The 2014 Utah Regs (Big Game Application Guidebook) is now on-line:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/guidebooks/2014_pdfs/2014_biggameapp.pdf
http://wildlife.utah.gov/guidebooks/2014_pdfs/2014_biggameapp.pdf
2014 Utah Regs On-Line
- Thread starter Umpqua Hunter
- Start date
Musket Man
Veteran member
Is it just me or is Utah's web site and stats confusing to everyone? Was trying to look up drawing odds for where I used to muzzle loader hunt. Could draw it every year before but looks like can draw it every other year now since they changed the units but it wasnt really making alot of sense. Some units seemed to have more tags then apps but still not everyone drew. It used to be 998 but i think its 14A now if I was reading the map right, which was kinda confusing too. But then it doesnt take much to confuse me. I have stayed out of Utah because the lines are so long for the better units but have been thinking about going back where I hunted before one of these years.
Musket, I am not totally up to speed on the deer app situation in Utah, but I do recall that last year Utah went to limited entry on all of their deer hunts. The whole state was divided up into something like 30 units and now you have to apply for one of those units. Does that help at all???
Musket Man
Veteran member
Thanks UH! I understand they divided it into separate units and made alot of changes. I was trying to figure out the drawing odds for that area since they made the changes. I have figured out the new hunt code for the area is GN-1581. Im just not sure I understand the drawing odds chart. It says there were 112 successful non residents and 6 unsuccessful non residents but the NR quota was only 47 and NR success was 1 in 2.5. Something there really doesnt add up to me. I would just post the page here but cant figure out how to do that since its in a pdf. I just find their site to be confusing in general.
Can you post the link to the page you were looking at? Maybe we can help you sort it out.
Musket Man
Veteran member
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2013/13_big_game_odds_report.pdf
The hunt # is GN-1581 on page 12. Thanks UH
The hunt # is GN-1581 on page 12. Thanks UH
Here is my take on it.
Since the resident quota (459 tags) was not filled by the 328 resident applicants, some of the resident tags were then issued to non-residents. That helped the non-resident draw be much better than it should have been, and nearly all the nonresidents drew. I've seen that happen in the past, when there are not enough resident applicants the non-residents get the advantage of the leftover tags.
Now…regarding the 1:2.5 odds for non-residents. I think the spreadsheet is purely dividing the non-resident applicants (112 successful+5 unsuccessful = 117 applicants) by the non resident quota (47 tags) which is 117/47 = 2.5
Had there been enough resident applicants to take all of the resident tags, the odds would have been 1:2.5 for non-residents. The reason the actual draw was better is because there are not enough resident applicants to use up the resident quota.
Hope that makes sense the way I said it.
Since the resident quota (459 tags) was not filled by the 328 resident applicants, some of the resident tags were then issued to non-residents. That helped the non-resident draw be much better than it should have been, and nearly all the nonresidents drew. I've seen that happen in the past, when there are not enough resident applicants the non-residents get the advantage of the leftover tags.
Now…regarding the 1:2.5 odds for non-residents. I think the spreadsheet is purely dividing the non-resident applicants (112 successful+5 unsuccessful = 117 applicants) by the non resident quota (47 tags) which is 117/47 = 2.5
Had there been enough resident applicants to take all of the resident tags, the odds would have been 1:2.5 for non-residents. The reason the actual draw was better is because there are not enough resident applicants to use up the resident quota.
Hope that makes sense the way I said it.
Last edited:
Musket Man
Veteran member
Thanks Umpqua! That makes alot of sense. I figured I was missing something simple. Looks like it played out about the same the year before too so I should have a very good chance of drawing it if I decide to apply. I havent been there since 2006.
Last edited:
Musket Man
Veteran member
The only thing that still doesnt make sense is there were 55 more tags then applicants but 11 applicants were unsuccessful.
That is a bit of a head scratcher. Maybe there was something wrong with their application, or too young, or fees submitted, or something…… In fact some of the unsuccessfuls were residents.
I think for all practical purposes, it was a 100% draw.
Musket Man
Veteran member
Good ideas Umpqua! One thought I had is some could of been 2nd choice applicants that had already drawn their first choice? But Im not sure how UT does 2nd choices either. It looks like there should of been 55 leftover tags to me.
Musket Man
Veteran member
Looking at it again there should of been 66 leftover tags. I forgot to account for the 11 that were unsuccessful for whatever reason.