That’s because they were smart enough to spend money on a tangible item that could be delivered upon exchange of currency.Hmmm... except these two got to drink the beer they paid for. LOL
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That’s because they were smart enough to spend money on a tangible item that could be delivered upon exchange of currency.Hmmm... except these two got to drink the beer they paid for. LOL
There's no creep past 10 points when max points is 10 points. It becomes a jump ball for max point holders.When you “allow more to play” that will
Just mean more Applicants which will
Increase point creep Even further.
Also more funds going to the state doesn’t equate to more opportunities at all…
You are spot on correct. At least for many tags. But in the process, you've purged the system of 10+ point holders without punishing them (they've done nothing wrong) and you have converted from point creep to random draws for those higher point tags.I don’t see how your system improves anything. I think you are missing that your 10 point holders are not drawing tags and leaving the applicant pool any faster than folks draw and leave the pool now. All that happens is the number of 10 point holders balloons because more people enter the group with 10 points than leave it every year. Eventually most applicants all have 10 points and it’s effectively a random draw with a 10 year waiting period. What did that accomplish, exactly?
Just go random and be done with it.
But we punish people on the front end by forcing them to buy 10 completely useless points they can’t use before entering a random draw? I just don’t get it I guess. Doesn’t seem fixed to me.You are spot on correct. At least for many tags. But in the process, you've purged the system of 10+ point holders without punishing them (they've done nothing wrong) and you have converted from point creep to random draws for those higher point tags.
Not to pile on, but what you would have really done is trade, not purge, 10+ points holders for 10.0 point holders.You are spot on correct. At least for many tags. But in the process, you've purged the system of 10+ point holders without punishing them (they've done nothing wrong) and you have converted from point creep to random draws for those higher point tags.
Love it but my one point of contention:Only way to fix point creep is to do away with points entirely.
Have a multi state agreement with R/NR tag split, 80/20..85/15 ish seems about right.
Have a NR a application cap at 10 total yearly applications.
Upfront non refundable licenses for any state you apply in.
Upfront refundable tag fees also.
All random draws.
Extra tags sell them first come first serve.
Everyone gets a equal random chance at NR tags. No points, no bull shit
No.And I have to honestly ask, is that a realistic possibility?
Love it but my one point of contention:
I see many people suggest a multi-state or even federalized system. And I have to honestly ask, is that a realistic possibility?
How to you account for different goals different states hold? Ex. Colorado wants to give lots of elk tags to NRs. New Mexico wants to give them to landowners. Montana wants them to go to guided clients. (Broad brushes but you get the idea.) Wouldn't those kinds of differences prevent the cohesion required for such a system?
That's not even counting logistics of state biologists setting goals based on infield work and the conflicts that can cause.
have a hard time seeing who really benefits from this
2. Making 50% to 90% of tags random in a previously true preference point state doesn't work. Can't bait and switch those point buyers who've invested in points for 15, 20, or even 30 years in some states by diluting their pool to those levels.
Just the OP and all of the people who weren't around when point systems started.
Do point systems suck yes they do and they suck because I wasn't around to buy points at the bottom level. So instead of complaining about it why don't you do what you can and hunt what you can now?
Because in 10 year when you have enough points to even have a chance in your dream world you could've done a handful of really fun things in the mountains that you won't be able to now. Because as mentioned demand isn't going away and supply isn't going up.
Seems to me like you are only happy with a "glory tag" instead of going out and enjoying hunting for more than the potential of killing a large antlered animal.
I would personally rather hunt 7 general tags than wait 10 years to potentially hunt 1 "glory tag".
I would agree with most of your post, but I for one don't think point systems suck. I love the fact that I can reasonably predict what tags I get. I will gladly pay for points, and even accumulate more than I need, in order to plan my hunting calendar.Just the OP and all of the people who weren't around when point systems started.
Do point systems suck yes they do and they suck because I wasn't around to buy points at the bottom level. So instead of complaining about it why don't you do what you can and hunt what you can now?
Because in 10 year when you have enough points to even have a chance in your dream world you could've done a handful of really fun things in the mountains that you won't be able to now. Because as mentioned demand isn't going away and supply isn't going up.
Seems to me like you are only happy with a "glory tag" instead of going out and enjoying hunting for more than the potential of killing a large antlered animal.
I would personally rather hunt 7 general tags than wait 10 years to potentially hunt 1 "glory tag".
I think the OPs fix is ridiculous.
That said to paint the picture that point creep and points in general only affect “glory” tags is disingenuous and not an accurate portrayal of the current state of affairs in western big game hunting. Further more implying that the neg affects of points are caused by self infliction vs a flawed system is …well bull shit as well.
That’s because they were smart enough to spend money on a tangible item that could be delivered upon exchange of currency.
They buy 10 points for the high point tags and they're eligible instead of buying 20 but never getting to the goal line.But we punish people on the front end by forcing them to buy 10 completely useless points they can’t use before entering a random draw? I just don’t get it I guess. Doesn’t seem fixed to me.
I love the fact that I can reasonably predict what tags I get.
They buy 10 points for the high point tags and they're eligible instead of buying 20 but never getting to the goal line.
That might work. Not opposed. Also not certain trading 10.0 point hunters for 10+ hunters is bad. A random draw at 10 points for higher demand tags still gives everyone who would have been 10+ a chance.Not to pile on, but what you would have really done is trade, not purge, 10+ points holders for 10.0 point holders.
Like others have said you'll eventually create a random draw with a 10 year wait to enter the drawing. Plus as you remove all the people above 10, the people at 10.0 grow, so by the time it becomes a random draw for just the people at 10.0 the odds are going to be bad and getting worse.
So it becomes "I can start building now, but I'll eventually compete in a random draw with every point holder who is even with me or ahead of me in line (out to 10 points)." Thus, I know the odds get worse with every year I wait to finally be eligible.
I have a hard time seeing who really benefits from this besides the state that gets 10 years of point money from people before they can even hope for a tag.
I would tweak your idea to something like this:
no new points will be issued from here forward, under any circumstance. Start year 1 with a random/pref hybrid draw that starts at 10/90 and increases on the random side 2-4% per year. It "cheapens" people's points but at a gradual rate, allows people room to burn points and get out to join the growing random side, and may even encourage it. Eventually it will shift to 100% random and any remaining points anyone is holding die or maybe you leave a point pool of 20% until the point burners get their chance to burn. Different options.
And in the process drive up the lower points tags bc an exponentially larger pool hits max points and realize their odds are dropping at an exponential rate for the high point tag. And they go and apply for the low point or general tag thus driving all tags to be a 10 year wait. Complete corrupt money grab.
Agreed. I'm content with hunting every year. Because of this, my participation is limited to three states. It's less about budget than it is about value. However, if I could participate elsewhere where I believed I would get to use points, I'd buy. I'm not opposed to funding fish and wildlife. It's a far better investment than my state's general fund where I send too much for too little already.Just the OP and all of the people who weren't around when point systems started.
Do point systems suck yes they do and they suck because I wasn't around to buy points at the bottom level. So instead of complaining about it why don't you do what you can and hunt what you can now?
Because in 10 year when you have enough points to even have a chance in your dream world you could've done a handful of really fun things in the mountains that you won't be able to now. Because as mentioned demand isn't going away and supply isn't going up.
Seems to me like you are only happy with a "glory tag" instead of going out and enjoying hunting for more than the potential of killing a large antlered animal.
I would personally rather hunt 7 general tags than wait 10 years to potentially hunt 1 "glory tag".