of history in other states that yes I have hunted for several years and I will hope that we will fallow their leads and learn from their mistakes and try to do a better job.
From the sounds of it you would rather look at the system as though it is flawed and nothing can be done. I am sad for you if that is so. I hope that you can realize that something must be done ASAP to help make things better and if you think that a point system will not effect herd numbers over time then I believe you will never understand and if your opinion is the one that males the difference then we will be sitting back on our porch watching our herds dwindle away as we dream of the good old days when the number of people that hunted was less and the amount of land to hunt was more.
The reason I tell you not to include a unit in OR is because your taking advantage of a horrible situation in one bad unit instead of looking at the state as an entire equation. The reason I use WY is because it closely resembles ID in vastness of roadless territory and opportunity to hunt. OR is a mess and it’s largely because of the Liberal side of the state making decisions for the Eastern side of the state. I know several guys and gals in OR that would like to see many changes but non of them believe that the point system has made things bad there.
I hope that I have made some sense to those that listened and I will no longer fight a battle that can’t be won!
Shoot straight, shoot often and letrfly.
Marc
Marcus,
If I can’t use the Wenaha unit as an example, why can you use the whole state of Wyoming as an example? Both are “preference” point systems, are they not? How easy is it to draw a sheep or moose tag in Wyoming with their “perfect” system?
Further, there is no way you can say that a child getting into the draw in 10 years will have the same chance at drawing a unit 45 deer tag as they have today. That is ludicrous. In unit 45 there are 50 tags and 1931 1st choice applicants. Let all the sheep, moose, and goat guys apply, and it will no-doubt increase. We’ll assume for the sake of illustration that it doesn’t.
Today and every year into the future with the current system, myself along with everyone else has a 2.6% chance of drawing…pretty poor. In 10 years, under the proposed system, there will be 1931 applicants, minus those who have drawn, with max points. Since the Nevada system of squaring points is too complicated to accurately assign the odds of drawing each year, let’s assume that 50% of those who draw each year have max points, thus eliminating them from the draw (assuming they don’t start building points again in 2 years, which some will). The odds would point to an even higher number, but we’ll make it easy.
So by year 10, there are still 1681 people with MAX points, meaning they would each have 101 chances in the drawing. A new hunter, applying for the first time would have one chance in the draw. If no other hunters applied for this hunt in all those 10 years, there would be 169,782 total applications in the draw (each hunter with 10 points gets their name entered 101 times). The new hunter’s odds of drawing this same tag his first year would be 0.000006%, or 4396 times worse than with the current system.
In year 15, again assuming that 50% of the tags went to those with MAX points and no one else entered the draw, there would be 351,682 applicantions in the draw (those with max points get their name entered 226 times). Our new hunter from 5 years ago would now have a whopping 26 chances in the draw, for a 0.00007% chance of drawing. A large improvement over his chances 5 years ago, but still 3571 times worse than if the system were left alone.
The odds of the new system are simple math…not rocket-science. Obviously, unit 45 is worse case, but I think I’ll take my chances at 2.6% today over what this will quickly become with the F&G proposed system. Please use the facts and simple mathematical calculations to disprove this point. Look at any hunt with less than 15% draw odds and you’ll find that the chances of drawing for ANYONE who does not get in on the ground floor will decrease dramatically. For you and I, that’s no problem as we’ll be in on the ground floor. But that would be very selfish for us to only look at our chances and ignore future generations of hunters.
What we are doing by creating this proposal (as we have done in the past) is actually addressing your comment about people sitting on the sidelines and whining…that’s why we are involved with a proposal and that’s why we attend the commissioner/scope meetings on a regular basis.
As far as a bonus point system having any impact whatsoever on the quality and/or numbers of game in our state, that is more assinine than this entire proposal. There is nothing in the points system about adding or decreasing tags, which is what will directly affect game numbers. To come out and claim that a bonus point system will in any way affect the population of herds in Idaho is complete nonsense.
Please use facts and actual numbers to prove how a bonus point system will increase draw odds in any hunt with less than 20% draw odds. Also, if you could explain how a bonus point system that will not change the number of tags being drawn each year will have such a great impact on our game populations and quality, that would be great.
Aaron,
Thank you for correcting me on that the Bonus point system. I meant to say that it is a preference point system and not a bonus point system. My fingers were going faster than my brain.
First of all. I have been watching Wy for several years and yes the number of animals in some areas have fallen and mostly as I see it from bad winters and predation. Unfortunately even though they have a point system in place that does not mean that their game and fish dept will always do a good job of managing the other issues that effect their herds. Nor will they always give out appropriate tag numbers, but that does not mean the point system is not working. As a matter of a fact the major reason you have seen the antelope number drop as of the last few years is directly from bad winters and disease just like a large portion of MT. But thats OK, we can blame it on the point system if you would like.
Let me explain
First- Preference point systems such as WY’s are designed to enhance opportunity and bring in more revenue. This revenue should be allocated to manage the herds. Most of the time the odds are worse for hunters in trophy class units. These units get stronger and stronger. That is why we have these units in Idaho as raffle units. This way the FG can better manage the number of mature animals harvested each year and make plans for the next. While this is going on in trophy units you will have other areas of the state that will get better because you have now had to decide what type of weapon you are going to hunt with if you have not drawn one of the so called OIL tags. This brings the pressure down in these other units allowing the herds to become stronger and more stable thus allowing us to eventually maintain these units as trophy class units as well or close to it. Take what I do in OR for example and mind you I am not a resident so my odds are worse and they have a point system that basically allows only the top point holders to draw each year. I apply for points and or tags in OR each year and I have to purchase a hunting license to do so. This brings in cash revenue that they would otherwise not get if it were like CO where you get your money back if you do not draw a tag. If I am unsuccessful in the draw or opt to just purchase points then I go hunt the archery deer hunt via OC tag and or I could just hunt the OC rifle hunt. I would do all the same things in Idaho if we had a point system because I’m already doing this every year when I don’t draw. The most important thing is that the non-residents feel like they have a chance and they apply for points or tags giving us more revenue to manage herds. There will be a lot of non-residents that will apply for points and purchase a license but will not show up to hunt if they do not draw. Thats their choice to loose the money. I do the same in other states. It’s just part of the system.
Second – Time heals all wounds. Point systems are a long term plan. We can not look at the end of our noses to see what the results will be. For many states there has been great things that have come from the point system even though bad weather and predation have given it a black eye. By continuing to control the number of people that are hunting each year they will be able to implement more changes over time that will increase the numbers. Plans such as introducing more youth hunting opportunities can be implemented and Landowner tags that can be sold to produce more revenue for the landowners. Thus giving the landowners more reason to hold onto their lands and keep making better changes to it in hopes to help sustain herds. This will keep there land owner tags valuable. This subject is also on the chopping block right now. I see selling land owner tags as a good thing. But once again I hope for change and look into the future.
Third – We have to make a decision to do something right away. Several other plans to help manage herds consist of you loosing opportunity to hunt each year and no one seems to want that. This is a plan to help manage while your opportunity stays the same.
Basically it all really boils down to gaining more revenue to do the things that we want for the states herds. I wouldn’t call myself a trophy hunter by any means but I would sure like to know that one day I will win the lottery in one of these OIL tag units so I can pull the trigger on a giant. In the mean time I will continue to pound the hills the same way I do today and hunt my but off to harvest average animals of which I am very happy to take. Over time the plan will change just like CO did just recently by splitting the points just like shares and once again younger hunters will have better odds of drawing better tags. lets keep in mind that the hunting in Idaho is not completely gone and there is still plenty of good animals to be harvested if you hunt hard and put in the time. I will teach my son how to appreciate average four point bucks and 280 class bulls while he plans for the future when he will draw that OIL tag.
Marcus,
Please enlighten me on how a bonus point system will improve our herds. Also, as someone that applies and hunts in Wyoming I have seen the deer, elk, and moose herds drop off (In the areas family, friends and I apply for) since they have implemented the pref point system. Which in reality the implemented pref point system doesn’t have anything to do with shape of the herds. It has to do with the number of tags that are made available, the winters and yup even the wolf management. I really thing you are over-rating Wyoming. Antelope hunting is phenomenal, but even those numbers are fewer than they were ten years ago.
Also as you said “What is being proposed is a Bonus Point system not a preference point system.”…so why do you bring up Wyoming?? It is a preference point system is it not???
As far as what you said about units 44 and 45 you are wrong!! If 2,000 people are applying for 50 tags every year your odds will still stink for about ten to fifteen years. Now if you would have used a Unit that currently has about 20% draw odds your theory might be better.
Just my two cents.
Well I guess this is where everyone gets to share their opinions so I’ll try and get my point across again.
You can’t compare the Wenaha unit in Oregon in this case no matter how you try. What is being proposed is a Bonus Point system not a preference point system.
This is the problem. To many people muddy the water with this kind of stuff instead of keeping it clean cut and dry. Once again as I said before, look at Wyoming.
I too apply for several states each year and understand the point systems.
Does my son have a chance in OR for the Wenaha unit? NO. Does that compare to the proposal that is on the slate for Idaho? NO.
With all of that said here ya go.
If Idaho decides to go to a “BONUS” POINT system you will all have a chance at drawing great tags each year. Take unit 44 or 45 deer for instance. What are your chances now? Yep, pretty crappy. What would your chances be if you were ahead of the point game and got in from the start? Pretty darn good. What would your kids chances be 10 years from now? Well, about the same as they are with todays system. Will the quality of animals be better 10 years from now though? Yep. Will there possibly be more opportunities available throughout the state because more units are offering better hunts and better quality because of the program? Yep. So is there a possibility that your kids chances will increase and the system will be altered by the time they can hunt. Yep.
The thing that ticks me off is that everyone will sit here and gripe about the hunting in this state and bring up the past as they complain about how it used to be and how it’s so horrible today, but they wont sacrifice a thing to fix the problem. They don’t want to give up any chances or any opportunities to make things better. Well if that is your stance then you are not doing us sportsman any favors what so ever because you don’t understand that you are not sacrificing anything at all by opting into the program.
Game management is a complex thing and there are many factors involved. There have been many proposals brought to the fish and game to try and bring game numbers up as well as opportunity. However, ever time the public is given a chance to vote or speak their mind, they opt to keep things the way they are because they believe that they will loose opportunity.
You will not loose any opportunity. You will still have the chance to hunt general areas just as you do now. If you think that a system like this does not help game number prosper then you are sadly mistaken. By managing more trophy units and controlling the harvest number better, your herds will become stronger and greater over time. You may have to sacrifice a few years if you get behind in the point system but it will all be for the better in the future as more opportunities will arise.
I hate to keep bringing up Wyoming but it is a perfect example. I strongly suggest that everyone takes a look at the amount of opportunity there and the quality of the animals. Antelope numbers are through the roof and the quality of bucks is great. Deer numbers are fantastic and the quality of the bucks are good. Not great across the state but good in comparison to many other states. Elk numbers are looking good even with wolf problems and the quality of bulls is fantastic. Do the numbers of huge bulls compare to UT, NM, or AZ? No, but they have plenty of opportunity at great bulls.
That pretty much sums it up really. Our neighbor is doing it and kicking our butt not only at opportunity but at quality across the board and here we sit on our front porch talking trash and hoping that someone will come along and hand us a pot of gold.
Cory,
How do you figure there will be 800% more applicants for the goat tag fifteen years from now? If you can only apply for one OIL or the deer, elk and antelope draw you wouldn’t see an increase in the number of people applying for OIL tags. I also think your 50,000 number for sheep tag is seriously inflated…take Nevada for example, they have 156 sheep tags and 6,000 applicants applying for those tags. And you can still apply for ALL species!! So with that being said I don’t think you will see an increase in the number of OIL applications. What allowing us to buy a point for all species means is that we would have the same chance as anybody when we decide to put in for that particular species…if you get in from the get go.
If we only can buy points for the one species that we apply for the odds will never be fair in my opinion. I’m with you on the kids having an opportunity. As a father of 1.5, 9 and 12 year old I hope and pray they will have the opportunities to hunt. However, as you mentioned I think the bonus point system is coming wether we want it or not and I think it is only fair that everyone be allowed to buy points for all species they wish to buy for.
I’m no math expert, but looking at other states I would guess the number of people applying for sheep will remain around 5-600, but the number of people buying points will be around 2,000 and a good portion of those will be non-residents. Even with those 2,000 people with points I don’t think you will suddenly see them start applying for sheep because they don’t want to sacrifice not being able to apply for deer and elk.
Happy hunting!
I think that the time is coming when we won’t be able to buy a general hunt, at least for elk, look at the units now that are getting quotas, more this year than last, more last year than the time before. If my child wants to hunt in the future, there’s no way he’ll ever be able to meet up with the people that get in on the “ground floor” with the hunts in 2011. I’m thinking that the wildlife department is trying to get out of the hunting business, because the points money certainly doesn’t offset the loss of hunting licenses that will happen. Having said that, it seems as though we are going to get to participate in some sort of points system, and of these, the elk101 system seems to get more people involved, and gives more people a chance of drawing a tag.
If I were to concede that a point system is inevitable, my vote would be that the best system to consider is a duplicate of the CO weighted point system (by the way, CO uses this only for their Goat/Moose/Sheep hunts). But I would use it for all Idaho controlled hunts. Under that system, Preference Points are capped at 3, and all points accumulated thereafter are treated as weighted points. I’d also copy the random number assignment system that is internal to the workings of the CO draw. The CO system is the best means for balancing the two main factors of 1) maintaining interest in the draw by new applicants, and 2) assurance that everyone entering with more than 3 PP has a reasonable chance to draw. The Idaho draw would have to remain a random draw or bonus-style draw until year 4, when eligibility under the 3-PP minimum rule would take effect.
Under the above system, you could still restrict participation to a choice of Elk/Deer/Lope or choose OIL species, NOT BOTH. Folks could still feel safe to stick with their agendas of drawing Elk/Deer/Lope tags over a period of years, then have the option to switch to trying for the OIL species knowing they’d become eligible to draw the OIL tag beginning within a few short years.
Speaking for myself, it would be great if I could buy points for every species next year and be at the top of every species pool from here on out. Speaking for my children who aren’t old enough to hunt yet, they would have no realistic chance of ever drawing a OIL tag if this were the case. As Greg pointed out, with a best case scenario, if it takes 15 years to draw your first tag, you will be behind the ball on drawing your next OIL tag. Imagine the consequences for our future generations of hunters if the currently proposed system were to go into effect. It would be amplified 10X.
Rather than just the 500 current goat applicants obtaining a goat point for the next 15 years (of which nearly all of the original 500 would draw and be out of the pool), now all 50000+ applicants that currently apply for all controlled hunts in Idaho would be able to buy a goat point for a measly $5. In 15 years there would be nearly 800% more applicants with MAX points in the goat draw than there currently are in the draw period. You could argue that not everyone will buy a point and you would be correct, but for $5, anyone who ever wanted to shoot a goat in Idaho had better seriously consider it.
Again, I oppose any system personally, and applying for 10+ states annually I have a pretty good idea of how most states run their points systems, and I would disagree that points systems maintain higher opportunity for hunters. It’s not the 25-50% draw odd hunts I’m worried about. It’s the higher demand and OIL hunts that concern me. It’ll be like the Wenaha unit in Oregon…a non-resident getting in now (heck, a non-res with 8 points right now) has no statistical chance of ever drawing that tag.
We’ve seen this process all too many times and with a survey on F&G’s website only asking questions about how we would tweak a point system, I think we all know there will be one next year, like it or not.
Keep the comments coming guys…
Let it be known that the point system is and always has been THE BEST WAY to maintain quality hunting opportunity and herds. Not to mention quality animals. Several other states have been introducing point systems for many years now and have very good success. I completely agree that Idaho should go to a Bonus Point system but not a Preference Point system. This way everyone will always have a chance to draw even though they may not be the majority point holder. A good example of this would be Wyoming. The biggest hurdle to overcome when trying to explain point systems to hunters that have very little knowledge of them is that they usually seem to think that their hunting privileges will be gone if they do not draw. This is completely false. Everyone will have the ability to hunt every year just as they do now because there will always be units open to general tags. The only thing that changes is your chances to draw the premium tags will go up each year. I strongly support the idea of the Bonus point system and think that each hunter that does not should give it a fair shake and research it in other states before they vote against it.
Glad to know you oppose the point system. I still believe the best course is to oppose it completely in all communications with IDFG.
You may have missed my point about the OIL tags. Under your proposal, once a person draws an OIL tag, they will be, for all practical purposes, out of the running to draw another one. That is because under your proposal, no one can buy points for more than one OIL species at a time.
As example, lets say I start next year with Mountain Goat, it takes me 15 years of trying, and I finally draw in 2026. In year 2027 I am then eligible to apply for one of the other 4 OIL tags: Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, California Bighorn Sheep, Cow Moose, or Bull Moose. Let’s say I then choose to try for RMBH Sheep. Unfortunately, my odds in the year 2027 to draw a RMBH sheep tag, will be much worse than what my odds would be had the present-day system been left in place. That is because the average Bonus Points held by all other applicants in the draw pool for RMBH Sheep will be MUCH more than 1, probably in the 10-15 range. In other words, my odds to draw a RMBH Sheep tag will be 10-15 times worse than they would be, had no Bonus Point system been put in place.
What if you could purchase bonus points for all OIL species, but only apply for one? That way you would never be behind on the other species once you have drawn one and ready to move on to the next. It would be a reward for those that are consistent. What about being able to buy points for all species but still only allowing you to apply for a OIL or the standard deer, elk and antelope? I personally am trying to draw a specific deer and elk tag before applying for OIL hunts. Once I draw those tags I want to move on to OIL hunts, but would hate to be way behind on the max points pool.
Even though I have a hard time drawing tags I still wish they would leave the system alone. But if they are going to implement a system I’m glad it will be a bonus point system, because no matter how many points you have…you still have a chance.
Corey,
I fear the worst in this situation. With the complete disaster of the wolf reintroduction, it is no secret that the state is selling less licenses and now need more money.
Some may not agree but here it is, the controlled hunt system we have in place is THE MOST FAIR OPTION to both residents and nonresidents of Idaho. Everyone has the exact same chance. Some people draw, some don’t. As soon as we have a bonus point system of any kind in this state, hunting as we knew it when we grew up is over. Aside from the general hunts, the all mighty dollar will dictate who gets the tags, not plain & simple chance.
I read your proposal and if we are forced to have any type of bonus point system, I vote for yours. Your team has organized the program to actually be beneficial to hunters instead of submitting to the ones with the deepest pockets.
Sorry for the rant but I really don’t want to see this happen. From a Hunter Ed instructor point of view, entry level hunters will have zero chance of drawing a coveted tag their first year. May I remind the folks pushing FOR the point system that these animals belong to the citizens of Idaho and NOT to those with the most money.
Thanks Corey! Your doing a great job!
…Jake Heckathorn
Greg,
I think I made it very clear that I felt the whole bonus point system was being forced upon us, and I am definitely against it. The fact that F&G is only taking comments on their proposed system and how it should be structured definitely makes me think that bonus points are going to happen, regardless of what we want. Our proposal is simply a way to try to get the system as good as it can be from the start, rather than wait until it is too far damaged to repair.
The one thing about OIL tags is that once a person draws, they are out and will never be back. There were 42 resident goat tags in 2009 and 500 applicants. On average, it would take 12 years to be guaranteed a tag with a bonus point system. In 12 years, all 500 of the original applicants would be out of the pool, and assuming number didn’t increase, the draw odds would remain the same. The odds for OIL tags would not increase as those who drew would be done and out forever, provided that no more than that number of new applicants apply each year. I’d much rather have 500 resident applicants for goats in the draw than the 45,000+ applicants F&G wants to allow to buy a bonus point each year.
I do agree with you and like the system the way it is. Unfortunately, someone with enough pull has persuaded the F&G to change the system against the wish of sportsmen in Idaho. We’re simply trying to make sure that if it must change, there is some thought and foresight applied.
Corey
It sounds as if you have accepted that some kind of point system is inevitable, and so you are trying to work out a better alternative. Or maybe you actually want a point system, and simply prefer the alternative described? I on the other hand still do not believe the current system should be changed at all. Any proposed system involving points has too many pitfalls. Other western states have already found this out, so my question is….why ignore history? The IDFG proposal will most likely have the opposite effect from that which is desired, making the average wait to draw even longer, especially for OIL tags. And it will cost us all additional un-necessary app fees every year. The ELK101 proposal is flawed as well, as it virtually eliminates the chance to draw more than one species of OIL tag in an average lifetime. Once an individual has spent several years or decades trying to get their first OIL tag, and succeeds, his odds to draw the next species will be drastically lower than they would be if today’s system remained in place. The process in place today is beautifully simple, uncluttered, effective, and fair. To mess it up with ANY kind of point system is a big mistake, IMO.