The point of any draw is to fairly allocated tags when demand, outstrips supply. 'Collapse' occurs when it becomes so painfully obvious that the "fair" part of that first clause has gone out the window, and the resident voters of a given state demand the system be changed. So 'collapse' = system dismantled by angry mob.
IMHO it's stupid people who suck at basic math. Yep just going to say it, if you didn't realize that preference points are a terrible way to allocate opportunity where there are 1000 applicants per tag you are a dumbass.
I just explained this again to my (very intelligent) friend.
I have pondered how this could actually be done and actually benefit the system. The reason being that if selling was allowed, I could see it as a way to help clear out the current points pool and counter point creep.
Life expectancy is just the average age of death. Roughly half of the population that life expectancy applies to will live longer, and roughly half will not reach it. In a preference point system, for low availability, high demand tags, it’s not the average person that matters. It only takes a handful of people with above average longevity to account for all the available tags.
I read you whole post, and here’s the crux you keep limiting it to just age and drawing, when I say it will top out at like 40-45 I’m not cutting out all the variables, I’m saying all variables included, dropping out, people getting pissed and changing the system, buying gov tags, whatever…
Not quite. It's the estimated average length of life for a hypothetical cohort assumed to be exposed, from birth through death, to the mortality rates observed each year. That might seem like splitting hairs but there is a difference than "half live longer have don't" as people die at year 1 and there is a human maximum age? 113 for men?. Anyway the correct way to demonstrate the phenomenon is to reduce the applicant pool by the crude mortality rate, ideally you would do this per year so that you would take out more folks in years where because of environmental reasons there were more deaths, but let's just use the current rate and say 8.95 per 1000.
Mathematically I’m not sure you can account for all variables. You could account for age if you simply new what percentage of the population reached a certain age, which you could model that accurately. So that’s what I attempted to model. Im sure I screwed something up too but that’s the best I could do under the circumstances. In real life, yeah, there are other things that take people out of preference point systems. For a lot of species you’re right that the max point pool will never reach the number of years in the system that my method predicted. For sheep I think the tag numbers are low enough and demand high enough, that not enough people drop out. Governor’s tags? How many people per year does that really take out of the pool? 1? From a system that clears 5-6 per year anyway. Governor’s tags aren’t limited to max point holders either. What percentage of governor’s tag holder were ever at max points? Has it ever even happened? The total percentage of max point holders cleared by governor’s tags is nearly meaningless. Pissed off at the system? How many of those are at max points? 5pts under max? Yeah a lot of those people give up. At max, my bet is that the majority hang on well past their original willingness hoping that the guy beside them gives up or dies. Like I said, for other species “giving up” doesn’t constitute not hunting. The option of an alternative hunt is always there. For things like sheep, moose, goat and bison, there is not an alternative outlet. I don’t follow those species, but I don’t think any are pure preference. If they were, it would top out at a ridiculous level of it we’re allowed to stay in place until it topped out.
