Montana Draw Odds
Wild Sheep
With the application fees for MT going to $50 per species and bonus points going to $20 per species for sheep, goat and moose, I took a closer look at the draw odds. Please correct me if I am wrong and I hope that I am. The most often published odds seem to take the total tags in a unit and then divide by total applications for that unit. For example, sheep unit 680 had 25 ram tags with ~ 7400 applications for odds of 1 in 296. However, well over half of the applications are NR who get 2 tags. Odds are that the 2 NR tags are fill after about 4 tags are drawn. Say 4000 of the applications are from NRs the NR odds are 1 in 2000 not taking into account bonus points. Does this seem correct?
If it is correct MT is getting about $70 times 4000 applications or $280,000 in application fees for the 2 NR tags in 680.
It seems like the draw odds for sheep, goats and moose in MT are much, much worse than what I had thought and I am wondering if I should pay $210 for odds which are worse than 1 in 1000.
Yes MT's NR draw odds are very tough. The most meaningful stat you can get from their draw reports comes from taking the total NR tags issued and divide by the total NR applicants.
They've just recently published the 2013 report:
For Bighorn Sheep, looks like there were 7101 NR apps last year, and 7 ram tags issued to NR's, for average draw odds of roughly 1000:1. There were 118 ram tags in total, meaning NR's were awarded a little under 6% of the ram tags. Of course not counting the unlimited district tags, which are open to all in unlimited quantity.
For Moose, there were 2549 NR apps, with 17 drawing tags, for average odds of roughly 150:1. There were 368 total moose tags, meaning NR's were awarded a little under 5% of the total tags.
Slicksender, thanks for the information. It looks like I looked at the worst case with sheep unit 680. Still very tough odds like you said. This stuff can be depressing. Most people applying will never draw even if they apply for 50 years. 7 NR ram tags per year are not enough to provide even a reasonable chance and more tags can not be issued while sustaining the resource.
Yep the odds are horrible now and they will be a whole lot worse when you only have to send in $77 instead of $780.
BUT, if you want to hunt bighorn sheep legally for under $25,000 you have about 10 options and Montana is one of them.
Somebody gets drawn for those tags and if you aren't in, you better be saving a whole lot of Benjamins every month.
I feel lucky to just know a guy who a NR sheep permit! BTW, he is a BS regular.
Here is a better place to get the real odds for Moose/Goat/sheep.
If you download the 2013 Excel MOOSE/GOAT/SHEEP file, and not the PDF file, it will give you the applicants by RES/NONRES, and by point total. You can then see how many people at each point total you are competing with for "up to 10%" of the tags.
I wish MT would carve out the 10% of tags and have that as a separate non-resident draw. All of us as residents pretty much expect the NRs to get 10%. It would give NRs a true picture of what they are applying for and what their odds really are.
I suspect that once you download that file and do some "mathamatizing," you non-residents are not going to like your true odds. To say they suck would be putting it mildly.
But, if you draw.......
I put my 15 year old son in the point game for Montana last year, doesn't really make sense to keep it up considering the cost and odds. Doesn't look like he will get to experience all the public land hunts I've gotten too while playing the points game over the past years. Who knows, maybe he will make a lot of money and get to hunt, sad.
I drew a mountain goat tag in the Crazy Mountains last year with 3 nonresident points.
The basic draw odds that are published say 4% chance of drawing. When I broke down the the detailed odds as Big Fin suggested above, my true odds of drawing were 0.6%.
And for the new guys their odds might be ~100 times worse because of point squaring, and the large number of people with max or near max points. So 1 in 1000 becomes 1 in 100,000. You are much better off buying $70 worth of supertag tickets.
Shrewski you're right about "somebody has to draw". Just like someone has to win the Powerball. But still you gotta have a rule of thumb to judge whether it's worth your time and money. As a general guideline, my apply/don't-apply threshold for sheep draws is roughly 500:1 odds. Anything worse, I'm kidding myself. That's why I struck CA & WA off the list years ago. Only exception is if a state's draw is super cheap to enter. Then what the heck, no big deal, might as well try it. Unfortunately, this drawing is no longer in the category of "cheap".
I'll probably still be debating right up to the last few days on whether to drop out or not ;-)
Big Fin, how about some help getting the NR draw upgraded from a 10% ceiling to 10% allocated as you suggested?
Good info, I knew the odds were bad but I'm a point under max on sheep so at least for now I will probably go for it again! At this point I'd hate to drop out. If there was a true set aside quota of 10% it would at least equate to more actual chances for the money. Still not sold on the whole non-refundable $70 thing but thats how it is. It will be interesting to see if nr applicants go up or down. Thanks for the info , Good luck
Truly horrible odds, in particular in any of the high profile units. Makes me feel very lucky to have drawn a Mtn. Goat tags a few years ago, even though I have (had) max points for all three species. Having beaten the odds for one species, it is even more unlikely I will ever draw a moose or sheep tag in the future. Bill
You guys should all quit applying. It's not worth it. :).
Seriously. MT has every trap door possible against nonresidents for sheep. I especially like the fact that one of the hunt codes listed on the application may not even have a nonresident tag possible by the time the draw occurs. There were 502 nonresidents that allied for a hunt that had zero tags available when the draw was run. Under this years fee that's about $40,000 for 502 guys to not even be in a drawing for a tag. How is that even legal?
I'm not talking about a situation where residents drew all the tags but there was a tag available for a nonresident to draw if he got lucky. There was never a tag allocated for a nonresident to draw. The beauty is that it is nearly impossible to predict if a unit you are going to apply for will drop the "potential " nonres permit.
I was referring to 2012 drawing for the 502 wasted applications.
Thank you for the responses. This has been educational. To sum up the sheep odds, as slicksender points out there were 7101 NR applications for 7 ram tags or about 1000 to 1 odds not considering bonus points. Even if we have max bonus points it is still extremely unlikely that we would ever be drawn. At $70 per application this year it costs the NRs applicants $71,010 per ram tags so as a group we could buy tags for $35,000 and have our own draw and double our odds. In short we are no longer building points but gambling against very poor odds for very expensive tags.
Last year I think it costs me $20 for all the points for sheep, moose and goats and $5 each for the application for a total of $35. Sure I had to send in the tag fees but I got it back and with interest rates I receive at pretty much zero that did not cost me anything. This year it will cost me $70 each or $210. The cost of betting on very long odds has gone up to the point that it is no longer incidental. With residents having to pay $5 to apply and $2 for a point and a single draw pool I do not see the odds getting better.
Of course if we pay a service to apply for us we are paying even more with about no chance of a tag. Things do not look good in the light of day. Again, thank you for the education.
Very informative. I was throwing around the idea of starting to apply for goats and sheep in Montana but with the changes I won't even consider it. I'll save my money and do an Alaska caribou or moose hunt instead some day.
If the NR's pitch a big enough fit to the federal government, we could get all hunting shut down on federal lands unless and until we are treated fairly. It could happen. Might never open again. Since it is in effect closed to us anyway, what would it hurt? Even the threat of doing so would get the states attention.
After the war and animosity in New Mexico this year over the legalization of our quotas for sheep, ibex, oryx, I'm starting to agree with RHale. The only reason I have been an advocate for quotas in NM for all species is because I am subjected to quotas in all the states I apply as a nonres but did not have the same protectionism at home.
Interesting thread here... The bottom line is that states can do pretty much whatever they want to do when it comes to the F&G licensing for residents and non-residents whether it's Montana or any other state.. Ditto for the Canadian Provinces. Here's a revelation...guess what...Life isn't fair. I'd love to hunt Mule Deer in Saskatchewan, but Americans are not allowed. I'd also love to do a DIY hunt in Alberta or British Columbia... Can't do that either.. Have to hire a guide, yet Canadians can come to Montana and hunt anything we have here without a guide if they have a license or permit.. It's just not fair. :)
Montana residents don't particularly care for how permits are issued either, by the way. I've been applying for Moose, Sheep, and Goat for the past 35 years or so and have yet to draw a tag.. I don't know what I've contributed to the F&G over the years, but if added up it would be a fair chunk of change.
I don't buy lottery tickets because I don't like the odds... If you don't like the odds for drawing a permit in Montana, don't apply. Simple as that.
My recollection from looking at prior Hunting Fool newsletters on their published odds for drawing a MT ram tag was that the odds were much better than what is being discussed here. Did I miss something or did MT make a change to lower the NR odds?
glunker, don't be a fool, HF doesn't publish the odds at all for their own raffles so how can you expect them to get MT odds correct?
glunker isn't talking about their raffles but the Montana draw odds. Yes they publish odds that look much better - how do you sell magazines and application services for odds of 1:1000.
At some point I'm thinking I would have better odds by buying lottery tickets, and if I win, spending the money on all the hunts I want.
Sorry to be a downer by providing that link, but I would prefer all of you know the true odds.
This issue of published v. actual odds is not confined to Montana. If you look at most the published odds for other states, you will see grossly misleading information.
Look at Nevada and New Mexico. Put those in a spreadsheet and look at every possible permeation and you will see your odds in NV or NM are probably a lot worse than you read about in the research services, espcially in the "glory" units. Those research services have recently started to issue a disclaimer of how they have simplified the calculation for purposes of simplicity.
The problem of published v. actual odds is usually amplified when looking at the highest demand hunts in states that look at your first 2 (AZ), or first 3 (NM), or first 5 (NV) choices. Simplified math just doesn't suffice in those instances. I suspect those states don't want people really doing the math there, as many NRs would pack it in.
One other thing to note is that Montana is not offering nearly the number of ram tags as were issued 10 to 20 years ago. We have lost a lot of our herds to disease and our legislature refuses to allow FWP to reintroduce in those areas or to relocate to many other areas of historic habitat.
We produce some monster rams, so everyone thinks all is well in Montana. We are a state that could have a lot more of that high-demand quality. Montana has the genetics and habitat to have massive quality and far better quantity. Doubling or tripling the sheep odds would not be out of the questions if our legislature would get out of the way and allow sheep to be put/expand in the many areas of suitable historic habitat. For MT to not have 2X or 3X the current number of sheep and therefore 2X 3X the current number of tags, both resident and non-resident, is a political problem, not a biological or habitat problem.
If you want to increase your odds of getting a sheep tag in any state, do things that will put more sheep on the mountians such as, supporting the Wild Sheep Foundation and becoming active in the political process that seems to have wild sheep in the crosshairs.
Now, if they would just give me a 680 ram tag, I promise I will never apply for sheep again and all of you will have better odds going forward. ;)
Well said, Big Fin. When we are talking about the big three (moose, sheep, goat) there is no real fair way to distribute such a rare commodity. If we can make it less rare, it will help everyone.
I think you will get more on board when the deck is not stacked.
Right now, I am fine with simply shutting it down until it is a level playing field.
You are delusional if you think the state is going to shut down the sheep draw. I guess im not sure why you feel that residents shouldn't have an advantage.
I do not think the state will do it. The federal government might do so, if enough hunters request it. I am fine with any state closing to NR on private or state land.
What will actually happen is that the state will make it fair to all at the hint of federal intervention. If the federal shutdown takes place, it will possibly never open again.
Federal land is owned by the people of the United States. Not the state of Montana. Can you show me one other example of citizens not having equal access to a federally owned asset? No, not one. If you think of a small charge to get into Yellowstone Park for example. What if Wyoming or Montana said we will charge residents 5.00 to get in and NR pay 500.00. Why would that be fair? It is a federally owned property.
The real question is why you think residents should have an advantage?
R. Hale - Not sure where you get the idea that there is any connection to where an animal lives and the opportunity to hunt that animal. There is no connection, whether the land is private or public.
The courts have stated, reconfirmed, and reconfirmed agian, that under the 10th Amendment of the United State Constitution, one of the rights retained by the states is their rights as trustee to the wildlife within their boundaries, no matter if it is on public or private land.
There is no connection to land ownership and hunting opportunity. None. Zero.
There is a direct connection to land ownership and access to those lands. None of us are restricted in any state to accessing Federal lands.
Using your theory that land ownership has some connection to hunting tag allocation, in your state of Kansas, the hunting opportunity would be almost exclusively allocated to private landowners and those without land would not be allowed to hunt. How stupid would that be?
That is part of why the colonist left the tyranny of Europe. They were tired of being hung or maimed for killing the landowner's deer. When they came to this country, tossed some tea in the harbor, run off the Redcoats and sat down to write this thing called the United States Constitution, it was still fresh in their minds as to how ol' King George looked at wildlife and other resources/rights they felt were best kept at the local level.
As such, we ended up with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Here it is, verbatim - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
These colonists specifically granted some rights to the Feds when adopting the Constitution. The rights in wildlife was not one of those granted to the Feds. And, thank God for that.
Maybe you are advocating that land ownership be the basis for allocating hunting opportunity. If so, I think most would disagree.
To you comment of " ....why you think residents should have an advantage? It is not state property." As explained above, there is no connection to property ownership and wildlife. The only determining factor is, in which state does the wildlife live.
The wildlife is held in trust by the states, for the citizens of the state. Those state trustees are under no obligation to share that wildlife resource with non-residents, but thankfully states do share with non-residents, albeit at much higher prices.
If you don't like the fee differntial, I would agree it is out of hand. But, the USSC case of Baldwin v. State of Montana in 1978 found that states can impose whatever disparity they want between residents and non-residents.
We are now seeing some western states struggle to sell their tags, as the res/non-res disparity is so far out of whack that the non-residents are going elsewhere. In effect, they are voting with their dollars.
If you want to try get some Federal legislation to change 200+ years of how states rights are recognized under the framework of the United States Constitution, knock yourself out. Your time and energy would be much better invested working for more wildlife.
Try applying for a Bighorn sheep or a Goat tag in Nevada after letting us build bonus point for 6 years on sheep and 10 years on goat. They cut the nonresidents out completey. If you don't like how it is in Montana DON'T APPLY.
Dan,
I would prefer to change it. Thanks for the suggestion though.
The only people that can change it is Montana residents. And why would we.
"There is a direct connection to land ownership and access to those lands. None of us are restricted in any state to accessing Federal lands."
Aren't the Wyoming Wilderness areas federal land? And they only restrict my access to hunt there not hike, camp, or fish...
Same reason you now have wolves. Because Uncle Sugar told you to.
On an AK hunt my guide told me that the state was doing such a poor job of managing the hunts on federal wildlife areas that the feds took over. Time to contact fish and wildlife.
You aren't restricted from accessing any of the federal property in MT. You can come and hike, camp, take pictures, etc etc. You will be charged by the federal government exactly like any MT resident would be charged. If you want to take some of the state's property while you are there, you will have to deal with the state laws regarding the states property. Montana allows you to hunt squirrels, rabbits, coyotes, gophers, foxes, badgers, etc with no license and no fees. If you want a game species, you have to pay. The feds do NOT own the animals. I own private property here in MT. I do NOT own the deer that happen to reside on that property. If I want to cut a tree, harvest some hay, plow the ground on my own property, I don't need anyone's permission. If I want to shoot a deer or a grouse, I need to buy a license from the state.
This seems to come up about once a week on Bowsite, but I am not sure what will finally get the concept through some people's skulls: The feds do not own the wildlife. You do not have any rights to Montana's wildlife simply because you are a citizen of the US or the fact that you pay taxes to the US Govt or the fact that an animal happens to be standing on federal land. If you want to have some ownership in Montana's wildlife, you have to move to MT and establish residency. Montana's wildlife is managed for the benefit of the citizens of Montana, just like your state manages it's wildlife for the benefit of the citizens of your state. Montanans have been generous enough to share some tags for our most coveted species with nonresidents, albeit at a fairly steep price. If you don't like the terms, don't send in your application. And if you think MT does such a poor job of managing the wildlife here, why would you want to come hunt such a poorly managed area?
Are Montana Constitution states the Wildlife in Montana. Well be managed for the citizens of Montana. No one is Telling you you can't hunt here. You just have to play by the rules. It took me 46 years to draw my sheep tag as a resident. The unit I apply for sheep in Utah has over 3000 people applying for the tag. I mite not ever see the tag but there is always a chance So I play the game.
Big Fin, thanks for pointing out the spreadsheet link. I am out and thankful that I have not sunk much into this scam. $31500 will buy a hell of a goat hunt in BC, would rather start saving my pennies for that. Good luck to those nonresidents who remain, you will need it.
I haven't done a lot of math lately and I'm not sure if I got the excel formulas correct, but it looks like if I applied for 680 sheep my first time and only had my name in the hat once, I would have approximately a 1 in 80,000 chance in drawing a tag with bonus points being squared. I could easily have the math wrong, though. I'm definitely not forking over $70.00 for those odds!!
I calculated 1 in 165,074 for Unit 680. Looking "forward" (using the $70 per point) I found the average cost of a winning tag to be $1.65 million. Someone let me know if I am making an error somewhere. In any case the outlook is grim for a nonresident.
Good deal that makes it better odds for me at drawing another Ram tag.
JP,
Your 165,074 is correct (number of "chances" looking at squared points and a chance for the current year's drawing based on 2013 stats), but there were 2 NR tags drawn in that area. So the odds are 1 in 82,537. And the cost of winning a tag isn't quite correct, as each year you build bonus points, you get more and more chances for your $70, essentially, each 'chance' is cheaper as you build more points.
For example, let's say that you put in for 10 years ($700 with current costs): The first year you have one chance, the second year you would have 2 chances, the third year you would have 5 chances (2 points squared, plus a chance for this years app) 4th year you would have 10 chances (3 squared plus one) fifth year is 17 chances, sixth is 26 chances, 7th is 37 chances, 8th is 50 chances, 9th is 65 chances, 10th is 82 chances... add those up and you have gotten 295 chances (if my math is correct) for $700. If the odds are the same as they are right now, that gives you 295/82,537, or 1/280 chance of being drawn in 10 years. Apply for 20 years, and would have had 2490 chances and a 1/33 chance of being drawn (app and point costs of $1400). At 30 years, you would have had 8585 chances for about a 1/10 chance of being drawn (app and points cost of $2100). essentially, the more points you get, the cheaper each 'chance' in the drawing will be. All of this is really null and void for the future, since others will be gaining points as well, and the more high point apps there are, the lower your odds will get as a lower point holder as the years go by!
Personally, I agree that your chances of ever drawing a ram tag in 680 as a nonresident are VERY slim. I am a resident, and I know that my chances of drawing one in my lifetime are a longshot. I apply in 482, but the odds are still a longshot that I will ever get to hunt sheep in the breaks. My dad, brother and I have been applying for 26 years for moose, sheep and goat, and so far, I am the only one who has been lucky enough to draw a goat tag. Here's to some good luck for 2014!
Minor correction....it costs NR's about 83.00 to apply (on-line) for sheep, not the 70.00 that keeps getting mentioned. The 70.00 per species is correct, but they also require the purchase of a 10.00 Conservation License, and roughly a 3% convenience fee for on-line apps.
The $10 conservation license works for all three tags. And by the way its not $5 for resident to apply. Its $10 and $2 for the bonus point.
We all are aware the game changes in most states over time and the number of tags in general can grow or even nosedive. Looking out 10 years and making a prediction is useful but I would not want to count on the odds being stable.
Recent history is the odds for drawing a tag for a non-resident is harder than 10 years ago no matter the species or the state.
In the MT example above you are in the sheep game for 30 years to have a 1 in 10 chance. Odds are a bit better for some of the other sheep units though, as mentioned above, the wild card is when the state reduces the pool of tags or more applicants target the unit you are also applying to that year.
Good luck and may the sheep gods be on your side soon.
Glacier, thanks for reminding about my math classes being long distant memories. ;o) I remembered the on the drive home that I didn't account for the second 680 tag until I did the cost calculation. And then only considered the current drawing when calculating the costs - need to consider the chances in previous years.
R.Hale - "If the federal shutdown takes place, it will possibly never open again."
Which is EXACTLY why such an idea need not be pursued....especially by hunters!
Talk about climbing in bed with the anti's....WOW!
Please tell me I missed something...and that suggestion was a joke.
You are delusional if you think the state is going to shut down the sheep draw. I guess im not sure why you feel that residents shouldn't have an advantage.
glacier,
I have an observation on your math. Let me know if you agree. There will be 82,537 other chances per year or 825,370 for the 10 years. The 1st year it would be 1/82,3537 and the 10th year it would be 82/82,537 or about 1/1000. After 30 years you would have 901/82,537 or about 1/92. This is assuming that others are not building points which you already have pointed out.
If you want to look at total chances over 30 years it would be the 8585 chances in 30X82,537 or 1 in 288. Of course prices will go up in 30 years and probably in 10 years.
With 7101 people applying for 7 tags a year only .1% can draw a year no matter what system is used to allocate them.
I can hunt deer and turkeys every year in Ohio and I agree that residents should have better access to tags in their home state. A lot of people do not have the time or money to hunt away from home. Unfortunately in the western states there just are not enough tags to go around so even the residents can not hunt every thing every year. Further more, with sheep there are not enough tags for even the residents to all be able to get a tag in their lifetime let alone all of the NRs. Again I think that the residents should have an advantage for tags but not to the total exclusion of the NRs especially if Montana residents want to be able to hunt in other states. We would all like a Montana sheep tag but that is just not possible. This thread just points out how unlikely it is for a NR to draw a sheep, goat or moose tag and how much MT is receiving in fees for each NR tag that is issued. How fair it is depends on your perspective.
So its ok for me to spend $50 a year in Iowa for three years before I can have a chance at a deer tag. But its not worth. $70 a year to apply for a Montana Sheep tag. I don't bitch about it I just play the game. Its my choice
Bigdan,
I will gladly trade you lessons on how to bitch for lessons on how to bugle.
In case you didn't know of my reputation, I'm a masterbitcher.
Ike you must be slipping. this is your first post on this thread. I have had three goat tags. Two sheep tags. And two Moose tags in Montana. And I have never drew anything but Elk tags and one Deer tag. In over 25 years applying out of state. I gave my Moose tag back last year.
I suppose I'm losing my touch. I'm also putting in for MT moose and sheep again.
Ike if you draw I will help you out as much as I can.
I'd be forever indebted! Although, something tells me you wouldn't want repayment in bitching lessons...
It's kinda like buying a lottery ticket......yer odds are about the same whether you buy a ticket or not. :)
After receiving an "F" on the first attempt at this (self-graded with assistance from others)I've taken another shot at quantifying reality. Using 2 tags in Unit 680 and 1 in 82537 odds (they will never get worse than last year, right?) it looks like someone not living in Montana with average luck will draw in 64 years. He or she will have spent $4480 by now ($70 per shot)and will have 3970 "points".
J.P., I only wish your "64-years average" were true. Even for resident's the average odds for 680 ram are about 3 times worse than that. Bigdan is one guy who beat those odds though.
Last year more than 3000 NR's applied for the tag you mentioned, and they only gave tags to 2 of those NR's. The math for "Years to draw" will be evident from the quotient of those two numbers.
By the way, if you'd applied as a NR for 680-31 ewe last year as 1st choice, your odds were roughly 3 out of 5 to draw.
Let the wheels turn.
I applied for the ewe hunt in 302 last year. I had 2 in 5 odds. Looking a little deeper, there were supposed to be 20 tags for the unit but only 14 were issued. All residents who applied got a tag. So this was an instance of the "special" nonresident rules taking hold, even in an area where the biologists want the herd reduced.
Also, a little more looking at individual units' histories shows that those odds are only getting worse. So looking forward, the 64 year number I put out there is overly optimistic from that sense alone.
I'm not applying for 680 (unless I only want to build a point) but am trying to build a forward-looking model for some other hunts to figure out if staying in the game is worth it to me.
I don't care. Dreams are more important than a few bucks a year. If I don't play, my dream is all but dead...
I'm glad someone brought up the ewe tag! I would love to hunt a ewe but don't want to cash my points to do it. In the end that may be how I go out. I put it down for a second choice each year but I'm not sure there are any left after the first drawing. I think it was put well by big fin increase the population=increased opportunity for all of us!
MT Deer and elk results are posting now!
I won't be surprised if the 2nd choice ewe tag option goes away soon. Way more people are now applying for ewes as a first choice.
Big Fin, Thanks for your explanation as now in Kansas they are trying to award wildlife to the land owners in cases of poaching. I do not agree with it but you know how well the legislature works.....
Over the last 10+ years of watching the stats, I never saw a ewe tag won 2nd choice by a NR. The district ceiling or hunt code ceiling always gets filled by 1st choices before that point. Last year 6 residents won ewe tags as 2nd choice.
"Last year 6 residents won ewe tags as 2nd choice."
And FWP relocated a bunch of sheep from the lone district where that occurred resulting in a big drop in tags offered in 2014. Second choice seems a pretty unlikely draw even for residents these days.
I don't mind the cost to apply. It doesn't bother me to support Montana's world class wildlife resources. I donate time and money to lots of causes. Since I love wildlife and hunting so much, why not support it? Just the fact that Montana has 6 year old freaks of nature sheep walking around banging heads and knowing I contributed a few bucks to support them is enough for me. I have never hunted MT and don't really expect to. I always tell myself I will go up in the summer and look at the breaks sheep but never get around to it.
And to think that as an added bonus, I could actually draw a sheep tag is cool. If I survive the initial excitement of drawing I might even be able to go on the hunt.
I spent a summer in MT many many years ago working for a National Graphic photographer carrying his stuff up and down some really tall mountains photographing grizzly bears. Montanans are some of the nicest, friendliest people I have ever been around. They can have a few of my bucks every year forever. Maybe I should start applying for Elk and Deer too. I think I will.
That is one of my pet peaves here in NM with the change to the quotas where it looks like NR won't have a chance in the draw for sheep this year. Nonresidents have been cleaning up on sheep tags here for decades and now that they have one year were they are out 50 bucks or so in credit card interest and don't have a chance in the draw, some (not all by a long shot) are having heart attacks and saying they are going to boycott NM, callings us stupid, poor, greedy and lots of other nasty things. It you aren't will to support the resource, why do you think you should access it? Wildlife doesn't spring up overnight. It is a long term commitment.
Amazing what some of the reported odds are in magazines vs. what they are when you actually add them up. I'm applying in Nevada now and was looking at nonresident odds in unit 263 and WOW. 1 in 173,000 chance at drawing that tag with bonus points figured in. I guess people just go by the simple odds that the tag services company supply.
I am a big believer in State rights. Wildlife is the property of the state. Each state has the final say on who gets to hunt their wildlife and that is the way that it should be. Having said that, I live in PA. We don't have sheep here and I likely won't live long enough to draw one of our elk tags - which non-residents by the way have the same chances as residents do for a tag. In fact, NR's could conceivably draw all of the available PA elk tags in one year. Having said all of this, I support conservation organizations who funnel a lot of money and support into the western states. I hope those western states realize this and continue to offer non-residents at least some chances to hunt their sheep and elk herds. I suspect, for example, but don't know for a fact, that the WSF (national organization) invests more money in some states for the preservation and advancement of the sheep herds in those states than organizations located purely within those states do.
Amazing what some of the reported odds are in magazines vs. what they are when you actually add them up. I'm applying in Nevada now and was looking at nonresident odds in unit 263 and WOW. 1 in 173,000 chance at drawing that tag with bonus points figured in. I guess people just go by the simple odds that the tag services company supply.
Not sure what resource you're using but there wasn't close to 173,000 non-resident apps in total for DBHS. The actual number of apps was close to 10,000 bit with less than 30 tags available the odds still stink. In 263 there was one tag with nearly 2,800 apps. Worst odds in the state and that unit is in a down cycle right now so if I were eligible to apply I'd be looking elsewhere....
Not to highjack this Montana thread...but in Nevada 2013 draw there were 28 non-res DBS tags for 6798 non-res apps...still w/ these poor odds, Nevada offers the most DBS tags of any state...thanks to their dedicated conservation programs.
Tilzbow,
That is calculating all of the bonus points in so basically with bonus points there were 173,000 chances in the hat for that tag. You would then need to divide how many chances you have for your bonus points to see your odds. I'm at 4 points (16 squared) so I would have a roughly 0.009% chance of drawing. Or 1 in 10,800 roughly compared to the printed odds of 1 in 2,724 in magazines.
Xmaps,
I hear where you're coming from and that makes sense but it's not quite that simple. You've also got to factor in the fact all five choices are reviewed once an applicants random number comes up. Only first choices are listed on the website for unsuccessful applicants so with out the rest of the information it's not possible to determine true draw odds. That said your odds are probably close for 263 alone, but you should factor in your other choices and your odds improve greatly.
Yes, I forgot about that part of it. It sure does get confusing and harder to calculate. I guess it is all about getting that low random number and having your other five choices reviewed. It is just amazing when that unit has 273,000 bonus point chances entered and other units have 4,000 chances and people still apply for that unit. I guess it just comes down to being one of those 50 or so nonresidents that have the lowest number and hoping your unit is still available.
Just a comment on the NV draw. There are a lot of people putting in for 263 as a first choice. As soon as the 263 tag is gone they are still in the draw for their 2-5 choices. Therefore, except for unit 263 it is very hard to determine what your real odds are by unit. You almost have to take the total points for all applicants for all units and divide by your points and then divide by the total number of tags. The odds are very bad but still a lot better than MT.
The truth is that both point squaring, and the option to select multiple hunt codes, both serve mainly as marketing gimmicks to retain applicants. For an individual applicant, the multi-picks option does not increase your long-term odds to draw a sheep tag. But, the notion that you get 5 picks makes it
seem like your odds to draw are better. That would only be true if you (and a few of your closest friends) were the only applicants allowed to do it. But everyone gets 5 picks. Point squaring doesn't help much either, since they square EVERYONE'S points, not just your's. For extreme-demand hunts like sheep, the attrition rates in the mid & upper point pools are too low for point squaring to make much long-term difference for the average NR applicant. Having your point total increase at a hyperbolic rate seems like a great thing. Until it registers that every other applicant has the exact same benefit. Still, as a gambler, I'll keep at it ;-)
JP
Are you then factoring in all those who are in the draw pool each may have multiple pp. So if those get sqaured we all are even worse off. It seems you are are using number of applicants. Not sure if there is any way to know the "number of entries" ie the pp squared.
I 1000 applicants have 10 pp and then their name goes in the hat 100 times so in effect there would be 100,000 "applicants" The new guy would have his name in there once. So all the calculations on odds is only a guess.
A guy with 10 pp who drops out, then takes 100 potential tickets out of the system.
Does that make sense.
There is a little mathematical quirk that multiple choices can increase your odds of drawing. Your overall probability of drawing a permit are multiplicative across the odds of all your choices. If you select 5 of the easiest choice your overall probability is better than if you select one, two, three, or four really low odds hunts and then the highest odds hunt. I used to think that if you just selected the best odds hunt as your 5th choice you had maximized your overall probability of drawing as much as you can. But my kids advanced placement probability and math teacher showed me the calculation and it turns out that I was wrong.
I think that point squaring worked okay when the bonus point system was new and less people were applying. Now it is only a minor advantage over straight point for those you have been applying for awhile and a huge disadvantage for those getting started. How do you justify applying when there are 80,000 to 1 odds against you? I guess the same way that you justify the 200 to 1 odds when you have a bunch of points.
tthomas, yes I am squaring points as glacier describes. The MT spreadsheet lists the number of entries by how many pp's they have. So it is rather simple to calculate odds for a single season (as long as you remember to include how many tags are issued - doh!). The really cumbersome math comes when you try and predict what will happen if you keep applying over multiple years. I am still shaking my head about the dollar figures I first posted but even after radically changing my approach I'm still not that confident in what I have.
Twanger, I tried re-calculating long term odds and if the ppts are not squared the outlook is much different. You are correct, the squaring is a huge disadvantage to those with few points. Theoretically squaring will reward those who stick with the system long-term but if lots of people do this how does that change the outlook???
I'm a hopeless dreamer, so I'm always going to be in for MT sheep, goat and moose
Someone said it above, the dreams are worth more to me than the $200 odd bucks a year.
Bake
At least here in NV Bonus Point squaring is very effective for nearly all our resident hunts. With the exception of sheep and goat nearly everyone draws out after a few years. We're approaching 300 DBHS tags so it works okay for those residents hunts, too. But for non residents and a couple resident hunts I can understand the argument against squaring them since those just starting out have almost no chance of ever drawing.
This thread really has me questioning whether or not I'm going to apply in MT going forward. But, wouldn't it be cool to be that lucky SOB who draws a Breaks a tag!?!?.....
I'm setting on 10 Nevada goat points and 5 bighorn points that I can't even apply for a tag. how fair is that. at least Montana don't just cut you off like Nevada did.
NV lost 90% of RMBHS and a significant amount of the goats in the Rubies and East Humboldts to pneumonia several years ago. There are now 6 RMBHS and 7 goat tags available statewide, not enough to support a non resident hunt. Sucks to be a non resident with points you but you can help by joining WSF and NBU to help put sheep back on the mountain. Between these two org's and NDOW transplants from Alberta have already been started in the East Humboldts and if those sheep proliferate there's hope for a hunt in the future. There were less than 30 sheep that survived between both ranges and those were in the East Humboldts but have been moved to the Rubies so that the transplants have a chance in the East Humboldts. The surviving sheep still carry pneumonia and are resistant to it but they'll pass it on to their lambs and other sheep so it'll take decades for a herd to fully recover. I've heard many wanted to capture and euthanize all the survivors but this would've been met with heavy political resistance so the decision was made to move them.
I spend a ton of time in the Rubies and it's a bummer not to see sheep let alone be able to hunt them.... The sheep in the Rubies will likely never recover in my lifetime but there's hope in the East Humboldts.
Nevada had to cut the R.M. Bighorns tags because of a severe die off . You still have those points if or when the population builds up to allow a N.R. Tag.
I just applied this year with 19 D.B.S points, and 11 for elk,deer, and Cali. BS. Points. I would have had one more but my mother had emergency surgery right before the 2005 deadline and I forgot.
Next year I will have 20 Pts for DBS, for whatever good that does.
Nevada had no choice but to cut RBS tags with the die off they had...once the population increases and the tag quotas go up, non-res will be offered tags again.
Montana cuts tags right after a die off too...or after they gun down all the coughing sheep.
Nevada is doing more for their sheep populations than any other state I believe.
Nevada has three different/species/subspecies of sheep...not too many other states can make that claim!
I gladly donate my $ to Nevada draws every year.
MT isn't a very good example of fairness. In 2012, the 502 nonresidents that applied for 121-00 had no chance of drawing. The hunt was on our application forms but when the regional permit numbers dropped from 42 to 36 and a NR tag had to be eliminated to meet the "up to 10%" quota, there were four hunt codes on our application forms but only up to 3 permits so MT dropped 121-00 as a possible hunt for a NR. That's $17,570 nonresidents (asuming everyone bought the bonus point)sent in good faith and not end up in a sheep drawing. I guess MT could argue that we got something because we got a bonus point. At todays cost if it happens again with a simular number of applicants it will be $40,160 sent to MT for no chance of drawing.
3/36 is 8.3% nonresident potential. Would it really hurt to go ahead and award nonres up to 4/36 (11.1%) in region 1? Nonresidnts drew 6.1% (9/146) of the either sex/ram permits, 3.6% (3/84) of the ewe permits, and 5.2% of all sheep permits statewide. The lowest percentage in all the sheep states.
They dropped one of the the region 1 "tentative" either sex permits with 502 nonresident applicants ($17,570) instead of the ewe permit with 26 nonresident applicants.
I'm not arguing that MT is doing anything wrong, only that it is not a very good example of kindness to nonresidents. I'm still going to apply every year.
Don't shoot the messenger here-...From others I hear the same line that Montana FWP has never been kind to non-residents!
I would like to see exactly what the Montana sheep herd would look like if the Montana residents had paid for it exclusively. I am guessing it would be about nothing. They want our money but still want to have it all to themselves.
It is what it is and we have a choice to apply or not. I'd like to see it jiggered a bit to get us closer to 10% but I'll keep sending my $ in the meantime. I suppose the number of nonresidents that drop out with the fee increase will tell us if we are still willing to pay to play. They are probably going to increase their nonresident revenue. Its still our choice. Its a recreational activity. Nobody "has" to try to go sheep hunting out of state.
R.Hale nonresidents had nothing to do with the money we spent bringing sheep back. Intel the last few years that they started selling the governors tag. We lost money from nr sheep hunters. This year things have changed We will now make money from Nr Moose,Sheep & Goat tags. We built are sheep herds up before the sheep guys started there club. Yes they have helped put sheep on the mtn. But they were Montana members. A few years ago the F&G took over 480 sheep out of Montana and shipped them to ND,SD, Wyo,Utah And Neb So I think Montana has given lots of nonresident sheep. mabe we should stop nr sheep hunting till we get the 10% back in line with the ones that were ship out of Montana.
Montana has been very generous with sheep exports. Usually these deals are trades where Montana gets something back like pheasant, trout or what have you. I can think of nothing worth getting in return for a sheep so Montana is deserving of thanks.
States control how they allocate and charge for applications and tags. Non-residents can decide to play the game or not. Fewer non-residents applying or fewer non-residents hunting will always mean less money for F&G and generally less money for Montana vendors due to non-residents being more likely to rent vehicles, stay in hotels, hire guides, etc.
I like western Montana's vistas so I apply. I detest the squared points system in MT since harms newer hunters for decades even if they start only a few years after the "max pool" hunters. I dislike when annual costs go up several times the rate of inflation. I enjoy spending time in Montana so I do not get as worked up as do about NM, CO, etc when they change the non-resident game and jack up the prices.
If I turn back the clock 20 years and could see how the various states would implement point systems and generally milk non-residents for application fees and licenses then I would have taken up steelhead fishing. Makes it easier to wind down my hunting when NM takes sheep off the table, etc.
Good luck in your draws.
That is laughable that you like MT better than NM in regards to nonresident sheep opportunity. We have 1/5 the sheep permits and last year alone awarded more actual tags to nonresidents than than MT will in the next 3 years combined. In 2012 nonresidents received 15 out of 16 desert sheep tags. Yea, how unfair to nonresidents. It would take zero nonresident sheep permits for over the next 25 years for the number of sheep permits in NM that get awarded to nonresidents since 2006 to be 10% of the total for the period.
At 84% we have the lowest resident quota for sheep.
This year by all indications our game and fish department intends to break our quota law to make sure a few ram permits are awarded to nonresidents.
Boy, I sure wish some of the states I apply in would start screwing me like that.....
Some of you guys are really greedy bastards.
Foolish dreamer here. I'm gonna keep applying. Keep in mind some dude is sleeping with Kate Upton. People get lucky. Gotta swing the bat.
I hope this doesn't turn into more about the NM draw...we already have a thread/rant on that.
I hear ya ridge but when someone uses a MT draw odds thread to stick it to NM with a stupid comment, I'm going to correct the record.
Patdel... that is a classic. I just picked up my bat and will swing it in the Montana draws..
Where do you buy the Kate Upton raffle tix??
Bill V.
Patdel. . . just remember, behind every beautiful woman, there's a man who's tired of putting up with her s_____!!!!
You are delusional if you think the state is going to shut down the sheep draw. I guess im not sure why you feel that residents shouldn't have an advantage.
