gallagher71
Member
I have a point system solution question phrased in the form of an idea.
It's based upon some assumptions. They are as follows:
Assumption #1 - There are many states today where the "Point Creep" phenomena along with the amount of 10+ point holders causes lots of people (like me) to completely dismiss ever pursuing a tag requiring points in those states. As a result, many opt out of buying points in those states. Think Utah, Nevada, etc.
Assumption #2 - States see point buyers as a revenue source without an expense. Especially non-resident point buyers. (There's no additional cost to a state who sells a tag to someone whether the hunter had no points or 10 points.) However, the hunter with 10 points paid a 10-year annuity to the state that the zero point hunter didn't.
Assumption #3 - Maximizing engaged hunters in a state (and point buyers) is good for hunting, access, conservation, and state budgets so long as natural resources are managed well.
The IDEA:
Going forward, in one of the western states we'll call "Huntingland", no individual can accumulate more than 10 points. If you have 27 points today, you can keep them by applying for a tag or paying the point fee, but you cannot accumulate more points. If you have 0 points or 9 points, you can purchase a point and have one more for next year. But whether you were unsuccessful in the draw or you pay the point fee, you can't get past 10 points going forward.
Wouldn't the results be as follows:
For the benefit of Huntingland:
1. Hunters like me who are newer to the game start buying and building points in Huntingland. Many more of us start paying the state every year for our points. This provides a direct benefit to the residents of the state of Huntingland.
2. More hunters are planning to come to Huntingland because more of us are actively buying points to get there. This also benefits the residents of Huntingland.
For the benefit of high point holders today:
1. High point holders don't lose their place in line. There's no random carveout of tags that are taken from higher pointholders and given to everyone else.
2. Nobody is forced to use it or lose it. Your points are yours. If you can't hunt for the next five years, pay your point fee and preserve your points to save your place in line. Nobody sneaks past you because nobody gets more points after 10.
For the benefit of low point holders today:
1. Point creep has an end. Burning through the 10+ point holders will cause greater higher point applications in premium units, but the pain is temporary. The level of the peril of each state's point system determines the length of the "short-term" pain. But because point creep does end, buying points no longer becomes an exercise in futility.
2. Point holders with 3 or 4 points have a path to get to "max points" of 10 within a finite period. Even Utah, who's point system has decades of pointholders who aren't hunters, has 11,000+ pointholders with 10+ points. It would take those pointholders 6.7 years to work through the system if they all started applying for tags next year. But when I have 10 points and the decks are cleared of most of the 10+ pointholders and nobody's accumulating more than 10 points, I'm the new max point holder along with my 10-point peers. There's many more people with max points but the points get used.
For everyone:
1. Planning a hunt in Huntingland becomes realistic. There will be plenty of 10-point holders but it's attainable for all.
2. More income for Huntingland as more jump in to buy points because it's now reasonable to assume they can be used means more dollars for habitat, access, and management. More of these lead to more opportunity and better quality hunts.
By the way...10 points is an arbitrary number I used for illustrative purposes. Different states, depending upon their points distributions and non-resident limited entry tag counts, need to model the best figure for each of their states.
Okay, I'm missing something because smarter people than me have been trying to solve this. Please educate me. What am I not considering?
It's based upon some assumptions. They are as follows:
Assumption #1 - There are many states today where the "Point Creep" phenomena along with the amount of 10+ point holders causes lots of people (like me) to completely dismiss ever pursuing a tag requiring points in those states. As a result, many opt out of buying points in those states. Think Utah, Nevada, etc.
Assumption #2 - States see point buyers as a revenue source without an expense. Especially non-resident point buyers. (There's no additional cost to a state who sells a tag to someone whether the hunter had no points or 10 points.) However, the hunter with 10 points paid a 10-year annuity to the state that the zero point hunter didn't.
Assumption #3 - Maximizing engaged hunters in a state (and point buyers) is good for hunting, access, conservation, and state budgets so long as natural resources are managed well.
The IDEA:
Going forward, in one of the western states we'll call "Huntingland", no individual can accumulate more than 10 points. If you have 27 points today, you can keep them by applying for a tag or paying the point fee, but you cannot accumulate more points. If you have 0 points or 9 points, you can purchase a point and have one more for next year. But whether you were unsuccessful in the draw or you pay the point fee, you can't get past 10 points going forward.
Wouldn't the results be as follows:
For the benefit of Huntingland:
1. Hunters like me who are newer to the game start buying and building points in Huntingland. Many more of us start paying the state every year for our points. This provides a direct benefit to the residents of the state of Huntingland.
2. More hunters are planning to come to Huntingland because more of us are actively buying points to get there. This also benefits the residents of Huntingland.
For the benefit of high point holders today:
1. High point holders don't lose their place in line. There's no random carveout of tags that are taken from higher pointholders and given to everyone else.
2. Nobody is forced to use it or lose it. Your points are yours. If you can't hunt for the next five years, pay your point fee and preserve your points to save your place in line. Nobody sneaks past you because nobody gets more points after 10.
For the benefit of low point holders today:
1. Point creep has an end. Burning through the 10+ point holders will cause greater higher point applications in premium units, but the pain is temporary. The level of the peril of each state's point system determines the length of the "short-term" pain. But because point creep does end, buying points no longer becomes an exercise in futility.
2. Point holders with 3 or 4 points have a path to get to "max points" of 10 within a finite period. Even Utah, who's point system has decades of pointholders who aren't hunters, has 11,000+ pointholders with 10+ points. It would take those pointholders 6.7 years to work through the system if they all started applying for tags next year. But when I have 10 points and the decks are cleared of most of the 10+ pointholders and nobody's accumulating more than 10 points, I'm the new max point holder along with my 10-point peers. There's many more people with max points but the points get used.
For everyone:
1. Planning a hunt in Huntingland becomes realistic. There will be plenty of 10-point holders but it's attainable for all.
2. More income for Huntingland as more jump in to buy points because it's now reasonable to assume they can be used means more dollars for habitat, access, and management. More of these lead to more opportunity and better quality hunts.
By the way...10 points is an arbitrary number I used for illustrative purposes. Different states, depending upon their points distributions and non-resident limited entry tag counts, need to model the best figure for each of their states.
Okay, I'm missing something because smarter people than me have been trying to solve this. Please educate me. What am I not considering?
