BuzzH
Well-known member
Because it's dumb...and anyone with a single firing brain cell knows why.
Ideas on Point Collecting/Point Creep
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
I think you hit the nail on the head. Simple fixes (simple, not easy…) that would have a big impact for the better.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
One idea I like as kind of a compromise is turning preference points into bonus points(not squared). It’s not perfect, but at least you’d have a better chance of drawing with more points, but you still have a chance with lower point totals.
seeth07
Well-known member
Being real mature today I see. I guess I don't have a firing brain cell because I don't see how the proposal mentioned above in my post about selling/rebuying results in anything real negative for a state like Wyoming with their deer, elk and antelope point creep that is currently occurring.
The issue is the point pool (total points in the system) is inflating each year and its making it harder for the non-resident to plan a trip for a hunt in the state. If demand is growing, it will take longer between trips to go, you can't really fix that. But what you can attempt to fix is the reliability to anticipate how the draw will play out over a certain period of time.
The proposal is a win for the state because its increased funds with little to no effort on their part along with not having to impact tags and the wildlife. Its a win for those that feel they are too old to go anymore, lost interest, want to sell maybe half their points and just draw a general tag, etc. Its a win for those that want to try and build a few more points. The end result is still the exact same amount of points in the system after the swap but after the draw, more points are going to be sucked out of the system from the top tier hunts requiring more points. Yes, it will be "worse" point creep for a little bit because the system is just actually catching up and representing what it really takes to draw due to the massive flood of points that currently exists but it should in theory level out.
Like I said on other threads, if some of these were adopted, forcing people to apply for a tag would probably be moot. The idea behind forcing folks to actually apply for a tag is that when folks are buying points for a dozen non-hunting friends with the intention of doing party apps with these non-hunters, they would think twice/thrice, if there was a possibility that the non-hunting people would actually draw and cost the point buyer a lot of money. And in states where you have to front all the tag cost, such as Wyoming, it would be a lot more expensive for someone to front the cost of 12 non-resident elk applications.
The idea to adopt Colorado's system of point averaging would make the idea above a moot issue, but it does impose on those who have legit intentions of hunting with a party of family/friends. The upside of the Colorado party app model is that it allows "point only" purchases and thus allows states to continue making large amounts of money from point buyers.
These are interesting conversation for me. I suspect none of the states are changing and I'm fine with that. The value of the discussion is to make us think about these schemes, what their purpose was/is/should be, what the unintended consequences are, and add some reality of just how many people are in the systems relative to the number of non-resident tags; whether a preference or bonus point system, whether for elk, deer, pronghorn, or the Big 3.
None of it these systems or ideas take any skin off my nose. Whatever system states come up with, I just figure out the best way to deal with that system. I've had a lot of great hunts in many states, some with these schemes and some without.
I still advocate for my position I held in 1999 when I was on the Committee that developed Montana's point system - that being to keep at least 50% of the tags outside the point scheme and have them as random. It dilutes the benefits of the point scheme of fewer tags are subject of that point system. Obviously, my proposal for Montana wasn't accepted. And like all of these systems, it starts with about fifteen selected citizens spending a year in meetings and public scoping to arrive at a final product, only to have a legislator come along ten years later and tweak it for one of his old gray-haired pals; in the case of Montana that was when we added "squaring points." Squaring was known to be a bad idea if you analyze systems and try to align them with the purpose of implementing a system. But, I guess that is why a legislator would change it; they are the purveyors of bad ideas.
Good discussion, or at least better fodder than a lot of the off-season stuff that gets bantered about.
The idea to adopt Colorado's system of point averaging would make the idea above a moot issue, but it does impose on those who have legit intentions of hunting with a party of family/friends. The upside of the Colorado party app model is that it allows "point only" purchases and thus allows states to continue making large amounts of money from point buyers.
These are interesting conversation for me. I suspect none of the states are changing and I'm fine with that. The value of the discussion is to make us think about these schemes, what their purpose was/is/should be, what the unintended consequences are, and add some reality of just how many people are in the systems relative to the number of non-resident tags; whether a preference or bonus point system, whether for elk, deer, pronghorn, or the Big 3.
None of it these systems or ideas take any skin off my nose. Whatever system states come up with, I just figure out the best way to deal with that system. I've had a lot of great hunts in many states, some with these schemes and some without.
I still advocate for my position I held in 1999 when I was on the Committee that developed Montana's point system - that being to keep at least 50% of the tags outside the point scheme and have them as random. It dilutes the benefits of the point scheme of fewer tags are subject of that point system. Obviously, my proposal for Montana wasn't accepted. And like all of these systems, it starts with about fifteen selected citizens spending a year in meetings and public scoping to arrive at a final product, only to have a legislator come along ten years later and tweak it for one of his old gray-haired pals; in the case of Montana that was when we added "squaring points." Squaring was known to be a bad idea if you analyze systems and try to align them with the purpose of implementing a system. But, I guess that is why a legislator would change it; they are the purveyors of bad ideas.
Good discussion, or at least better fodder than a lot of the off-season stuff that gets bantered about.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Guess I need to break out the crayons...
Let's use my family and tons of non hunting friends I have.
I could pay them all for buying points for me...then I could "buy" their points. I can easily set up accounts for them and they don't even have to bother logging into the system for me to apply them for points.
Plus, there would be plenty of people buying points just to sell them on the open market.
Both of those things would drive point creep higher and create an even bigger divide between the haves and have nots. So you understand, those with deep pockets could pay maximum price for points and afford to buy them by the boatload. Once others, that aren't hunters see the market created, and the value of points, there would be an endless supply of points on the market forever.
Like I said, dumbest idea I've ever heard.
seeth07
Well-known member
Did you not read what I even proposed? This would not even be remotely possible if you actually read it! My plan thought about that and made sure it couldn't be done.
Again, you didn't read what I proposed. You sell the point at the current price set by the state which should match what you pay for a point that year.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Selling points is a dumb idea...and not worth discussing.
About as dumb as losing points for obtaining a doe pronghorn tag.
seeth07
Well-known member
You are spot on here. In the end, we all want to hunt and its just not possible because demand far exceeds supply. So ultimately, any system beyond just a random draw is put in place really for the states to make extra money (which you point out in your video). For the most part, just about every state has realized this (god bless you ID, NM and AK for not). I think the goal originally was to provide fairness and reliability of drawing a tag to those loyal to the state (by continuously applying). Reality is that you can't be fair to everyone and do this as @wllm pointed out.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Hey Buzz I got a business idea for you, here's the pitch.
POinT bUddY
So it's this app, that keeps track of your point feeders, all your non-hunting friends and family that you get points from. You choose the state and the app will auto apply all of your feeders for a point in that state. This app allows you to apply for up to 1000 people at once.
The app has an easy interface to allow you to add new feeders, and let's you set up a payment for that point. Once the pref point hits your account the app will automatically venmo your feeder the agreed upon amount of money.
All of your feeders information is stored securely on our system, and you don't have access to it so their data is secure.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Seeth07's idea creating the perfect market for a preference point app...
Well hell, test of all tests if you ask me...I'm in.
seeth07
Well-known member
Well I guess I need to repeat myself because this is NOT AT ALL what I was talking about...
From my post:
"Make it worth it for state to make money in the process. And make it more fair. Here we go.
You can sell as many points as you have. One, some or all. You sell them to THE STATE. There is a deadline to do this by. State buys them back at current point price. Then, points drop for purchase at double the cost. Restriction. You can only buy one point, first come, first serve. Or dare I say....Idaho queue system?"
RobertD
Well-known member
First off, how dare you, and secondly, I think it only works here because demand is a tiny fraction of your average western big game hunt
BuzzH
Well-known member
Sounds like a great idea...be sure to include the fiscal note of totally revamping the draw process, a data base to track points, cost of the transactions, etc. etc. etc. that you're going to burden the state with. Doubling the price that the state could resell the points for wouldn't cover the expenses of creating the system to implement it.
Sure winner...
WOW!
seeth07
Well-known member
no revamp of the draw process, that is exactly the same as this could be done outside of the draw season (i.e. done in like oct-dec). They already have a data base to track points. I don't get that point. Cost of the transactions? Yes, there is no doubt costs associated with the state doing this but if they charge double for this rebuy of points they can cover that cost.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Wrong, there would be massive changes that would have to be made and an entire system created to track who is buying and selling the points...
Fantasyland, there is no way doubling the cost of points would generate revenue...no way.
For the record, do you know how much it costs to run a big-game tag drawing? Probably should look into it before you come up with anymore great ideas.
Addicting
Well-known member
This is getting good!
seeth07
Well-known member
I've learned from the past that trying to talk to Buzz on the forum is like trying to tell a kid no. They just don't want to hear it and will just stomp their feet and pout until you just give up. Should have just ignored him and moved on saving my morning from fueled blood pressure. OOPS
