WY-Elk Area 114 Draw Odds in Question

[Guy]

Hello Guys,

I just wanted to clear the air regarding a video that has recently surfaced calling into question the drawing odds in our MRS section, WYOMING Elk Area 114 (Special draw) in particular.

We (I/Eastmans') stated the odds of drawing elk Area 114 with 8 preference points as 33%. I have called the state of Wyoming and verified this information and we did in fact print the correct drawing odd. Area 114 was a 33% chance of draw last year (2016) with 8 preference points, NOT 100% as stated in said video. If you had 8 points and you applied for area 114 you would have had a 66% of being disappointed.

Here are the exact details of what happened in the actual draw, as verified by the WY Game and Fish personnel this AM.

1 tag was available once the draw system got down to the pool of applicants with 8 preference points. There were 3 First Choice Applicants (Applications really) applying for that single tag. Therefore the odds of drawing that tag were 1 in 3. Here is where things get a bit confusing however. The actual number of tags "issued" was three. Because the one application that was drawn out of the three happened to be a party application with three names attached to it. The state told me they often make the adjustment the next year by "shorting" that pool the two additional tags next year, not sure if they actually do that or not, but it seems feasible.

What seems to be confusing people is the fact that the column listed as "First Choice Applicants" is actually "First Choice Applications" because the computer only sees each "party application" as one application even if there are six applicants on said application, until that application is pulled as successful in which case the computer always fulfills the entire party with tags no matter how many tags are actually left in the pool quota.

In the case above, there could have been three applications with three applicants on each, a total of nine applicants for the area. However, the computer sees them as three first choice applicants with only one tag to give. So had you been on any one of those three applications, a party of one or a party of six, you still had a 33% chance at drawing the Area 114 Elk Tag with 8 preference points. The EASTMANS' MRS section was 100% correct!!!

Just another reason you shouldn't always believe everything you read or see on the internet. I guess 30 years worth of hunting/applying and writing experience does pay off once in a while when it comes to accuracy.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and best of luck to all of you in the draws. Let me know if you have any questions or would like further clarification.

Guy Eastman

 

[wy-tex]

Nice that you took time to clarify. Thank you.

 

[Bonecollector]

Guy,
Thank you for clarifying this fact. It still does not negate the fact that folks should continue to do their own homework and not rely on hearsay. However, your MRS is a great resource to get things started. Keep up the good work!
`Bill

 

[AKaviator]

Guy,
Thanks for the explanation, but it really isn't needed. At least not to me. Most of us on this forum realize how hard you and the staff work to provide the MRS information. It's excellent information, but is only one part of what I use to make decisions on future hunts. I always try and verify information by doing some of my own research, which is a fun part of hunt planning.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Guy]

Thanks for taking the time to read this post fellas'. We are as capable of a mistake as anyone else. But this example was not one of them. This example does illustrate how WY handles party permits as well which is always a valuable and frequently asked question. I will put together a lengthened version for the Blog as well.

Both of you are 100% correct. A good researcher will rely on numerous sources for their information and should not put all of their eggs in one single basket when it comes to research.

Best of luck guys and let me know if you need anything from our end or have any feedback for us.

G-

 

[RICMIC]

Thanks for the update Guy. To add to the confusion, Colorado handles their last draw differently. For a situation like this, if there is only one tag left and the one drawn is a "party" of more than one, then they will be bypassed. Just that situation may have happened to me last season. For the newer forum members, I suggest that you always check with the specific Dept. of Wildlife of the state you intend to apply in. Even the on-line or printed regulations can be confusing and sometimes wrong. Also, you can't assume that it will all be the same from year to year.

 

[ore hunter]

thanks guy,,i imagine the unit 114 draw was a bit of a fluke that doesn't happen very often,,so will it be 2 tags less for this year to make the difference?

 

[WapitiBob]

I called on Tuesday and talked to J. D. in the draw dept. Your analysis is 180 deg from what I was told. Perhaps they're a bit confused themselves? I thought the correct analysis for 114 was two individual apps and a party app of three. The three being drawn and two unsuccessful. I was told this was incorrect.

"What seems to be confusing people is the fact that the column listed as "First Choice Applicants" is actually "First Choice Applications" because the computer only sees each "party application" as one application even if there are six applicants on said application, until that application is pulled as successful in which case the computer always fulfills the entire party with tags no matter how many tags are actually left in the pool quota."

I was told the computer does NOT combine party apps under a single "party organizer" application, in direct contrast to what you were told, and what I believed to be the procedure in WY (the party members do have identical points and random numbers essentially making them a single app). I was told for the 114 example, all 3 were a party but counted individually under the "1st choice applicants" column.
If the computer combined all members under a party organizers application, you could have a quota of 1, an allocation of 3, and "1st choice applicants" of 1 (the party organizer). However, if you look at the demand report, the "1st choice applicants" is always equal to or greater than, the allocation. I was told the reason is because all applications are counted individually under this column heading and therefor will always be at least "equal to" the tag allocation.

It appears we're getting conflicting information.

 

[NDHunter]

I called on Tuesday and talked to J. D. in the draw dept. Your analysis is 180 deg from what I was told. Perhaps they're a bit confused themselves? I thought the correct analysis for 114 was two individual apps and a party app of three. The three being drawn and two unsuccessful. I was told this was incorrect.

"What seems to be confusing people is the fact that the column listed as "First Choice Applicants" is actually "First Choice Applications" because the computer only sees each "party application" as one application even if there are six applicants on said application, until that application is pulled as successful in which case the computer always fulfills the entire party with tags no matter how many tags are actually left in the pool quota."

I was told the computer does NOT combine party apps under a single "party organizer" application, in direct contrast to what you were told, and what I believed to be the procedure in WY (the party members do have identical points and random numbers essentially making them a single app). I was told for the 114 example, all 3 were a party but counted individually under the "1st choice applicants" column.
If the computer combined all members under a party organizers application, you could have a quota of 1, an allocation of 3, and "1st choice applicants" of 1 (the party organizer). However, if you look at the demand report, the "1st choice applicants" is always equal to or greater than, the allocation. I was told the reason is because all applications are counted individually under this column heading and therefor will always be at least "equal to" the tag allocation.

It appears we're getting conflicting information.

Interesting. I've wondered about that for awhile now and what exactly is meant by "first choice apps". Wasn't sure if a party app of 2 counted as 1 person or 2 people in the first choice apps column on the draw report.

I called to ask a draw question this year. The unit I applied for had 1 tag last year in the random. I wasn't sure if my buddy and I applied together if they would issue us each a tag or kick us out. I know in the draw reports for preference points will show that they would issue 2 tags with a quota of 1 but it doesn't specify that in the random. Anyways, I was trying to explain my question and she said that I should consider applying in a different unit that has better draw odds.... Ok thanks.... I eventually just said thanks and gave up... I totally understand that not everyone knows the intricacies and minor details of the draw but it would be nice if they could refer you to the person that DOES know.

 

[NDHunter]

Need to get Buzz's input here. He might know.

 

[WapitiBob]

Wyoming will fill a party of up to 6 applicants, a max of 5 over the remaining quota.

For the draw, it doesn't really matter if they combine the party or not, all party members get drawn, but it makes a big difference with 1st choice applicant numbers when trying to figure your odds for a hunt.

 

[BuzzH]

Need to get Buzz's input here. He might know.

Wapitibob talked to the right person...and I would trust his information as the correct information based solely on who he talked to.

There may be some things happening that are going to simplify the WY draw here soon...stay tuned.

 

[Guy]

Hello Wapiti,

I have no doubt they are confused themselves. I have studied the reports pretty extensively, and it sure looks like a party of 2 would be counted as one single "First Choice Applicant" in the WY system. The "over-drawn" situation does happen quite often inside the WY system. I found no less than 20 cases where it happened just in the Special Elk draw alone.

They probably outsource this to a company in CO and don't even know themselves.

Here's another interesting nugget about WY. I was told that for the elk draw they have not even set the quota yet when they actually conduct the NR drawing. They go by the previous year's quota for the NR draw and adjust the quota up or down to fit on the resident side in May. I was told that a few years ago but I believe it to be at least partly true. I'm pretty sure they have not even conducted their elk winter range survey yet. I think they do their in field counts in March.

As the world turns I guess. I will keep pulling apart these reports and let you know if I have verify a case. Maybe in the deer or antelope draw. I need to find one that has one tag left in the quota and one First choice app, with more than one tag issued. That would tell us for sure.

Thanks for the discussion fellas.

G-

 

[NDHunter]

As the world turns I guess. I will keep pulling apart these reports and let you know if I have verify a case. Maybe in the deer or antelope draw. I need to find one that has one tag left in the quota and one First choice app, with more than one tag issued. That would tell us for sure.

Thanks for the discussion fellas.

G-

Let's go the opposite route and look at a case with lots of first choice apps and see how many tags were issued. Let's use the 2016 WY special antelope draw, unit 26. For people with 0 points, there was a quota of 214. 73 first choice apps were received and 73 tags were issued. If what you're saying Guy is correct, that would mean that ALL 73 first choice apps were guys applying solely by themselves. I'd say the odds of that happening are about zero. In a case like that Guy, there should have been a lot of group apps and more than 73 tags would have been issued if what you're saying is correct.

I'm with Buzz and WapitiBob.

 

[WapitiBob]

Several years ago while pondering my Wyoming Elk choices, I was a bit puzzled so I called a contact in the draw dept and asked the question; "how do you have a NR draw without a tag quota?"

I was told the Dept created an "initial quota" per hunt, per type, in December and used those quotas to calculate the initial 16% going to NR. I then asked for and received the "initial quota" data, used for that years nr draw. I can tell you from looking at that "initial quota" data, the prior years quota, and the current years Commission approved quota, that they may have used most of the prior years numbers, but I only got to the 2nd hunt code before the prior years numbers went out the window.

From my conversation I don't believe they thought they were doing anything wrong but recently, I believe both Buzz and JM77 have bent some ears in the Dept and they no longer modify prior years numbers for the nr draw. A simple fix would be to move the NR draw to coincide with the resident draw.

 

[BuzzH]

WB, yes we have been bending ears. Last year, we got all the data we needed to compare the initial quotas, commission approved quotas, and also the "over-draw" situation caused by party applications. The net result of that was an over-issue of NR elk tags by, I believe 300+ tags. The department met, and JM77 found existing regulation that states how the Department is to handle this. The result was Residents were issued an additional 300 LE permits last year.

JM77 came up with a temporary "fix" at the same time that will help the problem of quota changes in regard to Residents (but does NOT entirely fix it), but there are still going to be R and NR that get ripped off LE elk tags this year as well.

The reason for the disparity is 2 fold:

1. NR are limited to 16% of the available quota set in December, rather than the commission approved quotas. So if quotas drop after the commission sets the quota's, then NR's are over-issued their regulation allotted 16%, and Residents are under-issued by receiving less than 84% of the regulation allotted tag percentages. Conversely, in a situation where the quotas are increased, NR's would then receive less than 16% of the available quota.

2. Since there are 4 independent NR drawings (Special PP, Random, Regular PP, Random), the chances of NR party applications being filled over the quota is 4x higher for NR than residents. This happens A LOT, mainly because of point averaging.

JM77 and I are in negotiations with the GF on how to fix this for good, like you stated.

 

[WapitiBob]

Back in 2014 I hired the dept to create a flow chart for the NR Antelope draw and it's a little more detailed than the one they created internally for Elk but I don't believe the dept carries a negative quota balance from the NR Special draw down to the NR Regular draw. That negative balance would would at least help with some of the over quota tag allocations.

The word "remaining" is what leads me to believe this, although I have not talked to the dept to confirm.

STEP 16: DETERMINE INITIAL QUOTA FOR NONRESIDENT REGULAR DRAWING:

1. Obtain quota balances remaining from nonresident special preference point drawing (Step 14).

2. Obtain quota balances remaining from nonresident special regular drawing (Step 15).

3. Obtain quota available from the initial nonresident regular allocation sixty percent (60%) (step 11).

4. Combine quota balances into a new initial quota balance for conducting nonresident regular drawings.

5. Reports are generated to verify that the quota values to be used for the nonresident regular drawings are correct.

 

[JM77]

The Dept could simplify it's drawing process, save money, and conduct a much more accurate drawing if two things occurred: both Res and NR application and drawing periods were the same, and NR special and regular pricing were removed from statute.

In an effort to save money and time, the Dept is putting together an internal department committee to look into it's license drawings and procedures. Look for some future changes...

 

[ore hunter]

I thought it was so Wyoming non -res elk hunters could be charged way earlier for there tags,thus Wyoming can get there money sooner to fund there department that they are relying on us non-residents anyway to carry there financial load.

 

[BuzzH]

I thought it was so Wyoming non -res elk hunters could be charged way earlier for there tags,thus Wyoming can get there money sooner to fund there department that they are relying on us non-residents anyway to carry there financial load.

Wrong, on all counts.

NR's are not carrying the financial load for the GF.