New points theory

[ImBillT]

I want the archery hunt, which takes place the same time CO unit 61 archery elk. So I have to pick one or the other. Plus after waiting so long I don’t want to compromise either. Been there done that.

So your problem is not that you can’t draw, it’s that you can’t schedule all of the hunts that most people will never draw in their entire lifetimes in a manner that is convenient for you. Is there anything more you would like from everyone a few years behind you?

 

[Duck-Slayer]

I could go with 2 choices and no 2nd draw….
Matt

 

[ImBillT]

I could go with 2 choices and no 2nd draw….
Matt

What about 2 choices that they look at before the next app, both of which result in a wait period, then a third that only gets looked at after every app has been checked that does not involve a wait period and avoids the necessity for a second draw? By allowing two before the next app, you should alleviate some pressure on top units while sending fewer mid tier units to the penalty free part of the draw.

 

[Duck-Slayer]

So far, this is for non-residents only theory:

-you have 5 years to use your current points
-years 1-3 current points get 50% of tags
-years 4-5 25% of tags
-no accumulation of points if going with current points
-choice to average all your points into one point pool
Example 5elk, 5deer, 5lope=15divideby3=5 points
-you can use those points on any species you want
-only can choose 1 species to apply for with points
-any other apps you just have 1 random name in the hat
-each point costs $150 adult and $25 per youth 16 or younger
-can start acquiring points at age 10
- you can use your points on these species, elk, mule deer, white tail deer, pronghorn antelope, moose, California bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Mountain Goat, Mountain lion, blackbear, turkey.
-10% of all tags from the overall tag allotment for each hunt go to non-residents. If there are less than 10 tags, a tag will be issued for each 9 tags that have already been issued to residents. Example: 2020 - 5 tags total, they all go to residents. 2021 - 4 tags total, they all go to residents. 2022 - 4 tags total, non-residents have now earned 1 (9 tags have been issued to residents in the past two years) and that leaves 3 left to still go to residents
-Of the tags available for non-residents, 50% go to a random draw pool and 50% go to a bonus point pool. If a hunt has an odd number of tags, the extra tag alternates where it goes. One year it would go to the bonus point pool and the next time its an odd amount for that unit, it would go to the random point pool.
-To gain bonus points, you need to purchase them every year. Miss a year you lose all your points!
-Application due in March
-results are mid April
-you cannot get a point if you draw or buy any tag for that year.
-2 choices in initial 5 year penalty draw, all remaining tags from draw are OTC
-no 2nd draw


That’s what I got so far….
Matt

 

[Zim]

So your problem is not that you can’t draw, it’s that you can’t schedule all of the hunts that most people will never draw in their entire lifetimes in a manner that is convenient for you. Is there anything more you would like from everyone a few years behind you?

I just happen to be an archery hunter. So those seasons are what I targeted since I began applying. The two hunts overlap by two full weeks, a full month if you include scouting time. It would be ludicrous to wait 26 years for a special hunt, then compromise all scouting and 50% of one of the hunts to squeeze them in one year. I suppose if a guy’s a rifle hunter, wealthy & retired it would be doable to do both the same year. But I’m not in any of those categories. Hell I’ll be one of the rare DIYers flyin solo on both these hunts. You think I’m Denny Austad or sumthin with a dozen Mossback spotters in tow? Sorry to disappoint.

 

[ImBillT]

I just happen to be an archery hunter. So those seasons are what I targeted since I began applying. The two hunts overlap by two full weeks, a full month if you include scouting time. It would be ludicrous to wait 26 years for a special hunt, then compromise all scouting and 50% of one of the hunts to squeeze them in one year. I suppose if a guy’s a rifle hunter, wealthy & retired it would be doable to do both the same year. But I’m not in any of those categories. Hell I’ll be one of the rare DIYers flyin solo on both these hunts. You think I’m Denny Austad or sumthin with a dozen Mossback spotters in tow? Sorry to disappoint.

I’ve never heard of Denny Austad. I assume I’m the only one.

All I think is that you entered an unsustainable system near the beginning and are lucky enough to go on TWO hunts that are at a level that 99.9%(1/1000) hunters will never get to experience. AND that that system cannot distribute more tags to more people. It can only skew the distribution of those tags in favor of those people who entered the system first locking out people behind. If one of those states pulls the rug out from under you, you’ll still have been luckier than 99+% of us.

 

[ImBillT]

So far, this is for non-residents only theory:

-you have 5 years to use your current points
-years 1-3 current points get 50% of tags
-years 4-5 25% of tags
-no accumulation of points if going with current points
-choice to average all your points into one point pool
Example 5elk, 5deer, 5lope=15divideby3=5 points
-you can use those points on any species you want
-only can choose 1 species to apply for with points
-any other apps you just have 1 random name in the hat
-each point costs $150 adult and $25 per youth 16 or younger
-can start acquiring points at age 10
- you can use your points on these species, elk, mule deer, white tail deer, pronghorn antelope, moose, California bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Mountain Goat, Mountain lion, blackbear, turkey.
-10% of all tags from the overall tag allotment for each hunt go to non-residents. If there are less than 10 tags, a tag will be issued for each 9 tags that have already been issued to residents. Example: 2020 - 5 tags total, they all go to residents. 2021 - 4 tags total, they all go to residents. 2022 - 4 tags total, non-residents have now earned 1 (9 tags have been issued to residents in the past two years) and that leaves 3 left to still go to residents
-Of the tags available for non-residents, 50% go to a random draw pool and 50% go to a bonus point pool. If a hunt has an odd number of tags, the extra tag alternates where it goes. One year it would go to the bonus point pool and the next time its an odd amount for that unit, it would go to the random point pool.
-To gain bonus points, you need to purchase them every year. Miss a year you lose all your points!
-Application due in March
-results are mid April
-you cannot get a point if you draw or buy any tag for that year.
-2 choices in initial 5 year penalty draw, all remaining tags from draw are OTC
-no 2nd draw


That’s what I got so far….
Matt

Not all bad. I don’t like it all either.

I think the best way to deal with current point holders is simply stop issuing new points and put at least 50% of tags in a random draw until points go away on their own. Another option is to stop issuing new points and convert all current preference points to bonus points. Putting a time limit to burn your points will leave a lot of people SOL. For instance, UT’s current applicant pool would take 130yrs to get one tag. How do they choose to spend their points in 5yrs? It’s not possible.

Making points expensive would reduce point buying primarily by limiting the number of people financially capable of participating. This again puts a public resource that is equally owned by all of us in the reach of only those with means. The problem is even compounded when you put a wait period in place. There are plenty of guys with lots of money that like going to the same areas frequently. Put a wait period on it, they’ll just add more states. Joe Schmoe on the other hand gets stuck in the penalty box because he can’t afford to circumvent it.

 

[Trap]

The high point holders were just following the rules at the time. I have 25+ pts for deer/elk/antelope in Az, Ut, and Nev. Have never drawn a tag in any of these states. I would gladly trade ALL my deer pts for 1 premium tag. The same for elk and antelope. Somebody figure that out and a lot of points disappear.

I think only applying for 1 species per state and allow or force all points in all categories to be applied to your one choice. Some tags would need 75-100 points overnight but it would clear out top points and allow invested hunters to apply all those points towards that 1 hunt they really want. Seems simple we have tons of applications taking the shotgun approach just in case. All points applied to 1 choice only

 

[Buffs35]

Complaining and whining that point holders are simply "lucky" is analogous to me complaining about my dad's 401k being larger than mine. Making enemies of fellow hunters because it offends your fragile sense of equality is not a way to build consensus if we want to change these systems.

 

[ImBillT]

Complaining and whining that point holders are simply "lucky" is analogous to me complaining about my dad's 401k being larger than mine. Making enemies of fellow hunters because it offends your fragile sense of equality is not a way to build consensus if we want to change these systems.

Your dad is not preventing you from using your 401k or having access to your money. He is not ensuring his access to a public resource at the detriment of others. Your 401k is smaller than your fathers because you haven’t been finding it as long just as someone who has been in a random drawing for one year has drawn fewer tags than someone who has been in a random drawing for fifty years.

 

[NDGuy]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was in the presence of a Decades Invested Point Holder.

They hand out plaques for that

 

[seeth07]

Why bother with the expense of a second draw when you could just do a second choice? But yes, I think we’re getting closer to agreement.

I like the part of NM’s and AZ’s systems which allow 2-3 choices before moving to the next applicant. More choices make it harder to draw the less desirable but still desired hunts, but too few choices stacks everyone together at the top tier and would leave a lot of mid tier hunts going secondary(especially if there is a penalty) so maybe AZ has it right with just 2. NV is definitely overboard with 5. I’m saying 2-3 choices before the NEXT APPLICANT. Let’s say you get 2 choices that result in a wait period, then they move to the next applicant. After all applications have been examined, they go back and examine choices number 3+. If we’re talking wait periods I would be open to imposing a wait period on the first two choices but not on subsequent choices, or going with tiers, or an OTC option. As long as there is an outlet for the less desirable hunts to be hunted without punishment, the wait period can have a positive effect on tag distribution. I do think it is most cost effective for states and for hunters to conduct as much as possible through a single draw rather than having a secondary draw, and then left overs.

I agree with you here and I too think that AZ and NM are on the right path.

To combine this with what you said before in regards to the wait list, what if your choice number correlated to the wait period?

So an applicant can make 3 choices on their application. All three choices are looked at before moving on to the next one. Sort of like NM, I think it would be a good thing to have a check box where you select that you are willing to receive any tag leftover in a particular region of the state so that way the state is assured that all tags get sold.

If they draw their first choice, it carries a OIL for that hunt code. Applicant can never select that hunt code again for any choice.

If they draw their second choice, it carries a 5 year wait period for that hunt code. Third choice, no wait period.

 

[jt13]

Complaining and whining that point holders are simply "lucky" is analogous to me complaining about my dad's 401k being larger than mine. Making enemies of fellow hunters because it offends your fragile sense of equality is not a way to build consensus if we want to change these systems.

It'd be more like if you only got to draw money from your 401k when your dad and all the people his age run theirs dry. Then it'll be your turn to start.

"Weren't around when we developed the system? Too bad. Wait in line, you whiney millennial..."

 

[Buffs35]

It'd be more like if you only got to draw money from your 401k when your dad and all the people his age run theirs dry. Then it'll be your turn to start.

"Weren't around when we developed the system? Too bad. Wait in line, you whiney millennial..."

I am also a millennial.

 

[Zim]

Complaining and whining that point holders are simply "lucky" is analogous to me complaining about my dad's 401k being larger than mine. Making enemies of fellow hunters because it offends your fragile sense of equality is not a way to build consensus if we want to change these systems.

Ya I guess I’m one of the “lucky” ones by Lenin’s standards but I’d sure as hell trade all my points if the state would give me back the 40 acres they stole from me and gave to my lazy unemployed ex to keep her off their welfare dole. I’m guessing the noob’s aren’t going to take a collection for me neither to fix that broken system that I have to live with. Some folks just don’t look at the big picture.

 

[ImBillT]

I agree with you here and I too think that AZ and NM are on the right path.

To combine this with what you said before in regards to the wait list, what if your choice number correlated to the wait period?

So an applicant can make 3 choices on their application. All three choices are looked at before moving on to the next one. Sort of like NM, I think it would be a good thing to have a check box where you select that you are willing to receive any tag leftover in a particular region of the state so that way the state is assured that all tags get sold.

If they draw their first choice, it carries a OIL for that hunt code. Applicant can never select that hunt code again for any choice.

If they draw their second choice, it carries a 5 year wait period for that hunt code. Third choice, no wait period.

NM already has the “check box” that you’re willing to accept any tag left over. It’s the fourth choice. Only one elk tag went fourth choice to a non-resident last year. Zero to the outfitter pool. Other states have a lot more leftovers though, so that could work better.

As far as assigning wait periods based on choice level, I think it should be more based on average demand for a particular hunt code over a time period rather than choice. Not everyone shoots for the moon with their first choice, and not everyone drags the bottom of the barrel with their third choice. Should a 10% odds tag carry the same wait period as a .01% odds tag? I put a 10% odds deer hunt as my first choice every year. I once put a 19% odds elk hunt as my first choice. Should those be OIL because they were my first choice? Plus that only removes one hunt code. There are a LOT of hunt codes in some states. Instead if you just put every hunt code that had 2% or less availability(1/50) on one list. If you draw any of those codes, you can never apply for any of those codes again unless demand for that code falls off the OIL list. Codes with 20%-2% availability(1/5-1/50) go on the 5yr wait list. Codes with better odds than 20% don’t have a wait period. Every year, the five year average demand gets recalculated, and thus some codes that were OIL could drop to a 5yr wait, or visa versa. If you’ve ever drawn a code that WAS ON THE OIL LIST WHEN YOU DREW, you cannot apply for any code CURRENLY on the OIL list. If you’re in your 5yr wait, you cannot apply for a code CURRENTLY on the 5yr list, but assuming you haven’t drawn OIL, you can still apply for those codes. Obviously anyone can apply for codes with more than 20% as many tags as applicants. Currently for elk in NM, using those criteria, there would be no rifle codes without a wait, and most of the rifle codes in units that give NM it’s reputation would be OIL.

Honestly I don’t think the wait periods would help MUCH. In a random system, the odds are the wait.

 

[seeth07]

NM already has the “check box” that you’re willing to accept any tag left over. It’s the fourth choice. Only one elk tag went fourth choice to a non-resident last year. Zero to the outfitter pool. Other states have a lot more leftovers though, so that could work better.

As far as assigning wait periods based on choice level, I think it should be more based on average demand for a particular hunt code over a time period rather than choice. Not everyone shoots for the moon with their first choice, and not everyone drags the bottom of the barrel with their third choice. Should a 10% odds tag carry the same wait period as a .01% odds tag? I put a 10% odds deer hunt as my first choice every year. I once put a 19% odds elk hunt as my first choice. Should those be OIL because they were my first choice? Plus that only removes one hunt code. There are a LOT of hunt codes in some states. Instead if you just put every hunt code that had 2% or less availability(1/50) on one list. If you draw any of those codes, you can never apply for any of those codes again unless demand for that code falls off the OIL list. Codes with 20%-2% availability(1/5-1/50) go on the 5yr wait list. Codes with better odds than 20% don’t have a wait period. Every year, the five year average demand gets recalculated, and thus some codes that were OIL could drop to a 5yr wait, or visa versa. If you’ve ever drawn a code that WAS ON THE OIL LIST WHEN YOU DREW, you cannot apply for any code CURRENLY on the OIL list. If you’re in your 5yr wait, you cannot apply for a code CURRENTLY on the 5yr list, but assuming you haven’t drawn OIL, you can still apply for those codes. Obviously anyone can apply for codes with more than 20% as many tags as applicants. Currently for elk in NM, using those criteria, there would be no rifle codes without a wait, and most of the rifle codes in units that give NM it’s reputation would be OIL.

Honestly I don’t think the wait periods would help MUCH. In a random system, the odds are the wait.

yes you are probably right with that approach, I like it.

I do disagree though about the it not helping. It would really depend however on the limit set for OIL because once a person draws that quality of tag, they are removed from the pool and its certainly feasible that the amount of people being removed can match the influx of new applications every year.

I would think that in order to meet that requirement, OIL would have to be classified roughly around the time period of what a lifetime is. Lets say on just a ballpark guess that the average hunter is committed to hunting for 40 years. Some will only spend 5 years hunting in their lifetime and others will spend 80 year - just calling out an average and its just a guess. That would mean that the OIL type hunts would have to carry about 1/40 odds or 2.5%. You mentioned 1/50 odds in your post and maybe that is the metric.

For the 5 year wait period hunts, what it would do is increase your odds roughly every year for 5 years and than whatever rough odds those improve to is where it would stabilize (assuming hunter apps doesn't change over that time). I know that hunter apps out west are continuously going up right now but I'm venturing to guess that we are nearing the peak of that influx.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Completely Random and 5 year waiting period on anything “antlered”?
Matt

Better than a point scheme also Increases "fairness".

 

[ImBillT]

@seeth07

I put OIL at 1/50 just because I figure there are a lot of people out there that, if they started at 10-20 years old, could hunt while in decent shape for 50yrs. Personally I got started late, and am not optimistic about being able to hike and pack even past age 50. The reason I included the terminology 1/50 availability instead of 2% draw odds was to make a person think tags/apps instead of a goHunt draw probability. goHunt gives you an accurate probability of drawing in these complex systems, but the length of time it would take to clear current applicants is simply tags/apps and that’s what we need to be focused on.

Realistically, I can’t see how non-permanent wait periods can improve long term draw odds. If a wait period is shorter than the length of time required to clear applicants, then an applicant who was already drawn is right back in the applicant pool before the pool has been cleared. BUT if the wait period is longer than the amount of time required to clear applicants the hunt actually ends up with leftover tags, and it isn’t because people don’t want the tag, it’s because they’re in the penalty box. What is the point in that? I’m starting to think the wait period makes everyone feel better, but doesn’t address the problem. Now what a wait period would do is smooth the draw cycle. It absolutely eliminates back to back drawing which definitely makes people mad and is probably the number one complaint about random systems. Consider a hunt with 20 tags and 100 apps and a five year wait.
Year. Apps. Tags. hunting waiting
1. 100. 20. 20. 80
2. 80. 20. 20. 80
3. 60. 20. 20 80
4. 40. 20. 20 80
5. 20. 20. 20. 80
6. 20. 20. 20. 80
7. 20. 20. 20. 80
The five year wait makes you FEEL like your improved your draw odds, but realistically, you have exactly the same amount of people going hunting that you have waiting to draw a tag each year. Instead of having a 20% chance every year, you have a zero percent chance for four years and then a 100% chance the year that you come off the wait list. In year six the only people eligible to apply were those who had drawn in year 1. This also presents a potential problem when calculating what hunt codes go on what wait list. The solution is that when you calculate the wait list, you include everyone who is currently on a wait because of drawing that code until their wait is done. So in year five, when only 20 people were eligible to apply, instead of saying that you had 20 apps for 20 tags, so demand was 1/1 and thus no wait was required, you would include the 80 people who drew that code in the previous four years waiting to get back into the pool, which would give you an availability of 1/5 which was the minimum to go in the wait list category. In a pure random draw 33% would not have drawn in the five year window and 33% will have drawn more than once. That sounds pretty unfair, but over ten years only 11% will not have drawn. Again, it sounds unfair, but we’re examining a 50yr hunting span. By year 50, only .001% will not have drawn a single tag. The wait period does look good though. It smoothed the draw cycle. It not only eliminates back to back drawing, and it eliminates the 11% of people who couldn’t pull a 1/5 tag after 10 tries. Long term, it did very little. Wait periods have their strongest effect when they match the availability. 1/5=5yr wait.

Now consider a hunt with 100 apps and 5 tags.

Year. Apps. Tags. Hunting waiting
1. 100. 5. 5. 95
2. 95. 5. 5. 95
3. 90. 5. 5. 95
4. 85. 5. 5. 95
5. 80. 5. 5. 95
6. 80. 5. 5. 95
7. 80. 5. 5. 95
We have gone from a 5% draw probability in year one to a maximum of 6.25% draw probability after the wait period has reach its peak effect. Every year the same number of people want to hunt the tag, and every year the same number of people get it. The wait didn’t fix that. There are still 1/20 as many tags as there are hunters who want to hunt. But again, it eliminates back to back draws, which is the number one complaint in a random system. Over 50yrs in a pure random system 7.7% of people will never draw a 1/20 tag. With a five year wait period that drops to 4%. I guess 3.7% of people are really thankful for the 5yr wait.

Now let’s consider an OIL.
Year. Apps. Tags. Hunting waiting
1. 100. 1. 1. 99
2. 99. 1. 1. 98
3. 98. 1. 1. 97
4. 97. 1. 1. 96
50. 50. 1. 1. 49
51. 0. 1. 0. Dead
In a pure random system you have a 60.5% chance of applying for a 1% tag 50 consecutive times and not drawing.(39.5% chance of drawing once) By instituting an OIL restriction, we can improve that to a 50% chance.

After writing this down I have been swayed to be in favor of APPROPRIATE wait periods. I think 5yrs and OIL are appropriate lengths, and I think that they should only apply to hunt codes with a five year average demand of 1/5-1/50 for the 5yr wait, and 1/50+ for OIL. You can sway me to go a little higher demand before the OIL cutoff, 1/60 or even 1/100, but you couldn’t sway me any lower than 1/50. HERE’S WHY. If a really hound fellow was to draw a tag like that in his first few years of hunting, its not likely that he’s going to manage to do that hunt the justice he would later. And if he’s young enough to manage to draw that again later in life, maybe he deserves the chance. Drawing a 1/50 tag requires that you apply every single year. You can’t wait until the perfect year. That puts you at risk of having a crappy hunt on a great tag, but not applying outs you at great risk of never even drawing.

Random with wait periods vs points. In a random system with wait periods the only those who have drawn are “punished” with a wait. In a point system, those who are just now entering the system are punished equally compared to those who have just drawn a tag. Furthermore, in a random with waits, those entering have the same odds as everyone at the top their hunts, and only those who draw top tier hunts are punished with top tier waits. In a point system, you must first endure the punishment before you may go hunting, which may never even happen. The result is that in a point system you’re forced to stay home, hunt a mid tier unit, or pray that someday you get to hunt. In a random system with waits, you can hunt any tag you’re willing to accept with no penalty for placing a top tier dream hunt that you may never draw as your first choice.

 

[seeth07]

@seeth07

I put OIL at 1/50 just because I figure there are a lot of people out there that, if they started at 10-20 years old, could hunt while in decent shape for 50yrs. Personally I got started late, and am not optimistic about being able to hike and pack even past age 50. The reason I included the terminology 1/50 availability instead of 2% draw odds was to make a person think tags/apps instead of a goHunt draw probability. goHunt gives you an accurate probability of drawing in these complex systems, but the length of time it would take to clear current applicants is simply tags/apps and that’s what we need to be focused on.

Realistically, I can’t see how non-permanent wait periods can improve long term draw odds. If a wait period is shorter than the length of time required to clear applicants, then an applicant who was already drawn is right back in the applicant pool before the pool has been cleared. BUT if the wait period is longer than the amount of time required to clear applicants the hunt actually ends up with leftover tags, and it isn’t because people don’t want the tag, it’s because they’re in the penalty box. What is the point in that? I’m starting to think the wait period makes everyone feel better, but doesn’t address the problem. Now what a wait period would do is smooth the draw cycle. It absolutely eliminates back to back drawing which definitely makes people mad and is probably the number one complaint about random systems. Consider a hunt with 20 tags and 100 apps and a five year wait.
Year. Apps. Tags. hunting waiting
1. 100. 20. 20. 80
2. 80. 20. 20. 80
3. 60. 20. 20 80
4. 40. 20. 20 80
5. 20. 20. 20. 80
6. 20. 20. 20. 80
7. 20. 20. 20. 80
The five year wait makes you FEEL like your improved your draw odds, but realistically, you have exactly the same amount of people going hunting that you have waiting to draw a tag each year. Instead of having a 20% chance every year, you have a zero percent chance for four years and then a 100% chance the year that you come off the wait list. In year six the only people eligible to apply were those who had drawn in year 1. This also presents a potential problem when calculating what hunt codes go on what wait list. The solution is that when you calculate the wait list, you include everyone who is currently on a wait because of drawing that code until their wait is done. So in year five, when only 20 people were eligible to apply, instead of saying that you had 20 apps for 20 tags, so demand was 1/1 and thus no wait was required, you would include the 80 people who drew that code in the previous four years waiting to get back into the pool, which would give you an availability of 1/5 which was the minimum to go in the wait list category. In a pure random draw 33% would not have drawn in the five year window and 33% will have drawn more than once. That sounds pretty unfair, but over ten years only 11% will not have drawn. Again, it sounds unfair, but we’re examining a 50yr hunting span. By year 50, only .001% will not have drawn a single tag. The wait period does look good though. It smoothed the draw cycle. It not only eliminates back to back drawing, and it eliminates the 11% of people who couldn’t pull a 1/5 tag after 10 tries. Long term, it did very little. Wait periods have their strongest effect when they match the availability. 1/5=5yr wait.

Now consider a hunt with 100 apps and 5 tags.

Year. Apps. Tags. Hunting waiting
1. 100. 5. 5. 95
2. 95. 5. 5. 95
3. 90. 5. 5. 95
4. 85. 5. 5. 95
5. 80. 5. 5. 95
6. 80. 5. 5. 95
7. 80. 5. 5. 95
We have gone from a 5% draw probability in year one to a maximum of 6.25% draw probability after the wait period has reach its peak effect. Every year the same number of people want to hunt the tag, and every year the same number of people get it. The wait didn’t fix that. There are still 1/20 as many tags as there are hunters who want to hunt. But again, it eliminates back to back draws, which is the number one complaint in a random system. Over 50yrs in a pure random system 7.7% of people will never draw a 1/20 tag. With a five year wait period that drops to 4%. I guess 3.7% of people are really thankful for the 5yr wait.

Now let’s consider an OIL.
Year. Apps. Tags. Hunting waiting
1. 100. 1. 1. 99
2. 99. 1. 1. 98
3. 98. 1. 1. 97
4. 97. 1. 1. 96
50. 50. 1. 1. 49
51. 0. 1. 0. Dead
In a pure random system you have a 60.5% chance of applying for a 1% tag 50 consecutive times and not drawing.(39.5% chance of drawing once) By instituting an OIL restriction, we can improve that to a 50% chance.

After writing this down I have been swayed to be in favor of APPROPRIATE wait periods. I think 5yrs and OIL are appropriate lengths, and I think that they should only apply to hunt codes with a five year average demand of 1/5-1/50 for the 5yr wait, and 1/50+ for OIL. You can sway me to go a little higher demand before the OIL cutoff, 1/60 or even 1/100, but you couldn’t sway me any lower than 1/50. HERE’S WHY. If a really hound fellow was to draw a tag like that in his first few years of hunting, its not likely that he’s going to manage to do that hunt the justice he would later. And if he’s young enough to manage to draw that again later in life, maybe he deserves the chance. Drawing a 1/50 tag requires that you apply every single year. You can’t wait until the perfect year. That puts you at risk of having a crappy hunt on a great tag, but not applying outs you at great risk of never even drawing.

Random with wait periods vs points. In a random system with wait periods the only those who have drawn are “punished” with a wait. In a point system, those who are just now entering the system are punished equally compared to those who have just drawn a tag. Furthermore, in a random with waits, those entering have the same odds as everyone at the top their hunts, and only those who draw top tier hunts are punished with top tier waits. In a point system, you must first endure the punishment before you may go hunting, which may never even happen. The result is that in a point system you’re forced to stay home, hunt a mid tier unit, or pray that someday you get to hunt. In a random system with waits, you can hunt any tag you’re willing to accept with no penalty for placing a top tier dream hunt that you may never draw as your first choice.

I follow your logic and as a very analytical person myself, I really appreciate it. I agree with all that you pointed out. There is one variable with the x year wait though is the shifting of trends with the OIL tags and I don't know how you could model that. Those tag pools will never clear but they certainly will impact the 5 year wait as those that get OIL will be in the 5 year draws and visa Versa. This thought really makes me think that for non residents at least, the OIL tag needs to have a pretty low limit. More like 1/20 so you might actually be able to draw it in 50 years. Assuming the hunt stays 1/20 for 50 years, simple odds in that 1/20 hunt would indicate some sort of bell curve from guys that drew in just one year to an unlucky fella that took 40 years.

Hunting out west for non residents is just so out of control with demand that the reality of the situation is that high quality hunts that the state sets up are pretty much OIL for the vast majority of us anyways at a 1/20 draw odds anyways