WY Game and Fish wants your thoughts on the preference point system (Moose and Sheep)

[Huntnut60]

I disagree with a system that so strongly favors incumbents when we are talking about a shared resource. Why would the system prefer a lifelong nature lover who gave $50 a yr in point cost for 20 years over a life long nature lover who gave $1,000 to the nature conservancy for 20 years thereby supporting the North American model 20 fold but took up hunting late in life?

We all have to live with the decisions we have made when it comes to our application/ drawing history. I have made so many mistakes applying. BuzzH made a pretty good list of applying mistakes that I can relate with. The only thing I did correct was keep applying and learn from my mistakes.

 

[madtom]

An idea I’ve kicked around:

1. True preference point system
2. Points are free and only accrued by failing to draw (I.e., no “point only” option).
3. All points reset to zero for everyone every 10 years, no matter where you are when year 10 comes.

Tell me why it’s terrible.

 

[rogerthat]

An idea I’ve kicked around:

1. True preference point system
2. Points are free and only accrued by failing to draw (I.e., no “point only” option).
3. All points reset to zero for everyone every 10 years, no matter where you are when year 10 comes.

Tell me why it’s terrible.

So every 10 years you would have a chance to draw?

 

[BuzzH]

Actually, the NRs are paying to manage your state's widlife via points and licenses. On top of that, the majority of your wildlife is living off of habitat that is bought and paid for by, well, everyone. Buzz you work so hard at being a jerk - for no reason whatsoever. There is no one that whines like you whine. Not even the NRs sitting on a pile of paid up points and rapidly declining left expectancy.

Why are you such and ungrateful bastard?

Well, now, see that's where you're wrong...the funding information is wrong. If you don't like NR fees, don't apply, its a choice, not a requirement.

How many of these NR's you're bragging about are "one and done" guys? Pay for a few points, hunt their one pronghorn and gone, done supporting wildlife here.

Lots of them would be the right answer, maybe even a majority, I read it all the time. You've probably said it.

Residents still fund a majority of the management costs and nearly all of the volunteer work done (at a rate of $29/hour if we had to pay for it) is done by residents.

Your contribution is duly noted and appreciated, but its the residents that do the work/heavy lifting in their states. Unarguable fact.

 

[JLS]

 

[RobertD]

An idea I’ve kicked around:

1. True preference point system
2. Points are free and only accrued by failing to draw (I.e., no “point only” option).
3. All points reset to zero for everyone every 10 years, no matter where you are when year 10 comes.

Tell me why it’s terrible.

I like it but I could live with just #2 honestly

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

I say WY should change to a completely random draw. Just after I draw my sheep tag.

 

[JLS]

Maybe I’ve missed it, but has anyone modeled the following:

1. Create trend for number of applicants per year
2. Calculate draw odds in 10 years for both static number of applicants and also for projected numbers of applicants based on 1)?

All of this assuming number of permits is static.

 

[BuzzH]

Maybe I’ve missed it, but has anyone modeled the following:

1. Create trend for number of applicants per year
2. Calculate draw odds in 10 years for both static number of applicants and also for projected numbers of applicants based on 1)?

All of this assuming number of permits is static.

Total applicants or by species/unit, R or NR?

 

[madtom]

So every 10 years you would have a chance to draw?

I guess you’d have 10 chances to draw in 10 years, but wouldn’t draw twice in 10 years of demand is that high.

Could also be squared bonus points that reset every 10 years. The main idea was the reset.

 

[rogerthat]

Maybe I’ve missed it, but has anyone modeled the following:

1. Create trend for number of applicants per year
2. Calculate draw odds in 10 years for both static number of applicants and also for projected numbers of applicants based on 1)?

All of this assuming number of permits is static.

Paging @wllm

 

[Labman]

Actually, no, they won’t. 30 years from now hunters cashing in PP for premium tags will mostly be kids whose parents bought PP for them when they were teenagers. It’s a fundamentally flawed system.

Actually the numbers speak for themselves. Top point holders have 27. You could draw tags as a NR in the PP pool this year with 22. In the R drawing there was a unit that only took only 14, but most took 18+. It isn’t like you need 27 or nothing unless you are fixated on a historically “top” unit.

 

[JLS]

Total applicants or by species/unit, R or NR?

Yes?

Not being totally sarcastic. I’m not in any way a numbers guy, but I think this gets lost in the weeds.

First, you have to establish what exactly you’re trying to solve. Then, run the numbers and see if it does that.

Based on 2022 unit quotas and applications, would the proposed changes make any meaningful change to the odds of drawing a tag, for both the first time applicant and the upper tier applicant?

Not everyone can see their odds improved. For every person who did, someone else lost ground.

 

[rogerthat]

If we are being honest isn’t the reason changes are being proposed to moose and sheep because there isn’t a real good reason to buy the preference points for most people at this point? Your best to just skip the point and cross your fingers in the random? Except if you have a lot of points. Than buy the point in the current system

 

[JLS]

If we are being honest isn’t the reason changes are being proposed to moose and sheep because there isn’t a real good reason to buy the preference points for most people at this point? Your best to just skip the point and cross your fingers in the random? Except if you have a lot of points. Than buy the point in the current system

There may be a lot of truth to this.

 

[WapitiBob]

I don’t think that’s the reason given but I and others have mentioned numerous times, just apply random as your $150 point will never be a benefit if you’re very far from the top.

 

[RobertD]

Maybe I’ve missed it, but has anyone modeled the following:

1. Create trend for number of applicants per year
2. Calculate draw odds in 10 years for both static number of applicants and also for projected numbers of applicants based on 1)?

All of this assuming number of permits is static.

I've been doing this just for me personally but only for Wyoming pronghorn. Just a little side project.

 

[JLS]

Maybe I’m a little naïve here, but wouldn’t one think this kind of data would be something the task force would seek out before making recommendations on how to improve things?

Without numbers, this kind of feels like throwing shit at the wall, hoping it will stick

 

[rogerthat]

Maybe I’m a little naïve here, but wouldn’t one think this kind of data would be something the task force would seek out before making recommendations on how to improve things?

Without numbers, this kind of feels like throwing shit at the wall, hoping it will stick

Pffft…no one cares about data, numbers, etc now a days. Opinions are much better data!.

 

[BuzzH]

Maybe I’m a little naïve here, but wouldn’t one think this kind of data would be something the task force would seek out before making recommendations on how to improve things?

Without numbers, this kind of feels like throwing shit at the wall, hoping it will stick

They have mountains of data and it's been presented by Jennifer Doering a half dozen times.

The problem isn't the data, the problem is the lack of knowledge on the task force.