It’s really a preference/opinion thing but just don’t forget their are losers out there, like myself, that will never draw a tag with less than 80-100% draw odds. The only tags I have drawn with lesser odds were because of the point systems.
The only way I think random is fair and equitable is if we are talking OIL on the draw. Otherwise you can’t tell me a dude/chick drawing 3 times while another guy/gal never draws is fair. That’s how random works. Sucks to suck
A random system gives preference to those who apply more often. Which group of people will have drawn more tags in a random system? Those who have applied two times, or those who have applied twenty time?
This exact statement can be said for "insert pretty much any point system except maybe what @wllm just said". Bonus points/most point systems are just a way of standing in line. Some people prefer raffles. I guess I prefer standing in line and grinding. That's the only way I have been able to draw tags. I think the proposal @BuzzH laid out gets my vote for the best I have seen. It gives everyone a shot but gives people a way to stand in line if you so choose. To each there own I guess.
Is it just me or does that not seem like "aid"? It seems like a fair, perhaps even generous deal to me. Federal land is tax exempt and many of those dollars are to compensate for that lost revenue by states/counties that they would normally be getting if ownership was private or even owned by some states agencies. Even our North Dakota Game and Fish pays property tax on their Wildlife Management Areas. I feel like this is where stats/numbers can be twisted to suit a narrative, making MT and WY appear to very dependent on federal dollars, as if it is similar to welfare. To me, federal aid is emergency declarations, roads, grants, matching funds for public projects, etc. Revenue sharing and PILT payments shouldn't be counted as "aid".
Fair points, but remember that in legal history when it was decided that the state owned the wildlife it was also the case that the sovereign owed nothing in taxes. Over time our nation decided sharing funds with states “burdened” by federal lands was the right thing for the republic in spite of the traditional approach. So, it is also reasonable that we can ask to modernize our view of animal stewardship away from a state-centric model. I am not saying states don’t do some things well, I am just saying if folks want to say that until the end of time states get 100% control over game because that is the way it has always been done, I suggest they embrace all kinds of other rules that were the norm back then and quit cherry picking a basket that works for them personally today.
Here is Colorado bear as an example, they give out 1 or 2 tags a year to NR for 851, which is the only unit that requires more than 2 points to draw... so ostensibly anyone over like 3 points in applying for that.
To use the extreme case as an example, are you saying that if a 12 year old (minimum age to begin applying in Colorado) starts building points now, he'll never reach the top pointholders pool?
I'm saying if a 12 year old starts today building points as a NR to apply for unit 2/201 for elk or 851 for bear, etc that their name will not actually be in the hat for drawing 35+ years.
