Best Sheep Unit Besides The Breaks?

[ceby7]

Not all the unlimited areas close quickly. I know one unlimited area last fall where one guy killed a ram the day before Thanksgiving and another guy got his on Thanksgiving. Though I do agree that scouting before the season is the way to go.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Not all the unlimited areas close quickly. I know one unlimited area last fall where one guy killed a ram the day before Thanksgiving and another guy got his on Thanksgiving. Though I do agree that scouting before the season is the way to go.

ceby7, now you are giving away all the secrets!

Just kidding,

Those units are on migrating rams. They move anywhere from 5 to 15 miles a day through the unit. Some lucky hunters have taken a book ram out of that hunt. Not really for an out-of-state hunter, but if you live in the area ...

 

[HuskyMusky]

there are many great units in MT that are not located in the breaks. which btw an "average" bighorn in MT of 180" would be a "monster" in another state, if not a state record!

odds are odds, you have twice the chance of drawing in a unit of 1.5% than you do in a unit with .75% odds, which is similar to saying would you rather apply in a unit with 50% odds or 100% odds of drawing? or 30% vs 60% ??

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

there are many great units in MT that are not located in the breaks. which btw an "average" bighorn in MT of 180" would be a "monster" in another state, if not a state record!

odds are odds, you have twice the chance of drawing in a unit of 1.5% than you do in a unit with .75% odds, which is similar to saying would you rather apply in a unit with 50% odds or 100% odds of drawing? or 30% vs 60% ??

I disagree, Husky. When doing your comparison, the difference in odds between the 60% and 30% is 30%, and the difference between the 1.5% and .75% is .75%. So comparing the differences, the 60 vs. 30 is a 40x better advantage than the 1.5 vs. .75.

 

[CoHiCntry]

It is stupid that CO's desert bighorns are for residents only.

There's one Colorado Desert Sheep tag for S56 this year...

 

[HuskyMusky]

I disagree, Husky. When doing your comparison, the difference in odds between the 60% and 30% is 30%, and the difference between the 1.5% and .75% is .75%. So comparing the differences, the 60 vs. 30 is a 40x better advantage than the 1.5 vs. .75.

not following your math...

math is math, odds are odds.
1.5 is twice that of .75, just as 60 is twice that of 30.

not that any sheep odds are 60%, but when comparing low % hunts, you're 100x more likely to draw a 1% unit than a .01% unit.

I'm not even sure what max pts for sheep in MT is, but I would assume it's well over 15 or 20,
my advice to most people is to apply for MT sheep in just about any unit other than 680 or 482.

there are booners in most units. so would 180" make you happy? or must you have a 200" ?

 

[HuskyMusky]

I disagree, Husky. When doing your comparison, the difference in odds between the 60% and 30% is 30%, and the difference between the 1.5% and .75% is .75%. So comparing the differences, the 60 vs. 30 is a 40x better advantage than the 1.5 vs. .75.

I see what you're saying, and yes the difference of 1.5% and .75% is .75% which is twice the odds, ie 200% or 2x better odds of drawing a 1.5% unit than a .75% unit.

so in this example a .75% difference is a 2x or twice the chance. We're both correct.

another example, 1 unit has 2 tags, another has 4 tags, both have 100 people applying, so 2/100, and 4/100, you're twice as likely to draw the 4/100 tag, ie 4% vs. 2%, so 2% difference and twice the chance, so 2x or 200% greater chance at drawing the 4/100(4%) tag.

 

[BKC]

3 guys go to a motel and get the last room for $10.00 each. $30.00 dollars total. They go to the room . The manager decides he charged them too much so he gives the bell boy 5 $1.00 bills to give back to the three guys. On the way the bell boy decides he cant divide 5 dollars evenly, so he keeps two and gives each guy $1.00. Each guy has then only paid $9.00 soooooo 3x9=27 and the bell boy kept 2 which makes 29! Where did the other dollar go? Bitteroot, When you figure out HuskyMusky's math, work on this one.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

another example, 1 unit has 2 tags, another has 4 tags, both have 100 people applying, so 2/100, and 4/100, you're twice as likely to draw the 4/100 tag, ie 4% vs. 2%, so 2% difference and twice the chance, so 2x or 200% greater chance at drawing the 4/100(4%) tag.

Husky, you got this one right. You also got it right that 3% is twice the chance as 1.5% and 60% is twice the chance as 30%. Where you missed it is equating the two "twices".

The fact remains the difference between 1% and 2% odds aren't much, and the difference between 30% and 60% is huge. the 1% or 2% units are long shots either way, while the other has a tremendous advantage going from a 1 in 3 chance to a more likely than not chance of drawing.

My recommendation would be to put in for the unit you really want to hunt, regardless of the odds, because the odds suck everywhere (except the unlimited hunts).

As for the 3 men with $10 riddle, that is an old one, but they only paid $25 for the room, $2 for the tip (they didn't know they paid), and got $3 back in refund. 25+2+3=30. No missing dollar.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

Hope it's okay, I'm gonna throw in my 2 cents on the draw odds discussion.

In the last 27 years of applying, I've been blessed to have drawn three sheep tags (1988 bighorn in Colorado, 2001 in desert in Nevada, 2009 bighorn in Wyoming). One of my sons also drew a Wyoming sheep tag in 2007 and another son drew an Arizona desert sheep tag in 2008. We took quality rams on all of the hunts.

When it comes to drawing odds for sheep...I am a FIRM believer you have to work the odds while still applying for quality units.

For my example I am going to talk about a guy who applies in 9 states for sheep tags (OR, ID, WY, AZ, NM, MT, CO, NV, UT). When applying in several states, even a TINY difference in draw odds gives you HUGE leverage. So here it goes....

Scenario 1: You apply for the very best tag in every state, and have say a 0.25% chance to draw on average. In 9 states that is a 2.25% chance to draw. On average it would take 44 years to draw. You could possibly never hunt sheep even though you spent a lifetime applying.

Scenario 2: You apply in units that have a 0.50% chance to draw on average. In 9 states that is a 4.5% chance to draw. On average it would take 22 years to draw, so you would likely hunt sheep once and possibly twice in your lifetime.

Scenario 3: You apply in units that have a 1.0% chance to draw on average. In 9 states that is a 9% chance to draw. On average it would take 11 years to draw, so this guy would likely hunt sheep 3 time and possibly 4 times in a lifetime.


This year I'm applying in 7 states for quality sheep units and estimate my draw odds at just under 9%, or about 1 in 11 odds to draw a sheep tag. Not too shabby...I'll take those odds.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Hope it's okay, I'm gonna throw in my 2 cents on the draw odds discussion.

In the last 27 years of applying, I've been blessed to have drawn three sheep tags (1988 bighorn in Colorado, 2001 in desert in Nevada, 2009 bighorn in Wyoming). One of my sons also drew a Wyoming sheep tag in 2007 and another son drew an Arizona desert sheep tag in 2008. We took quality rams on all of the hunts.

When it comes to drawing odds for sheep...I am a FIRM believer you have to work the odds while still applying for quality units.

For my example I am going to talk about a guy who applies in 9 states for sheep tags (OR, ID, WY, AZ, NM, MT, CO, NV, UT). When applying in several states, even a TINY difference in draw odds gives you HUGE leverage. So here it goes....

Scenario 1: You apply for the very best tag in every state, and have say a 0.25% chance to draw on average. In 9 states that is a 2.25% chance to draw. On average it would take 44 years to draw. You could possibly never hunt sheep even though you spent a lifetime applying.

Scenario 2: You apply in units that have a 0.50% chance to draw on average. In 9 states that is a 4.5% chance to draw. On average it would take 22 years to draw, so you would likely hunt sheep once and possibly twice in your lifetime.

Scenario 3: You apply in units that have a 1.0% chance to draw on average. In 9 states that is a 9% chance to draw. On average it would take 11 years to draw, so this guy would likely hunt sheep 3 time and possibly 4 times in a lifetime.


This year I'm applying in 7 states for quality sheep units and estimate my draw odds at just under 9%, or about 1 in 11 odds to draw a sheep tag. Not too shabby...I'll take those odds.

Well, UH, that is an interesting way to look at it. However that is not how a random draw works. The only way you can increase your odds over time in a unit is to have bonus or preference points. In MT (the subject of this thread), bonus points help your odds the following year by putting your name in the pool more times. If it is a state like ID, your odds of a unit never change, year after year, unless less or more people put in that year. It is like a game of roullette. The statistical "Law of Independent Trials" comes into effect. Roulette players often make this mistake, believing that the previous failure increases the next trial's chance of success. This is not statistically true.

What I am saying is your odds don't add onto each other each year. If you apply in a .25% unit for 44 years, your odds are still .25% to draw that year. Every year is an independent trial, and your odds are dictated by the number of applicants, and the number of times your name is in the applicant pool.

Furthermore, your odds in one state's draw does nothing to your odds in another state, so you can't add them together. Each of those draws is an independent draw also. They are each subject to their individual draws. Of course, it is a great idea to put in for all the states you can, because you can't win, if you're not in.

Of course, CO is different with their hybrid draw, and your odds increase substantially over time.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

So what your saying is that even if there were 100 states that offered sheep hunting, it wouldn't matter because it is 100 different sets of chances?

What I am saying is the odds in one state have zero effect on the odds in another state. putting in for a lot of states is good, because you are in each of those pools, and somebody has to draw in each of them.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

As Leo Getts said in Lethal Weapon "I wich you, when I am say I am wich you I mean I'm wich you".

I agree, but playing the odds and hunting is better than playing higher odds and never hunting.

The great thing about Wyoming is that you know $1400-1800 and 14-18 years worth of points (at the current $100 per point for non-res) you will eventually hunt sheep.

Points have made a lot of this much simpler, I wish more states didn't make you buy a hunting license like Utah, Nevada and Arizona do. Makes their points expensive, but I did it anyway as I am not getting any younger.

This is actually a really interesting thread.

I think buying points is money well spent. I think hiring a BC sheep outfitter is worth every penny, because that gets more expensive every year.

By all means, play the draw odds. Just realize you are only 1% more likely to draw the 2% tag than the 1% tag. So you may well never draw either in MT (although the new squared bonus point system "should" help).

Come to think of it, I agree with Husky. I don't think anybody should put in for 680 or 482. Really ... tell all your friends.

 

[BKC]

I drew sheep and goat in colorado when these were just pure points tags and I am still waiting to draw a moose tag with max. weighted points. Weighted points are a gimmick. I don't know how this compares to a squared point system. It would seem to me that if enough applicants are in it from the beginning and stay in every year then what is the advantage? Your still in with the same amount of applicants!

Bitterroot, Nice job finding the extra dollar!

 

[Elkoholic307]

So... the best sheep unit(s) besides the Breaks is/are?

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

The Sun River Units are probably next in line while the Rock Creek units recover.

 

[HuskyMusky]

Buying sheep points in WY is the worse idea ever!

Unless you already have a significant # of points, and I probably would say that means you currently have over 10 points! Do you?

More and more hunters will only continue to buy points/apply, odds should only get worse.
75% of tags go to max points holders, so unless you have whatever max points is, 16/17 you won't draw that tag!
25% go in a random draw, I believe many of the best units don't offer 4+ non-res tags, which 3 or less tags means = no random draw, so if you have 15 pts you aren't drawing that tag! (it wouldn't even be possible! 0% odds)

In my view unless WY changes it's structure or sheep #'s explode, a guy just starting to apply for a sheep tag, could theoretically apply his entire life and pay $100/year and NEVER draw a sheep tag!

WY may change this down the road when it hits the fan, but I'm not willing to pay $100/year for a maybe

and some terrible sheep trophy quality, I think this past year was the 1st year for a booner bighorn? or was that a goat for the first time? either way I think 160 is a nice sheep in WY.

Honestly though it's better for me if everyone continues to buy points and apply for the best units, so maybe I should shut up.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Sounds like WY has a system just set up for bad point creep. Not much use getting points there, unless you are planning for the system to change and want some points in the bank.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

BB you are absolutely right about statistics and independent events, and that every draw stands on its own.

The point I am bringing up however is how to leverage even slight improvements in draw odds over the course of a lifetime of applying (50 years of applications). This works even in applying in a single state. Draw odds of 1% are indeed twice as good as draw odds of 2%, and draw odds of 1% are ten times better then draw odds of 0.1%. In a given year this might not equate to much, but over the course of a lifetime (say 50 applications/per state) 2% draw odds will give the applicant a 100% chance to draw, 0.1% draw odds will give the applicant a 5% chance to draw.

This leveraging of small draw odds is then further compounded when applying in multiple states. To take a simplified look at it (not taking into account all the variable of different draw systems) if a guy applies in 9 states for 50 years, he will have his name "in the hat" for sheep 450 times over the course of his lifetime. If you apply for tags with a 0.1% chance to draw that is a 45% chance to draw over the course of your lifetime (one tag every two lifetimes). If you apply for tags with 1% chance to draw that is a 450% chance to draw (4 to 5 tags in a lifetime). That is what even small increases in low draw odds does when someone sticks with it.

As far as the question of where to apply in Montana, I would LOVE nothing more than a tag in the breaks. Personally, I rotate in applying in other units that consistently produce 180 class rams, as it would be a dream come true to harvest a book ram.

I have max points in Montana and even with that my draw odds in Unit 680 are only about 0.1% (considering the non-resident tag limit and my point level). I could apply for a lifetime (50 years) at those odds and have only a 5% chance to draw in my lifetime, or a 1 in 20 chance to draw. However, the unit I will apply in this year I estimate will have a 0.6% chance to draw, and if I applied a lifetime at those odds (50 x 0.6%), I would have a 30% chance to draw in my lifetime, or nearly a 1 in 3 chance to hunt trophy rams in Montana. Not bad.

To encourage guys who are applying without max points, my son drew in Wyoming in the random draw, and my other son drew his Arizona desert tag (Mexicana) with only 4 points at the ripe old age of 15. Your odds of drawing a sheep tag are a ten-thousand times better then winning the lottery

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

BB you are absolutely right about statistics and independent events, and that every draw stands on its own.

The point I am bringing up however is how to leverage even slight improvements in draw odds over the course of a lifetime of applying (50 years of applications). This works even in applying in a single state. Draw odds of 1% are indeed twice as good as draw odds of 2%, and draw odds of 1% are ten times better then draw odds of 0.1%. In a given year this might not equate to much, but over the course of a lifetime (say 50 applications/per state) 2% draw odds will give the applicant a 100% chance to draw, 0.1% draw odds will give the applicant a 5% chance to draw.

This leveraging of small draw odds is then further compounded when applying in multiple states. To take a simplified look at it (not taking into account all the variable of different draw systems) if a guy applies in 9 states for 50 years, he will have his name "in the hat" for sheep 450 times over the course of his lifetime. If you apply for tags with a 0.1% chance to draw that is a 45% chance to draw over the course of your lifetime (one tag every two lifetimes). If you apply for tags with 1% chance to draw that is a 450% chance to draw (4 to 5 tags in a lifetime). That is what even small increases in low draw odds does when someone sticks with it.

UH, your examples are still incorrect, statistically. Under your second premise, if all 50 states had a 2% draw odds hunt, and you put in for all of them, you would be statistically certain to draw one. That is not the case. In fact there is a 98% chance, collectively, that you wouldn't draw any of them.

My point about the Law of Independent Trials disputes your first premise. Over 50 years of a simple 2% draw unit, you would not be guaranteed to draw the tag. In fact on year 50 you would still have a 2% chance to draw. Of course, this would be for a straight draw like ID, and bonus points would come into effect if they were available as they are in MT.

How many times your name goes into the hat over your lifetime has no bearing on whether you will draw the tag. Only the number of times your hat goes in that particular pool that particular year has any statistical consequence.