Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
great idea, if you don't fill your tag, that earns you a PP
Problem is that people paid for years to get to the point they had a better chance of drawing. I guess you could just stop the process of adding additional points.Counter point: No preference or bonus points at all. Have a real democratic allocation of the resource: 1 application - 1 chance. No more buying your way to the front of the line, etc.
Just a straight up random draw for everything. Resident/NR split still remains negotiable within the wide range of 90/10.
Problem is that people paid for years to get to the point they had a better chance of drawing. I guess you could just stop the process of adding additional points.
I have 12 WA goat points. My 144 chances, for the $160 I've put into it, has raised my chances from 0.022% to 0.034%...Problem is that people paid for years to get to the point they had a better chance of drawing. I guess you could just stop the process of adding additional points.
I've got 22 years of moose and sheep points. It's not the money that's an issue, it's that I've waited 22 years to have a better chance, and it is significantly better than having zero points.I have 12 WA goat points. My 144 chances, for the $160 I've put into it, has raised my chances from 0.022% to 0.034%...
How far do you want to go to level the playing field? Charge residents and non residents the same price for tags? Give residents and non residents the same odds of drawing a permit or license? The playing field is never level, there are preferences given for where you live and how often you apply.
Be careful, this way of thinking offended the big kahuna on the WY thread.Counter point: No preference or bonus points at all. Have a real democratic allocation of the resource: 1 application - 1 chance. No more buying your way to the front of the line, etc.
Also, the animals are held in trust for ALL state citizens, even though that don't hunt. "Giving up" 10% of tags by a state is not NR charity, it is a chance for non-hunting citizens to reap some economic benefit from animals they will never hunt via NR hunter spend in state.Allocation of Resident Versus Non-Resident is a decision about the equitable allocation of the resource, absolutely. However, when you apply the lens of the public trust doctrine & how wildlife is managed primarily for the benefit of the residents of each state, I think the ruling stands that 90/10 is still equitable for the resident, and fits within the general desire of NR's to hunt each state.
One hunter lives there, pays taxes, votes, contributes to the overall well-being of the state while the other is merely a visitor. Going to a 50/50 allocation for R & NR would be an unequitable shift, IMO.
Yeah, but it only works till about 5 points. Preference points work great up to 5 points.I may be in the minority, but I like a true preference point system (like Colorado's) because it gives me the ability to plan hunts years in advance with some degree of confidence about when I'll draw the tag.