I'm sorry for adding yet another thread to the Great Drawing Permit Debate of 2010 but I didn't want to derail one of the other threads.
Personally, while I feel the current system is adequate, I am not opposed to some changes. There have been some ideas proposed and strong arguments for and against them. Again, many of these ideas are intended to make the distribution of permits more fair. On that point we must tread lightly IMO. What's reasonable, fair, or equitable to some will be prejudicial to others. I've been lucky in the drawing permit lottery. This year marks the second time in 4 years I've drawn two tags. Fortunately for me in both cases the hunts did not have conflicting dates, but I have to say I apply for 10 to 15 tags every year hoping to draw one. Just one. My expectation is I won't draw at all and my hope is to draw one tag. If I do draw, that tag becomes my top scheduling priority.
I mention this because I would not oppose a change that limited me to one tag, and after some compelling arguments I'm back on the fence about preference points.
Much of the discontent over the Draw seems rooted in the idea of fairness. Naturally, that begs the question: How do we define fair? Any sincere discussion ultimately reveals that "fair" is an entirely subjective concept. Although many of us can share common ground within the range of our personal definitions, the basic truth that there is no universal standard of fair remains unchanged.
The closest standard we have is statistical fairness which the current draw system adheres to. The draw is blind and random which is exactly why some folks draw multiple tags. F&G has a constitutional mandate to provide equal opportunity to all legal residents. The draw accomplishes that by not factoring in race, sex, income level, employment status, or prior draw success/failure.
Each hunt is it's own lottery. All applicants have an equal chance. That's fair isn't it? Of course in a blind draw, multiple draw tag applications means their exists the opportunity for a hunter to draw multiple tags in a given year, which to some is patently unfair. And yet to modify the draw by programming in discriminators to ensure a more even distribution of tags would open the state to lawsuits. After all, what criteria would those discriminators be based on? And who would decide? I'm pretty sure that debate would get ugly very quickly....ranting and raving over the unfairness of deciding who gets to decide what's fair.
The system we have isn't perfect but it is, at least, mathematically fair.