D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Effective at what? I'm not suggesting the idea to help manage pronghorn but rather manage point creep.
Ideas on Point Collecting/Point Creep
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
RobertD
Well-known member
Fair enough, I misinterpreted when I saw mention of pronghorn population
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
I may have worded it poorly. Essentially trying to say, if populations are high and tags relatively easy to obtain then burning pp's on a doe tag seems like a bad idea. When supply goes down and point creep is increasing at an unsustainable level then using pp's on all tags makes more sense. At least IMO.
WildWill
Well-known member
Agreed antelope in Wyoming is the prime example. I used my WY antelope points in 2019 would have been perfectly happy to use my points on doe tags (especially if you could still draw two) every couple/few years versus getting back in the point pool for another type 1. Maybe instead of adopting all reduced price tags into the point pool do it like Wyoming already does elk make a type 4 for popular units with quality hunting.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
That's a good idea, I like it. (a type 4 for antelope) I've got 7 points I'd be willing to use on a quality doe antelope hunt.
SaskHunter
Well-known member
Hey now!
I've said this before and this is what I believe will bring world peace... I mean help the preference point debacle.
- Must apply for a hunt code to get a point.
- No averaging of points in party apps
- Points gone anytime you get a tag for a MALE tag of said species (reason being that some places want to incentivise hunting of females for population control)
I do think there should be some sort of caveat for turning in tags. Life happens, and sometimes thing that are out of one's control get in the way. One could apply for a tag, then get pregnant/get their wife pregnant, and have the baby due on opening day. I do think that it should be heavily incentivised to keep people from turning in tags though. Maybe such a situation would allow them to defer the tag to a following year, but not turn it in.
Something I have also thought of would be an increasing preference point cost. Meaning your first point (that you buy due to being unsuccessful in the draw) would cost $50, but your 20th point would cost $1000. That way it would incentivise people to burn their points, and start collecting cheap points again.
- Must apply for a hunt code to get a point.
- No averaging of points in party apps
- Points gone anytime you get a tag for a MALE tag of said species (reason being that some places want to incentivise hunting of females for population control)
I can get on board with 1 and 3. I would also like to see every state switch to a system like Arizona where it is a bonus point system and not a preference point system.
I do think there should be some sort of caveat for turning in tags. Life happens, and sometimes thing that are out of one's control get in the way. One could apply for a tag, then get pregnant/get their wife pregnant, and have the baby due on opening day. I do think that it should be heavily incentivised to keep people from turning in tags though. Maybe such a situation would allow them to defer the tag to a following year, but not turn it in.
Something I have also thought of would be an increasing preference point cost. Meaning your first point (that you buy due to being unsuccessful in the draw) would cost $50, but your 20th point would cost $1000. That way it would incentivise people to burn their points, and start collecting cheap points again.
Hawk Tuah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,598
There are a lot of ideas floating around here, but I think that we overestimate the number of shits given by F & G departments in helping increase our draw odds or making it more "fair" (something with a definition that hunt draw applicants will never agree on). They want to make money and won't stop practices that are bringing it in unless they can replace it with something that will bring them even more money.
I like ideas that make it tougher for people to get points (fronting tag fees, coming in person, etc.) but these aren't ideas that F & G departments are going to adopt if they haven't yet, and ones that have them already will likely move away from anything that makes them less money. Colorado isn't going to go back to making nonresidents cut thousands of dollars in checks to apply while only taking $3 out and then sending it all back to the applicant. They now sell points for S/G/M for $100 and are selling them hand over fist to more people because tag fees do not need to be fronted. They aren't going to go back on something that is making them money.
Some have brought up making people apply in person...I'd love it if you had to apply in person, run as six-minute mile, shoot an x-inch group at 300 yards and do x number of pushups to apply or get a point, but that won't happen. Presenting ideas to F & G departments/commission or legislatures that ends with them reducing a successful revenue stream they've established is not going to be effective. These people do not care about our draw odds.
Also, in the same vein, I'd be ok if states did not allow tags to be returned. It would help the issue to some tiny extent. Sure, I understand that people get sick or hurt or have personal issues. Life happens. Even though I benefited from a returned late deer tag in NV on a drought year that I put to good use, I'd love to see it go away in some states. But again, going back to my earlier point, why would F & G departments abruptly stop allowing tags to be returned and resold? They do not care about our odds. They are in a unique situation where they can sell a single piece of paper twice instead of just once, and keep the money from both buyers. Imagine a store owner who sold you a TV, then you take it back to him happily a month later (without a refund) because you decided you wanted a TV from him the next year instead that you would pay for yet again. Then he takes the TV you had and sells it again a day later. And the next year you are in line trying to buy that same TV again. Why in the hell would the store owner stop doing this? Why would F & G agencies stop doing this? The only reason they would stop doing this is if they decided that the resources needed to deal with all of the tag returns are more expensive than what they are making selling x number of tags twice. I do not think this would be the case, however.
I like ideas that make it tougher for people to get points (fronting tag fees, coming in person, etc.) but these aren't ideas that F & G departments are going to adopt if they haven't yet, and ones that have them already will likely move away from anything that makes them less money. Colorado isn't going to go back to making nonresidents cut thousands of dollars in checks to apply while only taking $3 out and then sending it all back to the applicant. They now sell points for S/G/M for $100 and are selling them hand over fist to more people because tag fees do not need to be fronted. They aren't going to go back on something that is making them money.
Some have brought up making people apply in person...I'd love it if you had to apply in person, run as six-minute mile, shoot an x-inch group at 300 yards and do x number of pushups to apply or get a point, but that won't happen. Presenting ideas to F & G departments/commission or legislatures that ends with them reducing a successful revenue stream they've established is not going to be effective. These people do not care about our draw odds.
Also, in the same vein, I'd be ok if states did not allow tags to be returned. It would help the issue to some tiny extent. Sure, I understand that people get sick or hurt or have personal issues. Life happens. Even though I benefited from a returned late deer tag in NV on a drought year that I put to good use, I'd love to see it go away in some states. But again, going back to my earlier point, why would F & G departments abruptly stop allowing tags to be returned and resold? They do not care about our odds. They are in a unique situation where they can sell a single piece of paper twice instead of just once, and keep the money from both buyers. Imagine a store owner who sold you a TV, then you take it back to him happily a month later (without a refund) because you decided you wanted a TV from him the next year instead that you would pay for yet again. Then he takes the TV you had and sells it again a day later. And the next year you are in line trying to buy that same TV again. Why in the hell would the store owner stop doing this? Why would F & G agencies stop doing this? The only reason they would stop doing this is if they decided that the resources needed to deal with all of the tag returns are more expensive than what they are making selling x number of tags twice. I do not think this would be the case, however.
The truest thing said here. 99% of them don't care whether we like it or not. They just show up to their government job, make their government salary, and will only do enough to make sure their government ass doesn't get fired.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'm all about NR points for doe pronghorn...$25 sound about right?
I wonder how much revenue would be generated?
I'd buy 'em
A significant price increase for doe tags as well. No wonder people roll out with three tags in their pocket at $34 a friggin pop.
RobertD
Well-known member
Three? Thought only two was possible? But agree wholeheartedly on raising their priceA significant price increase for doe tags as well. No wonder people roll out with three tags in their pocket at $34 a friggin pop.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
4 actually but those days are gone
But in NV, they took whatever points you may have had. In CO, you keep them, and you get one for that year. As do the thousands of others that buy returned tags. Huge contributor to creep here. Another illustration of one-size not fitting all Since the tag numbers are wildly different.
I agree ‘they‘ don’t care much about our odds. While it would do a lot to curb creep, outside of bad customer service interactions, creep isn’t a primary problem they are trying to solve. Even while, as this thread and hundreds like it demonstrate, it’s important to us as hunters.
The bolded section is the key. The same reason retailers don’t incentivize or generally make product returns easy (some exceptions like Nordstrom that basically built an entire returns infrastructure as a competitive advantage and/or luxury goods where margins are so high it doesnt matter much). Having been in supply chain/distribution my whole career, Returns are a ‘bad’ outcome. I’d rather you keep the widget most of the time since it will cost me more to engage CS, process the return, deal with the vendor, and make the products saleable again than the widget is worth. That also means I’m likely going to raise the average item price since there is more cost if it’s consistently returned.
Loose tag Return/Reissue policy is largely a Colorado problem. They seem to stop just short of outright encouraging returns. They (CPW) also seem to consider it a competitive advantage. And, they are now heavily invested in the infrastructure to support it. Now that the timeline of the primary draw is shortening, is helping to a degree, but it’s a huge effort and expense to deal with.
No returns for any reason would be fine with me. Make an exception for MSG to carry over to the following year given the nature of those hunts and those resources. The rest, sorry, life happens.
The TV salesman in your example probably wouldn’t like that scenario either, and even less so if it happened thousands of times a year. Beyond the real cost of handling the return, restocking and reselling it (the true cost of that piece of inventory is now much larger than it was the first time). They would need to forecast and purchase new inventory accordingly, which would be much harder/more complex (thus more costly) if return rates are high. Hunting tags are functionally finite and have a hard expiration date, so that part is less of a concern.
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,404
We can ask Montana, right? Don’t they sell them for $25? Pretty sure. And the reason I’m pretty sure is that I was once the proud owner of a doe mule deer point. But my point accumulation/usage patterns suggest that I’m mentally ill.
I’m with @BuzzH … If we’re not getting rid of points entirely, let’s keep those who don’t actually want to hunt on the sidelines. Let’s face it: There are some that just aren’t going to go, ever. Why force ‘em to play the game? There’s a NR applicant with 33 AZ elk points right now. He is 4 points clear of the entire field. I don’t think he’s going. Let him send his cash but keep him out if he wants, I say. Someone who actually wants to hunt doesn’t need him in their hunt code.
Moving to the CO party app model is a no-brainer IMO. So is moving to the NV model of burning points on any tag acquired by any means. No stupid turn-backs and refunds allowed either.
What if a state wiped out your points if you missed an application cycle? That would create some angry phone calls but would liquidate the points of the inattentive.
I wish you still had to front tag fees and send in paper checks, but there’s no way states would go back to that. The gravy train is too easy now
Last edited:
Hawk Tuah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,598
I think you may be a little off with your assessment that a TV salesman would not like his TVs returned and not have to issue a refund. He could literally throw them in a dumpster and be in the same position as the first sale, since again, he isn't giving a monetary refund. Your comparison isn't even apples to oranges....it's like comparing apples to Jupiter.
Your example about the restocking and reselling is based on a model where the seller of the good has to refund the money paid for the good. That's a completely different scenario. In the scenario of tags, they are not usually refunding money, but points, which doesn't cost the agency much. They are just selling the tag again, and they love it because the actual limited resource, the elk or sheep or deer, doesn't get affected. And in some state's models, the tag is already sold...the alternate buyer is known by name before the first buyer even had the tag in his hand in NV. The draw order has happened. In NV, if you set it up to be an alternate for your first choice they shoot you a courtesy email and your tag shows up in the mail. If it's an elk tag, they sold it for $1200, then they sold it again for another $1200. The in between was someone stuffing an envelope, an automated email and not much more...certainly not $1200 worth of services more.
I think you may have missed the point. My point wasn't that eliminating tag returns wouldn't help creep. It would, a little, and I'd be all for it. My point was that F & G agencies don't care about creep or draw odds or our feelings, and aren't going to do away with something making them extra money.
I think you're mistaken to think that your scenario in the last part of your post equates to what is happening with tag returns. If what you're saying is true for this scenario, states are losing money with tag returns. If this was the case, they wouldn't continue doing returns. They aren't doing them as a courtesy, or to be nice and accommodating. They are a government bureaucracy trying to cover ballooning costs.
Reissuing tags costs little compared to the $500-$2500 they are getting twice (or more) for the tag. It costs something through time and resources, but they wouldn't do it if they were losing money.
Apologies, I missed the part in your post about the returner not choosing a refund (“keep the money from both buyers”). In CO, you can choose to get a refund. Quite common choice for many “low point” returned tags. In that case tag holder #1 loses their points, but then the next person who gets the tag doesn’t have to use their points, so point creep results.
I would welcome the chance to dig into detailed operational financials but I doubt that will happen unless I end up in the General Assembly.
I would phrase it not as a loss on an individual transaction, but that ‘the department have already spent substantial additional money to support returns and continue to spend to support and execute it. Which increases costs, complexity, and point creep unnecessarily in order all to allow returns for any reason whatsoever’. All of the hosted software tools, infrastructure, customer service contacts, and on and on to support the process cost money both amortized from the initial implementation as well as ongoing.
eg in the end, I think we are saying similar things. Departments likely don’t care about an individuals draw odds, and Allowing returned tags is silly in the majority of circumstances. It is costing the department(s) money they shouldn’t need to spend, and making it more complicated. All while contributing to point creep.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
"Ideas on Point Collecting/Point Creep"
States are vastly under-utilizing point-collecting as a lucrative revenue-generator. Here are some ideas for states:
1. 50% of point revenue goes to the general fund.
2. End NR OTC hunting and require points for everything: upland, waterfowl, turkey, future grizzly bears, etc.
3. Straight bonus point system. instead of squaring, chances go up by ^1.5 (0 points = 1 entries, 1 point = 3 entries, 2 points = 5 entries...19 points = 83 entries)
4. You can buy points for unlimited future kids.
5. You get 5% off a point for each point you buy in the same year. So let's say you buy a $25 bear point, $25 turkey point, and a $25 marmot point, the total is (25 + 25 + 25)(1 - 0.05x) where x = 3, so $63.75.
6. If you didn't buy points last year you can buy double points this year.
7. Group applications get an extra bonus point on the house. If you have 4 points and I have 5, it's (4 + 5 + 1)/2 = 5 points for the draw.
8. Who's Who eZine published annually featuring profiles of top point holders.
Still think @seeth07 's point-selling idea is bad??
States are vastly under-utilizing point-collecting as a lucrative revenue-generator. Here are some ideas for states:
1. 50% of point revenue goes to the general fund.
2. End NR OTC hunting and require points for everything: upland, waterfowl, turkey, future grizzly bears, etc.
3. Straight bonus point system. instead of squaring, chances go up by ^1.5 (0 points = 1 entries, 1 point = 3 entries, 2 points = 5 entries...19 points = 83 entries)
4. You can buy points for unlimited future kids.
5. You get 5% off a point for each point you buy in the same year. So let's say you buy a $25 bear point, $25 turkey point, and a $25 marmot point, the total is (25 + 25 + 25)(1 - 0.05x) where x = 3, so $63.75.
6. If you didn't buy points last year you can buy double points this year.
7. Group applications get an extra bonus point on the house. If you have 4 points and I have 5, it's (4 + 5 + 1)/2 = 5 points for the draw.
8. Who's Who eZine published annually featuring profiles of top point holders.
Still think @seeth07 's point-selling idea is bad??
These are both good points. Specifically in WY, I have a feeling we will find out in the next few years how many of those people are content just continuing to collect points without ever applying. History would show us it is a substantial amount, that’s for certain.
Similar threads
