Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Possible proposal that would limit the amount of succesful tags drawn to 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Possible proposal that would limit the amount of succesful tags drawn to 2

    I heard of a proposal that may be submitted that would only allow you to win a maximum of 2 tags. You would still be able to apply for all species and your three preferences for those species. This would basically allow you to have a preference to the species that you would like to draw the most. It seems that every year there are always people who draw multiple tags 2,3 or even 4 tags. Realistically not many people have the resources, knowledge of the areas, ability to take time off from work or what have you to be able to utilize each tag. It always seems that those people end up saying "Well, I drew this this and this. But I can only afford to do this". This proposal would in effect make you pick which hunts you will most likely participate in and leave those unused tags in the pot to be won by those who will use them or those who may have never actually won a permit before, even after years and years of applying.


    So the application form would be the same just on the one side of each species there would be a space where you would write in a number to your preference for drawing that species....write 1 to whatever number of species you were applying for

    There are many variables that are possible but basically if you got picked for your first two preference species then you are out of the running for the remainder of the species and those tags would be allocated to other applicants....

    One other variance would be that you got drawn for a muskox tag that was your number one species preference but did not get drawn for your second preference species, bison...however, you did get drawn for your third species preference, moose...then same as before you would get those two tags and would be ineligible for your remaining preferences/choices

    Another scenario would be that you were not drawn for your first two preference species then you would still be eligible for next highest preferences until you either draw two tags or run out of luck.



    What your thoughts? Would you be for this kind of change, or against it? Why?

    Also I will be printing your responses or at least making the originator of the proposal aware of this thread so your input may directly affect how this proposal is written.

    Thank You.
    "early to bed, early to rise, fish like hell, and make up lies"

  • #2
    Hey Sharks,

    I think it holds little merit and adds even more complexities to the system. Fact is all Alaskan's have the opprutunity to hunt every animal for the most part that have drawings with the exception of bison and Musk Ox (still trying here). Those two animals have an alternate list (ox) or a high participation rate. As for folks drawing multiple tags and not using them there is some built in cushion for tags and the number is higher than they expect hunters. This seems like a proposal of a person whining they didn't get a tag. Random is Random, good on the folks who draw a bunch.

    I drew two more this year, elk and goat. Elk I will hunt from the beach as I get time but won't make a 'hunt' out of it and it appears due to my work schedule I may only get 2 days on my Lost Lake hunt for goat. Not a 'hunt' either but a good hike and if I get one cool, if not even better.

    Tell your buddy it looks like he's whining IMO.

    Good luck though!

    Gooch
    Mike
    www.coffmancoveak.com
    Prince of Wales Island

    Comment


    • #3
      I think its a good idea. 2 permits is plenty for 1 person. I hope this goes through. If you are like most folks, fall is the busy work season and its hard enough to get time off for 1 hunt. This is a good idea and no one should get more than 2 permits. I know guys who have applied for trophy moose hunts on the bench for 20 some years and have never won. I also know folks that have won and couldnt go.

      Comment


      • #4
        Out of the thousands of people who put in for tags every year a couple dozen manage to draw more than two tags. Just seems like a lot of work, not to mention money, to implement a new regulation to shift around a very small amount of tags. In my opinion, energy would be better spent implementing regulations aimed to improve game numbers. Improving game numbers would equate in more available tags and better quality general season hunts.

        I wouldn't be upset if a two draw tags per person regulation passed but wouldn't push for it myself. I like the random draw, even if that means a small number of people draw 3 or 4 tags.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't like the argument that many people wouldn't be able to hunt three tags if they drew them. There are many more people who draw only one tag for the year and don't hunt it than there are people who draw three tags and let one go to waste.

          Comment


          • #6
            When you consider that there are tens of thousands of applicants, thousands of permit winners, and then a handful that get more than two permits, your proposal will increase the odds of any one person drawing a tag by just a tiny fraction of a percent. That's nowhere near worth the added headache to the applicants or the additional administrative costs to F&G. I've never drawn more than one tag at a time, and I usually get the goose egg, but I really don't care that a few people get three or more. That's just the way a random drawing works.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jeff Shannon View Post
              When you consider that there are tens of thousands of applicants, thousands of permit winners, and then a handful that get more than two permits, your proposal will increase the odds of any one person drawing a tag by just a tiny fraction of a percent. That's nowhere near worth the added headache to the applicants or the additional administrative costs to F&G. I've never drawn more than one tag at a time, and I usually get the goose egg, but I really don't care that a few people get three or more. That's just the way a random drawing works.
              I think Jeff is dead on. The resulting increase in odds will be statistically meaningless. Furthermore, the highly coveted species will be still be at the top of everyone's list.

              Comment


              • #8
                I also agree with Jeff. Out of thousands and thousands of applicants, 10 or 20 would end up winning a permit that they might not have won otherwise. For that we would have to redesign computer systems, increase the workload of those who process the applications, and therefore increase the cost of the system. Very little benefit for what is sure to be a reasonably significant cost.

                You simply cannot get more fair than a completely random draw.

                Comment


                • #9
                  These tags are not just for fall time or all at once. April/may bear, August sheep, October elk and February ox. This scenario is feasible, and why take that chance away from somebody. I have drawn more than 2 tags in a year and killed 6 species in that fall. It is a perfect system of chance that lets every body have an equal opportunity every year. Leave it alone for a few dozen extra tags distributed to others. While your at it I need some of you hard earned money for my next fly out hunt because I am tired of working hard any more. Doesn't sound right to me either.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If a guy draws more than two then good on 'em. Its a statistically meaningless number of folks who draw more than two anyhow, much less folks who don't manage to hunt them all.

                    The number of folks who draw a single tag and don't hunt it is a much larger statistical impact, but even that is meaningless since tag allocations are based on actual harvest data, not the overall numbers of tags.
                    "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      hey thanks everybody for your input....it is greatly appreciated....

                      i have been scrolling down the list of winners for the past thirty minutes and heres what i have come up with....77 people drew more than three tags and 5 more people drew 4 tags...so a total of 82 tags would have been reallocated this year had this system been in place....

                      i did find it odd that some of the multiple permit winners were lumped together some right next to each other..i would scroll through several pages with none then then all of a sudden there would be a couple on one page..i only saw one household that got two people with three permits and several other households that got alot more than three permits....but this isnt about households...

                      one lucky nonresident drew an afognak spring brown bear and a cape lisburn grizzly tag for the fall...plus a moose tag for the same area....i bet his face hurts from smiling so much
                      "early to bed, early to rise, fish like hell, and make up lies"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by sharksinthesalsa View Post
                        i did find it odd that some of the multiple permit winners were lumped together some right next to each other..i would scroll through several pages with none then then all of a sudden there would be a couple on one page..i only saw one household that got two people with three permits and several other households that got alot more than three permits....but this isnt about households...
                        what you're probably seeing here is folks who put in as a party hunt with someone in their family.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jeff Shannon View Post
                          When you consider that there are tens of thousands of applicants, thousands of permit winners, and then a handful that get more than two permits, your proposal will increase the odds of any one person drawing a tag by just a tiny fraction of a percent. That's nowhere near worth the added headache to the applicants or the additional administrative costs to F&G. I've never drawn more than one tag at a time, and I usually get the goose egg, but I really don't care that a few people get three or more. That's just the way a random drawing works.
                          I have to agree with Jeff on this one as well. A suggestion to ensure tags do not go to waste when someone's hunt plans get cancelled, is having the ability for that person to turn there permit back to F&G where it can be awarded to the next person in line for that draw. There are some obvious complications with this, such as having adequate time to prep for a hunt, but at least there is an opportunity to ensure it does not go to waste.
                          As someone else stated, the amount of tags not filled by single winners most likely rivals ones not filled by people that have the rarity of receiving more than one or two. A very good point as well is that there are hunts that are scheduled throughout the year which do not conflict with each other, or areas where multiple tags can be filled. There should be restraint in peoples selection on what is the priority for their families when applying for the draw in the beginning. The other reason I disagree with the limitations is it is a random draw. Therefore I'm sure many of you are like myself when the years I do not receive one, I find an area with a registration hunt and go to that area due to still having the obligation to fill my freezer for my family.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I would be against this kind of proposal.

                            One thing not brought up yet I think is that the tag numbers are based on the fact that not all tag winners will hunt and that of those who do, all won't be successful.

                            So the rationale for this proposal doesn't really work out in that regard, cuz if by limiting the tags to two max per person those winners actually end up doing those hunts at a higher percentage rate, it could cause F&G to decrease the actual # of tags available down the line.

                            Having tag winners not participate in those hunts isn't necessarily a bad thing.
                            Mark Richards
                            www.residenthuntersofalaska.org

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              One year my household (3 people total) drew thirteen permits. Everything from delta sheep and bison to kodiak brown bear, moose, caribou and elk. We made every hunt but the elk (it overlapped the bison hunts) and scored some really nice animals, including a 42-1/2" Dall and a 10-6 Kodiak. We filled all of our tags on the hunts we made and shared the mountain of meat and memories with lots of extended family who did not draw tags. Then we went about eight years in a row with nothing but goose eggs.

                              Statistically, the odds of a single draw are slim, and a multiple draw is much slimmer. To repeat annually is almost a statistical impossibility. Also, there are hunts that typically have a higher chance of winning than more popular hunts, so some applicants may choose that hunt as a back-up in the event they don't draw anything else (Kenai Mt. caribou for example).

                              Administratively, which hunt would you bump if an applicant drew 3 tags? I agree the costs far outweigh the benefits on this proposal and I hope it fails. I would much rather see an alternate list drawn and the opportunity to relinquish a tag that won't be used for someone that will use it. The dark cloud to that silver lining may be fewer tags in the draw because fish and game uses a statistical variable that accounts for the number of tags that won't be hunted when they determine how many to issue. If all the tags might be used, then fewer will be available.

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X