As an Idaho resident I go back and forth on it. My odds for m/s/g suck already and would still suck if i could apply for multiple things, but at least I’d have my name in the hat. Theoretically I could go my life in this state never drawing any of them because I stuck to one plan.
Montana MSG Results
- Thread starter Carnage2011
- Start date
Interesting to read comments about the Big 3 in Montana. Many of the topics, changes, and variations were discussed that impact this "demand side" of the equation when the Montana point system was developed 25 years ago. I sat on that committee.
We had statisticians report to us how any of the variations would impact draw odds. The reality was, nothing was going to impact draw odds, merely slice the pie different ways, with each manner of slicing the pie creating a different set of winners and losers and leaving some with the idea that they had solved the "supply side" of the equation.
The proposals were many, most of which have been mentioned here. Do the Idaho thing where you only get to apply for one of the Big 3. Keep half the tags out of the point scheme was my biggest push and I think the vote was 14-1 against it, with the youngest person on the committee (me), being outvoted by the elders. We reviewed ideas of squaring bonus points, which the stats should was the biggest folly in trying reshuffle the deck. It was defeated by the committee as a useless idea, only to be passed by the legislature eight years later. Leave it to a legislature to do something that the numbers show is illogical.
We discussed Once-In-A-Lifetime as a solution. Statistically it was insignificant to draw odds. But, we all knew that for perceived equity it would go a long ways. That OIL proposal was defeated by a close vote. Just too many old gray hairs on the committee hoping for that 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Big 3 tag.
Over the course of the year that the committee met, one thing became more and more obvious and was something I think most of us knew before the committee. The statistical models made it pretty clear we were just rearranging the same furniture and not making any difference.
From that experience, it was pretty obvious to me, and not just for the Big 3 - the only real impact was going to be addressing the supply side of the equation as mentioned by @Randy11 . The demand side of the equation was never going to change, likely to increase as it always had. Manipulations and tricks to try cut the pie to the favor of one group over another was a mirage. To increase the odds in total, there needed to be more supply; in other words, we needed more animals in the hills.
As I look back over the last 25 years since that committee met, that axiom; "more animals in the hills" is more true today than it was back then. And it will be more true 25 years from now than it is today.
If hunters and legislators took one-fourth of the time they spend arguing about the "demand side" and scheming new gymnastics to benefit certain groups, and they spent that time on conservation, habitat, advocacy for native species, and working to fund the expensive efforts to increase numbers of the Big 3 ("make a bigger pie" as I call it), we would have way better draw odds for these species.
"Supply side" work is hard, it is expensive, it takes time, money, and commitment. Given that challenging reality of "supply side," the odds are that hunters and legislators will likely continue focusing on the "demand side" that rearranges the same furniture, albeit less furniture to rearrange.
Edit: One thing the committee did not consider, as nobody could have imagined such change, was removing the requirement to front the tag fees of the Big 3. Back then $75 per species was fronted. Whether one likes/dislikes that idea, it has been the biggest change to the "demand side" of this equation.
We had statisticians report to us how any of the variations would impact draw odds. The reality was, nothing was going to impact draw odds, merely slice the pie different ways, with each manner of slicing the pie creating a different set of winners and losers and leaving some with the idea that they had solved the "supply side" of the equation.
The proposals were many, most of which have been mentioned here. Do the Idaho thing where you only get to apply for one of the Big 3. Keep half the tags out of the point scheme was my biggest push and I think the vote was 14-1 against it, with the youngest person on the committee (me), being outvoted by the elders. We reviewed ideas of squaring bonus points, which the stats should was the biggest folly in trying reshuffle the deck. It was defeated by the committee as a useless idea, only to be passed by the legislature eight years later. Leave it to a legislature to do something that the numbers show is illogical.
We discussed Once-In-A-Lifetime as a solution. Statistically it was insignificant to draw odds. But, we all knew that for perceived equity it would go a long ways. That OIL proposal was defeated by a close vote. Just too many old gray hairs on the committee hoping for that 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Big 3 tag.
Over the course of the year that the committee met, one thing became more and more obvious and was something I think most of us knew before the committee. The statistical models made it pretty clear we were just rearranging the same furniture and not making any difference.
From that experience, it was pretty obvious to me, and not just for the Big 3 - the only real impact was going to be addressing the supply side of the equation as mentioned by @Randy11 . The demand side of the equation was never going to change, likely to increase as it always had. Manipulations and tricks to try cut the pie to the favor of one group over another was a mirage. To increase the odds in total, there needed to be more supply; in other words, we needed more animals in the hills.
As I look back over the last 25 years since that committee met, that axiom; "more animals in the hills" is more true today than it was back then. And it will be more true 25 years from now than it is today.
If hunters and legislators took one-fourth of the time they spend arguing about the "demand side" and scheming new gymnastics to benefit certain groups, and they spent that time on conservation, habitat, advocacy for native species, and working to fund the expensive efforts to increase numbers of the Big 3 ("make a bigger pie" as I call it), we would have way better draw odds for these species.
"Supply side" work is hard, it is expensive, it takes time, money, and commitment. Given that challenging reality of "supply side," the odds are that hunters and legislators will likely continue focusing on the "demand side" that rearranges the same furniture, albeit less furniture to rearrange.
Edit: One thing the committee did not consider, as nobody could have imagined such change, was removing the requirement to front the tag fees of the Big 3. Back then $75 per species was fronted. Whether one likes/dislikes that idea, it has been the biggest change to the "demand side" of this equation.
D
Deleted member 48080
Guest
Not to pick on you specifically Tony, but I think you know you could have drawn a goat tag by now had you not held out for such a low odds tag. Almost all the guys I talk to that have put in for so long without drawing have been chasing one specific tag with less than 1% odds.
The people I know that have drawn multiple MSG tags have applied for the units with the best odds.
For what it's worth, I'd be 100% okay with making them OIL. I just think it's way, way down the list of issues to worry about.
The people I know that have drawn multiple MSG tags have applied for the units with the best odds.
For what it's worth, I'd be 100% okay with making them OIL. I just think it's way, way down the list of issues to worry about.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,266
I would say in a close call, yes, he does. He spent an adulthood trying to draw the tag. For many years, he could have done the tag justice. The year he finally drew the tag, was likely a very thrilling day, informed by a lifetime of trying.
The realization that he could no longer physically do the hunt, was no doubt a bitter pill to swallow. We all face that day. Next week, I turn 72. I put in for a ram tag, this year, as I have for the 40+ years I've been a resident. I think that my efforts to remain physically fit, would make a hunt doable. It could turn out, I am wrong.
T
tjones
Guest
For about 35 years I chased best odds areas. I still have spread sheets I made on all the units and chased the best odds units each year. Didn't make any difference. I finally gave up and just picked the units I wanted to hunt.
Not fronting the money for the draw changed things drastically.
EYJONAS!
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 6,714
You can have the chocolate chips but if you take that last snickerdoodle or ginger snap. I will fight you.
D
Deleted member 48080
Guest
Got it, sorry for assuming. I hope this is your year, you deserve it.
T
tjones
Guest
Nahh, like nameless said. No one deserves a tag.
It's a lotto, I will either draw in my lifetime or not. I am good with that.
edit: One thing I noticed when chasing the odds was it became apparent lots of other guys were doing it too. The unit with best odds one year wasn't the best odds the next year. I spent a ton of time trying to second guess and pick right. Didn't work.
I finlly gave up and went to trying to draw a unit I wanted to hunt. Probably guessed wrong again and should have stuck with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doublecluck
Well-known member
It’s amazing what a grown ass man will say to a 14-17 yo girl when her dad isn’t around. I always taught my daughters to respect adults, #2 Drew the moose tag at 13, by 14 I gave her the free pass tell anyone who says “your dad shoot that?” to F off.
Ive never applied my wife as she has no interest, this year we moved to Townsend and can spot elk right from the porch of house, one evening we were looking thru the spotter at them, she said “I would shoot one of those bulls” this year I applied her for 380, still didn’t apply her for msg. She won’t shoot one, thinks are are too beautiful to kill. Same with my oldest daughter, there was doubt in my mind she would not be committed to a MSG tag. So quit putting her in. Daughters #2-4, killers all of them, they draw a tag, we’re taking the month off to get after it. School and work will be back burner.
MThuntr
Well-known member
I would like to go back to fronting the $ again. I wonder if the $10 non-refundable has increased FWP funds with extra applicants vs everyone fronting the bill and FWP keeping the $10. I haven't bothered to look into at all and maybe it is negligible.
I think an effective solution to today's draw problems will be of a marketing nature not so much based on longevity rewards. We need to convince people to spend more points every year. At a restaurant you use certain tactics with your menu like boxes around certain items or bold print etc. to draw more people to order the items with higher margins.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
I arrived at a similar place and will probably be there until I die, tag or no. The animal and the place are sorta inseparable in my mind.I finlly gave up and went to trying to draw a unit I wanted to hunt. Probably guessed wrong again and should have stuck with it.
Wrong Burgundy
Well-known member
Very true. I have a specific area in mind where I want to hunt and hopefully shoot a nice mountain goat. I have applied there now for about 18 years, still no tag. I have hiked, climbed, skied and photographed most of that HD and it is just tied to the idea of a goat hunt for me.
6point5SAUM
Active member
As someone who has never killed any of the big three (and a sheep tag is my life dream), I'd turn in every point in every state if it meant my son would have better/equal footing when he's old enough to hunt and as a young adult. I cringe when I think about where he will be at point wise even with me setting him up at the legal age for each state in the west with points. Our next generation of hunters are so far behind I wonder if they will ever get to hunt an OTC unit out of state with 10 points let alone a limited entry unit. I understand resident priority, but I want him to chase horns in every western state. I want to drink a beer with him when I'm a grandpa and swap stories about New Mexico and Arizona and Wyoming.
I'm not surprised to hear Randy talk about the committee's and him being the youngest person involved. If we don't start looking at hunting legislation through the lens of how does this change effect youth when they are of legal hunting age, we aren't going to have hunting available for the average person without financial means in a couple decades.
The big three is tough, personally I'd like it to mirror Idaho. No points, pick one, no LE deer or elk if you do pick a big three, and fees upfront. In my opinion, it's the only way to reduce demand while we work together on the supply side.
Rant over. Good luck everyone!
Pro Tip: Make sure you don't accidently use your sheep points when you apply for your unlimited tag like I did last year!! I still need a whiskey when I think about that...
I'm not surprised to hear Randy talk about the committee's and him being the youngest person involved. If we don't start looking at hunting legislation through the lens of how does this change effect youth when they are of legal hunting age, we aren't going to have hunting available for the average person without financial means in a couple decades.
The big three is tough, personally I'd like it to mirror Idaho. No points, pick one, no LE deer or elk if you do pick a big three, and fees upfront. In my opinion, it's the only way to reduce demand while we work together on the supply side.
Rant over. Good luck everyone!
Pro Tip: Make sure you don't accidently use your sheep points when you apply for your unlimited tag like I did last year!! I still need a whiskey when I think about that...
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,266
I do not think it is realistic to think the supply of the big three can be grown appreciably. Bighorn sheep can't tolerate interaction with domestic sheep. So any historic range that still has sheep grazing nearby, will have the wild sheep contracting pneumonia and wiping out all the work and money of transplanting them.
Mountain goats are likely saturated in the niche they can occupy, the same with moose.
The points game was a good faith effort to reward hunters who applied over a lifetime. As everyone knows, it has flaws. I think the best way is a totally random draw, with a once in a lifetime limit for each tag.
Mountain goats are likely saturated in the niche they can occupy, the same with moose.
The points game was a good faith effort to reward hunters who applied over a lifetime. As everyone knows, it has flaws. I think the best way is a totally random draw, with a once in a lifetime limit for each tag.
Add to that the issue that moose populations in lots of the west are doing terrible. I was talking to a bio the other day about the winter tick issue. It’s bad and not showing signs of improvement
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,978
Anyone check the back door yet?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
At the end of the day, there will be less tags available for more hunters that apply and we bitch about how it's done.
Weird where we put forth the effort?
Weird where we put forth the effort?
HONEYBADGER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 774
Yes and shows nothing. Beginning to think nothing will post from any state this week. Next week will be fast and furious hopefully.
Similar threads
