IFish Fishing Forum banner

401 - 414 of 414 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,641 Posts
Otherwise known as "having a chance" :)
Ahhh, the classic Dumb & Dumber quote... "So you're saying there is a chance."

Supposing they each had 1/20 chance in the 25% pool (which is most likely similar odds to what was actually in the 25% pool), then the probability for them all to independently draw was:

(1/20)*(1/20)*(1/20)*(1/20) = 1/160,000 = 0.000625% chance that they would all draw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,249 Posts
Ahhh, the classic Dumb & Dumber quote... "So you're saying there is a chance."

Supposing they each had 1/20 chance in the 25% pool (which is most likely similar odds to what was actually in the 25% pool), then the probability for them all to independently draw was:

(1/20)*(1/20)*(1/20)*(1/20) = 1/160,000 = 0.000625% chance that they would all draw.
Glass half full; they did draw :applause:

Better odds than Powerball :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,695 Posts
Ahhh, the classic Dumb & Dumber quote... "So you're saying there is a chance."

Supposing they each had 1/20 chance in the 25% pool (which is most likely similar odds to what was actually in the 25% pool), then the probability for them all to independently draw was:

(1/20)*(1/20)*(1/20)*(1/20) = 1/160,000 = 0.000625% chance that they would all draw.
Probably some mistakes. They should go to ODFW and tell them they want their tags given to others...:wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I compared seed numbers to application numbers for myself, my dad and my fiance this year. It looked like all three of us had virtually no chance at drawing, our app numbers were below the seed numbers for almost all hunts.

Then my dad and fiance drew elk tags. So my dad said to me, "I told you not to trust polls!" Haha
This is where it seems that there is an extra randomization layer due to which tags people apply for. Seems like the rest of the people who applied for those tags had numbers even further away from the draw seed number.

I did see an interesting suggestion on here before about flipping a coin each year to see if they count up or down from the seed number. That could be fun to add to the chaos. Maybe wait to do it until June 18th or 19th to really get people sweating?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,249 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,249 Posts

I’m not sure any whitetail taken in the Palouse gets to be gluten-free

How can one call a gluten-free taco salad if you have to eat the salad off the plate without a taco?

You’ve blown my mind on Monday night here 🤯 and forced me to Google

Celiac disease affects 200,000 people a year in the US; that’s less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the US population

If it weren’t for wheat the Port of Lewiston need not exist 🤠


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
·
10,400 Posts
I used to be a proponent of preference point system, and Oregon's system in general. However, the older I've gotten (not necessarily wiser) the more I'm beginning to realize preference point systems may have been a good idea at one point in time, but not anymore. Not the way we manage units, game numbers, tag numbers, predators, etc.

I don't think a lot of states ever had the foresight to see how it wasn't a sustainable system in the long run. Or, if they did, they just disregarded it and thought "we'll cross that bridge when we get there." Many elk and deer hunts you will never have a feasible chance of drawing. Yeah, I know, "25% pool, blah, blah blah...", (notice I wrote "feasible"), but seriously, tags that were once 4 or 5 years to draw a decade or two ago are now OIL. Even antelope tags, and bow antelope tags especially. WBB antelope bow was a 4 or 5 point hunt not long ago. Now, by the time I realistically draw it, it'll be 11 or 12 years. To me, that's unfathomable. If hunter numbers and recruitment are truly declining as has been reported, you could sure fool me by the amount of people that are applying for tags and the number of points it now takes to draw some of these tags.

I won't even get started on sheep and goat, but the one thing I can respect about that system is that it's a true lottery, which is what I believe the entire state should be- true continuity with the big game draw across all hunt series.

Idaho (and New Mexico) got it and have it right in my opinion. They had the foresight to see that PP and bonus point systems mathematically would not a sustainable option in the long run because point creep is an actual concern/thing that would negatively impact draw odds, and in particular dissuade out-of-state hunters. It encourages in-state AND out-of-state hunt recruitment because you have an equal playing field. AND, you have a legit chance at drawing a sheep or goat (and moose) tag, you just have to choose those species over elk/deer/antelope. If I wanted to hunt sheep, goat or moose badly enough then I would happily make that decision. I can hunt deer/elk/antelope in MT, WY, NV, or NM and have just as good of an experience.

I didn't mean to rant on this thread, but it got me thinking about how, if ever, we could eliminate the PP system in Oregon because point creep is going to continue to worsen. I haven't run the numbers/statistics on this idea so don't chastise me too hard, but perhaps we could just end the system one year? Hunters could retain the points they accrued until they draw whichever tag they've been putting in for. Once you use your points or draw your desired tag, you go back to zero. The system goes to true lottery across the board, and if you want to keep applying for Wenaha for example, those with 20 points would draw, the next year 18/19, the next year 15/16 or however many it would take to draw a respective unit until all points are eventually purged. That would appease those who would cry foul about the years (and years, and years...) they spent applying by allowing them to use their points if they so choose to keep applying for a particular tag. It would in theory gradually reduce the point threshold until all points were expended through successful draws.

I'm sure those of you smarter than I can point out MY oversights on this proposal and how it doesn't pencil out. Perhaps it's already been suggested? I don't know, I don't have the desire to search old threads on Ifish and see. Just a few thoughts and sour grapes by a whiner who only drew the Diddly Damn Squat unit, but I welcome conversation and insight if any of you have some. :wink:
I prefer Nevada's system, Although New Mexico has been good to me this year.

Eliminating the 25% pool would get you a tag 25% faster....

I believe the random 25% pool is unique to Oregon? If I’m wrong someone please correct that.

At the end of the day, the reason other states are “better” is because they have more animals to hunt.
Arizona does it with the bonus pass that splits the NR allocation 50/50. Oregon needs to do this, put the nr cap at 10% and split it 50/50.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,912 Posts
. . .it got me thinking about how, if ever, we could eliminate the PP system in Oregon. . .
ODFW would need to make an announcement 5 years before ending the points system: Cash out before you lose out.

Points systems are such a failure that at this point it is probably not a good investment to begin buying points even in Wyoming.

I'm happy to apply with 1-5% odds each year for top quality hunts, same odds as everyone else.
 
401 - 414 of 414 Posts
Top