Is there a "point creep" solution?

[RyGuy]

17. Idaho forces people to pick one of the Big 3, or deer/elk/pronghorn. Utah restricts residents (and formerly restricted non-residents) to one of their Once-In-A-Lifetime species and one of the deer/elk/pronghorn options. Those have increased odds for both residents and non-residents in Idaho and for Utah residents. Might be worth considering in other states.

I either agree with, or am open to trying all of these things 1-16, but In my opinion #17 could be a problem. I don’t like the idea of limiting people to fewer or even one species to focus hunting. I think that could cause less people to to be “bought in” and invested in the conservation of the rest. Maybe this is a pessimistic view but I’m picturing people only applying for elk, for example and then having no desire to spend money on deer or sheep conservation. Maybe you could even see people lobbying to have their tag dollars only go towards the conservation of that specific species.

 

[winmag]

Specifically, do you mean updating the year used to determine when the res/non res split goes to 80/20 instead of 65/35? If I had been selected, that was going to be my strongest recommendation, in a "well at least we need to..." sorta way.

No.

They had separate focus groups meetings specifically on tag allocations. Resident, nonresident, youth, landowner, etc. While there was some overlap with the preference point discussion, we focused on preference points. They did take down our feedback on tag allocations, but the discussion was limited there.

We did talk about updating the year used to determine which tags participate in the hybrid draw. Currently the tags are based on tags which took 10+ points to draw between 2007-2009. And altogether expanding the number of hunt codes and % going to the hybrid draw for each hunt code. So overall, more tags aren’t just going to only the highest point holders, everyone with 5 or more points has a chance to draw as well.

 

[homers]

as long as demand far exceeds availability there will be no good solution for point creep. Could just get rid of all systems and go random draw every year.

 

[Flatrock]

Have residents lobby their state to triple the price on every NR point fee, app fee, license fee, etc.

There you go. Point creep problem solved.

 

[ImBillT]

Short answer “no”.

The best thing to do is eliminate points altogether. Points actually create a false sense of demand because they drive people who do not actually want to hunt a certain species in a certain place this year to apply anyway.

 

[ImBillT]

Have residents lobby their state to triple the price on every NR point fee, app fee, license fee, etc.

There you go. Point creep problem solved.

It might work, but I don’t like the idea of pricing people out of a public resource.

 

[Flatrock]

It might work, but I don’t like the idea of pricing people out of a public resource.

The best thing to do is eliminate points altogether.

If anyone actually wants to knock down point creep, they should be jumping up and down for states to increase the costs of applying. I mean MAJOR price increases. That is damn near the ONLY thing that will work. Going to a random draw does nothing and almost every other idea does little to nothing. Not saying it's a good thing to double or triple prices but it would work.

 

[ImBillT]

If anyone actually wants to knock down point creep, they should be jumping up and down for states to increase the costs of applying. I mean MAJOR price increases. That is damn near the ONLY thing that will work. Going to a random draw does nothing and almost every other idea does little to nothing. Not saying it's a good thing to double or triple prices but it would work.

I agree that it would probably work, but I disagree that it’s the right thing to do.

A) Relating to point creep, believe it or not, most people who have a lot of points in a lot of states for a lot of species, also have a substantial amount of disposable income, so I THINK the biggest impact of substantial price increases would be to price out most of the low to mid point holders(they started accumulating points later in life, or go hunting more than once in a lifetime by going on low to mid point hunts instead of applying for every species in every state since they were 12), while those with extremely high points would try to hang on at least until their next hunt. Long term it would obviously have a huge impact on NON-RESIDENT point creep, but I think in the short term the impacts would be fairly small. Point creep is primarily occurring for desirable hunts and species, so people who could largely afford the increases could fairly well trim applications like deer, antelope, and bear from states and keep the glory tags in the budget. Also, most people are only proposing huge increases on NON-RESIDENT costs. Decreasing non-resident point creep does absolutely nothing for resident point creep. Lastly, price increases, just like point systems, push a lot of people toward the most desirable tag in the state. They don’t want to spend thousands to hunt sometime crappy, and they don’t want to burn 10pts to hunt something crappy. Just eliminate points. Boom! Problem solved. No more point creep.

B) It’s a public resource. We shouldn’t be pricing people out of it. It will never cease to amaze me how many people here want to whine, cry, and moan that a landowner might be able to charge money for access, or even for a tag, BUT THEN advocate for a price level that prices out their competition on PUBLIC land for animals also supposedly belong to the PUBLIC. If you want the market to dictate the price of an elk tag, go look at getting a landowner tag in NM, or a deer lease in TX. Lastly, if you don’t care about the moral conflicts related to pricing people out of a public resource, just consider who is going to defend your public land and your hunting rights if they can’t afford to go hunt? Not me. When public hunting is only a rich man’s game, you’re going to have a lot more problems than point creep.

 

[WhitetailHillbilly]

The best solution is avoidance of the point systems all together. For the states that due have them in place I think the best solution it to require you to apply, maybe every other year or they purge your points and/or put a reasonable cap on points like 5-6. These states that throw a handful of tags in a random draw are just baiting people into their point system. Some of these states have over hundred years worth of point holders in their system. Short of some kind of change or CDWD taking out the hunter population I don't see any other solution.

 

[406dn]

As a resident hunter who is sitting on many preference points for a bighorn tag, still applying every year, never drawn the tag... tossing out all of points holds little appeal to me. For many of the years as I accumulated points, the odds were effectively stacked against me drawing.

The ONLY way to reduce the demand for tags is to raise the price. The demand FAR exceeds the supply. The supply is never going to meet the present demand. My proposal for the big three... Moose, Bighorn sheep and Mountain goat is to make the application fee significantly higher. Each year you decide you want to apply for one of them, you are in effect donating say a hundred or two hundred dollars to their management.

There are more or less enough elk to supply most everyone interested some opportunity to hunt them. The big three are just in much smaller supply. It will always be so.

 

[2rocky]

B) It’s a public resource. We shouldn’t be pricing people out of it. ... When public hunting is only a rich man’s game, you’re going to have a lot more problems than point creep.

Mainly poaching. More and more what was legal hunting a few years ago has been made illegal. It really worries me that we are going to see hunting becoming a 2 tier thing 1) Rich Trophy hunters and 2) underground poachers.


I think it could follow the experience of Liquor Prohibition, where Lawbreaking became accepted. Already I'm sure we have upstanding members here who let kids shoot on their tag before they were old enough , or have been over their limit a couple times (Basque limits) , or mighta fudged on shooting hours etc. If we restrict stuff too much, then that same attitude is going to creep into having a tag or license among folks who are usually law abiding.

If we narrow the path , don't be surprised if more people don't follow it.

 

[Rainer]

You could install a "use'em or lose'em" system where you have to be in the draw once your a max point holder. If not, then you lose those points and your back at the bottom

 

[Huntin' Fool]

The Idaho Model

One choice

 

[rmyoung1]

You could install a "use'em or lose'em" system where you have to be in the draw once your a max point holder. If not, then you lose those points and your back at the bottom

These types of ideas don’t really work. They only serve to drive those with a points-only-this-year mindset to apply for most difficult to draw hunts, thus exacerbating the problem in ultra-competitive units.

 

[stealthy_bowman]

Pretty sure that if we get the much feared recession that every economist is predicting we are doomed to get, we will see tag demand drop off significantly.
This probably won’t help with the LE primo elite units, but for those guys like me who just like to hunt with a gen tag it certainly will.
Remember that just a few short years ago anyone could get a MT or WY gen tag without much hassle. Then with economic boom times, of course tag demand exploded and now even gen tags are tough to draw. I expect a reversal of this as the economic situation continues to sour.

 

[backcountry_sassn]

Best way to stop point creep is to not issue points. Points only help the older hunters, while taking opportunities from new and young hunters. Most people end up having worse odds with the point system

 

[BrentD]

Best way to stop point creep is to not issue points. Points only help the older hunters, while taking opportunities from new and young hunters. Most people end up having worse odds with the point system

Exactly wrong, I'm afraid. As an "older hunter", I'll die before I have enough points, and I've been collecting them for nearly a decade.

 

[WildWill]

Exactly wrong, I'm afraid. As an "older hunter", I'll die before I have enough points, and I've been collecting them for nearly a decade.

Pretty sure he meant the guys who got in the point game during the first few years. Which for most states point systems would by default make them a "older" hunter.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Make people pay/front the full tag fee in every state they apply in. That will pump the brakes a bit on creep a bit. Colorado went wild once they did away with that system.....

If I had to front the tag fee for every species in every state I have points for nationwide, I would have to re-evaluate my plan 100% for sure.

 

[dgaudi]

I am new to western hunting and it is crazy how much state to state systems are different. I have hunted Idaho elk past two years and will be going back this year but even they changed the tag process up recently. Gathering points in Wyoming and Montana, not sure how many Wyoming points I will actually need to get a general tag or if I should just continue banking them. I am 29 and will have 3 points in both states after this summer. Any advice is appreciated!