Is there a "point creep" solution?
- Thread starter TNHUNTER
- Start date
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
We will see PP systems modified over time, as prospective new entrants start forgoing them in favor of alternative, more efficient methods of procuring tags. Eyes on CO as the mine canary.
Numerous parties continue to promote over-saturated hunting opportunities, for profit motives. Gear manufacturers, hunting personalities, state g&f agencies, etc. I chose to oppose taxpayer-funded R3 initiatives that promote over-saturated opportunities, since I have a say in how my tax dollars are spent.
As much as western big game hunting has seen rapid inflation in recent years, it is still a far better bang for my buck than local hunting lease prices. My MT bear tag was $350, WY cow elk $300, and WY doe pronghorn $50. That’s peanuts. The price would have to triple before other opportunities would start to become more worthwhile. As Americans in the east, CA, and in large population centers lose hunting opportunities, or are priced out of them, they look for the best hunting value afar. It’s not more hunters; it’s hunters displaced by loss or lack of hunting access. The access issue overwhelmingly is moving in the wrong direction for the average joe hunter.
The cost of western big game hunting may eventually outstrip my ability to pay for it, at which point I might switch to small game, whitetails, something. Europe is what we all have to look forward to eventually; it’s more a matter of how rapidly we arrive.
Numerous parties continue to promote over-saturated hunting opportunities, for profit motives. Gear manufacturers, hunting personalities, state g&f agencies, etc. I chose to oppose taxpayer-funded R3 initiatives that promote over-saturated opportunities, since I have a say in how my tax dollars are spent.
As much as western big game hunting has seen rapid inflation in recent years, it is still a far better bang for my buck than local hunting lease prices. My MT bear tag was $350, WY cow elk $300, and WY doe pronghorn $50. That’s peanuts. The price would have to triple before other opportunities would start to become more worthwhile. As Americans in the east, CA, and in large population centers lose hunting opportunities, or are priced out of them, they look for the best hunting value afar. It’s not more hunters; it’s hunters displaced by loss or lack of hunting access. The access issue overwhelmingly is moving in the wrong direction for the average joe hunter.
The cost of western big game hunting may eventually outstrip my ability to pay for it, at which point I might switch to small game, whitetails, something. Europe is what we all have to look forward to eventually; it’s more a matter of how rapidly we arrive.
Shangobango
Well-known member
Not a holy grail type system but at least it isn’t a pyramid scheme.
I wish you were right but I don’t think you are.
I participated in a CPW focus group on preference points on April 14th. There were 6 participants, 1 presenter, a wildlife officer, and 2 CPW staff.
The wildlife commission is considering making changes to the preference point system and were seeking input from sportsmen. We gave our opinions about the current system and brainstormed ideas to improve the system. The major issue in the room was addressing point creep.
I proposed transitioning away from points and toward a full random draw system. Only 1 other participant liked that idea out of the 6. I find it interesting that so many of us here think phasing out points is the ideal solution, but I don’t think that will ever get enough traction to happen.
We also talked about ways to curb point creep given the current system. Disincentivize people from getting points (make them more expensive, mainly). And more ways to make people burn points, like making hunters burn their points to pick up a reissue tag.
The most agreement was around expanding the hybrid draw system. This system allocates tags, by hunt code, to a random draw pool for applicants that have more than 5 points. Currently it’s only a handful of high demand tags. I do like this idea, but this is not going to “fix” the Colorado preference point system.
The wildlife commission is considering making changes to the preference point system and were seeking input from sportsmen. We gave our opinions about the current system and brainstormed ideas to improve the system. The major issue in the room was addressing point creep.
I proposed transitioning away from points and toward a full random draw system. Only 1 other participant liked that idea out of the 6. I find it interesting that so many of us here think phasing out points is the ideal solution, but I don’t think that will ever get enough traction to happen.
We also talked about ways to curb point creep given the current system. Disincentivize people from getting points (make them more expensive, mainly). And more ways to make people burn points, like making hunters burn their points to pick up a reissue tag.
The most agreement was around expanding the hybrid draw system. This system allocates tags, by hunt code, to a random draw pool for applicants that have more than 5 points. Currently it’s only a handful of high demand tags. I do like this idea, but this is not going to “fix” the Colorado preference point system.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I haven’t looked too hard, but a while back someone put up a thread of ways to end the point systems and transition to something different and I remember thinking there were some thoughtful responses.
I agree with putting more ”whatever” on the mountain. Ultimately though, due to the apparent trajectory of wildlife, habitat, and human beings, the answer is obvious. We need to no longer have point systems.
How we rip that Band-Aid off could be a nuanced discussion. Make me king for the day and I would treat it like I treat ripping out my children’s baby teeth. Quickly and joyfully, they would be gone. The tears would dry, and we’d all move on with life.
I agree with putting more ”whatever” on the mountain. Ultimately though, due to the apparent trajectory of wildlife, habitat, and human beings, the answer is obvious. We need to no longer have point systems.
How we rip that Band-Aid off could be a nuanced discussion. Make me king for the day and I would treat it like I treat ripping out my children’s baby teeth. Quickly and joyfully, they would be gone. The tears would dry, and we’d all move on with life.
Alabama
Active member
Limiting the number of species that you can apply for would go a long way to limiting creep. Pick one regular (deer, elk, antelope) and one OIL species (moose, sheep, mtn goat) per state per year. How many guys on here are just like me and apply for everything a state offers? I've hunted antelope before, and I buy points/apply for them every year but if I had to choose between deer and antelope, deer win every time. Antelope hunting is fun, but they just don't drive me crazy like mule deer. I hurt other people's odds in AZ, NM, and UT because I just throw my name in the hat because it's only a few bucks more.
I feel the same about Moose, I would like to hunt them but it's not a tag I would be over the moon about if I draw. I still throw my name in the hat in CO and UT. I'm sure there are guys who would LOVE to hunt moose as much as I want to hunt sheep. If we had to choose one species to apply for then everyone's odds for their #1 target species would go up.
I feel the same about Moose, I would like to hunt them but it's not a tag I would be over the moon about if I draw. I still throw my name in the hat in CO and UT. I'm sure there are guys who would LOVE to hunt moose as much as I want to hunt sheep. If we had to choose one species to apply for then everyone's odds for their #1 target species would go up.
QuazyQuinton
Well-known member
I don't see it as that simple. Suppose you have a Colorado deer unit that creeps from 4 points to draw up to 9 points to draw. Across the border in New Mexico, a similar deer unit moves from 1 in 5 odds to 1 in 10 odds. One is point creep, and the other is not, but both have the same mathematical effect on how often you'll hunt in the long run. Some people like crummy odds every year, and some people like knowing when they are getting to the top of the pile.
In the end, it's a supply and demand issue. I'm always happy to help beat a dead horse.
Hawk Tuah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,600
Nailed it Flatrock.
Idaho ..the holy grail...pay us $2,957.53, $330.78 of which is nonrefundable and you'll never see again, and we'll give you 1/200 chance at a sheep tag in a unit with sheep densities, terrain and access similar to the unlimiteds...if you are a youth, however, we will knock $2.98 off of your nonrefundable fee.
Last edited:
Obviously, putting more critters in the woods helps the supply side and benefits everyone, yet I think there are other ideas that could help on the demand side. Since the states aren't getting rid of their point systems (my preference), I'd focus on ideas that could actually improve what is in place.
1-10. You acquire any tag in any manner, your points are burned; draw the tag, buy an auction tag, win a raffle tag, buy a landowner tag, your points are reset to zero. Take points if a tag is drawn, no matter how the tag is acquired. It would make a big difference in Colorado, some in Utah, and a bit of difference in Nevada.
11-12. Any choice you draw, any tag you acquire, you lose your points. Nevada does it. Any choice from 1-5 causes you to loose points in Nevada. No more building points while hunting second choice or OTC units. I think Colorado OTC elk hunting would get less crowded it folks had to decide between an OTC elk tag or a trying to draw a tag.
13. Waiting periods for species or hunt codes that are harder to draw. That could be according to the points needed to draw, the probability of drawing, or whatever else might show the high demand of the opportunity. Utah and Nevada do it already.
14. Move a higher percentage of the tags to a random draw. Utah does 50% for the random allocation, but even that is based on point systems. I'm talking about a true random portion, like Wyoming does for 25% of their non-resident deer/elk/pronghorn tags.
15. Don't square points. For all but the outlier who beats some miraculous odds, these squared bonus point systems are almost preference point systems in terms of the probability of a lower point holder drawing a tag. It's stupid.
16. Idaho prohibits applying for an antlered/horned animal controlled hunt code that you drew in the prior year. That might be a better option than long waiting periods.
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.
Point being, there are already a lot of different solutions being implemented by many states. None of this adds more critter supply to the hunter demand pool, but in terms of how tags are allocated in states with point systems it would shuffle the deck.
1-10. You acquire any tag in any manner, your points are burned; draw the tag, buy an auction tag, win a raffle tag, buy a landowner tag, your points are reset to zero. Take points if a tag is drawn, no matter how the tag is acquired. It would make a big difference in Colorado, some in Utah, and a bit of difference in Nevada.
11-12. Any choice you draw, any tag you acquire, you lose your points. Nevada does it. Any choice from 1-5 causes you to loose points in Nevada. No more building points while hunting second choice or OTC units. I think Colorado OTC elk hunting would get less crowded it folks had to decide between an OTC elk tag or a trying to draw a tag.
13. Waiting periods for species or hunt codes that are harder to draw. That could be according to the points needed to draw, the probability of drawing, or whatever else might show the high demand of the opportunity. Utah and Nevada do it already.
14. Move a higher percentage of the tags to a random draw. Utah does 50% for the random allocation, but even that is based on point systems. I'm talking about a true random portion, like Wyoming does for 25% of their non-resident deer/elk/pronghorn tags.
15. Don't square points. For all but the outlier who beats some miraculous odds, these squared bonus point systems are almost preference point systems in terms of the probability of a lower point holder drawing a tag. It's stupid.
16. Idaho prohibits applying for an antlered/horned animal controlled hunt code that you drew in the prior year. That might be a better option than long waiting periods.
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.
Point being, there are already a lot of different solutions being implemented by many states. None of this adds more critter supply to the hunter demand pool, but in terms of how tags are allocated in states with point systems it would shuffle the deck.
Shangobango
Well-known member
Yup. That is why I said it would solve point creep. Wouldn’t solve odds creep though.I don't see it as that simple. Suppose you have a Colorado deer unit that creeps from 4 points to draw up to 9 points to draw. Across the border in New Mexico, a similar deer unit moves from 1 in 5 odds to 1 in 10 odds. One is point creep, and the other is not, but both have the same mathematical effect on how often you'll hunt in the long run. Some people like crummy odds every year, and some people like knowing when they are getting to the top of the pile.
In the end, it's a supply and demand issue. I'm always happy to help beat a dead horse.
If folks had to apply for a tag and front the money that may help some with the demand side. The issue I see with that is that some of these States would have to be looking to recoup all that money from selling points. That would mean more expensive tags I would think. Would it have to be more expensive than what we are paying taking in to account the point fees? I don’t know, but I suspect yes because less people would apply.
The best answer would be to ramp up the supply. That is a mouthful. Much easier said than done from everything I have seen and read.
Quite a mess.
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,722
I agree 100%
PS:
I’ve been saying this for years and practically getting BBQ’d by every member of your forum for saying it.
I’m sure they will treat you with a bit more respect.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I wonder if there needs to be major push back on QDMA, both in regards to CWD and eliminating a ton of hunting opportunities.
We have shifted towards a system that prefers 1 guy paying a lot to kill 1 big buck, versus a lot of folks getting to take deer.
Whitetail populations in a lot of states are pretty crazy, compared to 20 years ago.
We have shifted towards a system that prefers 1 guy paying a lot to kill 1 big buck, versus a lot of folks getting to take deer.
Whitetail populations in a lot of states are pretty crazy, compared to 20 years ago.
The best ideas are hear are basically to make points almost irrelevant. Here's what I mean. 95% random. And the rest points. You can't buy points. You must apply to get one every 5 years you apply. Draw any tag for that species and your points dissappear and you must sit out for a period if you draw.
I know what your thinking, what's the point in even having points if they don't matter. Because that's what points should be. Random has its flaws as well. For example most people think in a 20 tag and 100 applicants random you should draw every 5 years. Nope. Every year it's 1 in 9 against you drawing (average it out). I put in on deer elk and antelope in those odds or better for 16 years. In that same time one guy drew twice and another drew 3 tags for elk and 2 pronghorn in the same units I applied for. I Never drew. I've talked to guys who put in for 30+ years and never drew easy odds hunts. At the time you've missed the tag for 30 or 40 years your points are starting to mean something. Not everything but you've got a leg up. You fell through the cracks and now you will probably get a tag. But nobody is going to be chasing points, creeping, or planning based on points. Hard to draw hunts they will never mean enough to matter. They're irrelevant unless you missed an easy draw tag for years and years.
Or same idea with bonus points. Can't buy them. Must apply. Get and additional one every 5 years of applying. Draw any tag for that species. 0 out.
Make them worthless except in extreme circumstances.
I know what your thinking, what's the point in even having points if they don't matter. Because that's what points should be. Random has its flaws as well. For example most people think in a 20 tag and 100 applicants random you should draw every 5 years. Nope. Every year it's 1 in 9 against you drawing (average it out). I put in on deer elk and antelope in those odds or better for 16 years. In that same time one guy drew twice and another drew 3 tags for elk and 2 pronghorn in the same units I applied for. I Never drew. I've talked to guys who put in for 30+ years and never drew easy odds hunts. At the time you've missed the tag for 30 or 40 years your points are starting to mean something. Not everything but you've got a leg up. You fell through the cracks and now you will probably get a tag. But nobody is going to be chasing points, creeping, or planning based on points. Hard to draw hunts they will never mean enough to matter. They're irrelevant unless you missed an easy draw tag for years and years.
Or same idea with bonus points. Can't buy them. Must apply. Get and additional one every 5 years of applying. Draw any tag for that species. 0 out.
Make them worthless except in extreme circumstances.
Last edited:
Shangobango
Well-known member
I have had the same thought. I am guilty of it myself. I have gotten to the point that I would rather just watch a buck that is under 4 than shoot it. I killed a 3 year old this year by mistake and was so down about it. It was an eye opener for me. I am reevaluating my hunting goals. When the trophy lust starts making the thing I live for unenjoyable than it is time to make some changes.
mountainlaurel3
Well-known member
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.
Hawk Tuah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,600
Every system has positives and negatives. I'm glad Idaho makes you choose a single species of OIL...wish Utah would go back to that for NR. I'm glad I can kind of plan on tags in WY and CO deer/elk/antelope with a relatively high chance of knowing if I'll draw the unit I'm after when I apply. I like bonus squared where they have them, as well as the split system UT has. I like that CO makes you apply three years for S/G/M before you have a chance to draw. I'm glad they're not all the same. Apply for what you can afford and hope for the best...or sit on the sidelines cringing at the math on bonus squared in NV or MT for ten years before realizing you'd have had 100 names in the hat and likely a tag or two had you just taken the plunge and started thinking long term ten years prior.
And it turns out, just as many people complain about not drawing ID and NM as everywhere else.
None are perfect systems, but I think there is beauty in the variety.
Best thing would be to buy an island and let go marco polo sheep, mountain goat, moose, elk, rhinos, elephants, tur, markhor and polar bear and hunt a big male of each every year. Next best is owning a 40,000 acre ranch. After that, applying and trying to draw tags for public is the best option.
And it turns out, just as many people complain about not drawing ID and NM as everywhere else.
None are perfect systems, but I think there is beauty in the variety.
Best thing would be to buy an island and let go marco polo sheep, mountain goat, moose, elk, rhinos, elephants, tur, markhor and polar bear and hunt a big male of each every year. Next best is owning a 40,000 acre ranch. After that, applying and trying to draw tags for public is the best option.
Cheesehead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2017
- Messages
- 1,046
D3 (Matt Rinella) > R3
Similar threads
