MT proposed season changes

[The Hedgehog]

I suppose I could deal with a 0.3% impact to my draw odds so non-residents can have somewhat of a fair shake at a good tag every 30 years or so.

 

[Oak]

Here's the mule deer that Buzz.. the nasty non-resident prick that he, encouraged me to go shoot.

Don't give Buzz props for not being able to judge mule deer.

 

[BuzzH]

In return, I'll not fight the guaranteed 25% of the quota that NR's get in Wyoming across the board, for all species.

Unlike some, I recognize the importance of NR funds in the management of the States wildlife. I've actually always been pretty impressed with how fair Wyoming is with NR hunters. More states, and resident hunters of said states, should look to Wyoming as an example.

Oak, I only misjudged it by 13-14 inches...I thought he was right at 180. I'm a good "guide" that way though, always under-estimate so nobody gets hurt feelings.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Wyoming is my friend. I'm going to be hunting whatever antelope unit I want this year, whatever elk unit I want next year, and right where I killed that deer above the year after that.. probably with Buzz, my prick nonresident guide.

Only problem with Buzz is he likes to nap more than hunt. I made him wake up and pose for this photo in 2008, just above where I should have shot another deer a couple hours earlier.

 

[tjones]

Just to be a fly in the ointment, in the 2009 season there were only 45, 270 buck permits issued, so both of ya have to re figure,,,,carry on!

 

[BuzzH]

tjones...couldnt find the 2009 drawing statistics on the FWP website.

 

[Drake4]

Just to be a fly in the ointment, in the 2009 season there were only 45, 270 buck permits issued, so both of ya have to re figure,,,,carry on!

I was wondering when someone was going to throw that number into the mix.

 

[tjones]

Thats ok Buzz, you are dead on about land owner preference. When there was 100 permits almost all the land owners drew. If I remember right there is 18 landowners that qualify. My biggest gripe is after they draw they don't have to hunt there land. So they take a permit away from a general hunter, then go hunt public land.


Crazy huh?

 

[The Hedgehog]

What would Big Shooter do?

 

[tjones]

2 acres does not qualify

 

[smalls]

No worries Buzz, I understand your logic only disagreeing about semantics. For that matter, changing the language to 10% of the tags isn't that big of deal.

Greenhorn,

Quit trying to pass off 130" bucks as 190" bucks. Frankly, it's getting embarrassing (tongue firmly in cheek).

 

[BuzzH]

smalls,

The odds suck either way and I'm not that lucky in the draws. If it werent for 100% draw odds and general tags...I'd be a full time fall fisherman.

 

[sweetnectar]

By all means keep using the math and you can figure out what proposed changes rule and what suck. Like I've said before squaring the bonus point or cubing or what ever decreases your odds over your lifetime of drawing if you currently participate in the bonus points system...it causes more people to participate and this competes against you. How much???...you'd have to look a FWP's numbers on how many people current buy points vs how many don't. Then you do a bunch of math and economics and come up with a result like BuzzH's.

 

[belly-deep]

I've actually always been pretty impressed with how fair Wyoming is with NR hunters.

Oh yeah! Because they don't let those retarded non-residents go into the wilderness without a guide...I forgot Wyoming was so accomodating!!!

Buzz, you won't find any argument with me on the landowner preference tags...but the title of the post is "MT Proposed Season Changes"...we're talking about 2010 changes here. I'd love for the landowner preference to be modified, and when it does I will be first in line to comment on it.

As far as the math goes...

In 2006, 6 NRs drew 270-50
In 2007, 5 drew
In 2008, 3 drew

And because in all three of those years the NR cap of 10 tags was never reached, the NRs were competing right along side of the residents.

And so

(residents + nonresidents = total applicants)
2006: 4685 + 672 = 5357
2007: 5056 + 749 = 5805
2008: 5376 + 672 = 6048


Thus the draw odds for everyone (remember, the NR quota was never reached so the remaining NRs were still in the draw until the end) are as follows:

2006: 100/5357=1.9%
2007: 100/5805=1.7%
2008: 100/6048=1.65%

Now if during those years all of the NRs were competing for 10 tags, it would go as follows;

2006: 10/672 = 1.48%
2007: 10/749 = 1.35%
2008: 10/672 = 1.48%

Am I crazy or are the numbers better for you when the draw is left as it is? Sure Buzz, if they change it around NRs will draw more tags...but the drawing won't get any easier for you, just non-residents as a group.

 

[belly-deep]

belly deep, G & H in Wyoming are general for Wyoming residents and Buzz has hunted them, and he can every season without a draw.. He passed up a chance at a 190+ buck and encouraged me to hike over and shoot it. Yeah, he's a bad guy, whining non-resident. Allowing non-residents to have 10%, instead of "up to 10%" isn't that big of a deal.

As is, non-residents cannot even acquire a deer or elk permit preference point unless they draw the deer or deer/elk licences initially before the permit draw. I think that's what Buzz is trying to explain for you.

But it doesn't really matter because my kids will shoot the big ones the Thursday before season, before you and Buzz even get a chance.

Greenhorn,

That's great you have a good friend like Buzz.

 

[BuzzH]

belly-deep,

I'd suggest you ask your parents to sue the public school system in the Flathead Valley, or wherever it was you went to grade school, as tax payers, they got ripped off.

Your numbers are off...you forgot to take out the landowner tags for starters. LO permits are given "off the top".

Secondly when Resident applicants outnumber Nonresident applicants to the tune of 5,376 to 672...there is no way NR's have an equal chance. Put 5,376 red beans in a sack along with 672 blue ones. Draw 100 beans from the sack and tell me how often you draw 50 red and 50 blue...

The only way a NR would have an equal chance to draw the 10% cap, and have the same draw odds, is if the number of Resident and Non-resident applicants were the same. If 5,376 non-residents and 5,376 residents applied...you'd be correct. But, with a discrepency of roughly 5600 applicants...your logic is not only warped, but flat wrong. I suggest a remedial stats course.

There is no question that all NR odds, including mine, would improve with a guarantee of 10% of the tags...not even open for debate and simple statistics prove it.

Also, you've still done a spectacular job of not addressing the fact that in a ten year stretch a resident is guaranteed a chance via the draw at a good deer tag every year...while a NR is only in the draw 3 out of the same ten years???

Also, thanks for proving my point that the "up to" 10% cap is completely unfair to NR hunters...as evidenced by the numbers. The cap was never reached in any of the years between 2006-2008, which statistically is no surprise.

 

[belly-deep]

belly-deep,

I'd suggest you ask your parents to sue the public school system in the Flathead Valley, or wherever it was you went to grade school, as tax payers, they got ripped off.

Your numbers are off...you forgot to take out the landowner tags for starters. LO permits are given "off the top".

Secondly when Resident applicants outnumber Nonresident applicants to the tune of 5,376 to 672...there is no way NR's have an equal chance. Put 5,376 red beans in a sack along with 672 blue ones. Draw 100 beans from the sack and tell me how often you draw 50 red and 50 blue...

The only way a NR would have an equal chance to draw the 10% cap is if the number of Resident and Non-resident applicants were the same. If 5,376 non-residents and 5,376 residents applied...you'd be correct. But, with a discrepency of roughly 5600 applicants...your logic is not only warped, but flat wrong. I suggest a remedial stats course.

Also, you've still done a spectacular job of not addressing the fact that in a ten year stretch a resident is guaranteed a chance via the draw at a good deer tag every year...while a NR is only in the draw 3 out of the same ten years???

Also, thanks for proving my point that the "up to" 10% cap is completely unfair to NR hunters...as evidenced by the numbers. The cap was never reached in any of the years between 2006-2008, which statistically is no surprise.

No way, Jose...oh wait...that's the other dude.

Ok, lets take out the LO tags.

Once again:

(residents + nonresidents = total applicants)
2006: 4685 + 672 = 5357
2007: 5056 + 749 = 5805
2008: 5376 + 672 = 6048

Thus the draw odds for everyone (remember, the NR quota was never reached so the remaining NRs were still in the draw until the end) are as follows:

2006: 85/5357= 1.59%
2007: 85/5805= 1.46%
2008: 85/6048= 1.40%

Now, if you look closely, you will notice that there are also NR LO tags...so they will cut things down a bit from the limit of 10;

2006: 5/672 = .74%
2007: 5/749 = .67%
2008: 6/672 = .89%

Obviously, the the thing that is killing draw odds for all of us is the the LO tags. But like I said, that is not up for change in 2010 so we will have to wait.

On the other hand, I don't seem to be the one with the math problem here. I made a statement that your odds in 270 will drop with the new changes. I proved that mathematically. You failed to disprove it mathematically, so maybe you are the one who needs the stats class. I know it is tough to wrap your head around those numbers. I had to retry the numbers when I first came out with them too. But the numbers don't lie. Like I said, changing the draw date helps non residents as a whole but hurts non residents as individuals.

As far as your other question goes, I have no argument with it. I can understand that a non resident has 30% draw odds for the deer tag. I can also understand that a non resident must first draw a general tag and then put in for the deer tag. I can see how that would be a problem, but I fail to see where that problem is up for debate in the 2010 season. Because of that, I'm going to have to throw it in with the LO tag issue...yes, it indirectly changes draw odds, but it is not the discussion this year. And I still don't see how giving out 10 NR tags in 270 would help you draw a general deer tag???

 

[The Hedgehog]

This reminds me of why I can't stand to attend the FWP public comment meetings. Some clueless idiots bitching about loosing a fraction of a percentage of special draw tags to non-residents, bitching about a $5 dollar increase in license fees to residents, or whining about legal statutes that have been in place for decades, when going over a set agenda in a room full of a couple hundred people.

 

[BuzzH]

belly-deep,

If you can explain this...I'll listen. When Resident applicants outnumber NR applicants 8 to 1...how do you come up with both residents and non residents having the same draw odds? NR's are behind the curve from the get-go...in particular when we apply bonus points to the system. Beings how most NR's only have a point or two, and a majority of the residents have MAX points the total number of "chances" that the Residents have compared to that of the Non-Residents, the gap is even greater.

Oh, thats right, you probably forgot that too.

Under the current system I have to compete with 5,376 residents AND 672 nonresidents for 85 tags...I also suffer because of the bonus point system. Statistically, its very unlikely that with 8 times more resident applicants than nonresident, that the 10% cap will ever be met. Taking into account bonus points, thats even more true.

If I only have to compete with 672 nonresidents in a pool for 8 tags, my chances are much, much better...thats a fact.

Do you think its just bad luck that Non-Residents failed to draw the 10% cap 3 straight years in a row? Take a look at the other areas I mentioned...just bad NR luck that they failed to draw 10% in those units too? How much more evidence do you need?

You better ask Flathead high for a refund...

 

[shoots-straight]

I'm tired of doing math tonight, I'm going to bed.
Greenhorn, I here ya on the meetings thing. They should bring in some pole dancers after all the discussion. That would unit us.