Points systems - when is it fraud

[BuzzH]

When 90/10 passed myself and several others tried to also change the draw to a 50-50 split between preference and random tags.

At the same time, the task farce was trying to push a squared bonus point system that ultimately failed at the legislature.

If the task farce would have listened from the get-go this wouldn't have been a problem.

Another development that is really jacking with the random tags is the GF not following statute until this year.

When a NR draws the tri-fecta or msgb raffle tag, the winners have to declare a hunting unit by March 15. The tags then have to be deducted before the commission meeting in April. I sent the Director and Commission the statute last year and they had not followed it in the past. Here's the new language in Chapter 44:

(ii) If a nonresident applicant wins a Super Tag License raffle for a bighorn sheep, moose, mountain goat or wild bison, the applicant shall be required to purchase their Super Tag License by March 15 of that year so the license may be counted against the nonresident quota. (iii) If a nonresident applicant wins the Super Tag Trifecta License raffle and chooses to select either a bighorn sheep, moose, mountain goat or wild bison license, the applicant shall be required to select the individual species and purchase their license(s) by March15 of that year so the license(s) may be counted against the nonresident quota.

So, combined with the fact the GF does not take the TOTAL quota of sheep, goat, and bison tags to make the 75-25 split between preference and random, but is area SPECIFIC, that means only a few areas will issue 4 total NR sheep tags which would trigger a random tag. To top it off, if say, in sheep unit 5, if NR's (which they did this year) draw both trifecta and sheep raffle then 2 tags have to be deducted from the quota. If either choose unit 5, then there wouldnt be enough remaining tags to issue a random tag.

I think now that the dust has settled, the thing to do is to get some legislation and/or regulation (not sure if current preference/random splits are regulation or statute) to make sure there are random tags available.

I think the easiest way is to split the TOTAL NR sheep, moose, goat and bison quota 75-25 rather than there having to be 4 tags in any individual unit before a random tag can be issued. The GF currently counts the entire sheep, moose, goat and bison quota's when making the 90-10 split, no reason they shouldn't do the same with the preference/random splits.

As an example, if the total quota was 12 sheep tags, 9 would go in the preference draw, 3 random. They could alternate areas where the random tags where available in areas with low quotas, which would be a great deal for the DIY hunters that don't have access to wilderness. As it is now, the only areas with enough sheep tag to issue 4 to NR's are all wilderness hunts in basically unit 5.

No question there needs to be a random pool of tags, IMO. In a perfect world, I would make the random part of the draw a bonus point draw so that points are considered in that part of the draw as well.

 

[Bluffgruff]

When 90/10 passed myself and several others tried to also change the draw to a 50-50 split between preference and random tags.

At the same time, the task farce was trying to push a squared bonus point system that ultimately failed at the legislature.

If the task farce would have listened from the get-go this wouldn't have been a problem.

Another development that is really jacking with the random tags is the GF not following statute until this year.

When a NR draws the tri-fecta or msgb raffle tag, the winners have to declare a hunting unit by March 15. The tags then have to be deducted before the commission meeting in April. I sent the Director and Commission the statute last year and they had not followed it in the past. Here's the new language in Chapter 44:

(ii) If a nonresident applicant wins a Super Tag License raffle for a bighorn sheep, moose, mountain goat or wild bison, the applicant shall be required to purchase their Super Tag License by March 15 of that year so the license may be counted against the nonresident quota. (iii) If a nonresident applicant wins the Super Tag Trifecta License raffle and chooses to select either a bighorn sheep, moose, mountain goat or wild bison license, the applicant shall be required to select the individual species and purchase their license(s) by March15 of that year so the license(s) may be counted against the nonresident quota.

So, combined with the fact the GF does not take the TOTAL quota of sheep, goat, and bison tags to make the 75-25 split between preference and random, but is area SPECIFIC, that means only a few areas will issue 4 total NR sheep tags which would trigger a random tag. To top it off, if say, in sheep unit 5, if NR's (which they did this year) draw both trifecta and sheep raffle then 2 tags have to be deducted from the quota. If either choose unit 5, then there wouldnt be enough remaining tags to issue a random tag.

I think now that the dust has settled, the thing to do is to get some legislation and/or regulation (not sure if current preference/random splits are regulation or statute) to make sure there are random tags available.

I think the easiest way is to split the TOTAL NR sheep, moose, goat and bison quota 75-25 rather than there having to be 4 tags in any individual unit before a random tag can be issued. The GF currently counts the entire sheep, moose, goat and bison quota's when making the 90-10 split, no reason they shouldn't do the same with the preference/random splits.

As an example, if the total quota was 12 sheep tags, 9 would go in the preference draw, 3 random. They could alternate areas where the random tags where available in areas with low quotas, which would be a great deal for the DIY hunters that don't have access to wilderness. As it is now, the only areas with enough sheep tag to issue 4 to NR's are all wilderness hunts in basically unit 5.

No question there needs to be a random pool of tags, IMO. In a perfect world, I would make the random part of the draw a bonus point draw so that points are considered in that part of the draw as well.

Two questions:
Are you are claiming responsibility for the change of practice that resulted in the elimination of random tags for NR moose and sheep tags this year?

If so, was your goal ultimately to help nonresidents by having the preference/random allocation altered? Or something else?

 

[A207X2]

I knew that the clock was ticking on me to actually get a moose hunt done in this lifetime. I decided that Canada was the best solution for me. I don’t have the time to wait ten years to “get close” to having enough points. So I got with an outfitter in Alberta and have my moose hunt booked for this fall. Guaranteed hunt with a guide and 8 days of hunting.

 

[Mallardsx2]

I knew that the clock was ticking on me to actually get a moose hunt done in this lifetime. I decided that Canada was the best solution for me. I don’t have the time to wait ten years to “get close” to having enough points. So I got with an outfitter in Alberta and have my moose hunt booked for this fall. Guaranteed hunt with a guide and 8 days of hunting.

Smart decision.

 

[BuzzH]

Two questions:
Are you are claiming responsibility for the change of practice that resulted in the elimination of random tags for NR moose and sheep tags this year?

If so, was your goal ultimately to help nonresidents by having the preference/random allocation altered? Or something else?

Question 1:

No, I'm responsible for the GF following statute. I was there testifying against the super tags. The bill was brought to the legislature by Bob Wharff with SFW. The residents had concerns that adding more tags above and beyond the commission tags and governors tag would be putting too much pressure on the resource. As a result, the bill was amended by Larry Hicks to take the Supertag and species raffle tags off the NR quota (if a NR drew). The reasons were a couple fold, number 1, it was thought that NR's would be buying a majority of the raffle tickets. Secondly, statute also says that Residents shall receive at least 75% of moose, sheep, goat, bison (then, now 90%).

By issuing an additional NR tag for msgb, then they would be violating that statute since Residents would NOT receive 90% of the tags. The GF forgot that was in statute when they developed the regulations for the Supertags/raffle tags. I was reminded by a very good friend of mine about it, so sent the Statute to the GF Director last year about this time. I also contacted Hicks to make sure I was remembering the intent. The GF Director sent the statute to LSO and now things are the way they should be, and should have been since inception.

The trouble now is that when NR's draw any of the raffle msgb tags, those have to be deducted from the quotas. Since a unit has to have more than 10 tags to allow a governors or raffle tag to hunt it, that essentially means in the case of sheep, you're looking at units 1-5. The only are with enough tags to issue a random was unit 5 (4). Again, under statute its states the split preference/random is by UNIT and not by total tags. So, if a NR raffle winner picks unit 5 (most do), there is not enough tags left to issue a NR random tag.

Question 2:

I don't want to change anything just for nonresidents. That said, I've always thought that's its not fair for either a R or NR in the random part of the draw because there are several units that issue less than 4 tags that are NEVER available in the random draw. That sort of sucks, because there are multiple units that will never issue more than 4 tags, ever. The top preference holders are the only ones able to ever draw.

It would be nice if every so often those smaller populations of sheep/moose/goat, etc. would be available to a random draw for both R and NR hunters.

Couple ways to go about it, but both require a statute change. Either go to a 50-50 split preference random OR remove the requirement of unit specific and use statewide quotas to split preference/random.

Not an issue I'm going to die on a hill over, but something I think would be worthwhile to talk with the right folks about, which I intend to do.

 

[JohnCushman]

A: No one is forcing anyone to hunt in a state that uses a points system.

B: Canada and Alaska love non residents and you can hunt either for the same price or less than the cost of years of gathering points.

C: There's no moose, sheep, goats, elk, pronghorn, or deer in Colorado....

D: Use an outfitter if points bother you so badly...