I first calculated the odds of drawing in 1999. At that time and for several years afterwards, the summary reports were only available in paper form. To get the data into a computer, I had to scan those paper documents. There were all kinds of issues related to scanning, my scanner couldn’t tell the difference between an 8 and a B. To have any chance at a decent prediction, I had to find and “fix” all of the issues with the data. It was necessary to create program that would looks at all the numbers, add things in various ways, calculate whatever it could to determine if the data was good. This is called “parity checking” and my program does a lot of it.
Every year I find errors in the ODFW data. I’ve offered to run my parity checks to the ODFW, allowing them to fix the issues before they put them on their website, but they haven’t taken me up on it (I’d do it for free). The data issues are important to people that use the summary report, for those that do their own calculations. Unless you are an expert, these bad numbers can trip you up, so I have decided to post my parity report.
I need to be clear that while pointing out these issues, there isn’t a conspiracy in any of this. No one at the ODFW has done anything wrong and none of these reporting issues have anything to do with why you didn’t draw last year. These are all just minor reporting issues. I occasionally give bad numbers too, you get a few hiccups when dealing with millions and millions of numbers.
The summary report indicates that there were 440 total tags authorized, that’s also what the 2022 regulations indicated. The applicant numbers look ok, but drawn numbers are not correct. The total residents draw value (column 4) indicates 418 residents drew. But the 75% pool by points draw (see the red boxes) shows 586 drew and that is just at the 1 and 2 point level.
221T2 Southerlin Youth – this hunt was in the 2022 regulations. It is also listed in the 2023 regulations. In fact, the 2023 regulations indicate that there were first choice applicants in 2022. However, there is no entry for this hunt in the summary report. I suppose it could have been cancelled, but if so, it seems odd that the regulations would list the number of first choice hunts for a canceled hunt.
Every one of the hunts in the table below has the same data error. The summary report for these hunts lists the number of “resident drawn” and “non resident drawn” at the zero preference point level as 0 and this is incorrect.
Here is an example screen shot:
The values listed in the red circle indicates no residents or non-residents drew in the 75% pool and this is incorrect. By using other data on this hunts summary, data in the earlier columns, one can calculate the correct number. My prediction program corrects this problem when reading the data and it uses the corrected number to produce the prediction. The reason that I am mentioning this issue is that for folks that like to look at the summary report and make their own predictions, the the zero will trip you up. This could cause them to conclude that no one with zero points drew in the 75% pool draw resulting in a bad prediction and a bad hunt choice decision for the coming year.