Would YOU change the LEH System?

[Albafly]

Following an epic failure at this year's LEH (four buddies, total of 14 draws failed most in good odds), I was thinking aboiut ways it could be improved- a topic I know people feel strongly about. Would you change it? And how should it be changed?

What about...

Say Jimmy puts in for elk, moose and griz...

He gets drawn for griz and elk

As part of the new system (just a suggestion) he ranks them in preferred order of 1-griz 2-moose 3- elk

So he gets his higher choice- the griz, and the elk draw goes back into the pot.

This would mean that everyone would have much higher chances of drawing at least ONE animal each, which in my opinion, would be more fair than it is now- I just don't like it when one guy gets three draws and his wife gets two, nephew four and some other poor bugger has not got a draw in a decade? Or the other case where one guy gets nothing for years, then too many draws to fill in one year?

What do you think?

PS the example of the guy, wife and cousin is fictional- its not directed at anyone who had success- its not the fault of the individual that they did well- well done those that were successful, just a flaw in the system, in my opinion.

[Steeleco]

We've had SO MANY posts on how to change the current LEH system. Usually the same day the draws are made!! Sure it's screwed, but long ago I took a friends advice to treat it like the 6-49. Either you win or you don't. I've put in for many years and only just today found luck.

It's not like we won't go hunting anyway.

[srupp]

I agree the system does NOT work, is not fair and there are far better ways that would be much fairer..

What about limiting it to 2 animals on the first draw, and the second draw open free for all like now...

Anything to see guys get at least 1 or perhaps 2 Leh successful draws..

I see a problem only in some guys put in for easy draws...ie close to roads no $$$$ flights etc...that must thought through..

Guys should not be going 3 years w/o any draw IMO..

And some folks get spoiled shitless..MOI...embarrassing ...3 moose in 3 years WITH DIMINISHED ODDS??grizzly almost every year..and sheep too we have had 5 sheep in 3 years...ridiculous....Ive never won the 649 if Im so lucky, naw flawed system..

One the first draw x amount of days to BUY the tags,...and for those that DONT use a tag opportunity...diminished odds.

something better must be out there...

.02
Srr

[SHACK]

A points system could work. You just start collecting points until a certain number is reached, then you can trade them in for different draws depending on "point value" of the hunt.
IE: you put in for VI elk, for 5 years and you have now acumulated "5 elk points" now you can put in and be just about guaranteed a draw with 1:5 odds. Or something to that effect. Many US states run a system like this If Im not mistaken.

[Ozone]

Ok I have now drawn nil for 25 years so you think I may have a bitch, but I dont. I put in for tough draws. Also the last thing I want is a point system, we are not the U.S.

[Cdn-Redneck]

I don't like reduced odds, I think just a fair even lottery system. I think there needs to be some sort of a review of draws that go unused. If you know you are not going to go then there should be a way of re-alotting it to another hunter. If a guy gets a moose draw and doesn't fill it then he doesn't get a chance for a couple of years with reduced odds. I think this is a scenario that sucks.

[bigneily]

BC's draw system is b.s putting it nicely. My son is a new hunter going in to his second season and he is yet to get a draw.The system needs to be gone over with better odds for new or young hunters.

[Darksith]

I don't think that it necessarily needs to be changed, and this is coming from a guy that has pulled 2 goats and 1 moose all of which were less than 1-1 odds in the past 13 years. The thing that pisses me off, is that I get reduced odds b/c I pulled a moose last year somewhere that no one wants to go. To top it off, we had 2 shared hunts there, and 0 moose brought home! I think that if you pull a moose where the odds are less than 1-1 you shouldn't have your odds reduced the following year. This year I bought 32 LEH cards for myself and family, out of those 32 we got 1 goat which was less than 1-1 odds, and we probably won't go b/c we didn't get any other draws for that area and time. For specialty hunts (bufflao as an example) or really high odd hunts, if you get pulled you shouldn't even be allowed to enter again for at least 1 year for the same regoin? But other than something like that I wouldn't really change it. Come on, really we (us non winners) are just bitter, and it will go away in a week or 2, maybe a month. Anyway congrats to all those that won, boo to anyone that pulled a draw for 2 years in a row even with reduced odds, and good luck to all.

[Darksith]

BC's draw system is b.s putting it nicely. My son is a new hunter going in to his second season and he is yet to get a draw.The system needs to be gone over with better odds for new or young hunters.
cry us a river, Ive been new for 13 years!

[3kills]

i wanna see all the people that bitch about the leh system start bitching about the lotto system too. if u dont like gettin a NIL dont put in for it. i have had a total of 4 draws in 13 years. and have only actaully cut one of those tags. its part of hunting deal with it. now i m goin to start makin my plans for GOS!

[.308win]

I think the system works great!! 11yrs in BC now, only missed on draws for 3 of them!! The first year I wasn't legal to enter, the other 2 that I missed, I just flat out didn't enter the draw!!:mrgreen: I like this system!!!:wink::-D

Perry

[Jelvis]

I would, ........... more leh

[Barracuda]

i cant say i that i think it should be changed but i have to admit i am frustrated as i have the time, equipment and funds to make the best of a grizz draw and i cant use them.

I could give a rats ass about any other animal that i can get on GOS because I can always hunt the animal if it is important enough to me by simply driveing for a day or two.



You have one card for Grizz to get drawn and no GOS so i have no choice but to put in for a draw.

yes im bitter .:evil:

[pnbrock]

i would change it to give me all my draws that suit me .

[Geo.338]

Yes . I would change it . I would call it the Hunting Lotto .No enhanced odds no points system or any other B$ .Just good old luck of the draw.
Then maybe all the belly aching and b tching would end from those who think it is not a fair system .Hey its a lottery after all .I don't hear anybody crying about not winning the 50 million.

Soooo flame away .


I am in one of those moods as I just found out I got NILLED for the first time in 15 years and I would not change a thing .

Good luck to the rest .:cry:

My two partners got moose and one got V I Rosie .

[Albafly]

its part of hunting deal with it.

I was asking for any useful suggestions to improve a blatantly flawed system- lots of people on here think that any suggestions or discussion is automatically bitching, but this is not- its discussion.

Personally i'd just like to see a system where an individual didn't get 4 in one year while three others get nothing- is one each not better?

[Geo.338]

No one each is not better . More is better . There are some really good GOS for new hunters and juniors .Texada island for one .Lets hear from somebody who got 5 or 6 draws and see what changes they want to make .

[Albafly]

Lets hear from somebody who got 5 or 6 draws and see what changes they want to make .

Would that hunter not prefer to get one animal a year for five years, rather than nothing for four years and five animals in one year?

[IronNoggin]

Even though I did manage a draw this year, it is the first in 9 years.
Do I feel the system is Flawed. Yes.
Corrupt? Yes - Case in point:
A couple of older Gentz I am buddies with have drawn moose tags each year for the past 11 straight. Reduced odds? Not likely. I put in the same area as they a couple of years, as did another who also should have been lined up in front of the Old Boyz Club. Nada for me and the other Young Gun, but both the Old Ladz got them, both years. Tell me there ain't something funny going on!

I actually LIKE the way Alberta is set up. Priority access gained via repeated annual applications for the same area/animal. It has served me very well over there. I know that within a matter of a year or two I will eventually draw the hunt I am seeking. Not at all like this Backwards Country where I may (and likely will) apply for some species for the rest of my life without ever drawing a tag. :confused:

Amongst my Hunting Fraternity, scattered all over Western and Northern Canada and the US, BC's draw system is quite literally a running joke. No wonder as to why...

Cheers,
Nog

[3kills]

I was asking for any useful suggestions to improve a blatantly flawed system- lots of people on here think that any suggestions or discussion is automatically bitching, but this is not- its discussion.

Personally i'd just like to see a system where an individual didn't get 4 in one year while three others get nothing- is one each not better?


i wasnt sayin ur were bitchin i was just genarlizing...i m in a mood tonight sorry!

[Gateholio]

We've had a few of these threads every year that I can remember. Usually multiple ones.

Only gripes I have- And I've mentioned them before- Is this:

1. Some hunters get a bunch of draws and others get none. (We should have some sort of system that there is a limit of one draw over 1-5 odds per person, something like that)

2. FOr really high odds hunts, we should have a 1 in 5 rule (or something similar) where you can't apply for another 5 years if you are successful.

I definitely dont' want a points system.

Frankly, BC has tremendous hunting opportunity without most of the LEH, anyway.

[Sitkaspruce]

I agree with Geo.338 and others that the LEH is just that, a lotto and a bonus.

There is three animals in BC that need an LEH to hunt, the rest have a GOS in the province somewhere.

I have never planned my hunts around the LEH. My hunts are planned well before the draw and if I get one, it is a bonus for the season.

The best thing to do is turn your pi$$ed off anger towards the MOE and get some species off LEH, just like they did for WT does. There is lots of places where we do not need LEH, but due to the GO's and their overwhelming pressure, we get to have these little rants while they sit back and laugh.

Get the LEH changed by removing animals, not going to a point system as they do in the US/Alberta. Go on the US sites and the Alberta sites and you will see the same complaining about their system as we are reading today.

LEH is a lotto and a bonus.

Cheers

SS

and oh yea I got NIL, but boy are the moose and deer going to be fun chasing.

[Everett]

Yes . I would change it . I would call it the Hunting Lotto .No enhanced odds no points system or any other B$ .Just good old luck of the draw.
Then maybe all the belly aching and b tching would end from those who think it is not a fair system .Hey its a lottery after all .I don't hear anybody crying about not winning the 50 million.

Soooo flame away .


I am in one of those moods as I just found out I got NILLED for the first time in 15 years and I would not change a thing .

Good luck to the rest .:cry:

My two partners got moose and one got V I Rosie .


I am in total agreement lets call it what it is a lotto. So no reduced odds buy your tickets and take your chances. With one caveat if you draw your credit card is nailed for the tag price if you want a refund you have to return your authorization withen 7 days to be redrawn. I think this would end some of the bitching. Oh my group of three all drew nill this year for the second year in a row. But in the previos 5 years we cleaned up.

[kayjayess]

I came from Alberta and that system is light years ahead of the BC system. Difficult draws can take 3,4, even 10 years priority to get. You know though that at 3, 4, or 10 years or whatever that number is you will get drawn. So if someone has a mission in life to draw a VI rosie they will get. It may taken 15 years but they will. None of this stuff where a guy spend his entire hunting career and never gets drawn while someone else gets drawn four or five times.

A priority system benefits individuals that are dedicated to hunting and tirelessly put there name in year after year assuring them a draw when they build up that priority. Kudos to the youngster that under the BC system draws a 'loops ram or VI rosie first up. That is awesome. Sad thing is that often the same guys end up with tags while others go without.

Personally I think the BC system is severely flawed. It is there sand box and I will play by their rules - doesn't mean I have to like it. Speaking to my buddies in AB, Sask, Nova Scotia, Kansas, and California, they all think the draw system here is a joke and are thankful that they don't have to deal with it.

[sheep.elk.moose fanatic]

We've had a few of these threads every year that I can remember. Usually multiple ones.

Only gripes I have- And I've mentioned them before- Is this:

1. Some hunters get a bunch of draws and others get none.

2. FOr really high odds hunts, we should have a 1 in 5 rule (or something similar) where you can't apply for another 5 years if you are successful.

I definitely dont' want a points system.

Frankly, BC has tremendous hunting opportunity without most of the LEH, anyway.
nothing more to say than that was easy 1 in 5 make the most sense to me!!!!!

[Bigbuckadams]

I wouldn't change a thing ! I have put in for draws for the past 20+ years and haven't got one ! Why change a good thing?

[srupp]

WOW Gate not just another handsome face, talented cook, really nice guy

but smart also..I like it....great ideas..

steven:-D

[Gateholio]

I came from Alberta and that system is light years ahead of the BC system. Difficult draws can take 3,4, even 10 years priority to get. You know though that at 3, 4, or 10 years or whatever that number is you will get drawn. So if someone has a mission in life to draw a VI rosie they will get. It may taken 15 years but they will. None of this stuff where a guy spend his entire hunting career and never gets drawn while someone else gets drawn four or five times.

A priority system benefits individuals that are dedicated to hunting and tirelessly put there name in year after year assuring them a draw when they build up that priority. Kudos to the youngster that under the BC system draws a 'loops ram or VI rosie first up. That is awesome. Sad thing is that often the same guys end up with tags while others go without.

You would probably wait much longer than 15 years for some species using a points system. More like 40!



Personally I think the BC system is severely flawed. It is there sand box and I will play by their rules - doesn't mean I have to like it. Speaking to my buddies in AB, Sask, Nova Scotia, Kansas, and California, they all think the draw system here is a joke and are thankful that they don't have to deal with it.

Yeah, the hunting opportunities in those provinces/states are WAAAY better than BC. :tongue:


Some of you guys should search out the many previous threads we've had on the topic, including when the LEH guy in Victoria did a Q&A for us. Would be a good education for many before bringing up the same old story over and over...:wink:

[J_T]

While Gate may have some ideas for consideration, we should also consider the fact that some guys, putting in for 3 or 4 draws and only getting the inconsequential ones (would only hunt if they got the primary), have a negative impact on resident allocation.

We need to work off of LEH and frankly, we need to consider alternative weapons as possible options that may provide serious residents with legitimate opportunities to maintain our allocation.

[moosinaround]

It is a lottery, buy a ticket for a chance! So some are luckier than others If you don't like the lotto then don't play, simple! Moosin

[oclarkii]

Ya win some, ya lose some. If the system in BC doesn't work for you, maybe your should move to Rhode Island, they've probably got about three whole days of whitetail season. Opportunities galore.

I guess if I really think about it, maybe the gov of bc has got a bit of a conspiracy goin. Maybe they take our $6 and buy bongoes and patchouli with it. Maybe there is no actual draw at all. Anyone who says they got one is payed to throw a bunch of fluff around. Makes sense to me.

[dana]

The fact is BC has the BEST hunting oportunities of ANY jurisdiction in North America. How many times I've seen threads from non-BCer's wishing they could hunt like we do. I'm really sure that Alberta hunters really think our system is flawed. Give me a Break! How hard is it for them to hunt goats? How hard is it for them to hunt Grizz? My kid and I both just drew grizz. I didn't get a goat draw this year but I seem to get them every second year. Think of all the GOS opportunities we have. Then look at everyone else. We do in fact live in the greatest place on earth. The only change I'd suggest to the LEH system is to take more critters off of it. The GOS on whitey does is a great start. Let's get some more critters off the hind tit of the LEH.

[Barracuda]

I actually have never liked the idea of gambling for the most part so LEH cards have always sort of rubbed me the wrong way.

I dont play lotto or any of those and i also dont go to casinos , I like watching race horses but i dislike the gambling associated with it.

Even though i dont like it i cant think of a way that would please everyone.

[Buckmeister]

I have not read through this entire thread so I don't know what people have suggested.....but here are my thoughts.

Throw the draw out completely and make this a non-lottery event. Those who run the system should take the total number of authorizations, and then contact an equal number of hunters randomly, and offer the hunter his/her choice of one authorization of what is left available. If the hunter does not like what is left available, they can opt out and another hunter can be randomly drawn in their place. In the following year, the hunters who were drawn the previous year are left out, and a whole new batch of hunters are drawn. This goes on every year until all the hunters in BC have been GIVEN a hunt, and then the whole process is reset and you start at the beginning. This way, eventually, all hunters in BC will have a crack at some kind of authorization. The main problem with this is that there is very little revenue created cause no cards are purchased. I suppose you could charge every hunter who purchases an annual license an extra fee to help compensate for the lose.

This is the third year I have entered the draw. In my first year I got an Elk, in the second year I got a doe draw, this year I got nil. Not bad considering people go many, many years drawing nil.

[Albafly]

Thanks for all the responses. I like reading a bunch of different points of view- gives a better all round impression of the draw than just my own.

Dana- I know there are great opportunities in BC, and I am glad of that. It does not mean that the opportunities that are allocated through leh should be allocated in a flawed system. I really like the idea of moving some of these animals away from leh.

Moosinaround- what if i don't like the lottery, but I like Island elk? If i don't play, i definitely won't win, but it doesn't mean i have to like the system!

Gatehouse- I think the idea of 1 in 5 or similar really sums up what i'd like to see- great idea. The longer odds should be shared around, and that would certainly help.

Ironnoggin- scary to think it could be an old boys club. If there was a 1 in 5 year restriction, then those types of things could not happen anywhere near as often.

[Gateholio]

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=11203

1. Why can't the LEH draws be done earlier, so there is more time to
plan,
especially for trips with acess issues.


2. Why don't we have a points based system, liek Alberta/many states do?

3. Can we phase in a computer/digital system rather than use the cards?
Once a
hunter establishes an "account" his information will always be correct,
so
there woudl be less itme wasted on correcting cards, as well as be
efficient in
other ways.

4.Statistics for hunter effort and success are reported by species and
Management unit, including all hunts by resis and non-resis. The same
info is
not available for a specific LEH hunt.
Is it possible to have a report available, containing actual permit
numbers
issued, Hunter numbers, Hunter effort in days, and success rate ?





__________________

[Gateholio]

1. We are aware that hunters would like the draws earlier and we do our
best. The problem lies in two main areas.

First, we need to assess the previous hunting season before we can set
new seasons, including LEH seasons. We need to know what the previous
year's harvest was before we determine the number of authorizations we
can give out in the next year's LEH draw. That is why it says
'Tentative Number of Authorizations Available' in the LEH synopsis. We
have not finished analyzing the previous year's harvest at the time of
publication, so that allows us to change numbers after publication of
the synopsis. Analysis of harvest is primarily done through hunter
surveys, compulsory inspection, compulsory reporting and guide
declaration reports. These all take time. Some LEH hunts do not end
until the end of February, so our window of time is tight.

Second, after all the analysis mentioned above is complete, the LEH
regulations must be passed by cabinet. Generally, cabinet only sits
once per week, so approval must wait for a sitting. If they reject the
regulations for some reason (they usually don't), we have to fix
whatever they didn't like and wait for another sitting.

However, the main problem is simply getting the previous year's analysis
done.


2. This is probably the single biggest question I get asked. Here is
the answer:

WHY BC DOES NOT USE A POINT PREFERENCE SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATING L.E. HUNTS

Point preference systems and pool systems (which are very similar) are
used in a number of North American jurisdictions. Alberta uses a
system in which points are accumulated each time an individual applies
unsuccessfully. Draws are preferentially given to those with the most
points first; the second most points second, and so on. When the system
reaches a point level where there are more applicants than remaining
available licences, the available licences are randomly assigned at that
point level. Upon being drawn, an applicant's points are deleted and
they start accumulating from zero again.

In 2005, Alberta had 213,749 applications for 71,950 available licences,
with overall average odds of 2.97 to 1. With such odds, on average,
applicants would be drawn roughly every 3 years even in a completely
random system. In B.C.'s 2005 draw, we received 151,972 applications for
26,476 available authorizations for overall average odds of 5.74 to 1,
nearly twice the average odds in Alberta.

If you examine Alberta's hunts in detail, you find that some of their
hunts are very easy to get, with many hunts in their WMU's actually
going undersubscribed. Eleven of their twenty-three categories have a
20% or better overall success rate (ie, odds of 5 to 1 or better),
encompassing 168,613 of their total 213,749 applications (79%). For
these hunts, their system will work very nicely, with people getting
drawn once every 5 years or better. However, with their high odds hunts,
it's a different story. If you want to hunt sheep in Alberta, you will
wait many years to reach the highest point level. In fact, some of
Alberta's sheep and goat hunts are not on a priority system because they
recognize that the demand is so high that nobody would get to hunt until
they reached extreme age. Fortunately, relatively few of Alberta's LEH
opportunities have such high demand, so overall their system meets their
needs.

In B.C. we are not so fortunate. In the 2005 draw, 286 of our 951 LEH
hunts had odds of 10 to 1 or higher, 161 hunts had odds of 20 to 1 or
higher and in 120 cases, the odds were 30 to 1 or higher. In some cases,
they were as high as 600 to 1. In fact, only 465 (about half) of our
hunts had odds of 5 to one or better. These 465 hunts represented only
39,834 applications out of a total of 151,972, therefore, only 26% or
our total applications were for hunts with odds of 5 to 1 or better. In
Alberta, about 80% of applicants are drawn after 3 attempts. In B.C.,
only 13% (19,751) of applicants faced odds of 3 to 1 or better in the
2005 draw, so no such turnover is possible here. Carrying the analysis
further, 41% (62,584) of our applications were for hunts with odds
greater than 10 to 1, 28% (42,992) of our applications were for hunts
with odds greater than 20 to 1 and 24% (36,690 ) of our applications
were for hunts with odds greater than 30 to 1. What this all means is
that if we go to a priority system, nearly half of our applicants can
expect to wait at least a decade, if not many times that, before they
will have any chance of being drawn. In a very few years, for many
hunts, the priority list will be so long that no new person taking up
hunting will have an opportunity to hunt prior to advanced age. Can you
imagine a teenager paying money annually to enter a system that might
provide them with a chance to hunt when they're 65 years old? Having
examined our odds situation, we believe that asking hunters to pay for
so many years before they have any chance of being drawn would be
fraudulent. Indeed, in the early 1980's, Montana scrapped their priority
system for elk because they found that nobody under a certain age would
draw a licence in their lifetime.

One suggestion we have considered relates to periods of ineligibility.
For example, we could decide that once a person has drawn a particular
species, they are not allowed to apply for some period of time.
Unfortunately, for many hunts, even once in a lifetime opportunities
don't help much. Using bison as an example, up to 2006, 38,153 people
have applied for bison in all of the draws that have ever been offered,
but only 1,454 have ever been drawn. If those 1,454 individuals were
barred from ever applying again, that would still leave 36,699 people
applying for 79 licences in the 2006 draw... not much of an improvement.
Additionally, periods of ineligibility have been offered to the BC
Wildlife Federation, but disagreement around the length of such periods
is always intense.

THE BC APPROACH

In British Columbia, we have developed a system we call 'enhanced odds'.
Rather than reward unsuccessful applicants, we reduce the chances of
previously successful applicants. All applicants that are drawn have
their chances reduced by 50% in the following year. In the case of
successful applicants for moose and Roosevelt elk, their chances are
reduced by 66% for the following three draws. This is done for all
species except deer, and the method was developed with the approval of
the BC Wildlife Federation.

The beauty of this system is that it does not discriminate against first
time applicants and it self-adjusts according to demand. If very few
people apply for a given hunt, then the system will automatically adjust
the odds reduction to less than 50% (or less than 66% for moose and
Roosevelt elk). This does not happen very often, but there are always a
few hunts that have low subscription, so there is no point in denying
opportunity to any applicant. This system does not eliminate repeat
success, but it keeps it at a low level.

The two main concerns with point systems are the length of turn-over
time for high odds hunts and the potential for these turn-over times to
discourage hunter recruitment. That being said, introducing a point
system for the compulsory inspection species (caribou, goats, grizzlies
and sheep) may be feasible if hunters want it. These are not entry
level species, so lengthy wait times would not significantly discourage
hunter recruitment.


3. Yes, we plan to replace the card application system soon. Nobody
wants this to happen more than I do. Did you ever open 155,000 pieces
of mail in three weeks?! If all goes according to plan, this (2007)
will be the last year that people will apply for LEH hunts with the
traditional post card applications. We are currently developing an
electronic licensing system for both angling and hunting licences. Part
of that system will be a new means of applying for LEH hunts. Our
current intention is for people to be able to apply either over the
internet or by phone (phone applications are used in Alberta). I can't
promise that everything will go well enough for us to start this in
2008, but that is what we are working towards.

4. There are a few statistical reports available on the Fish & Wildlife
Branch web site, but they are several years old and they do not provide
the kind of detail you are requesting. However, we do produce precisely
what you describe, we just haven't published it. These statistics are
produced annually as part of the analysis I mentioned above in answer to
your first question. We are currently considering revision of our web
site and we may provide this information later this year.

[kayjayess]

It is funny that a few of you who responded to my post came up with the argument that "Well hunting in these other places is not near as good as here." Point granted. However does that mean we don't try and improve our system if there is an opportunity for it? Gate, one of the arguments you raised, and a very valid one, is that in BC we have way more applicants for less species. I have heard that argument (read that post in the past) in the past and that, I agree is something that makes changing to a priority system much more difficult. It does not make sense that a guy gets drawn for sheep when he is 75 years old and can't make the trip up the hill.

Those that argue, yea but that is other places it is not BC, is a flawed one. If we can improve our system in any capacity why would we not do it? And for those of you that believe there aren't many great areas to hunt throughout the world (that BC is the mecca) - well I won't waste any key strokes on that one. BC is unreal, but there are incredible hunting opportunities outside this great province as well.

[22savage]

one suggestion I would make is to have a second chance draw where people who can't make hunts or have filled tags before there leh hunts could turn them back in rather than waste the tag . This giving more chances for people who would be prepared to hunt on short notice. Better than wasting the tag imo

[hunter1947]

There should be some changes to the system ,Roosevelt elk for the island as for other regions that have a stable number of animals ,80% of the LEH system is good except the other 20% of the system..

I think that we all should have better odds on getting a tag draw after waiting for years for what we have put in for ,changes should be made in this field..

[ratherbefishin]

I can see LEH for species at risk or in areas with small populations , but I suggest we have far too many restrictions already on deer, moose and elk which are widespread across the province.White tails are a prime example-why was there ANY LEH on them at all?Why isn't there a 3 month September to November 3 month,buck or doe GOS?
Same goes for Peace River elk-what is the rationale for ANY antler,or sex restriction? It isn't like we have MORE hunters in the field-we have HALF the hunters in the field than we did 30 years ago....and in some areas,these animals are considered a nuisance to farmers and a hazard on the road

[kootenayslam]

go to the alberta system, BC's system is bogus, does not work, i've heard all the arguements for it and none make any sense. AB system is priority based, it works.

Guys say, "well BC has too many high odds draws to do a priority system", Easy, get to a 7 or 8 level priority then do a lottery style draw, why all the opposition, is it the LEH guys being to lazy or understaffed, thats all i can think of. 2C

[hawkdog]

My only suggestion would be you should only get one successful draw per year, I drew a nil but 2 buddies each drew 2 leh's.

The main problem is some hunts are more popular, ie moose in region 6, therefore there are more entries submitted and lower odds.

[bridger]

truth be known many of the leh hunts in the province are not conservation driven. In my opinion the we should spend less time talkinng about fixing the system and more time about moving many of the leh hunts to open season. This is going to be more important in the very near future as the moe is getting more pressure to put residents on more leh instead of fewer.

[hunterofthedeer]

There are better odds for young hunters. Put in for junior LEH most of the odds are 1:1 or less. My friend got a doe draw in 5-03 and a elk draw in 7-20a during december. I think this is the 4th or 5th year he has got it because he is a junior hunter, and the odds are 1:1 or less. I also got my muley doe 5-03 LEH because I put in for the junior hunter only. I think any kid should be taking advantage of these along with the regular draws if your species doent fall into one of the junior hunts. I really dont mind the system right now.

[bighornbob]

I like how all the comments always come after the LEH is drawn.

A few points to the comments:

A few have made examples of a points system like in the states? Have you actually been on some of the US sites. In arizona they have a points system and the only thing you are allowed to hunt without a LEH is black bear with a bow and cougars. One guy I talked to had not drawn deer in eight years, elk in 10 and pronghorn in 12 years. In other states guys in their 40's have stopped applying for sheep tags as they know for a fact (under the point system) they will never draw a tag before they are in their 60's. A new hunter (say around 30 years of age) has no chance at getting a tag until he 50.

Guys here complain about not getting drawn (say sheep) but dont actually hunt the areas that are huntable during the season. Case in point, I shot a California bighorn off the Fraser river last year during the general open season and only saw 3 other hunters int he last 2-3 years. My ram was bigger then 3 of the LEH tag holders for the same area (never saw the other 2 tag holders) and was even bigger then one of the rams taken under the Kamloops Lake draw. All this hype for the sheep draws and you can get done in the regular season but most choose not too.

The alberta system works becuase they have a ton of animals and hardley any GOS areas in the southern half of the province. If BC placed all its deer hunting on LEH, we too could have a priority points sytem where you drew a deer tag every few years.

Like others have said lets get away from the draw and get more animals open under the general season. Put region 5 moose back on a open season, let junior hunters shoot any deer they see. There are a ton of examples that could be used.

BHB

[guest]

Although I am happy I did get a goat draw "again" ......... I do feel bad for those that have had no success when I draw 3 out of 4 years. I think others should have a chance before I do again. I have put in hundreds of dollars over the years, when it was even more species available 9 cards per year, some of those years no success, 1 for 6 this year. That said,
I have put in for Bison for 15 years, only being successful 1 time, while others have drawn multiples. Yes I understand how it works, but maybe some things like Bison, Certain Sheep (like Kamloops), or Particular Goat should be once in a lifetime. Hard to manage the particulars, but a good example is Saskatchwan, a mule deer every 5 years garranteed.
Just my 2 cents
CT

[bighornbob]

but a good example is Saskatchwan, a mule deer every 5 years garranteed.
CT

What is the mule deer general open season in Saskatchewan??

BHB

[GoatGuy]

go to the alberta system, BC's system is bogus, does not work, i've heard all the arguements for it and none make any sense. AB system is priority based, it works.

Guys say, "well BC has too many high odds draws to do a priority system", Easy, get to a 7 or 8 level priority then do a lottery style draw, why all the opposition, is it the LEH guys being to lazy or understaffed, thats all i can think of. 2C

Try priority 20 and more.

[GoatGuy]

I can see LEH for species at risk or in areas with small populations , but I suggest we have far too many restrictions already on deer, moose and elk which are widespread across the province.White tails are a prime example-why was there ANY LEH on them at all?Why isn't there a 3 month September to November 3 month,buck or doe GOS?
Same goes for Peace River elk-what is the rationale for ANY antler,or sex restriction? It isn't like we have MORE hunters in the field-we have HALF the hunters in the field than we did 30 years ago....and in some areas,these animals are considered a nuisance to farmers and a hazard on the road

There's no room for common sense if we're going to talk about LEH or wildlife management.

Shame on you RBF.

[Cyrus]

heres my take on the system:

1) If you put in for a draw in the area you live in, for example region 5, your odds of beating out a guy or group from the LMD or elsewhere are slim to none.

2) If you can for shared hunts etc adding a female hunter to the group vastly improves your odds.

3) Use a black pen, blue doesn't work.

I too know a group of hunters that get draws every year for moose in 7-10, bulls, cows, everything, probably 8 years in a row if I am correct. They don't live in PG, they always switch around the names in the shared hunts, and whatever group has the female applicant in the pool always gets a bull draw, the other group gets a cow draw. They have it worked out to a science. If it is a genuine lottery system than they should be playing the 649 because they have the best luck ever!

[GoatGuy]

2) If you can for shared hunts etc adding a female hunter to the group vastly improves your odds.


This is a new one to me!

Will have to try that next year.

[Gateholio]

It is funny that a few of you who responded to my post came up with the argument that "Well hunting in these other places is not near as good as here." Point granted. However does that mean we don't try and improve our system if there is an opportunity for it? Gate, one of the arguments you raised, and a very valid one, is that in BC we have way more applicants for less species. I have heard that argument (read that post in the past) in the past and that, I agree is something that makes changing to a priority system much more difficult. It does not make sense that a guy gets drawn for sheep when he is 75 years old and can't make the trip up the hill.

Those that argue, yea but that is other places it is not BC, is a flawed one. If we can improve our system in any capacity why would we not do it? And for those of you that believe there aren't many great areas to hunt throughout the world (that BC is the mecca) - well I won't waste any key strokes on that one. BC is unreal, but there are incredible hunting opportunities outside this great province as well.

It's impossible NOT to discuss the current BC GOS opportunities when discussing LEH.

If we had more LEH instead of GOS there would be more LEH success...But who wants LEH over a GOS?:confused:

Currently we need an LEH to hunt bison, grizzly and Rosie elk. Everything else can be hunted GOS.

So if we look at those 3....

Rosie elk and Bison (for the most part) have so high odds a point system would have you in Depends diapers before you got a draw.

There are many 1.5-1 or 3-1 grizzly LEH openings available these days. If a guy wants a grizzly tag, he can get it with some effort.

Everything else can be hunted EVERY YEAR on a GOS. Who wants a points system to go moose or elk or deer hunting?:confused:

Just find a GOS and go hunting!

[835]

I sure would change it..... Id make me win more!

[whitespringer]

Last year we got our group moose draw in part because of luck draw and choosing a hunt we thought we would have a good shot at. Same thing this year. We chose a region that had great odds, a little further mind you and whadaya know, we got it. Just for fun, I put in for an golden ticket elk hunt on the island with nasty odds and sure enough I didn't get it. We all know more or less what we are getting into before we put the draw in. That being said, we shouldn't complain... Although it probably makes us feel better.:mrgreen:

[trapperRick]

To be really fair and make sure everyone in BC gets chance to hunt certain areas/game we should go away from "luck of the draw" and go a to a rotational system where everyone takes a turn. You start putting in for say Island Elk, keep putting in each year and work your way up the priority list until its your turn. Also you would not have to pay unless you got drawn, if you get drawn and don,t go, you go to the bottom of the list.

I am not saying certain people get more draws because they may know someone but it could happen the visual perception is it can happen?? But with the rotation system on a computor it can't.

Now before everyone picks on me as having a dumb idea, relax this system works well in Alberta and Sask and is just my say so, so no name calling relax.

[moosinaround]

Ummmmmm.........................Nope, leave it the way it is. This is a money generating avenue for Moe conservation. Luck of the draw! I don't even think there should be a reduced odds, if you buy a ticket your name goes in. A random number generator draws numbers and whoever has the numbers gets a draw! Unbiased and fair to all! If you donot get picked then you hunt in the GOS. Just my opinion! Moosin

[BlacktailStalker]

These threads are so repetitive just be happy you live in BC and your hunting options are still ENDLESS. Go learn some areas so you'll never have to rely on LEH thats what I did.
LEH is just a bonus that happens from time to time and my time has been 11 years coming, in the end I could care less really as long as I get ONE go round for Island elk and a spring grizz draw.
In the mean time I'll just help everyone I know, thats great satisfaction right there, the only thing I miss out on is the pulling of a trigger and with a crisp trigger thats not missing out on much ;) :cool:

[moosinaround]

These threads are so repetitive just be happy you live in BC and your hunting options are still ENDLESS. Go learn some areas so you'll never have to rely on LEH thats what I did.
LEH is just a bonus that happens from time to time and my time has been 11 years coming, in the end I could care less really as long as I get ONE go round for Island elk and a spring grizz draw.
In the mean time I'll just help everyone I know, thats great satisfaction right there, the only thing I miss out on is the pulling of a trigger and with a crisp trigger thats not missing out on much ;) :cool:
Yup well said! Moosin

[KB90]

You start putting in for say Island Elk, keep putting in each year and work your way up the priority list until its your turn.

Only 1 problem there. It will take you 50 years before you get the draw. I would rather have the "chance" at it, instead of having to plan an elk trip when I'm 70.

[BillyBull]

Just as others have mentioned before, there is that noticeable view that “the tougher” the areas to get to (no easy road access) the better you have in getting an LEH draw give the flat odds. The people applying and going “Nil” for years may need to re-look at where there trying.

In the case of specials like VI Elk, or Goat, Sheep, Bison, etc.. these are high ratio odds that are just that Lotto 649.

My change or gripe would be the following:

On the LEH ticket I would add a box for the Shared Moose hunts to allow for an option that would let a group tick a box that says we only need one moose this time and not automatically give the drawn LEH ticket 2 moose for the group that is sharing the hunt as getting 2 large moose can just be too much meat at times. This could provide an extra tag for that next hunter in the draw. Maybe, even add the bonus of increasing the odds as now this group of hunters is sharing more with others.

[Fisher-Dude]

Only 1 problem there. It will take you 50 years before you get the draw. I would rather have the "chance" at it, instead of having to plan an elk trip when I'm 70.

Or when I'm 98. :cry:

Trapperrick needs to read this and educate himself on the BC system and why it's best left as it is.




WHY BC DOES NOT USE A POINT PREFERENCE SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATING L.E. HUNTS

Point preference systems and pool systems (which are very similar) are
used in a number of North American jurisdictions. Alberta uses a
system in which points are accumulated each time an individual applies
unsuccessfully. Draws are preferentially given to those with the most
points first; the second most points second, and so on. When the system
reaches a point level where there are more applicants than remaining
available licences, the available licences are randomly assigned at that
point level. Upon being drawn, an applicant's points are deleted and
they start accumulating from zero again.

In 2005, Alberta had 213,749 applications for 71,950 available licences,
with overall average odds of 2.97 to 1. With such odds, on average,
applicants would be drawn roughly every 3 years even in a completely
random system. In B.C.'s 2005 draw, we received 151,972 applications for
26,476 available authorizations for overall average odds of 5.74 to 1,
nearly twice the average odds in Alberta.

If you examine Alberta's hunts in detail, you find that some of their
hunts are very easy to get, with many hunts in their WMU's actually
going undersubscribed. Eleven of their twenty-three categories have a
20% or better overall success rate (ie, odds of 5 to 1 or better),
encompassing 168,613 of their total 213,749 applications (79%). For
these hunts, their system will work very nicely, with people getting
drawn once every 5 years or better. However, with their high odds hunts,
it's a different story. If you want to hunt sheep in Alberta, you will
wait many years to reach the highest point level. In fact, some of
Alberta's sheep and goat hunts are not on a priority system because they
recognize that the demand is so high that nobody would get to hunt until
they reached extreme age. Fortunately, relatively few of Alberta's LEH
opportunities have such high demand, so overall their system meets their
needs.

In B.C. we are not so fortunate. In the 2005 draw, 286 of our 951 LEH
hunts had odds of 10 to 1 or higher, 161 hunts had odds of 20 to 1 or
higher and in 120 cases, the odds were 30 to 1 or higher. In some cases,
they were as high as 600 to 1. In fact, only 465 (about half) of our
hunts had odds of 5 to one or better. These 465 hunts represented only
39,834 applications out of a total of 151,972, therefore, only 26% or
our total applications were for hunts with odds of 5 to 1 or better. In
Alberta, about 80% of applicants are drawn after 3 attempts. In B.C.,
only 13% (19,751) of applicants faced odds of 3 to 1 or better in the
2005 draw, so no such turnover is possible here. Carrying the analysis
further, 41% (62,584) of our applications were for hunts with odds
greater than 10 to 1, 28% (42,992) of our applications were for hunts
with odds greater than 20 to 1 and 24% (36,690 ) of our applications
were for hunts with odds greater than 30 to 1. What this all means is
that if we go to a priority system, nearly half of our applicants can
expect to wait at least a decade, if not many times that, before they
will have any chance of being drawn. In a very few years, for many
hunts, the priority list will be so long that no new person taking up
hunting will have an opportunity to hunt prior to advanced age. Can you
imagine a teenager paying money annually to enter a system that might
provide them with a chance to hunt when they're 65 years old? Having
examined our odds situation, we believe that asking hunters to pay for
so many years before they have any chance of being drawn would be
fraudulent. Indeed, in the early 1980's, Montana scrapped their priority
system for elk because they found that nobody under a certain age would
draw a licence in their lifetime.

One suggestion we have considered relates to periods of ineligibility.
For example, we could decide that once a person has drawn a particular
species, they are not allowed to apply for some period of time.
Unfortunately, for many hunts, even once in a lifetime opportunities
don't help much. Using bison as an example, up to 2006, 38,153 people
have applied for bison in all of the draws that have ever been offered,
but only 1,454 have ever been drawn. If those 1,454 individuals were
barred from ever applying again, that would still leave 36,699 people
applying for 79 licences in the 2006 draw... not much of an improvement.
Additionally, periods of ineligibility have been offered to the BC
Wildlife Federation, but disagreement around the length of such periods
is always intense.

THE BC APPROACH

In British Columbia, we have developed a system we call 'enhanced odds'.
Rather than reward unsuccessful applicants, we reduce the chances of
previously successful applicants. All applicants that are drawn have
their chances reduced by 50% in the following year. In the case of
successful applicants for moose and Roosevelt elk, their chances are
reduced by 66% for the following three draws. This is done for all
species except deer, and the method was developed with the approval of
the BC Wildlife Federation.

The beauty of this system is that it does not discriminate against first
time applicants and it self-adjusts according to demand. If very few
people apply for a given hunt, then the system will automatically adjust
the odds reduction to less than 50% (or less than 66% for moose and
Roosevelt elk). This does not happen very often, but there are always a
few hunts that have low subscription, so there is no point in denying
opportunity to any applicant. This system does not eliminate repeat
success, but it keeps it at a low level.

The two main concerns with point systems are the length of turn-over
time for high odds hunts and the potential for these turn-over times to
discourage hunter recruitment. That being said, introducing a point
system for the compulsory inspection species (caribou, goats, grizzlies
and sheep) may be feasible if hunters want it. These are not entry
level species, so lengthy wait times would not significantly discourage
hunter recruitment.

[BCrams]

To be really fair and make sure everyone in BC gets chance to hunt certain areas/game we should go away from "luck of the draw" and go a to a rotational system where everyone takes a turn. You start putting in for say Island Elk, keep putting in each year and work your way up the priority list until its your turn. Also you would not have to pay unless you got drawn, if you get drawn and don,t go, you go to the bottom of the list.

I am not saying certain people get more draws because they may know someone but it could happen the visual perception is it can happen?? But with the rotation system on a computor it can't.

Now before everyone picks on me as having a dumb idea, relax this system works well in Alberta and Sask and is just my say so, so no name calling relax.

Won't work. Odds are too high for a priority point system and too few tags available. One or two tags at the low end of 40:1 odds (with most of them much higher). Soon you'll have a scenario where a new kid putting in at 20 yrs of age won't even get a chance for over 40 years and then when he's at the top of the point "pool" he's in a pool with a rather large number of individuals who are waiting for that 1 tag ....

....... way better just let everyone have a chance to get drawn every year.

Go hunt for those WK elk for a change seeing that it is no longer on LEH.

Edit: FD put the explanation down best!!!

[IronNoggin]

THE BC APPROACH

In British Columbia, we have developed a system we call 'enhanced odds'.
Rather than reward unsuccessful applicants, we reduce the chances of
previously successful applicants. All applicants that are drawn have
their chances reduced by 50% in the following year. In the case of
successful applicants for moose and Roosevelt elk, their chances are
reduced by 66% for the following three draws.

And that works so bloody well? NOT! :evil:
See my earlier post regarding moose draws on this thread. Then please explain just why the Gentz I refered to drew ELEVEN STRAIGHT YEARS, while myself and others who had no "reduced odds" and put in the same zone got NIL. :confused:

While we're at it, perhaps there is also some explanation for:


- Yes, we plan to replace the card application system soon.... If all goes according to plan, this (2007) will be the last year that people will apply for LEH hunts with the traditional post card applications.

&

- There are a few statistical reports available on the Fish & Wildlife
Branch web site, but they are several years old and they do not provide
the kind of detail you are requesting. However, we do produce precisely
what you describe, we just haven't published it. These statistics are
produced annually as part of the analysis I mentioned above in answer to
your first question. We are currently considering revision of our web
site and we may provide this information later this year.

2007 was how many years ago?? :confused:

And I have yet to be convinced that there isn't some better, more equal system that would afford us each to eventually end up drawing their desired tag. The way it is now isn't working except to pour funding into Gen Rev pockets. Really.

Nog

[Fisher-Dude]

Nog, Vander Scam is going to fix all that for you. Oh wait, he's the c**ksucker that doubled the cost of your tags & licenses.

[IronNoggin]

Nog, Vander Scam is going to fix all that for you. Oh wait, he's the c**ksucker that doubled the cost of your tags & licenses.

KerRist FD. I'd happily pay double what it is now were the funds to be poured back into Management and eventually realize greater opportunities...

Nog

[Gateholio]

And that works so bloody well? NOT! :evil:
See my earlier post regarding moose draws on this thread. Then please explain just why the Gentz I refered to drew ELEVEN STRAIGHT YEARS, while myself and others who had no "reduced odds" and put in the same zone got NIL. :confused:

The reason you go t NIL and the others got drawn is because even with reduced odds, it is still a lottery and anyone can win.

A guy may buy $100 in 6/49 tickets and not win, but some other guy could buy one ticket and win.



While we're at it, perhaps there is also some explanation for:

2007 was how many years ago?? :confused:

2010 - 2007 = 3. So 2007 was 3 years ago.:wink:


And I have yet to be convinced that there isn't some better, more equal system that would afford us each to eventually end up drawing their desired tag. The way it is now isn't working except to pour funding into Gen Rev pockets. Really.

What is this system? Lets see your proposal, and use specific numbers, please. Anyone can say "There is a better way" but so far nobody has been able to prove it with numbers...
:-D

[BCrams]

And that works so bloody well? NOT! :evil:
See my earlier post regarding moose draws on this thread. Then please explain just why the Gentz I refered to drew ELEVEN STRAIGHT YEARS, while myself and others who had no "reduced odds" and put in the same zone got NIL. :confused:


Proof would be nice (i.e., LEH Authorization for each of those 11 yrs for the Blackwater). I have a hard time believing it. Especially for 11 straight years when you look at the probabilities of that happening.

But what I did find believable is this story I heard one time: I heard a story about a group of dudes that had been drawn every year for the last 8-10 or so years which I found hard to fathom and believe ...... until the delayed response finished it off with the "successful or not on the draw, they always told folks they were successful on LEH and got their big bulls" :wink: hmmmmm

[scope-bite]

My only beef is that if you put in for the same draw for 20 years and aren't drawn, there is absolutely no change in your odds, assuming tag #'s and applicant #'s stay the same. Some people get a draw with 10:1 odds 3 years in a row while others can go 20 years with "nil". For the draws with reasonable odds, I'd like to see increased odds for people who put in for the same zone year after year. Say you put in for a draw that has averaged 10:1 odds; after your 5th year being unsuccessful your name "goes into the hat" twice instead of once for each year until you are drawn.

This would only be realistic for draws with decent odds and maybe for the low-odds hunts, I think it is a good idea that you would be ineligible for a certain number of years after you are drawn. I suppose this might cause a decrease in hunter retention and LEH revenue...just some thoughts.

[Kody94]

My only beef is that if you put in for the same draw for 20 years and aren't drawn, there is absolutely no change in your odds, assuming tag #'s and applicant #'s stay the same. Some people get a draw with 10:1 odds 3 years in a row while others can go 20 years with "nil". For the draws with reasonable odds, I'd like to see increased odds for people who put in for the same zone year after year. Say you put in for a draw that has averaged 10:1 odds; after your 5th year being unsuccessful your name "goes into the hat" twice instead of once for each year until you are drawn.

This would only be realistic for draws with decent odds and maybe for the low-odds hunts, I think it is a good idea that you would be ineligible for a certain number of years after you are drawn. I suppose this might cause a decrease in hunter retention and LEH revenue...just some thoughts.

I agree with you.

Make the "once in a lifetime" hunts actually once in a lifetime, keep the relatively high odds hunts a full lottery, and anything less than 20:1 should go to a preference points style system or enhanced odds (more chances in the hat).

I think the current system is worse for hunter retention than the alternatives.

Watching guys get repeated success while others go entire hunting careers with NILs in moderate odds draws just breeds contempt, and makes the system look corrupt.

SRUPP and Matt ola are a couple good examples...their odds should have been reduced by 66% after getting draws last year...yet Matt ola has even done it a 3rd year in a row. No wonder people don't trust that the system actually works.

[IronNoggin]

Proof would be nice (i.e., LEH Authorization for each of those 11 yrs for the Blackwater). I have a hard time believing it. Especially for 11 straight years when you look at the probabilities of that happening.

And perhaps I would too. If I didn't have to put up with their constant crowing (we fish a LOT together) and spending a few days butchering their results each and every fall. I was one of the Ladz who put in "their" zone, not once, but twice. NIL'd both times, while they drew yet again. Makes me wonder just who they have a picture of molesting a dead goat...

Nog

PS: And Yes, they both drew moose tags yet again this year... :confused:

[bighornbob]

anything less than 20:1 should go to a preference points style system or enhanced odds (more chances in the hat).

I think the current system is worse for hunter retention than the alternatives.


Using your example from above, if the draw was redone at those odds (20:1 and say 5 moose tags given out, so 100 guys apply) and people were given a priority point.

This is how it would play out assuming no extra tags get let out or are taken back:

2011: 5 guys get drawn 95 guys get 1 point.
2012: 5 guys get drawn 90 guys have 2 points
2013: 5 guys get drawn 85 guys have 3 points
2014: 5 guys get drawn 80 guys have 4 points
2015: 5 guys get drawn 75 guys have 5 points
2016: 5 guys get drawn 70 guys have 6 points
2017: 5 guys get drawn 65 guys have 7 points
2018: 5 guys get drawn 60 guys have 8 points
2019: 5 guys get drawn 55 guys have 9 points
2020: 5 guys get drawn 50 guys have 10 points
2021: 5 guys get drawn 45 guys have 11 points

So anyone starting after the first year is at the bottom of the list and has a wait of 20 years before a guarenteed tag. If you say our current system is not good for retention/recruitment how will it be under the point system. Somebody starting out hunting will have a guarenteed wait of 20 years, I am sure he will wait around.:rolleyes:

I would rather not get a tag for 20 years and at least think I may get a tag each year then know for a fact that I will have a guarenteed tag in 20 years.

BHB

[BCrams]

And perhaps I would too. If I didn't have to put up with their constant crowing (we fish a LOT together) and spending a few days butchering their results each and every fall. I was one of the Ladz who put in "their" zone, not once, but twice. NIL'd both times, while they drew yet again. Makes me wonder just who they have a picture of molesting a dead goat...

Nog

PS: And Yes, they both drew moose tags yet again this year... :confused:

What LEH zone are they putting in for? What are the odds?

[HD95]

While I don't have any solutions to the current LEH system,I think as it is it sucks.Been trying for a Roosevelt elk for over 25 yrs./Bighorn sheep for over 10 yrs.Got an any bull moose draw 4 years ago.I guess thats my allottment for this decade.

[OutWest]

Our hunting group consists of 6 of us and we all got NIL this year and put in for quite a number. We've had more than our fair share of success in the past so it's tough to complain even after going a number of years with little luck in LEH. I'm not sure I like the reduced odds though. On one hand I think it should be a lottery like a lot of members have said where everyone has the same chance at drawing. On the other hand I think guys who have been applying for many years without success should be rewarded. You can't help but feel bad for the guys who have been trying their whole lives for that special draw and don't get the chance at least once.

[Jelvis]

I'd change it, maybe but then again, i would leave it the way it is.
I'd raise the price for applications to ten buck.
Then use money for sustainability and habitat improvement with resource management, a top gun priority.
Jelly .. Ten buck

[Kody94]

Using your example from above, if the draw was redone at those odds (20:1 and say 5 moose tags given out, so 100 guys apply) and people were given a priority point.

This is how it would play out assuming no extra tags get let out or are taken back:

2011: 5 guys get drawn 95 guys get 1 point.
2012: 5 guys get drawn 90 guys have 2 points
2013: 5 guys get drawn 85 guys have 3 points
2014: 5 guys get drawn 80 guys have 4 points
2015: 5 guys get drawn 75 guys have 5 points
2016: 5 guys get drawn 70 guys have 6 points
2017: 5 guys get drawn 65 guys have 7 points
2018: 5 guys get drawn 60 guys have 8 points
2019: 5 guys get drawn 55 guys have 9 points
2020: 5 guys get drawn 50 guys have 10 points
2021: 5 guys get drawn 45 guys have 11 points

So anyone starting after the first year is at the bottom of the list and has a wait of 20 years before a guarenteed tag. If you say our current system is not good for retention/recruitment how will it be under the point system. Somebody starting out hunting will have a guarenteed wait of 20 years, I am sure he will wait around.:rolleyes:

I would rather not get a tag for 20 years and at least think I may get a tag each year then know for a fact that I will have a guarenteed tag in 20 years.

BHB

Yah, I understand the very simple math. At 20:1 odds, assuming everyone stays in and the tag numbers don't change, it takes 20 years before you are guaranteed one. Thanks for spelling it out for me though. :rolleyes: You did fail to mention that in the first 20 years, only 5% of the original 100 had to wait 20 years, and more than half of them scored a 20:1 draw in less than 10 years. ;)

I picked the 20:1 out of a hat...the threshold could be less. You also chose the worst case scenario from my example....there are many, many draws that are less than 20:1 that would not be an 'unreasonable' wait. Lots of folks, like me, would rather know that for a 10:1 grizzly hunt, I'll only have to wait 10 years....as opposed to the 18 years that I am currently up to!!

While you might like to know you have a chance every year (and all power to ya), there are many folks that are turned off by going oh-for-20 on a 10:1 hunt and some have quit hunting over LEH (my Pa being one). So feel free to roll your eyes all you want, I don't think LEH is what draws people to hunting (good GOS does!), but LEH sure as heck can sour people on it (my wife being #2, when she went 9 years striking out on a 6:1 turkey LEH).

And if lots of hunts are still pure lottery (like maybe anything over 10:1 if that makes you happier), then your newbs still have lots to gamble their $6 on.

FWIW, my personal preference is enhanced odds draws....everyone still gets a chance, but your odds of being drawn go up every year that you apply for the same hunt. It recognizes the folks that have been waiting for a long time, and still gives new entrants or past 'winners' a chance. (like that guy that just scored his 3rd Moose tag in 3 consecutive years, despite a 66% reduction in his odds the last 2 years)

[Jelvis]

The word guys would need to be changed tho, lol, to person or people.
Women and girls hunt also lol.
Jelly Person or people lol ..

[Kody94]

The word guys would need to be changed tho, lol, to person or people.
Women and girls hunt also lol.
Jelly Person or people lol ..

In my experience, when most gals come hunting, they're one of the guys. ;)

[Jelvis]

I dig it! One of the guys.
Jel .. hey how's the hunting going? I dig it!

[Slee]

If you get a Bison draw you don't get another one until the guy that has never had one, gets one!

It's just not fair that one guy can get it three times when someone else never has.

didnt get it again........ you sure like them bison eh??

[reach]

FWIW, my personal preference is enhanced odds draws....everyone still gets a chance, but your odds of being drawn go up every year that you apply for the same hunt. It recognizes the folks that have been waiting for a long time, and still gives new entrants or past 'winners' a chance.
But for many hunts (the majority of applications), there would be so many people in the same boat that the enhanced odds would have little effect. Your odds would go up if you didn't get drawn, but so they would for the other 18 out of 20 people who didn't get drawn. Your odds would have improved, at best, to 19:1 instead of 20:1. It is still most likely going to take decades to get that draw.

[GoatGuy]

Yah, I understand the very simple math. At 20:1 odds, assuming everyone stays in and the tag numbers don't change, it takes 20 years before you are guaranteed one. Thanks for spelling it out for me though. :rolleyes: You did fail to mention that in the first 20 years, only 5% of the original 100 had to wait 20 years, and more than half of them scored a 20:1 draw in less than 10 years. ;)

The example is only as the system matures. Once things have cycled the first 20 years there will be no 5%, it will be 100% waiting the full 20 years (not really the case cause you'll have the odd person drop out and you'll also have people who will die waiting). :-D

From what I can tell, and that ain't much, the only system that could possibly work would be a points system (enhanced odds as you call it).

Of course it is still random and people who are putting in for the first time will still get the occasional Assiniboine draw so the fuel for conspiracies will continue.

Never ceases to amaze LEH takes up the most space on the intraweb.

[Fisher-Dude]

Yah, I understand the very simple math. At 20:1 odds, assuming everyone stays in and the tag numbers don't change, it takes 20 years before you are guaranteed one. Thanks for spelling it out for me though. :rolleyes: You did fail to mention that in the first 20 years, only 5% of the original 100 had to wait 20 years, and more than half of them scored a 20:1 draw in less than 10 years. ;)

I picked the 20:1 out of a hat...the threshold could be less. You also chose the worst case scenario from my example....there are many, many draws that are less than 20:1 that would not be an 'unreasonable' wait. Lots of folks, like me, would rather know that for a 10:1 grizzly hunt, I'll only have to wait 10 years....as opposed to the 18 years that I am currently up to!!

While you might like to know you have a chance every year (and all power to ya), there are many folks that are turned off by going oh-for-20 on a 10:1 hunt and some have quit hunting over LEH (my Pa being one). So feel free to roll your eyes all you want, I don't think LEH is what draws people to hunting (good GOS does!), but LEH sure as heck can sour people on it (my wife being #2, when she went 9 years striking out on a 6:1 turkey LEH).

And if lots of hunts are still pure lottery (like maybe anything over 10:1 if that makes you happier), then your newbs still have lots to gamble their $6 on.

FWIW, my personal preference is enhanced odds draws....everyone still gets a chance, but your odds of being drawn go up every year that you apply for the same hunt. It recognizes the folks that have been waiting for a long time, and still gives new entrants or past 'winners' a chance. (like that guy that just scored his 3rd Moose tag in 3 consecutive years, despite a 66% reduction in his odds the last 2 years)

You'll get Phillips Creek when you're 640 years old, Moses. :mrgreen:

[Fisher-Dude]

KerRist FD. I'd happily pay double what it is now were the funds to be poured back into Management and eventually realize greater opportunities...

Nog

Double the price and watch the end of hunting in BC accelerate as hunter numbers plummet even further. Great idea - NOT!

Vander Scam is also the ba$tard that proliferated changes from GOS to LEH in the 80s. And you want that again? You're warped. :?

[peashooter]

Certain areas in 8 but region 8 as a whole no contest, whitetails rule the land.

[.330 Dakota]

Yah of course I would change it so I got a tag every year where I want when I want..LOL

[peashooter]

Huh? That didn't make any sense. Wrong thread, dang booze.

[MOOSE MILK]

Alberta seems to have the best system

[bridger]

leh hunts should be the very last management tool used by the moe. there are lots of hunts in the province that are on leh when some other form of management could address conservation concerns (if there are any) and still provide hunting opportunities for all of us. the tri palm moose regs in the peace are a good example. some times it is tough to find a tri palm but you can still go and not have to wait 10 yrs to draw a tag. plus there is an open window for any bull at the start of the season. lots of moose, lots of opportunities, and no leh.

[CanuckShooter]

Proof would be nice (i.e., LEH Authorization for each of those 11 yrs for the Blackwater). I have a hard time believing it. Especially for 11 straight years when you look at the probabilities of that happening.


I don't know about 11 yrs straight but I personally know a lady that has drawn blackwater bull [7-11] 3 out of 4 consecutive years....and I have seen the cards so it's not just a story!!! :-D

[proguide66]

I don't know about 11 yrs straight but I personally know a lady that has drawn blackwater bull [7-11] 3 out of 4 consecutive years....and I have seen the cards so it's not just a story!!! :-D
I drew grizz 3 yrs in a row before..shot two in a row , now recieved my 4th. I wouldnt complain about making successsfull applicants get bumped out of being able to apply after successfully drawing a tag for tough to get tags , island elk , sheep,grizz for a couple yrs er 3.....reading about guys getting nil after 20 plus years is heartbreaking!....myself closing in on 30 yrs of trying for rosie elk...:?....if I dont get a rosie by the time I hit 75 yrs old , I'm just gonna give myself a tag!!!:razz::lol:

[sheep.elk.moose fanatic]

I drew grizz 3 yrs in a row before..shot two in a row , now recieved my 4th. I wouldnt complain about making successsfull applicants get bumped out of being able to apply after successfully drawing a tag for tough to get tags , island elk , sheep,grizz for a couple yrs er 3.....reading about guys getting nil after 20 plus years is heartbreaking!....myself closing in on 30 yrs of trying for rosie elk...:?....if I dont get a rosie by the time I hit 75 yrs old , I'm just gonna give myself a tag!!!:razz::lol:

I agree hunt of a lifetime, born and raised on the island 20 years and still nothing if i don't get one by the time i,am 70 give me a call i know where all the hot spots are in campbell river.:mrgreen:

[jhausner]

I don't know if I'd change anything. I don't think it is entirely fair like the lottery (the lottery is absolutely random pick) and the LEH system has a lot of human intervention and items that adjust your odds. With the 6-49 if you win it, you can enter the next day and have EXACTLY the same odds.

With the LEH it doesn't work that way. Now the argument may be "well it's more fair" but in practice we're seeing that it isn't. I hunt with a group of guys up near Vanderhoof that have been hunting there for over 25 years. 1 guy started in the 70s and went 20 years one stretch without a single draw. He put in every year and the odds were 10:1 in the area. Everyone else around him got numerous draws from bulls to cows. Him nothing.

Finally he wrote in saying basically hey I've been hunting there for over 30 years and have seen everyone and their dog get a draw more than once and me nil. These are my hunting grounds and I'd just like the chance to hunt a big bull for once.

That year, gets a bull draw, first time.

Some would say "well you won the lottery!" but it's pretty apparent that had he not said anything it would have been another nil. Would I change anything though? I don't know.

I would like to see something change but the question is to what and would it be better. The issue with hunting LEHs are that humans are involved but we have to be because you can't have a computer determin the what animals will live and which will be hunted for dinner. So maybe some accountability or some of the suggestions above limiting people to a certain amount of draws, or dealing with draws people won't fill.

Hunters are for the most part an honorable group of people and I think if someone isn't going to make a hunt, being able to assign it over to someone else or put it up on the chopping block may be an idea. Think a trading post for LEHs. "Hey I got an anterless Elk in 6-12 I can't make, looking for an anterless Mule Deer in 3-31."

*shrug*

Btw I drew Nil this year on 2 LEH entries (pretty good odds) but have no problem with it. I will still go hunting for Deer and Moose and would probably prefer taking a calf Moose than a cow or bull anyway, better meat. Drawing a doe just would mean a for sure deer this year but I've never drawn and went last year not bagging a deer so no biggie. Got a cow Moose last year on a group hunt and hated it honesly. The guys I was with passed on a few good calf Moose just to get the LEH filled. Ended up filling it with 2 x cow Moose and it's probably some of the worst meat I've had.

[Fisher-Dude]

Some would say "well you won the lottery!" but it's pretty apparent that had he not said anything it would have been another nil.

Nope. He would get his draw when he was drawn at random. Period. There's NO intervention.

The BCWF has audited the draw and overseen it, and it's as advertised - random. $20's in the envelope and sympathy letters make no difference to the results.

[TherealSLYFOX]

No system is perfect but that said I'm going back to ashnola again and my dad got the same moose draw as last year I told him not to waste his money I'm gonna get the old u never know speach some guys just have luck shit happens

[proguide66]

I wonder how 'real' it could be to start a movement to be able to trade a LEH award with another hunters LEH award??how could this hurt or bother anyone??...this would also make it impossible to sell as it would HAVE to be traded for another awarded hunt , and done in the office of the ministry???

[Gateholio]

I wonder how 'real' it could be to start a movement to be able to trade a LEH award with another hunters LEH award??how could this hurt or bother anyone??...this would also make it impossible to sell as it would HAVE to be traded for another awarded hunt , and done in the office of the ministry???

Be easy to set up. Make a website with a list of "Wanted to trade" LEH's.

Find the guy you want to trade with, call MOE , have MOE email you the paperwork, done deal.

Interesting suggestion.



LIke:

Hunt Code #1234 Vancouver Island Roosevelt Elk LEH. Want to trade for 2-11 doe LEH. email Mr. K. Swede to set up trade. iamdumb@hotmail.com

:-D

[trapperRick]

The real reason we have the system we have is that the Government makes money this way, period, $6 times how many don't get drawn, money for nothing

[j270wsm]

I have had numerous draws over the last 10yrs, including 2 moose draws with odds somewhere around 30:1, 1 grizz draw at 66:1, and about 5-6 goat draws around 5:1odds, and I agree that the system needs to be changed.

I think that you shouldnt be eligable for __ number of years after you have been drawn for certain tags. I was drawn for grizz so I feel that I shouldnt be eligable for atleast 5yrs, that way it reduces the odds and then mabey guys could get drawn more often.

If I remember correctly someone posted a bunch of info about how many tags were given and how many people applied, and in some cases we would have to wait 10+yrs before we had enough points to pull a tag.

My grizz hunt was 66:1, meaning that 132 people applied for 2 tags, so how many years would you have to put in before you had enough points??Because of how many guys apply and how many tags are given out you and everyone that started building points at the sametime will all have the same amount of points, so then how do you decide who gets the tags.

Hopefully I wrote that so every understand what I mean.( some times I am not very clear)

Yes our system isnt always fair but in some cases like Grizz, philips creek sheep, salmo sheep, and california bighorn tags it is really the only way to do it.

[Fisher-Dude]

Hunt Code #1234 Vancouver Island Roosevelt Elk LEH. Want to trade for 2-11 doe LEH. email Mr. K. Swede to set up trade. iamdumb@hotmail.com

:-D

Kechika Swede is going to get lots of fan mail now.

[Ghost Stalker]

blah blah f..ing blah. how bout we do something about it other then bitch here! M.A.D.D.....and all the others get shyt done. why not do the same for us? i am am not the knowledegable one but there are some here. step up and i will follow. there are some people here who know a shytload about this stuff, and if they started something i'd be all in.

[northof49]

THIS IS THE SOLUTION: A modified Alberta System. In AB, each yr you apply for a species and don't get it, you bump up a priority level for the next yr. You start at 0, then 1,2,3,etc for each species. Tags are allocated to the hunters at the highest priority level first then downwards thru levels until no more tags left to allocate to hunters for each hunt code (ie guys puttin the longest get drawn first). When you get drawn, you go back to level 0 again. You can change hunt codes (location) for each species yr to yr, but you still maintain your priority level for that species. Eventually you will get your draw with this system, but it can still take several years. Also, in a yr you know you won't be able to hunt, you can still enter and increase your priority for the next yr without wasting a tag that someone else could have used.

Now, for BC: Use the AB system, but if you are at a level 4, you would get 4 entries (chances) in the draw and if you were at level 2, you would get 2 entries and so on. This way your odds would increase over time, but everyone would still have a chance of being drawn in any given yr for each species unlike the AB system. This is especially important for the highly saught after draws (ie sheep) etc where few tags are given out. Under this system after a few years, if you are putting in for several species it wouldn't be long before you are gettin 1 or 2 draws every few years, and unlike in Alberta, you can still be drawn in your first year. You heard it here first.

Comments?

[GoatGuy]

THIS IS THE SOLUTION: A modified Alberta System. In AB, each yr you apply for a species and don't get it, you bump up a priority level for the next yr. You start at 0, then 1,2,3,etc for each species. Tags are allocated to the hunters at the highest priority level first then downwards thru levels until no more tags left to allocate to hunters for each hunt code (ie guys puttin the longest get drawn first). When you get drawn, you go back to level 0 again. You can change hunt codes (location) for each species yr to yr, but you still maintain your priority level for that species. Eventually you will get your draw with this system, but it can still take several years. Also, in a yr you know you won't be able to hunt, you can still enter and increase your priority for the next yr without wasting a tag that someone else could have used.

In Ab you can't swap with sheep, but those are 'minor' details.




Now, for BC: Use the AB system, but if you are at a level 4, you would get 4 entries (chances) in the draw and if you were at level 2, you would get 2 entries and so on. This way your odds would increase over time, but everyone would still have a chance of being drawn in any given yr for each species unlike the AB system. This is especially important for the highly saught after draws (ie sheep) etc where few tags are given out. Under this system after a few years, if you are putting in for several species it wouldn't be long before you are gettin 1 or 2 draws every few years, and unlike in Alberta, you can still be drawn in your first year. You heard it here first.

Comments?

That's called a points system - used in other jurisdictions. It would work, as has been mentioned in this thread.

[northof49]

It is funny that a few of you who responded to my post came up with the argument that "Well hunting in these other places is not near as good as here." Point granted. However does that mean we don't try and improve our system if there is an opportunity for it? Gate, one of the arguments you raised, and a very valid one, is that in BC we have way more applicants for less species. I have heard that argument (read that post in the past) in the past and that, I agree is something that makes changing to a priority system much more difficult. It does not make sense that a guy gets drawn for sheep when he is 75 years old and can't make the trip up the hill.

Those that argue, yea but that is other places it is not BC, is a flawed one. If we can improve our system in any capacity why would we not do it? And for those of you that believe there aren't many great areas to hunt throughout the world (that BC is the mecca) - well I won't waste any key strokes on that one. BC is unreal, but there are incredible hunting opportunities outside this great province as well.
kayjay. I agree with you. I think a modified Alberta system is the way to go. A better way to do it would be to give the same number of entries in the specific draw code as your priority level for that species (ie if a priority level 4, then you get 4 entries in that draw (4 chances of being drawn) as opposed to someone at level 1 that would only have 1 chance. Same concept as drwing from a hat. The more times your name is put in the hat, the higher your odds of being drwan, but everyone still has a chance of being drawn even if the only have one name in the hat. This is the ovious way to deal with Gate's concerns about waiting for years and years to be drawn for hunts with very few allocations, and is a no-brainer to me. It totaly addresses concerns over new hunter recruitment etc b/c everyone would still have a chance, even in there first year, for those really high odds hunts. Just means those guys who have put in the longest would get more chances which seems only fair.

[northof49]

Using your example from above, if the draw was redone at those odds (20:1 and say 5 moose tags given out, so 100 guys apply) and people were given a priority point.

This is how it would play out assuming no extra tags get let out or are taken back:

2011: 5 guys get drawn 95 guys get 1 point.
2012: 5 guys get drawn 90 guys have 2 points
2013: 5 guys get drawn 85 guys have 3 points
2014: 5 guys get drawn 80 guys have 4 points
2015: 5 guys get drawn 75 guys have 5 points
2016: 5 guys get drawn 70 guys have 6 points
2017: 5 guys get drawn 65 guys have 7 points
2018: 5 guys get drawn 60 guys have 8 points
2019: 5 guys get drawn 55 guys have 9 points
2020: 5 guys get drawn 50 guys have 10 points
2021: 5 guys get drawn 45 guys have 11 points

So anyone starting after the first year is at the bottom of the list and has a wait of 20 years before a guarenteed tag. If you say our current system is not good for retention/recruitment how will it be under the point system. Somebody starting out hunting will have a guarenteed wait of 20 years, I am sure he will wait around.:rolleyes:

I would rather not get a tag for 20 years and at least think I may get a tag each year then know for a fact that I will have a guarenteed tag in 20 years.

BHB
Solution is Priority Levels, not points. ie 1st yr = level 0 (get 1 entry in draw), 4th yr = level 3 (gets 4 entries in draw). Similar to Alberta except everone gets a chance of winning every year and your ods keep increasing. New hunters still have a chance, but a guy who has been trying for say 12yrs would be much more likely to get drawn.

[kayjayess]

Sounds like a good system to me. MOE stays happy because they still get there revenue every year. It is still a lottery system - just with increased odds as you spend more years applying. I like it

[hunter1947]

40 years putting in for Island elk and I got picked one time the LEH system sucks for Roosevelt elk :(..

[Gateholio]

. This is the ovious way to deal with Gate's concerns about waiting for years and years to be drawn for hunts with very few allocations, and is a no-brainer to me.

And we'll get people complaining like hell when they've been applying for 15 years and still no bison tag:-D


It totaly addresses concerns over new hunter recruitment etc b/c everyone would still have a chance, even in there first year, for those really high odds hunts. Just means those guys who have put in the longest would get more chances which seems only fair.

It's fair if you are one of the guys that has been applying for a long time. It may seem less fair if you are a new hunter just starting out.:wink:

You shoudl crunch some numbers sing the LEH regulations as a reference for number of applicants and tags alloted and see how long it would take for someone to get drawn for some of the hunts.

[northof49]

And we'll get people complaining like hell when they've been applying for 15 years and still no bison tag:-D



It's fair if you are one of the guys that has been applying for a long time. It may seem less fair if you are a new hunter just starting out.:wink:

You shoudl crunch some numbers sing the LEH regulations as a reference for number of applicants and tags alloted and see how long it would take for someone to get drawn for some of the hunts.

This would be a much better system. It is a combination of points (levels) and the lottery and yes it increases the chances for the hunters that have been putting in the longest. If it was converted to this system everyone would start out equal (ie reset). Can still have all the same group/shared hunts etc. Young new hunters would have a chance in their first yr still (so not exclusive) and any non residents moving here would also have a chance and would increase their odds with each successesive draw, but those that have been putting in for 20+ yrs (Rosies, Sheep etc) would have a slightly increased chance each year.

I think this would be a much better system than we have and it would still give any newbies, young or non-res's, an excellent opportuntiy to enter the LEH system with a chance of winning.

The difference between my proposal and a point system is that it is more like buying lottery tickets. The more entries the more chances of winning. This system would be very easy to implement. Use the Alberta model and then change the way you allocate based on priority level. (ie level 0 would get 1 chance in the draw for that species and a level 4 would get 5 chances in that draw). Each species remains independent.

I've seen lots of complaing year after year but havn't seen anyone come up with a better solution. This is win win so to speak, and as guys get drawn they return to first level for that species but their priorities keep buiding for their other species. After a few years this system would increase the chances for all hunters getting drawn every few years if they are putting in for multiple species and it would spread out the success. This will also reduce the chances of wasted tags and as with the AB system you can still enter each yr to increase your priortity level even if you don't want the draw that year. Again, no wasted tags this way which is an ongoing concern in BC with regards to assigning allocation as unused tags increase chance of resident allocation being shifted over to Outfitters. (nothing against outfitters...just don't want to see Resident hunting opportunities eroded)

Comments?

[Gateholio]

This would be a much better system. It is a combination of points (levels) and the lottery and yes it increases the chances for the hunters that have been putting in the longest. If it was converted to this system everyone would start out equal (ie reset). Can still have all the same group/shared hunts etc. Young new hunters would have a chance in their first yr still (so not exclusive) and any non residents moving here would also have a chance and would increase their odds with each successesive draw, but those that have been putting in for 20+ yrs (Rosies, Sheep etc) would have a slightly increased chance each year.

I think this would be a much better system than we have and it would still give any newbies, young or non-res's, an excellent opportuntiy to enter the LEH system with a chance of winning.

The difference between my proposal and a point system is that it is more like buying lottery tickets. The more entries the more chances of winning. This system would be very easy to implement. Use the Alberta model and then change the way you allocate based on priority level. (ie level 0 would get 1 chance in the draw for that species and a level 4 would get 5 chances in that draw). Each species remains independent.

I've seen lots of complaing year after year but havn't seen anyone come up with a better solution. This is win win so to speak, and as guys get drawn they return to first level for that species but their priorities keep buiding for their other species. After a few years this system would increase the chances for all hunters getting drawn every few years if they are putting in for multiple species and it would spread out the success. This will also reduce the chances of wasted tags and as with the AB system you can still enter each yr to increase your priortity level even if you don't want the draw that year. Again, no wasted tags this way which is an ongoing concern in BC with regards to assigning allocation as unused tags increase chance of resident allocation being shifted over to Outfitters. (nothing against outfitters...just don't want to see Resident hunting opportunities eroded)

Comments?


I'd like to see an example (using numbers of hunters and numbers of tags and odds) to show us how it works.

[GoatGuy]

Comments?

Do more reading and less talking. You're re-creating the wheel and you're missing a couple spokes.

[northof49]

It has already been proven. It's similar to buying tickets for the lotto 649. The more you buy the better your chance s of winning, but everone still has a chance. This is the way true lottos run so I don't think there is a whole lotta need to crunch numbers as it is proven already. Just simply enter a hunter into the draw the same number of times as his priority level for that species. Each hunt code still remains totally independent this way as priority is based on species and follows hunter regardless which area (hunt code) he puts in for.

[northof49]

And we'll get people complaining like hell when they've been applying for 15 years and still no bison tag:-D



It's fair if you are one of the guys that has been applying for a long time. It may seem less fair if you are a new hunter just starting out.:wink:

You shoudl crunch some numbers sing the LEH regulations as a reference for number of applicants and tags alloted and see how long it would take for someone to get drawn for some of the hunts.


Do more reading and less talking. You're re-creating the wheel and you're missing a couple spokes.
Goat, What am I'm missing. This seems pretty straight forward. Not trying to piss anyone off here just trying to offer up a better solution which is what I thought was the idea of this thread.

[Gateholio]

The reason I am asking to see numbers is that I'm not sure if your system would work for all of BC. I think we will still have hunters waiting 20 years to draw some species in some areas.

[bighornbob]

It has already been proven. It's similar to buying tickets for the lotto 649. The more you buy the better your chance s of winning, but everone still has a chance. This is the way true lottos run so I don't think there is a whole loota need to crunch numbers as it is proven already. Just simply enter a hunter into the draw the same number of times as his priority level for that species. Each hunt code still remains totally independent this way as priority is based on species and follows hunter regardless which area (hunt code) he puts in for.

This system is how the NBA does its draft. Basically 100 bingo balls are thrown into a drum or some container. 40 of the balls are assigned to the team with the worst record, 30 to the next team and so forth until the best team entering the NBA draft lottery only gets one ball or a 1 in 100 chance of getting the first overall pick.

BHB

[bighornbob]

The reason I am asking to see numbers is that I'm not sure if your system would work for all of BC. I think we will still have hunters waiting 20 years to draw some species in some areas.

You would becuase there is that backlog of all the people applying at the same time (the first year) and being assigned the same number as everyone else that year.

BHB

[reach]

You shoudl crunch some numbers sing the LEH regulations as a reference for number of applicants and tags alloted and see how long it would take for someone to get drawn for some of the hunts.
I crunched some numbers. In a hypothetical 10:1 hunt (10 applicants for 1 draw) here are the numbers. I am assuming exactly 10 entries every year and everybody keeps applying for the same draw.

Draw 1: 10 entries: [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1] winner: 0 had 1 entries.
Draw 2: 19 entries: [1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2] winner: 7 had 2 entries.
Draw 3: 27 entries: [2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 3, 3] winner: 8 had 3 entries.
Draw 4: 34 entries: [3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4] winner: 1 had 4 entries.
Draw 5: 40 entries: [4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 5] winner: 7 had 3 entries.
Draw 6: 47 entries: [5, 2, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 1, 3, 6] winner: 9 had 6 entries.
Draw 7: 51 entries: [6, 3, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 2, 4, 1] winner: 3 had 7 entries.
Draw 8: 54 entries: [7, 4, 8, 1, 8, 8, 8, 3, 5, 2] winner: 5 had 8 entries.
Draw 9: 56 entries: [8, 5, 9, 2, 9, 1, 9, 4, 6, 3] winner: 6 had 9 entries.
Draw 10: 57 entries: [9, 6, 10, 3, 10, 2, 1, 5, 7, 4] winner: 0 had 9 entries.
Draw 11: 58 entries: [1, 7, 11, 4, 11, 3, 2, 6, 8, 5] winner: 4 had 11 entries.
Draw 12: 57 entries: [2, 8, 12, 5, 1, 4, 3, 7, 9, 6] winner: 1 had 8 entries.
Draw 13: 59 entries: [3, 1, 13, 6, 2, 5, 4, 8, 10, 7] winner: 3 had 6 entries.
Draw 14: 63 entries: [4, 2, 14, 1, 3, 6, 5, 9, 11, 8] winner: 7 had 9 entries.
Draw 15: 64 entries: [5, 3, 15, 2, 4, 7, 6, 1, 12, 9] winner: 5 had 7 entries.
Draw 16: 67 entries: [6, 4, 16, 3, 5, 1, 7, 2, 13, 10] winner: 9 had 10 entries.
Draw 17: 67 entries: [7, 5, 17, 4, 6, 2, 8, 3, 14, 1] winner: 4 had 6 entries.
Draw 18: 71 entries: [8, 6, 18, 5, 1, 3, 9, 4, 15, 2] winner: 2 had 18 entries.
Draw 19: 63 entries: [9, 7, 1, 6, 2, 4, 10, 5, 16, 3] winner: 6 had 10 entries.
Draw 20: 63 entries: [10, 8, 2, 7, 3, 5, 1, 6, 17, 4] winner: 6 had 1 entries.
Draw 21: 72 entries: [11, 9, 3, 8, 4, 6, 1, 7, 18, 5] winner: 9 had 5 entries.
Draw 22: 77 entries: [12, 10, 4, 9, 5, 7, 2, 8, 19, 1] winner: 0 had 12 entries.
Draw 23: 75 entries: [1, 11, 5, 10, 6, 8, 3, 9, 20, 2] winner: 7 had 9 entries.
Draw 24: 76 entries: [2, 12, 6, 11, 7, 9, 4, 1, 21, 3] winner: 8 had 21 entries.
Draw 25: 65 entries: [3, 13, 7, 12, 8, 10, 5, 2, 1, 4] winner: 2 had 7 entries.
Draw 26: 68 entries: [4, 14, 1, 13, 9, 11, 6, 3, 2, 5] winner: 1 had 14 entries.
Draw 27: 64 entries: [5, 1, 2, 14, 10, 12, 7, 4, 3, 6] winner: 4 had 10 entries.
Draw 28: 64 entries: [6, 2, 3, 15, 1, 13, 8, 5, 4, 7] winner: 5 had 13 entries.
Draw 29: 61 entries: [7, 3, 4, 16, 2, 1, 9, 6, 5, 8] winner: 9 had 8 entries.
Draw 30: 63 entries: [8, 4, 5, 17, 3, 2, 10, 7, 6, 1] winner: 3 had 17 entries.

The last number on the right is the hypothetical number of years that person had waited to win the draw. You can see there are almost no small numbers and a *lot* of large numbers. You will still have plenty of unhappy people even with that system.

We have a lot of hunts with higher than 10:1 odds too. It would look worse for those, I expect.

[northof49]

You would becuase there is that backlog of all the people applying at the same time (the first year) and being assigned the same number as everyone else that year.

BHB
Gate as gighorn says you still would have the wait for the cherished hunts (sheep, rosies, bison) due to the reset, but over time your chances would increase. This system would be far better than what we currently have and even better than the way the AB system works cause you get a chance of being drawn even if your first year. This system would make it just like a true lotto where your chances increase the more you play/pay.

[reach]

And in my example above... if you average the number of years waited for the last 21 draws after things stabilize (#10 through #30 inclusive) you get 10.05. Not surprising since it's a 10:1 draw.

Any way you slice it, for higher odds hunts, any fair system will *always* end up with people waiting decades.

I suppose your point is that for the guy in draw #20 who got it on his first try, the system works better than a straight points/priority system. But how about the guy in draw 24 who waited 21 years?

[Gateholio]

Judging form the example above, I think your system would work on hunts with less than 10-1 odds. The average winner waited a little over 8 years for a tag. (10 years after it got to "normal') Of course, some waited far longer and some never got a draw.

I don't even want to think about how long the average for a 30-1 draw would be.:-D

Real solution (as pointed out many times) is to get rid of LEH and have more GOS.

[Gateholio]

I suppose your point is that for the guy in draw #20 who got it on his first try, the system works better than a straight points/priority system. But how about the guy in draw 24 who waited 21 years?

And how fair does Mr. 21 years think it is when Mr. 1st timer got drawn?:mrgreen:

[northof49]

I crunched some numbers. In a hypothetical 10:1 hunt (10 applicants for 1 draw) here are the numbers. I am assuming exactly 10 entries every year and everybody keeps applying for the same draw.

Draw 1: 10 entries: [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1] winner: 0 had 1 entries.
Draw 2: 19 entries: [1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2] winner: 7 had 2 entries.
Draw 3: 27 entries: [2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 3, 3] winner: 8 had 3 entries.
Draw 4: 34 entries: [3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4] winner: 1 had 4 entries.
Draw 5: 40 entries: [4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 5] winner: 7 had 3 entries.
Draw 6: 47 entries: [5, 2, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 1, 3, 6] winner: 9 had 6 entries.
Draw 7: 51 entries: [6, 3, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 2, 4, 1] winner: 3 had 7 entries.
Draw 8: 54 entries: [7, 4, 8, 1, 8, 8, 8, 3, 5, 2] winner: 5 had 8 entries.
Draw 9: 56 entries: [8, 5, 9, 2, 9, 1, 9, 4, 6, 3] winner: 6 had 9 entries.
Draw 10: 57 entries: [9, 6, 10, 3, 10, 2, 1, 5, 7, 4] winner: 0 had 9 entries.
Draw 11: 58 entries: [1, 7, 11, 4, 11, 3, 2, 6, 8, 5] winner: 4 had 11 entries.
Draw 12: 57 entries: [2, 8, 12, 5, 1, 4, 3, 7, 9, 6] winner: 1 had 8 entries.
Draw 13: 59 entries: [3, 1, 13, 6, 2, 5, 4, 8, 10, 7] winner: 3 had 6 entries.
Draw 14: 63 entries: [4, 2, 14, 1, 3, 6, 5, 9, 11, 8] winner: 7 had 9 entries.
Draw 15: 64 entries: [5, 3, 15, 2, 4, 7, 6, 1, 12, 9] winner: 5 had 7 entries.
Draw 16: 67 entries: [6, 4, 16, 3, 5, 1, 7, 2, 13, 10] winner: 9 had 10 entries.
Draw 17: 67 entries: [7, 5, 17, 4, 6, 2, 8, 3, 14, 1] winner: 4 had 6 entries.
Draw 18: 71 entries: [8, 6, 18, 5, 1, 3, 9, 4, 15, 2] winner: 2 had 18 entries.
Draw 19: 63 entries: [9, 7, 1, 6, 2, 4, 10, 5, 16, 3] winner: 6 had 10 entries.
Draw 20: 63 entries: [10, 8, 2, 7, 3, 5, 1, 6, 17, 4] winner: 6 had 1 entries.
Draw 21: 72 entries: [11, 9, 3, 8, 4, 6, 1, 7, 18, 5] winner: 9 had 5 entries.
Draw 22: 77 entries: [12, 10, 4, 9, 5, 7, 2, 8, 19, 1] winner: 0 had 12 entries.
Draw 23: 75 entries: [1, 11, 5, 10, 6, 8, 3, 9, 20, 2] winner: 7 had 9 entries.
Draw 24: 76 entries: [2, 12, 6, 11, 7, 9, 4, 1, 21, 3] winner: 8 had 21 entries.
Draw 25: 65 entries: [3, 13, 7, 12, 8, 10, 5, 2, 1, 4] winner: 2 had 7 entries.
Draw 26: 68 entries: [4, 14, 1, 13, 9, 11, 6, 3, 2, 5] winner: 1 had 14 entries.
Draw 27: 64 entries: [5, 1, 2, 14, 10, 12, 7, 4, 3, 6] winner: 4 had 10 entries.
Draw 28: 64 entries: [6, 2, 3, 15, 1, 13, 8, 5, 4, 7] winner: 5 had 13 entries.
Draw 29: 61 entries: [7, 3, 4, 16, 2, 1, 9, 6, 5, 8] winner: 9 had 8 entries.
Draw 30: 63 entries: [8, 4, 5, 17, 3, 2, 10, 7, 6, 1] winner: 3 had 17 entries.

The last number on the right is the hypothetical number of years that person had waited to win the draw. You can see there are almost no small numbers and a *lot* of large numbers. You will still have plenty of unhappy people even with that system.

We have a lot of hunts with higher than 10:1 odds too. It would look worse for those, I expect.
Good job on all the numbers. I still like the fact that I have much higher odds of winning at some point than under current system. I am 20+yrs on some hunts and it is unlikly I will ever see those hunts under the current system. At least with my prposed system new hunters over time will have increased odds for those dream hunts 20 yrs from now and in the mean time the success on all hunts would become more evenly distributed over BC's hunters, and every hunter would still have a chance of winning every year. Also, with your scenario above it doesn't appear to factor in the fact that you can switch to different areas (hunt codes) for a species to try to increase your odds in the more remote or less popoular hunts. The priority level would be for the species and would transfer with you to any hunt code as long as same species. When you factor in this your odds off success in a shorter time frame will increase even more.

[northof49]

And how fair does Mr. 21 years think it is when Mr. 1st timer got drawn?:mrgreen:
That is already happening. Just the chances of it happening will decrease over time.

[northof49]

This system is how the NBA does its draft. Basically 100 bingo balls are thrown into a drum or some container. 40 of the balls are assigned to the team with the worst record, 30 to the next team and so forth until the best team entering the NBA draft lottery only gets one ball or a 1 in 100 chance of getting the first overall pick.

BHB
If the NBA is doing it consider it tested. This system will work and I have not heard of a better more fair way of doing it that still gives everyone a chance of winning every year. The more you enter the better your chances! What more could you ask for - "Other than more animals and GOS every where - unfortunately we are not living in the pre-70's and this will never be again"

[Fisher-Dude]

blah blah f..ing blah. how bout we do something about it other then bitch here! M.A.D.D.....and all the others get shyt done. why not do the same for us? i am am not the knowledegable one but there are some here. step up and i will follow. there are some people here who know a shytload about this stuff, and if they started something i'd be all in.

Somebody did do something about it. Did you bother to read this first?


www.bccf.com/index.php/employee-downloads/doc_download/54- (http://www.bccf.com/index.php/employee-downloads/doc_download/54-)leh-review-oct-2009

[keoke]

It sucks because I get nothing and guy at work gets 6 moose draws
and 3 antlerless between him and his family. I think as soon as you get drawn for one the rest of your picks get tossed out the window.

[reach]

Good job on all the numbers. I still like the fact that I have much higher odds of winning at some point than under current system. I am 20+yrs on some hunts and it is unlikly I will ever see those hunts under the current system. At least with my prposed system new hunters over time will have increased odds for those dream hunts 20 yrs from now and in the mean time the success on all hunts would become more evenly distributed over BC's hunters, and every hunter would still have a chance of winning every year. Also, with your scenario above it doesn't appear to factor in the fact that you can switch to different areas (hunt codes) for a species to try to increase your odds in the more remote or less popoular hunts. The priority level would be for the species and would transfer with you to any hunt code as long as same species. When you factor in this your odds off success in a shorter time frame will increase even more.
Any fair system will end up with hunters waiting, on average, the same number of years as the overall odds against. 100 applicants for 10 tags = 10 year average wait. There's no getting around that.

The only choice is how to distribute the draws. Straight points system = everybody waits exactly 10 years. A system like you propose = a little more variability (waiting time standard deviation is probably a bit higher). The current system probably has more variability still. (I should run some numbers on that too I guess...) But the average waiting time should still be 10 years in all cases for this hypothetical 10:1 draw.

[Shade Tree]

The 'crux' of the LEH review was that for most people it was " how is this going to benifit me", as opposed to how is this going to be fair for everyone.
I say give the points system a try, we have the worst system of all LEH allocations anywhere and this is coming from a guy who drew four tags this year.

[reach]

It sucks because I get nothing and guy at work gets 6 moose draws
and 3 antlerless between him and his family. I think as soon as you get drawn for one the rest of your picks get tossed out the window.
I agree with that. Somebody else suggested you could rank your draws and if drawn for more than one, only your 1 or 2 "most preferred" draws would be awarded.

But then of course you have the question of undersubscribed draws... might have to make an exception there. I don't think it makes sense to take tags away if they're guaranteed to go unused.

[lightmag]

something has to change, between me, my brother and my dad, neither 1 of us has had a Bull (moose) draw in over 10 years each!! thats 30 plus chances and not a 1???

sure i have grizz this year, and doe deer twice 3 and 4 years ago, big deal!

I just want a bull draw once!!

[reach]

something has to change, between me, my brother and my dad, neither 1 of us has had a Bull (moose) draw in over 10 years each!! thats 30 plus chances and not a 1???
What are the odds in the area you put in for?

Why do you think you and your family should be guaranteed a draw? What makes you different from all the other people who also enter for that draw?

[northof49]

something has to change, between me, my brother and my dad, neither 1 of us has had a Bull (moose) draw in over 10 years each!! thats 30 plus chances and not a 1???

sure i have grizz this year, and doe deer twice 3 and 4 years ago, big deal!

I just want a bull draw once!!
Why don't the 3 of you jump in your truck this Aug/Sept, head up to the North Peace. Bang!Bang!Bang! you're done. No need to wait 10yrs+ it is wide open there.

[reach]

Just for grins I ran the same simulation for 500 draws using both the existing system and the proposed system (one extra entry per unsuccessful previous draw). As expected, the average waiting time is almost exactly 10 years. Only the variance changes.

Existing system:
Average waiting time: 9.868, standard deviation: 10.45593496536776

Proposed change:
Average waiting time: 9.874, standard deviation: 5.197511327548987

With the existing system there is a wider range of values. One poor sap waited 122 years for a draw, and I saw a few in the 30s and 40s. But many more people were getting draws after only 1 or 2 years.

With the proposed change there were fewer people getting draws right away but also fewer that wait a ridiculously long time.

It's a matter of opinion which is better. With the existing system, new/young hunters are not penalized.

[Gateholio]

Interesting research, Reach. Thanks

[Kody94]

Yes, excellent research Reach! Thanks.

My personal preference is a system that gives everyone a chance, but reduces the SD.

If you don't mind me asking, what did you use for your simulations? and would you be willing to share it?

[reach]

If you don't mind me asking, what did you use for your simulations?

You asked for it... :D



import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Random;

public class LEHTest
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int numAppl = 10;
int numDraws = 500;
int[] entries = new int[numAppl];
Random random = new Random();
ArrayList<Integer> waitingTimes = new ArrayList<Integer>();

// Give everybody 1 chance to start
for (int i = 0; i < numAppl; i++)
entries[i] = 1;

for (int i = 1; i <= numDraws; i++)
{
ArrayList<Integer> hat = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int j = 0; j < numAppl; j++)
{
// Existing LEH draw (same odds every time)
// hat.add(j);

// Proposed change - one entry per unsuccessful draw
for (int k = 0; k < entries[j]; k++)
hat.add(j);
}
int winnerIndex = random.nextInt(hat.size());
int winner = hat.get(winnerIndex);
System.out.println("Draw " + i + ": " + hat.size() + " entries: " +
dumpEntries(entries) + " winner: " + winner + " had " + entries[winner]
+ " entries.");
waitingTimes.add(entries[winner]);
for (int j = 0; j < numAppl; j++)
{
if (j == winner)
entries[j] = 1;
else
entries[j]++;
}
}

// Compute statistics
double total = 0.0;
int size = waitingTimes.size();
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
total += waitingTimes.get(i);
double mean = total / size;

double totalSquares = 0.0;
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
totalSquares += Math.pow(waitingTimes.get(i) - mean, 2.0);
double sd = Math.sqrt(totalSquares / size);
System.out.println("Average waiting time: " + mean +
", standard deviation: " + sd);
}

private static String dumpEntries(int[] entries)
{
StringBuffer buf = new StringBuffer("[");
for (int i = 0; i < entries.length; i++)
{
if (i > 0)
buf.append(", ");
buf.append(String.valueOf(entries[i]));
}
buf.append(']');
return buf.toString();
}
}

[GoatGuy]

Just for grins I ran the same simulation for 500 draws using both the existing system and the proposed system (one extra entry per unsuccessful previous draw). As expected, the average waiting time is almost exactly 10 years. Only the variance changes.

Existing system:
Average waiting time: 9.868, standard deviation: 10.45593496536776

Proposed change:
Average waiting time: 9.874, standard deviation: 5.197511327548987

With the existing system there is a wider range of values. One poor sap waited 122 years for a draw, and I saw a few in the 30s and 40s. But many more people were getting draws after only 1 or 2 years.

With the proposed change there were fewer people getting draws right away but also fewer that wait a ridiculously long time.

It's a matter of opinion which is better. With the existing system, new/young hunters are not penalized.

Almost like the bell curve was created by aliens unreadable by mere human beings. :mrgreen:

[Fisher-Dude]

I think most people have trouble grasping the remoteness of being drawn in any year.

For example, 5:1 odds sounds pretty good eh? But, with 5:1 odds, you have an 80% chance of not being drawn. If I told you that you have an 80% chance of being run over by a truck on your way to work today, you'd probably stay home and watch Oprah.

[GoatGuy]

I think most people have trouble grasping the remoteness of being drawn in any year.

For example, 5:1 odds sounds pretty good eh? But, with 5:1 odds, you have an 80% chance of not being drawn. If I told you that you have an 80% chance of being run over by a truck on your way to work today, you'd probably stay home and watch Oprah.


You forgot about the complaining part.

[Kody94]

I think most people have trouble grasping the remoteness of being drawn in any year.

For example, 5:1 odds sounds pretty good eh? But, with 5:1 odds, you have an 80% chance of not being drawn. If I told you that you have an 80% chance of being run over by a truck on your way to work today, you'd probably stay home and watch Oprah.

What people really have trouble grasping is how at 5:1 odds, some other folks manage to get drawn three times in a row...especially when the first draw had only a 20% chance of success and the next two should have had only a 7% chance of success.

If the multiple repeat winner thing got fixed, a lot of complaining would probably go away.

We all own the resource, so I think most of us feel we should have an equal opportunity to use it. Given that pure chance always results in winners and losers (or at least moreso than some other alternatives), its really no wonder that people get pissed off.

After 18 years of going "oh-fer" on something, who wouldn't favor a system that guaranteed a win after 10 years?

[GoatGuy]

If the multiple repeat winner thing got fixed, a lot of complaining would probably go away.

that would be the hope.

[Fisher-Dude]

You forgot about the complaining part.

That's the easy part: 100% chance that people will bitch about it! In fact, complaining should be on GOS.


What people really have trouble grasping is how at 5:1 odds, some other folks manage to get drawn three times in a row...especially when the first draw had only a 20% chance of success and the next two should have had only a 7% chance of success.

If the multiple repeat winner thing got fixed, a lot of complaining would probably go away.

Everyone hears these stories about multiple repeat winners, but I personally only know of one guy that got a 4-16 and 4-17 elk draw 3 years apart. I think it's more of an urban legend than a common occurrence.

[Fisher-Dude]

We all own the resource, so I think most of us feel we should have an equal opportunity to use it. Given that pure chance always results in winners and losers (or at least moreso than some other alternatives), its really no wonder that people get pissed off.


It's an easy fix called General Open Season.

What I'm happy to see is how many guys on the "What did you get?" thread are saying, "Oh well, at least I can go for WT does this season."

[22savage]

My hunting partner has been drawn 3 out of the last 4 years twice for 5-02 d , once for 5-15 c and one of the 5-02 d draws was a second choice draw. And this story dosen't start with Once Upon A Time. I don't follow him to close in the bush as I don't want to step on the tail hangin out of his ass lol

[bayou]

Raise the price of the application cards may fix some of the issues.

[Ozone]

After 18 years of going "oh-fer" on something, who wouldn't favor a system that guaranteed a win after 10 years?

After 25 year of "nil" I am not complaining. I guess I am one of the few who understands how a lottery works.

[Fisher-Dude]

Raise the price of the application cards may fix some of the issues.

Paying more for the same thing does what, exactly?

[northof49]

Just for grins I ran the same simulation for 500 draws using both the existing system and the proposed system (one extra entry per unsuccessful previous draw). As expected, the average waiting time is almost exactly 10 years. Only the variance changes.

Existing system:
Average waiting time: 9.868, standard deviation: 10.45593496536776

Proposed change:
Average waiting time: 9.874, standard deviation: 5.197511327548987

With the existing system there is a wider range of values. One poor sap waited 122 years for a draw, and I saw a few in the 30s and 40s. But many more people were getting draws after only 1 or 2 years.

With the proposed change there were fewer people getting draws right away but also fewer that wait a ridiculously long time.

It's a matter of opinion which is better. With the existing system, new/young hunters are not penalized.
It's always good to run numbers to back it up, but it is also common sense. The more entries the better your odds of winning sooner or later, and the less likely a first timer will win 1st or 2nd try. This to me is still a no-brainer and addresses the large majority of concerns I hear about BC's LEH system. As I mentioned previously, if you factor in that you can apply for different areas with better odds (less entries), then the time frame it would take to win will be reduced even further. The numbers you ran didn't factor this in.

Also if people want to reduce the chance of someone getting drawn the following year, you would simply "square" the priority level to make it even less likely that they would win. ie 1 squared= 1 entry, 2 squared = 4 entries, 3 squared = 9 entries etc. This will benefit those putting in longer even more and you will see them get dramaticly better odds than the guy who won last year and who returns to level 1 the next yr. Unfortunately this would also penalize the first timer (new hunters & new BC resident). I don't think it's so bad that they wait a few years for their chance....hell I have been payin my taxes and fees here in BC for a lifetime!

Do we want this? I don't know, but I do know it would significantly reduce the wait to get a draw and would spread it out more evenly across all applicants. Isn't that what we want? (I started this proposal on page 11 if anyone is looking for the start)

[reach]

It's always good to run numbers to back it up, but it is also common sense. The more entries the better your odds of winning sooner or later, and the less likely a first timer will win 1st or 2nd try. This to me is still a no-brainer and addresses the large majority of concerns I hear about BC's LEH system. As I mentioned previously, if you factor in that you can apply for different areas with better odds (less entries), then the time frame it would take to win will be reduced even further. The numbers you ran didn't factor this in.
The other people who had been applying regularly for that other area will also have an increased number of entries, so I believe that would be a wash.

Also if people want to reduce the chance of someone getting drawn the following year, you would simply "square" the priority level to make it even less likely that they would win. ie 1 squared= 1 entry, 2 squared = 4 entries, 3 squared = 9 entries etc. This will benefit those putting in longer even more and you will see them get dramaticly better odds than the guy who won last year and who returns to level 1 the next yr. Unfortunately this would also penalize the first timer (new hunters & new BC resident). I don't think it's so bad that they wait a few years for their chance....hell I have been payin my taxes and fees here in BC for a lifetime! Yes there is a continuum ranging from a pure random draw with no enhanced odds for anybody (maximum variation in waiting time) all the way to a waiting list system where you would know exactly how many years it would take to get your tag (zero variation in waiting time). It's just a matter of picking the desired level of variation - how much chance do you want new applicants to have? Once you have decided that, it should be easy to design a point system (each year waited = x number of points) to achieve that.

But as I've said before, in any fair system, the *average* waiting time across all applicants does not change. There is no fair way to get a 10:1 draw any sooner than 10 years *on average*.


Do we want this? I don't know, but I do know it would significantly reduce the wait to get a draw and would spread it out more evenly across all applicants. Isn't that what we want? (I started this proposal on page 11 if anyone is looking for the start)I am not sure what "we" want. It appears to be what you want. :)

Personally I am not sure. The system we have right now is fair. I would be OK with moving more in the direction of reduced odds for beginners/better odds for long time applicants *if* there were alternatives for new hunters to sweeten the pot - special LEH draws or open seasons for new hunters only.

[bayou]

Paying more for the same thing does what, exactly?
Could reduce the #of applicants, getting rid of some of those that really dont have intentions of using the permit, thus increasing the odds which some complain about.
Also if those applying are more intent on hunting the animal it may increase the harvest which some also want to happen.
With increased application costs Im talkin similar to those in some of the states draws so there would/could be other variables come in to play.

[GoatGuy]

Could reduce the #of applicants, getting rid of some of those that really dont have intentions of using the permit, thus increasing the odds which some complain about.
Also if those applying are more intent on hunting the animal it may increase the harvest which some also want to happen.
With increased application costs Im talkin similar to those in some of the states draws so there would/could be other variables come in to play.

What happens if people don't use the permits?

What are the participation rates in 'some of the states with increased application costs' as compared to BC?

[Kody94]

Everyone hears these stories about multiple repeat winners, but I personally only know of one guy that got a 4-16 and 4-17 elk draw 3 years apart. I think it's more of an urban legend than a common occurrence.

3 guys on here have "self reported". SRUPP for one, and two other guys that say they got moose draws in three consecutive years. Considering they all should have had their odds reduced by 66% (all moose and rosies) thats pretty amazing don't you think?

I also know two people personally that have recieved 4 EK spring grizz draws in the same time that I have received none.

I don't know how common it is, but its certainly not an urban legend, and it sure doesn't help with the popularity of the system.


And, I too am happy that guys are happy that they get to chase flat-tops. :)

[Fisher-Dude]

Could reduce the #of applicants, getting rid of some of those that really dont have intentions of using the permit, thus increasing the odds which some complain about.
Also if those applying are more intent on hunting the animal it may increase the harvest which some also want to happen.
With increased application costs Im talkin similar to those in some of the states draws so there would/could be other variables come in to play.

How do you determine what cost is necessary to keep participation at a level that meets AAH by weeding out those less likely to utilize their permits?

How do you differentiate the cost level required to "improve odds" for high demand hunts to the cost level for low demand hunts? Do you charge different amounts for high demand hunt applications versus low demand hunt applications? What about individual species such as moose with some hunts with low odds versus some with high odds?

What research shows that increasing the cost to deny opportunity to those less affluent correlates to increased utilization by those who are more affluent?

[Jelvis]

If I would change the LEH system if I could but only making it enhanced from what it is, tweek it, not change it too much any wheres.
I would simplify group hunt rules for instance, by explaining in lay mans terms for all who are nervous about each angle of interpretation which is normal to ask questions. Show how it works, so in the field the hunters know the system in clarity and confidence. Partners in the system.
The HBC site and it's active membership is awakening the hunting spirit in B.C. with information sharing, new innovative ideas and reasoning that shines light on Hunting and Trapping Regulations and LEH activity and it's importance to wildlife and hunters for sustainability in positive harvest numbers.
Jelly .. Tweek it don't freak it ... lol ... it's all good ... LEH and gos ...

[Kody94]

Personally I am not sure. The system we have right now is fair. I would be OK with moving more in the direction of reduced odds for beginners/better odds for long time applicants *if* there were alternatives for new hunters to sweeten the pot - special LEH draws or open seasons for new hunters only.

The system we have right now is perfectly fair on an annual basis. One could argue that its not as fair as it could be over the long term. :)

I am not sure why there need be something for new hunters that would sweeten the pot, but I would be amenable to special allotment of tags (lets call the "recruitment tags") being allocated to hunters with less than X amount of years since getting their hunter number, or less than X amount of applications for that species.

[bayou]

[quote=GoatGuy;694605]What happens if people don't use the permits?
If you mean after the season then it means nothing was shot,if you mean before the season then I like the idea were they can be turned in and giving to the next guy on the list.
What are the participation rates in 'some of the states with increased application costs' as compared to BC?
In past threads you have said that is what you do, so research it if thats what interests you.

[Gateholio]

It seems a big complaint is that Hunter X gets drawn often and Hunter Y gets NIL

Seems easiest to just say "you got a moose tag last year, so no applying for one for 3 years" just the same as if you got a Spring grizz tag you can't apply for a fall one.

Or, you got a bison tag- No applying for 5 years

Of course, some guys woudl complain because the got the tag, couldn't go and now can't apply for 5 years...

I can't see any NON compliant systems, really:mrgreen:

[Gateholio]

I've also wondered about "prioritizing" the applications.

Change the card so that you have one card, and pay for as many applications as you want.

List them all on the card, in descending order of preference.

Cards are drawn as one, and one by one.

If you are drawn, your card is looked at for any available hunts. If one is available, you get it. If not, your card is discarded.

But you only get one out of your list.

Card would look like

#1 Bison
#2 elk
#3 moose
#4 goat
#5 sheep
#6 doe

(But using hunt codes instead of species, of course)

So if your card was drawn first, you would get a bison tag. (but none other)

If you were drawn later, you would get a doe tag. (but none other)

If all the hunts you wanted were allocated prior to you getting drawn, you get NIL.

If you applied for mostly low odds hunts, you would probably get your first to third choice, if you only applied to high odds hunts you may not get any.

Incorporate that with a 1 in 3 year or 1 in 5 year ,and I bet tags woudl get issued a bit more "evenly" maybe...

I know that it pissed me off when I got NIL for 8 years and then all of a sudden I had 3 LEH's in one year, 2 of which I had to not really hunt because I focused on the other one...

[22savage]

I think leh draws can be sum up in one word LUCK either you got it or you don't, any theorys about special treatment or favoritism within the draw for anybody from anywhere is just bull crap! jmo

[Fisher-Dude]

[]What happens if people don't use the permits?
If you mean after the season then it means nothing was shot,if you mean before the season then I like the idea were they can be turned in and giving to the next guy on the list.
What are the participation rates in 'some of the states with increased application costs' as compared to BC?
In past threads you have said that is what you do, so research it if thats what interests you.

Huh? You make some bogus assertions that some states use the cost system, so you show us which ones! Why should GoatHumper dig stuff up on your behalf to validate what you state as fact? Unreal! :?

[northof49]

I've also wondered about "prioritizing" the applications.

Change the card so that you have one card, and pay for as many applications as you want.

List them all on the card, in descending order of preference.

Cards are drawn as one, and one by one.

If you are drawn, your card is looked at for any available hunts. If one is available, you get it. If not, your card is discarded.

But you only get one out of your list.

Card would look like

#1 Bison
#2 elk
#3 moose
#4 goat
#5 sheep
#6 doe

(But using hunt codes instead of species, of course)

So if your card was drawn first, you would get a bison tag. (but none other)

If you were drawn later, you would get a doe tag. (but none other)

If all the hunts you wanted were allocated prior to you getting drawn, you get NIL.

If you applied for mostly low odds hunts, you would probably get your first to third choice, if you only applied to high odds hunts you may not get any.

Incorporate that with a 1 in 3 year or 1 in 5 year ,and I bet tags woudl get issued a bit more "evenly" maybe...

I know that it pissed me off when I got NIL for 8 years and then all of a sudden I had 3 LEH's in one year, 2 of which I had to not really hunt because I focused on the other one...
Hey Gate, creative, but I don't think I like this idea much. Under the current system each of your applications is drawn separately, so you have more chances (however many cards you submit) of getting drawn early in the sequence and getting a hunt. With only one card if you are drawn at the tail end of all hunters in BC (one card each), you are buggered and won't get any hunts, whereas if at the front end just one hunt. I prefer to have several chances each year of being drawn at the front of the que (ie one for each species). Man this way if you're at the tail end of the sequence you're buggered for everything.

[GoatGuy]

What happens if people don't use the permits?
If you mean after the season then it means nothing was shot,if you mean before the season then I like the idea were they can be turned in and giving to the next guy on the list.
What are the participation rates in 'some of the states with increased application costs' as compared to BC?
In past threads you have said that is what you do, so research it if thats what interests you.

Your idea, you should be able to support it.

[northof49]

The system we have right now is perfectly fair on an annual basis. One could argue that its not as fair as it could be over the long term. :)

I am not sure why there need be something for new hunters that would sweeten the pot, but I would be amenable to special allotment of tags (lets call the "recruitment tags") being allocated to hunters with less than X amount of years since getting their hunter number, or less than X amount of applications for that species.
Reach, SSSSter - Agreed, current system is absolutely fair and is fair in the long term as well in that it is a new draw every year. Based on the complaints I hear most often about frustrated hunters going for yrs without gettin a single draw and frustration over some people getting same species several yrs in a row, I think we need a system that isn't fair. The system I suggested is exactly that. It introduces bias into the selection process to favor those that have gone longer without success by giving them more chances to be drawn. I think your idea of not allowing someone who won the draw for a species to put in again the following year is an excellent idea. (same as for G-bear). This would elliminate the need for "squareing" the priority level that I mentioned earlier.

As for new hunter recruitment, I think the GOS under age hunts are a great way to accomplish this.

[Fisher-Dude]

As for new hunter recruitment, I don't think the GOS under age hunts are a great way to accomplish this.

Whaaaaaaat? They've proven to be quite successful. I guess you're just concerned that some kid's gonna shoot your deer eh?

[northof49]

Whaaaaaaat? They've proven to be quite successful. I guess you're just concerned that some kid's gonna shoot your deer eh?
Whoops.....my bad. I meant to say I do think they are a great way to accomplish this. Sorry. will edit.

[reach]

Whoops.....my bad. I meant to say I do think they are a great way to accomplish this. Sorry. will edit.
Thought that's what you meant... only problem there is that not all new hunters are young. I think if one of the goals is to attract some new people, there should be incentives instead of penalties.

I just started hunting a few years ago at the tender age of 36, and got one of the new hunter WT doe draws. I was quite happy about it at the time. I think it definitely gave me a better introduction to hunting (I actually had a chance to cut the tag). I don't think there are any "new hunter" opportunities now that aren't based on age.

[northof49]

Thought that's what you meant... only problem there is that not all new hunters are young. I think if one of the goals is to attract some new people, there should be incentives instead of penalties.

I just started hunting a few years ago at the tender age of 36, and got one of the new hunter WT doe draws. I was quite happy about it at the time. I think it definitely gave me a better introduction to hunting (I actually had a chance to cut the tag). I don't think there are any "new hunter" opportunities now that aren't based on age.
Never too late to start hunting, that's awesome.

It would be good to have something to attract new older hunters as well agreed. Concern would be new to BC guys who had license elsewhere being able to jump the que. Might be tuff/cumbersome to confirm who has had a licence previously and would really be unfair to Res hunters if someone came hear from next door and jumped the que or was eligible for a special GOS hunt.

[bayou]

Huh? You make some bogus assertions that some states use the cost system, so you show us which ones! Why should GoatHumper dig stuff up on your behalf to validate what you state as fact? Unreal! :?
Know bogus assertions all the states draws cost money just as ours do I dont know of any free draws. The ones Ive looked into just cost more.
I never asked GG to do anything on my behalf, its simply if you need more info to validate it for yourself look into it.

[bayou]

Your idea, you should be able to support it.
Not my idea. just my opinion, its the states idea. Im fine with the states draws, alberta draws and B.C. draws have applied in each. Do I think B.C.s could be tweeked abit, sure but thats just an opinion.
If you need graphs,charts and research on it to validate it for you have at it go find it. Pretty much every thing you put up is research or work done by others if thats what works for you fine.
I to have faith in somes work and trust others but also like to learn from personal experience, and have somewhat of an open mind.

[22savage]

Make it mandatory to purchase a hunting license and tags for the species that you are going to apply for ,this money could be put into getting more info on true numbers of animals and getting some of these hunts back to gos .Hunter numbers have declined by 50% in the last 30 years or so and hunts available by leh have increased 165% .We need to start managing game for the avarage hunter who wants to put meat on the table not for the guide outfitters or 2% of resident hunters who are looking for trophy animals. jmo

[northof49]

Make it mandatory to purchase a hunting license and tags for the species that you are going to apply for ,this money could be put into getting more info on true numbers of animals and getting some of these hunts back to gos .Hunter numbers have declined by 50% in the last 30 years or so and hunts available by leh have increased 165% .We need to start managing game for the avarage hunter who wants to put meat on the table not for the guide outfitters or 2% of resident hunters who are looking for trophy animals. jmo
Hey 22, don't believe we should be managing game for any particular user (to each his own). As long as they are out there enjoying hunting, I am happy. Also, I don't like the idea of paying up front for a species tag that I don't get drawn for - could get very expensive if applying for sheep, elk, grizz, moose. That would kill our LEH system. I son't know how many of us have that kind of scratch to throw away especially based on success rates under current system.

That said, maybe not a bad idea for people to have to pay for tags they draw in the LEH and then don't use. This would get hunters to really think about where, and for what they want to hunt, rather than using the shotgun approach in the draw and not using tags for whatever reason. This would also help address the concern with unused resident allocation and potentially losing allocation to GO's (nothin against GO's, just want to keep as much Res. allocation as possible). Also, this might deter some of those who apply for LEH tags so hunters can't get them. I'm sure lots will not like this idea, but it sure would be a good way to make sure people were seriously planning on going if they win.
Comments?

[Gateholio]

I have long felt that if you had to supply your VISA number or a cheque with an LEH application, (Tag purchased and mailed to you automatically) it would cut down on people applying for tags they don't really have the resources to hunt.

[GoatGuy]

Not my idea. just my opinion, its the states idea. Im fine with the states draws, alberta draws and B.C. draws have applied in each. Do I think B.C.s could be tweeked abit, sure but thats just an opinion.
If you need graphs,charts and research on it to validate it for you have at it go find it. Pretty much every thing you put up is research or work done by others if thats what works for you fine.
I to have faith in somes work and trust others but also like to learn from personal experience, and have somewhat of an open mind.

So tell me about your personal experience about how in the states and in Alberta more people participate and are more 'serious' about the low odds draws.

[bayou]

So tell me about your personal experience about how in the states and in Alberta more people participate and are more 'serious' about the low odds draws.
Sorry like I said not my thing of interest.

[GoatGuy]

Sorry like I said not my thing of interest.

So how do you come up with a solution for anything of this stuff? How do you support your 'opinion'?

Your thumb is bleeding, it's my opinion that if you cut off your hand your thumb will stop bleeding.:confused:

[Jelvis]

Why would you change the LEH system?
.................................................. ... it's not broken
Jelly .. If it ain't BROKE don't fix it!

[bayou]

So how do you come up with a solution for anything of this stuff? How do you support your 'opinion'?

Your thumb is bleeding, it's my opinion that if you cut off your hand your thumb will stop bleeding.:confused:
You should know all about cuts.

[GoatGuy]

You should know all about cuts.

That's funny, glad you caught on.:mrgreen:

[dhog]

I too did not win any draws our group of six put in a area with less then 4:1 odds so i fired a letter off to the ministry and got a reply saying that we were putting in for two high of odds and should put in for areas that have lower odds witch is fair enough. As for deminished odds he said it lasts for 3 years. So i will still hunt just have to go a little futher away

[reach]

I too did not win any draws our group of six put in a area with less then 4:1 odds so i fired a letter off to the ministry and got a reply saying that we were putting in for two high of odds and should put in for areas that have lower odds witch is fair enough. As for deminished odds he said it lasts for 3 years. So i will still hunt just have to go a little futher away
At 4:1 odds (of course those were last year's odds; you have no way of knowing what this year's were), assuming all six put in individually, the probability of none of the six being drawn is (0.75 ^ 6) = 0.18. While low, it's still fairly likely - it would happen on average 18 times out of 100.

If you put in any group applications, and/or if any applicants had reduced odds, then of course the probability of nobody being drawn is even greater.

I think it's a common misconception that if 4 people put in for a 4:1 draw, one is guaranteed to win it. The probabilities don't work that way.

[hunter1947]

I guess we can bitch all we want regarding changing the LEH system but I don't think it will ever happen ,don't hold your breath or you might hyper ventilat :mrgreen:.

I myself think the management do a darn good job on the system , I would like to see any of us try to do a better job then the management.

My hat goes off to them they do there job as good as they can and if anyone thinks they can do better the quit your job and go work for the wildlife department ,

Sure I bitch every year that I don't get draws but is not thats what its all about http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif..

[northof49]

I guess we can bitch all we want regarding changing the LEH system but I don't think it will ever happen ,don't hold your breath or you might hyper ventilat :mrgreen:.

I myself think the management do a darn good job on the system , I would like to see any of us try to do a better job then the management.

My hat goes off to them they do there job as good as they can and if anyone thinks they can do better the quit your job and go work for the wildlife department ,

Sure I bitch every year that I don't get draws but is not thats what its all about http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif..
I like to bitch just as much as next guy, but if there were a better system that distributed wins more evenly across all hunters and at the same time increased your odds of winning that hunt you've been puttin in for, wouldn't you say lets do it. I'm not knocking anyone with my earlier proposal but IMO it is a no brainer. As with most systems in life it is good to stop periodicaly and re-evaluate to see if they can be improved. This just happened over the last few years with the BC LEH and the next step would be to implement the changes based on feedback. My understanding is the LEH review has now gone to MoE in the fall of 2009 and we are now waiting for whatever change might come. It is also my understanding that changes are probably on hold due to lack of Gov $$$ to do it. Gov't cuts everywhere right now, so you know where we hunters are sitting on the priority list.

As for mngmt doing a good job. Like most they probably try to do the best they can based on the knowledge they have and within the handcuffs of policy and procedures that govern every move. How much site specific knowledge do they have....I don't know, but probably not as much as you and I when it comes to our favorite stompin grounds. And yes at times I don't understand the changes. More often than not they are influence by angry farmers who don't like their hay gettin eatin or pissed on by elk/deer (ie creation of 7-20a). Yes management of wildlife includes social issues as well not just numbers. I for one hate seeing populations build to where it greatly improves hunter success only to see the govt try to knock it back down again. Tis a good free-for-all for first few yrs, but then gets skinny again. Don't like the up and down knee-jerk managment style b/c it seems the Res. hunters voice is usually at the bottom of the list when it comes to Gov priority in BC.

[northof49]

deleted dble entry

[hunter1947]

I like to bitch just as much as next guy, but if there were a better system that distributed wins more evenly across all hunters and at the same time increased your odds of winning that hunt you've been puttin in for, wouldn't you say lets do it. I'm not knocking anyone with my earlier proposal but IMO it is a no brainer. As with most systems in life it is good to stop periodicaly and re-evaluate to see if they can be improved. This just happened over the last few years with the BC LEH and the next step would be to implement the changes based on feedback. My understanding is the LEH review has now gone to MoE in the fall of 2009 and we are now waiting for whatever change might come. It is also my understanding that changes are probably on hold due to lack of Gov $$$ to do it. Gov't cuts everywhere right now, so you know where we hunters are sitting on the priority list.

As for mngmt doing a good job. Like most they probably try to do the best they can based on the knowledge they have and within the handcuffs of policy and procedures that govern every move. How much site specific knowledge do they have....I don't know, but probably not as much as you and I when it comes to our favorite stompin grounds. And yes at times I don't understand the changes. More often than not they are influence by angry farmers who don't like their hay gettin eatin or pissed on by elk/deer (ie creation of 7-20a). Yes management of wildlife includes social issues as well not just numbers. I for one hate seeing populations build to where it greatly improves hunter success only to see the govt try to knock it back down again. Tis a good free-for-all for first few yrs, but then gets skinny again. Don't like the up and down knee-jerk managment style b/c it seems the Res. hunters voice is usually at the bottom of the list when it comes to Gov priority in BC.


Then maybe you should quit the job you have and go work for the LEH seystem maybe you can do a better job then them http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif..

[bushpig slayer]

i was pissed when i herd a guy say they got 4 moose tags and were only going to us 2 because it was too much meat to kill 4 there for 2 people lost out in bc for that spot.i said why don't you do a shared hunt then,he said that they were worried that it is only counts for one entry and they didn't want to take that chance.if that is the case why don't they have transferable tags so if someone wants it they can have it.it won't screw up the system just mail in who now owns it?

[reach]

i was pissed when i herd a guy say they got 4 moose tags and were only going to us 2 because it was too much meat to kill 4 there for 2 people lost out in bc for that spot.i said why don't you do a shared hunt then,he said that they were worried that it is only counts for one entry and they didn't want to take that chance.if that is the case why don't they have transferable tags so if someone wants it they can have it.it won't screw up the system just mail in who now owns it?

1. All moose hunts are "shared", not "group" - "shared" hunts actually give you *better* odds. All applicants are separate entries - if 4 people apply, you have 4 entries in the draw. If any one is drawn, they all are drawn. This is in contrast to group hunts, where all 4 would go in as one entry.

2. They set the number of authorizations taking into account the fact that some people don't hunt their tags. If they put in any sort of system to require people to buy a species license or to make authorizations transferable or returnable (or anything else that increases the % success per authorization issued), then they will just have to reduce the number of authorizations to achieve the same target number of animals harvested. So there's not much point worrying about wasted tags. It's all part of the plan (in theory at least).

[northof49]

Then maybe you should quit the job you have and go work for the LEH seystem maybe you can do a better job then them http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif..
Wouldn't mind, but you need a buch of fancy letters behind your name and I don't have em. Never said I can do a better job and I didn't start this thread. Note the title! Don't like it move on. BTW, I'm not the only one that thinks the system could use a revamp, if I was there wouldn't have been a review the last few yrs. :wink:

[CanuckShooter]

I too did not win any draws our group of six put in a area with less then 4:1 odds so i fired a letter off to the ministry and got a reply saying that we were putting in for two high of odds and should put in for areas that have lower odds witch is fair enough. As for deminished odds he said it lasts for 3 years. So i will still hunt just have to go a little futher away

Diminished odds don't mean anything, one of my hunting buddies has gotten bull moose 4 out of 5 consecutive years...same MU.....don't let them BS you!!! LOL

[Fisher-Dude]

Diminished odds don't mean anything, one of my hunting buddies has gotten bull moose 4 out of 5 consecutive years...same MU.....don't let them BS you!!! LOL

Hell, some guys have had 4 moose draws since 1987, I've only had 2 since 1977. It's NOT FAIR! Especially when some guys chuck out 2 of their 4 draws and don't even go on the hunt!

I think any guy that's chucked out 2 moose draws should be BANNED from LEH! That would be FAIR!

[CanuckShooter]

Hell, some guys have had 4 moose draws since 1987, I've only had 2 since 1977. It's NOT FAIR! Especially when some guys chuck out 2 of their 4 draws and don't even go on the hunt!

I think any guy that's chucked out 2 moose draws should be BANNED from LEH! That would be FAIR!


If you haven't had once since 77 then I will stand aside and let you go first....sort of a seniority thing even though I know that rankles you but it would be fair.

CS

[Fisher-Dude]

If you haven't had once since 77 then I will stand aside and let you go first....sort of a seniority thing even though I know that rankles you but it would be fair.

CS

Aw thanks Jim. But I still have a few roasts left over from our last draw (shared hunt). I better eat those before they turn into dog food. :mrgreen:

[CanuckShooter]

Aw thanks Jim. But I still have a few roasts left over from our last draw (shared hunt). I better eat those before they turn into dog food. :mrgreen:

Your welcome, I have no moose left...just elk and deer...my puppies love me!!!:mrgreen:

[northof49]

Hell, some guys have had 4 moose draws since 1987, I've only had 2 since 1977. It's NOT FAIR! Especially when some guys chuck out 2 of their 4 draws and don't even go on the hunt!

I think any guy that's chucked out 2 moose draws should be BANNED from LEH! That would be FAIR!
A mandatory tag charge for all successful draws would deter those that thow them in for the heck of it, then don't go. Would be interesting to know how many guys thow in for Bison and then don't end up going.

[Fisher-Dude]

A mandatory tag charge for all successful draws would deter those that thow them in for the heck of it, then don't go. Would be interesting to know how many guys thow in for Bison and then don't end up going.

Wouldn't make any difference. If more people go on the hunt because they have had to purchase a tag, then the number of available authorizations will go down correspondingly to achieve AAH.

Your odds of being drawn are governed by AAH, not by ANY type of different draw system. You need to read the LEH review.

[peashooter]

If you could return the tag for someone else to use then you could avoid the manditoty tag charge. If they draw early enough, then give us 2-3 weeks to return for a secondary draw. Crude plan but gotta start somewhere.

[Fisher-Dude]

If you could return the tag for someone else to use then you could avoid the manditoty tag charge. If they draw early enough, then give us 2-3 weeks to return for a secondary draw. Crude plan but gotta start somewhere.

And that would mean there would be less tags issued as utilization goes up, so your odds of killing a moose wouldn't change. Your odds of being drawn decrease.

Scenario 1:

Here's the math in the current system: we want 10 moose (the AAH) shot in area X. 100 guys want to shoot those moose and apply. Participation is 80%, success rate of participating hunters is 50%, so 25 guys get drawn. 10 moose get shot.
25 drawn hunters x 80% = 20 guys actually hunt x 50% success = 10 moose shot.

Your odds of killing a moose: 10:1 (100 guys, 10 moose). Your odds in the draw: 4:1 (100 guys, 25 tags issued).

Scenario 2:

But we change the rules now, to make it so that the 20% of guys in Scenario 1 who didn't hunt turn their tags in so that other guys who will hunt get them, the "second chance" guys.

The AAH is still 10 moose. 100 guys want to shoot the moose and apply. But hunt participation is now 100%, because we turn in tags to guys that really want to go hunting this year. Success rate for moose hunters = 50%. Only 20 tags will be available because of increased participation.

20 hunters x 100% participation = 20 guys hunt x 50% success = 10 moose shot.

Your odds of killing a moose: 10:1 (100 guys, 10 moose). Your odds in the draw: 4.2:1 (100 guys, 20 tags issued, and 4 (20% x 20) who don't hunt turn in their tags to "second chance guys" = 24 chances of being drawn or receiving a "second chance" tag).

Guess what? Your odds of killing a moose are 10:1 under both scenarios. Your odds of being drawn are 4:1 under the current system, 4.2:1 under the "new" system. :wink:

[peashooter]

you had me at "and that would mean"

[peashooter]

that would ring true if 100% of the 4 bonus draws are hunting. using your schedule, 20% of those 4 wont hunt either. meaning, about 3 out of 4 guys are hunting. now they back to where they started. 4:1 or close to it. they would have to draw 21 tags in the first place then get the 4 returned, to get their 10 dead moose. :confused:

[Fisher-Dude]

that would ring true if 100% of the 4 bonus draws are hunting. using your schedule, 20% of those 4 wont hunt either. meaning, about 3 out of 4 guys are hunting. now they back to where they started. 4:1 or close to it. they would have to draw 21 tags in the first place then get the 4 returned, to get their 10 dead moose. :confused:

It's a bit of a circular calculation. :wink: Only one iteration is used because the second chance tags are given to guys who are going hunting. We can only have 20 guys hunting in any case with a 50% success rate. The extra cost of administration for 2nd chance draws isn't worth it because your odds of going hunting do not improve, nor does your chance of harvesting a moose.

At any rate, your odds of killing a moose are 10:1. AAH determines your whether you're going hunting, not the type of draw system used.

From the LEH Review: "Changes to the type of draw will not increase participation or opportunity." Again, people need to read the LEH review.
www.bccf.com/index.php/employee-downloads/doc_download/54- (http://www.bccf.com/index.php/employee-downloads/doc_download/54-)leh-review-oct-2009

[peashooter]

Maybe it's not about returns. What if the next 4 years after a moose draw say you get reduced odds like this. Year 1 you are 100% reduced. Year 2 75%. Year 3 50%. Year 4 25%. Year 5 you are back on track.

[Fisher-Dude]

Maybe it's not about returns. What if the next 4 years after a moose draw say you get reduced odds like this. Year 1 you are 100% reduced. Year 2 75%. Year 3 50%. Year 4 25%. Year 5 you are back on track.

Reduced odds are good for low odds draws. In the case of high odds hunts, what difference does it make if 595 guys are at full odds, or 600?

[peashooter]

absolutely. start with anything over 10:1 see how it goes. i think it would spread out the draws among the crowd a little better than what is happening now.

[TyTy]

my only beef with the system (as of now) is with the island elk draw. need a better system for this coveted species. people possibly never getting a draw? while some get it twice? not right. once you are successful getting an island elk, i think that should be it for your chance to apply again.

the moe needs to have some compassion for resident hunters'

[Schutzen]

my only beef with the system (as of now) is with the island elk draw. need a better system for this coveted species. people possibly never getting a draw? while some get it twice? not right. once you are successful getting an island elk, i think that should be it for your chance to apply again.

the moe needs to have some compassion for resident hunters'

25 Years ago I pleaded with the MOE to make the Island Elk draw a one time thing.:(
Get a draw and ur no longer eligible.
By now that would have eliminated a heckuva lot of hunters and the draws might even be reasonable. Coulda done that with Sheep also in some areas etc.

[Fisher-Dude]

25 Years ago I pleaded with the MOE to make the Island Elk draw a one time thing.:(
Get a draw and ur no longer eligible.
By now that would have eliminated a heckuva lot of hunters and the draws might even be reasonable. Coulda done that with Sheep also in some areas etc.

Here's your answer:


One suggestion we have considered relates to periods of ineligibility.
For example, we could decide that once a person has drawn a particular
species, they are not allowed to apply for some period of time.
Unfortunately, for many hunts, even once in a lifetime opportunities
don't help much. Using bison as an example, up to 2006, 38,153 people
have applied for bison in all of the draws that have ever been offered,
but only 1,454 have ever been drawn. If those 1,454 individuals were
barred from ever applying again, that would still leave 36,699 people
applying for 79 licences in the 2006 draw... not much of an improvement.
Additionally, periods of ineligibility have been offered to the BC
Wildlife Federation, but disagreement around the length of such periods
is always intense.

[David Heitsman]

I sat at a meeting last week with all the user groups and managers for the KIB bighorn pilot project and to a man everyone kew what they had drawn or not. This indicates a very high use of the internet for hunters to get their results as the results form had not been mailed out yet.

My thoughts are to have a box on the LEH forms that you would check indicating that you would locate your results on the internet and that if you were unsucessful you would not be receiving or requiring your results by mail.

Surely this would save several thousand dollars on printing, postage and
handling. This money could then be spent on implementing an internet
based LEH like most other western jurisdictions are now using.

[BlacktailStalker]

Yeah the elk draw is a mess.
I know guys who have applied for 25+ years (11 for me) and nothing yet today I learned a guy I know just got drawn for the SECOND TIME IN FOUR YEARS, both high odds areas, unflipping real.

[Spy]

If the resident hunter(Us):-D were to get 70 %:mrgreen: of the the allotted quota, Instead of the 30 % the LEH system would be fair. :wink:

It would give allot more hunters a chance at getting a big game animal & putting some meat in the freezer.:-DWe might not need the the LEH System In some areas.
I WOULD MAKE. All guided hunts go on to a LEH system & give Resident hunters first choice on all hunts in BC! We all pay taxes here we should come first,.:-D

[Gateholio]

I sat at a meeting last week with all the user groups and managers for the KIB bighorn pilot project and to a man everyone kew what they had drawn or not. This indicates a very high use of the internet for hunters to get their results as the results form had not been mailed out yet.

My thoughts are to have a box on the LEH forms that you would check indicating that you would locate your results on the internet and that if you were unsucessful you would not be receiving or requiring your results by mail.

Surely this would save several thousand dollars on printing, postage and
handling. This money could then be spent on implementing an internet
based LEH like most other western jurisdictions are now using.

As long as you coudl print it off....But it would also have to be double checked- since there have been a few reports on HBC about getting NIL on the website and getting an authorization in the mail and vice versa . (A very few)

[Schutzen]

Yeah the elk draw is a mess.
I know guys who have applied for 25+ years (11 for me) and nothing yet today I learned a guy I know just got drawn for the SECOND TIME IN FOUR YEARS, both high odds areas, unflipping real.

Yeah
Same here I personally know one dude who applied three years and drew the 1st and 3rd year!
I have been in it since 1976 and NADA!

Mind u I have not one the 6/49 Lotto either and I'm not sure which one pisses me off more.:mrgreen:

[hunter1947]

Yeah the elk draw is a mess.
I know guys who have applied for 25+ years (11 for me) and nothing yet today I learned a guy I know just got drawn for the SECOND TIME IN FOUR YEARS, both high odds areas, unflipping real.


Like I said before there has to be some changes made in some of the LEH species ,there has to be some adjustments made http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon8.gif..

Lots of the system is good but there is 20% that need work done to make it more fair for others like me it can be done..

Yes you are right BlacktailStalker I have been invited to help guide one of my old hunting partners from years hunting together.

I helped this person get a nice 7x8 bull elk 4 years ago in zone 1-11B and yes he got picked this year in zone 1-09C Sunders Creek area yes I am a little ticked off these thing are what have to be changed in order for others that should have a piece of the cake and eat it as well.

They the LEH management have to have a system in place that once you get picked say for Roosevelt elk your hunters number is red flagged and you don't have your red flagged number come out of isolation till after 20 years this is just one idea but there are lots of other options.

I myself am very happy my friend got second draw for Rosie's in the last 4 years but I am also upset that he got picked this quick again http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif..



Here is a pic of him and that bull I helped get 4 years ago notice that one of the lower left eye gard has been broken off.
http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/data/500/0512056-R1-049-23_.jpg (http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/showphoto.php?photo=19422)

[northof49]

Here's your answer:


One suggestion we have considered relates to periods of ineligibility.
For example, we could decide that once a person has drawn a particular
species, they are not allowed to apply for some period of time.
Unfortunately, for many hunts, even once in a lifetime opportunities
don't help much. Using bison as an example, up to 2006, 38,153 people
have applied for bison in all of the draws that have ever been offered,
but only 1,454 have ever been drawn. If those 1,454 individuals were
barred from ever applying again, that would still leave 36,699 people
applying for 79 licences in the 2006 draw... not much of an improvement.
Additionally, periods of ineligibility have been offered to the BC
Wildlife Federation, but disagreement around the length of such periods
is always intense.
Number would be less than 36,699 b/c one can assume that some if not all of the 1,454 who got it were applying in previous yrs as well as subsequent years. Take 10yr period up to 2006 - that would drop number by 14,540 to 22159. I understand what you are saying regardless and you make a good point though. :wink:

[northof49]

As long as you coudl print it off....But it would also have to be double checked- since there have been a few reports on HBC about getting NIL on the website and getting an authorization in the mail and vice versa . (A very few)
Wahoooo - gonna keep my fingers cross. MayB I'll get mine yet!:mrgreen:

[northof49]

If you redflag guys for 20yrs from entering again, it would reduce entries over time, but will also reduce revenue into LEH system. Not sure if all the $$$ stay in system or not anyway, but something to consider especially if you apply to other species as well. I myself still like the idea of a priority where you get one extra entry each yr. (ie yr 1 get 1 entry for that species, yr 2 get 2 entries, yr 3 get 3 entries and so on..) Also when, you get drawn, you can't apply for 1 yr like with Griz. Then after that you start out again at level 1 with 1 entry again. This way over time you build your ods and get more chances. Still won't gaurantee anything but will increase your odds and reduce the likelihood of going so long without. This approach would be combined approach between Alberta and BC. Don't like AB's system b/c you have "0" chance of gettin drawn until you build enough of a priority level (deters new hunter recruitment). This system would enable even a new hunter to have a chance, and would increase odds of repeat applicants. Fair bit of disscussion on this already earlier on in this thread.