Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping System

Fill out Idaho survey.....

MinnesotaHunter said:
I respect your opinion, you made the choice (presumably) to live in a state where you can hunt the species you want locally. I didn't, so if I want to hunt elk (which I do), I am at the mercy of the non-resident systems.

I assume you make this statement taking into account the $$$ non-resident tag fee contribute to your G&F budget.

I don't know what it is, but I would want to know if I were you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure these numbers are available, and we can get them. I think the more important thing is raising license and tag prices to improve revenue. I can sympathize with you that you have to go somewhere else to hunt some of these species. I'm sure this is the case for many, but unfortunately it doesn't outweigh the passion I feel for my own state and how locals should not have to lose opportunity because of having to rely on outside sources. These numbers...yes, I am interested in them.

Recently I asked IDFG for the numbers regarding raising the extra tag prices for the season, instead of keep them at the lower rate as they did last year...for the entire year. Here are those numbers...to date.

"This year, the discount period went through Aug. 31. Through Aug. 31, we had sold 2220 NR 2nd tags (revenue at that point, $441,800). However, people have continued to purchase NR 2nd tags. As of Oct. 16 this year, we had sold 2703 NR 2nd tags (revenue as of Oct. 16, $586,700). Last year, for the period of Aug. 1 - Dec. 31, we sold 3386 NR 2nd tags (all at the discount), for a revenue of $673,800. It remains to be seen where we will "end up" this year at the end of Dec., but it appears we may be on track to have similar revenue from NR 2nd tags for both years." Which kind of boils down to...same amount of revenue, but less tags bought. So residents are contributing to quite a bit of revenue in buying these tags as well.

I still stand by my point though, because I am a resident of Idaho, that the most important thing to me is being able to continue fair drawing odds for residents...which include the children that are growing up here, the opportunities that now exist should exist in the future for them.

Our legislature needs to find a better way of improving revenue for our state without trying to push their political agendas in other arenas. IDFG should not have to answer to them, and maybe more of these things would get done correctly.
 
Steelhead said:
Dude...are you now saying that you're fine with a lottery draw system?
Dude...did you just regurgitate that statement that I've made 7 times over the last few weeks on these threads that it would likely only change odds a few percentage points and should we revamp the entire system just to change things "a little bit"?


-This is our concern dude
Click to expand...

Yeah,

I'll eat the crow.

You were right.

The math checks out.
 
If you care about the future of hunting in your state, you should be concerned about how you treat the nonresidents. There will be battles in the future. It could be anti-hunters banning predator hunting, greedy politicians trying to sell off public lands, or any number of other issues. When this happens, I think you will want the nonresidents on your side along with the conservation organizations that they support. Too often the motto is "screw the nonresidents." What do you think they'll be saying when you are asking for their help in the future?
 
NoWiser said:
If you care about the future of hunting in your state, you should be concerned about how you treat the nonresidents. There will be battles in the future. It could be anti-hunters banning predator hunting, greedy politicians trying to sell off public lands, or any number of other issues. When this happens, I think you will want the nonresidents on your side along with the conservation organizations that they support. Too often the motto is "screw the nonresidents." What do you think they'll be saying when you are asking for their help in the future?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there will be a transition period for things to settle in to whatever a new routine will be..if anything even is changed. Just like other states have had to go through. I never said to screw the non-residents, I am just more concerned about the residents which are the majority, and this is the state that we live in. Non-residents might pay for licenses and tags to hunt here, but we are the ones paying for the taxes, and voting on our state's issues. So in my opinion, Idahoans come first, then we'll see what gets worked out for those out of state wanting to hunt here. I'm sure there could still be general over the counter tags for out of state hunters, but for premium units..I don't object to non-residents having to buy points.
 
I took the survey and strongly oppose points systems and auction tags. I think this survey is largely unnecessary because this ssue has been raised and surveyed and debated formally 3 times in the last 10 years with an overwhelming majority in oppostion to the points drawing system, whether straight points or points squared.

I do however appreciate IDFG gathering this information so that they have the ammunition to fight the legislators who are trying to force these changes on the hunters in Idaho.

Back in 2010 when several public meetings were held on the subject I attended a meeting and gave my opinion. While there I spoke with a IDFG employee who very bluntly stated that they knew that points would not increase drawing odds by more than a few % points even for those who get in on the ground floor but it seems to make people feel better about not drawing.

The only way to increase drawing odds is to increase tag #s or decrease applicants. It is simple basic math. The only thing that PP or BP does is hide that fact under layer upon layer of misdirection meant only to placate the masses.
 
I assume since it's a public post that's being shared around, that it would be ok to repost it here as well for those that don't have FB (get with the times)..lol. Anyways, here it is quoted by Corey Jacobsen.

"Those familiar with the 'Bonus Points Debate' in regards to controlled hunts here in Idaho are probably aware that I have been very actively involved in defending the current system we have in place for several years now. Recently, I have been getting a ton of emails and messages from concerned sportsmen (not just in Idaho) asking why we are seeing this topic rising up yet again.

In order to understand why it is coming up again, it’s important to understand how the system works.

Idaho Fish and Game has a seven member commission that is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate (you should already be thinking ‘politics’). The Fish and Game Commission is responsible for the administration of fish and game policy within the state. However, the laws governing much of what we see as fish and game regulations are actually introduced at the Legislative level in Idaho, and often go against – and even behind the back of – the Idaho Fish and Game. In many cases, and especially with the topic of Bonus Points and Auction Tags, it is not the Idaho Fish and Game who is behind it. It is usually an outside, special interest group or individual who has enough pull to get the idea introduced at the Legislative level.

What makes things especially frustrating for sportsmen who actually care about the future of hunting in Idaho, is when it is a member of the House or Senate who ramrods the issue through, or tries to sneakily attach the bill to other bills that are already gaining momentum. Yes, this happens. These issues have nothing to do with the management of big game in the state of Idaho, and everything to do with the deceptive and selfish agendas of a few individuals who abuse the powers they have been trusted with as representatives within our State.

Idaho Fish and Game is currently conducting a survey so they can gauge the interest of sportsmen in Idaho in regards to the Bonus Point and Auction Tag issue. They will then use this information as a Commission as they consider their support for any future bills/legislation that relate to the topic. However, it is important to understand that regardless of their support or disdain, it ultimately comes down to the votes of our representatives at the state House and/or Senate.

There are two things sportsmen need to do to voice their opinion: First, take the Fish and Game survey at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/…/open-survey-controlled-hunt-drawin…. Secondly, take a few minutes to contact the state representatives for your area and share with them your feelings on the issues. These communications do go a long way with most of the representatives.

Now, with a basic overview of why we continue to see these issues come up, here is my input on why I am against Bonus Points and Auction Tags in Idaho.

Bonus Points – Bonus Points don’t work. There are several iterations of ideas for how a system could be implemented to increase the odds for those who apply for consecutive years. Unfortunately, none of them will accomplish what those who want them hope they will accomplish, and that is based upon the simple statistical facts. At the root of the idea, those in support of a Bonus Point system want to increase their chances of drawing a tag. The argument is usually something along the lines of, “It isn’t fair that someone can draw a tag on their first attempt when I’ve been trying unsuccessfully for 20 years.” Ironically, Idaho’s current system is the very definition of “fair”. And when we look at the statistics, adding bonus points won’t be much help for them either, especially in the hard to draw units where most of the supporters are hoping to draw a tag. Here is why:

We will start off by assuming that there will be no change to the number of applicants for a particular hunt (which won’t be the case – applicants will increase if a Bonus Point system is implemented….no one wants to miss out on getting in on the ground floor). We will also look at a straight Bonus Point system where applicants receive an extra chance of drawing for each year they apply.

In a unit where there are 15 tags available and 500 applicants, Idaho’s current system would give everyone a 3% chance of drawing a tag every year. Under a Bonus Point system, after 5 years, there would be 442 applicants with max points (5 points). They would statistically have a 3.19% chance of drawing a tag with their now-weighted application. The unfortunate part of this situation is that someone who gets into the draws on Year 5 (youth, new hunters, etc.) would have just a 0.64% chance of drawing that first year. Fast forward 5 more years, now Year 10 of the system. There will be 374 people now with max points (10 points). Their odds of drawing this same tag will be just 3.45%! The applicants who got in 5 years ago (5 years after the system was implemented) will have only a 1.73% chance of drawing, and a new applicant in year 10 will be at 0.35%! Unfortunately, at this point, there is no turning back and we have a failed system. Just ask the sportsmen of Oregon, Colorado, Utah, etc….Bonus Points don’t work to increase chances of drawing tags unless you get in on the very first year, and even then, it is very minimal.

The news is not much better for a unit with higher drawing odds. Let’s say there are 80 tags in a unit with 800 applicants. With the current system, the odds of drawing this tag would be 10%. With a Bonus Point system, after Year 5, there will be 63 people left with max points (5 points). These applicants, with their weighted chances, will be up to 11.35% odds. Those just getting into the draw will be at 2.27%.

There is a situation where Bonus Points would be beneficial, but it is only in hunts where the odds of drawing are greater than 20-25%. Less than that, and they provide no measurable statistical advantage, even to those who get in on the ground floor. However, they severely penalize those who come in just 3-5 years down the road.

There is one viable argument to the adoption of a Bonus Point system, and that is increased revenue from application fees. However, there are far better models for generating revenue with minimal cost to sportsmen.

Auction Tags – I won’t say much about Auction Tags, other than to point out that it isn’t a coincidence that Auction Tags come up at the same time as Bonus Points. Both are driven by greed and selfishness, and for those who have the financial means to buy a tag rather than waiting in line with their fellow sportsmen, it provides them with that opportunity. Auction Tags do have the ability to provide some needed revenue for the state, but the problem is that once the flood gates are opened, more and more tags will be taken from sportsmen to satisfy the demands of those who want to buy a tag. One cannot argue the revenue that auction tags can bring in, but one also need only look south to Utah to see the major issues that arise from this tag grab. Draw odds for those who can’t afford to spend $5,000 - $20,000 on a tag go down as more tags are taken from the draw pools and made available to the highest bidders. Again, there are ways that we can increase revenue without compromising the opportunities sportsmen have in the state of Idaho.

I would offer this as a question to those who are in support of Bonus Point and Auction Tags in Idaho: Removing Revenue from the equation, can you offer one solid reason why it makes sense for Idaho to manage their Big Game using a Bonus Point system?"
 
idfishnhunt said:
I assume since it's a public post that's being shared around, that it would be ok to repost it here as well for those that don't have FB (get with the times)..lol. Anyways, here it is quoted by Corey Jacobsen.

"Those familiar with the 'Bonus Points Debate' in regards to controlled hunts here in Idaho are probably aware that I have been very actively involved in defending the current system we have in place for several years now. Recently, I have been getting a ton of emails and messages from concerned sportsmen (not just in Idaho) asking why we are seeing this topic rising up yet again.

In order to understand why it is coming up again, it’s important to understand how the system works.

Idaho Fish and Game has a seven member commission that is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate (you should already be thinking ‘politics’). The Fish and Game Commission is responsible for the administration of fish and game policy within the state. However, the laws governing much of what we see as fish and game regulations are actually introduced at the Legislative level in Idaho, and often go against – and even behind the back of – the Idaho Fish and Game. In many cases, and especially with the topic of Bonus Points and Auction Tags, it is not the Idaho Fish and Game who is behind it. It is usually an outside, special interest group or individual who has enough pull to get the idea introduced at the Legislative level.

What makes things especially frustrating for sportsmen who actually care about the future of hunting in Idaho, is when it is a member of the House or Senate who ramrods the issue through, or tries to sneakily attach the bill to other bills that are already gaining momentum. Yes, this happens. These issues have nothing to do with the management of big game in the state of Idaho, and everything to do with the deceptive and selfish agendas of a few individuals who abuse the powers they have been trusted with as representatives within our State.

Idaho Fish and Game is currently conducting a survey so they can gauge the interest of sportsmen in Idaho in regards to the Bonus Point and Auction Tag issue. They will then use this information as a Commission as they consider their support for any future bills/legislation that relate to the topic. However, it is important to understand that regardless of their support or disdain, it ultimately comes down to the votes of our representatives at the state House and/or Senate.

There are two things sportsmen need to do to voice their opinion: First, take the Fish and Game survey at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/…/open-survey-controlled-hunt-drawin…. Secondly, take a few minutes to contact the state representatives for your area and share with them your feelings on the issues. These communications do go a long way with most of the representatives.

Now, with a basic overview of why we continue to see these issues come up, here is my input on why I am against Bonus Points and Auction Tags in Idaho.

Bonus Points – Bonus Points don’t work. There are several iterations of ideas for how a system could be implemented to increase the odds for those who apply for consecutive years. Unfortunately, none of them will accomplish what those who want them hope they will accomplish, and that is based upon the simple statistical facts. At the root of the idea, those in support of a Bonus Point system want to increase their chances of drawing a tag. The argument is usually something along the lines of, “It isn’t fair that someone can draw a tag on their first attempt when I’ve been trying unsuccessfully for 20 years.” Ironically, Idaho’s current system is the very definition of “fair”. And when we look at the statistics, adding bonus points won’t be much help for them either, especially in the hard to draw units where most of the supporters are hoping to draw a tag. Here is why:

We will start off by assuming that there will be no change to the number of applicants for a particular hunt (which won’t be the case – applicants will increase if a Bonus Point system is implemented….no one wants to miss out on getting in on the ground floor). We will also look at a straight Bonus Point system where applicants receive an extra chance of drawing for each year they apply.

In a unit where there are 15 tags available and 500 applicants, Idaho’s current system would give everyone a 3% chance of drawing a tag every year. Under a Bonus Point system, after 5 years, there would be 442 applicants with max points (5 points). They would statistically have a 3.19% chance of drawing a tag with their now-weighted application. The unfortunate part of this situation is that someone who gets into the draws on Year 5 (youth, new hunters, etc.) would have just a 0.64% chance of drawing that first year. Fast forward 5 more years, now Year 10 of the system. There will be 374 people now with max points (10 points). Their odds of drawing this same tag will be just 3.45%! The applicants who got in 5 years ago (5 years after the system was implemented) will have only a 1.73% chance of drawing, and a new applicant in year 10 will be at 0.35%! Unfortunately, at this point, there is no turning back and we have a failed system. Just ask the sportsmen of Oregon, Colorado, Utah, etc….Bonus Points don’t work to increase chances of drawing tags unless you get in on the very first year, and even then, it is very minimal.

The news is not much better for a unit with higher drawing odds. Let’s say there are 80 tags in a unit with 800 applicants. With the current system, the odds of drawing this tag would be 10%. With a Bonus Point system, after Year 5, there will be 63 people left with max points (5 points). These applicants, with their weighted chances, will be up to 11.35% odds. Those just getting into the draw will be at 2.27%.

There is a situation where Bonus Points would be beneficial, but it is only in hunts where the odds of drawing are greater than 20-25%. Less than that, and they provide no measurable statistical advantage, even to those who get in on the ground floor. However, they severely penalize those who come in just 3-5 years down the road.

There is one viable argument to the adoption of a Bonus Point system, and that is increased revenue from application fees. However, there are far better models for generating revenue with minimal cost to sportsmen.

Auction Tags – I won’t say much about Auction Tags, other than to point out that it isn’t a coincidence that Auction Tags come up at the same time as Bonus Points. Both are driven by greed and selfishness, and for those who have the financial means to buy a tag rather than waiting in line with their fellow sportsmen, it provides them with that opportunity. Auction Tags do have the ability to provide some needed revenue for the state, but the problem is that once the flood gates are opened, more and more tags will be taken from sportsmen to satisfy the demands of those who want to buy a tag. One cannot argue the revenue that auction tags can bring in, but one also need only look south to Utah to see the major issues that arise from this tag grab. Draw odds for those who can’t afford to spend $5,000 - $20,000 on a tag go down as more tags are taken from the draw pools and made available to the highest bidders. Again, there are ways that we can increase revenue without compromising the opportunities sportsmen have in the state of Idaho.

I would offer this as a question to those who are in support of Bonus Point and Auction Tags in Idaho: Removing Revenue from the equation, can you offer one solid reason why it makes sense for Idaho to manage their Big Game using a Bonus Point system?"
Click to expand...

Just curious, can I have a link to this or where they calculated the numbers?

From a math perspective, I would like to see how their numbers were calculated.

I like to compare and possibly tweak my formulas, for the Montana and Nevada drawing spreadsheets.

The trouble is calculating how many people will come in at the bottom, switch areas, and not put in. - Thus I would like to see how they calculated that into their formula's.
 
A Few things on this.


In a unit where there are 15 tags available and 500 applicants, Idaho’s current system would give everyone a 3% chance of drawing a tag every year. Under a Bonus Point system, after 5 years, there would be 442 applicants with max points (5 points). They would statistically have a 3.19% chance of drawing a tag with their now-weighted application.

This system he is describing is a preference point system. A bonus point system does not give all of the tags to the top.

Just ask the sportsmen of Oregon, Colorado, Utah, etc….

Those 3 states are preference point states and not three bonus point states. There are only two states that I can think of with bonus point systems. Nevada and Montana. Arizona and Utah are combo systems that use both. (AZ) 20/80 and (UT) 50/50 respectively.


There is one viable argument to the adoption of a Bonus Point system, and that is increased revenue from application fees. However, there are far better models for generating revenue with minimal cost to sportsmen.

What are these models, just curious? Because people need to know these models.
 
TheDudeAbides said:
A Few things on this.

This system he is describing is a preference point system. A bonus point system does not give all of the tags to the top.

His example is that everyone who got in on the ground floor still has the same odds. He said now-weighted application.

Those 3 states are preference point states and not three bonus point states. There are only two states that I can think of with bonus point systems. Nevada and Montana. Arizona and Utah are combo systems that use both. (AZ) 20/80 and (UT) 50/50 respectively.

Oregon is a combo system as well, 25% are random.

I've only read this page so forgive if it's been said already. As soon as any point system is implemented everyone comes out of the woodwork not wanting to be left behind and odds go in the toilet. The mere fact that this rush to get in occurs says it all. Points suck.
Click to expand...
 
Meeting Date: November 19, 2015 Agenda Item No. 16A
Agenda Item: Sportsmen Survey Review Bureau Chief Approval:
Prepared by: Jeff Gould
Background:
In May 2015, the Commission directed the department to survey sportsmen and women
to determine their opinions about (a) various methods to improve drawing odds for
controlled hunts, and (b) the use of auction tags as a mechanism to generate revenue to
support wildlife management and sportsmen access programs.
The Commission reviewed the draft survey in August and approved the strategy
presented to collect public input. The strategy involves three separate survey methods to
allow more hunters to participate which includes:
 Random sample of hunting license buyers surveyed by standard mail (stratified by
region/state)
 Random sample of hunting license buyers surveyed by electronic mail (stratified by
region/state)
 Nonrandom survey option for anyone on IDFG website
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov.
These three methods - mail, email, and web - are being used to develop affordable and
reliable methods of surveying hunters and the public.
Selecting a large random sample from a known population of people, to receive the paper
mailing, is the “gold standard” for conducting public opinion surveys. However the
number of hunters who can be polled is often limited by the expense of printing,
collating, postage, and data-entry.
Email and web surveys can save money on printing, mailing, and data entry costs, but
there are challenges in making sure the survey reaches a truly representative sample of
the stakeholders. Research in other states has shown that this public online survey
format may yield a biased assessment from a subset of people that already have strong
opinions about a topic.
Staff will provide a final analysis of information collected at the November Commission
meeting.
 
IDFG said this when I asked about the survey results being published:

"Staff members are analyzing the survey responses right now and we expect those results to be released in the coming days. Stay tuned!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hammsolo
FILL THIS SURVEY OUT! Especially for all you groaners! Groan for a cause.
Replies
6
Views
723
Flatbrimmer
Flatbrimmer
Forkyfinder
  • Locked
Matt Rinella is categorically confused
18 19 20
Replies
399
Views
32K
Big Fin
Big Fin
jeremy.b
Family man's 2023 hunt log/recap
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Itsbeef
Itsbeef
Nameless Range
Gratitude For The Deer That Are There
2
Replies
20
Views
866
Hammsolo
Hammsolo
J
2024 WY Elk Hunt Recap
Replies
15
Views
1K
B&CTom
B&CTom

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,586
Messages
2,026,030
Members
36,238
Latest member
3Wapiti

Share this page

Back
Top