Solving Point Creep

[lastlight]

Ive been meaning to ask this forum a question based off a rumor I have heard and it is related to this topic. This is one of those "a friend told me" stories recently so I have no evidence or direct source myself, but my "friend" apparently claims to know some people within Colorado P&W that seems to think they are heavily considering doing away with their point system sooner than later. Can anyone here confirm or deny this rumor?

I personally would favor every state to take after NM and ID, so long as there are still decent OTC tags available in most western states. And I also support what Randy11 said above, stop making humans and make more critters!

 

[BrentD]

I think those of us that have been working hard at NOT making humans should get a few extra preference points in every draw.

Just sayin'

 

[Bullshot]

Ive been meaning to ask this forum a question based off a rumor I have heard and it is related to this topic. This is one of those "a friend told me" stories recently so I have no evidence or direct source myself, but my "friend" apparently claims to know some people within Colorado P&W that seems to think they are heavily considering doing away with their point system sooner than later. Can anyone here confirm or deny this rumor?

I personally would favor every state to take after NM and ID, so long as there are still decent OTC tags available in most western states. And I also support what Randy11 said above, stop making humans and make more critters!

If that were true, it could be good in the long run. And I have two decades of points in CO. But I would hope it would proceed something like this: 1) Suspend the accumulation of any new points 2) Make all licences except youth licences and undersubscribed units (this assumes that each unit is put on quota) limited and require ANY others to use at least 1 point 3) Allow partial point balances to be used to draw "lesser" tags and 4)Require all points to be used up in the next 10 years

 

[ardrhi]

Basically, Idaho has implemented your proposed solution. Points are capped... at 0, and average across the group. Works for me.

 

[TRS_Montana]

Selfishly, I think axing the points system is the best way to create even odds (obviously). However, I think the only way to do that in a way that doesn't crash the system is to raise the price of tags and licenses to compensate for the drop in incoming funds that payment for points provides. Honestly, I would love to see how much money is made each year from points.

 

[LopeHunter]

Ive been meaning to ask this forum a question based off a rumor I have heard and it is related to this topic. This is one of those "a friend told me" stories recently so I have no evidence or direct source myself, but my "friend" apparently claims to know some people within Colorado P&W that seems to think they are heavily considering doing away with their point system sooner than later. Can anyone here confirm or deny this rumor?

I personally would favor every state to take after NM and ID, so long as there are still decent OTC tags available in most western states. And I also support what Randy11 said above, stop making humans and make more critters!

CO is addicted to the monty. Look at the cost to apply for sheep and goat this year....definitely outstripped inflation on that increase. If CO was to do anything it would not be to kill points as they are like a meth addict and need point fees. CO could create a random bucket to entice recruitment for younger and recently drawn applicants to get back in line.

I am enjoying watching the train wreck in several states. CO is WY's Christmas future.

 

[idahohuntr]

There's a special place in hell for the selfish hunters who started the point systems.

Normally people who initiate ponzi schemes at least go to jail!

 

[Lost Arra]

Has any state gone from Preference points to Bonus points?
Where, for example, 7 Bonus points puts your name in the drawing 7 times.

 

[Jcour4]

It’d be interesting to see how much tags would cost to offset the preference point money. It would probably price a lot of people out of buying the tags.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Honestly the only way you are going to stop creep is to stop the increase in demand. The best way to do that would be to increase tag prices. If Wyoming doubled NR tags across the board, eliminated reduced tag prices and made R tags 4X as much then the creep would dramatically slow. The same would work in CO.

I for one do not think hunting should be one the very wealthy get to do so I think the above is a crap strategy and would gladly loose all my points across the board if all the states dropped there systems next year. That said the above would generate a lot of revenue for wildlife...

 

[BrentD]

It’d be interesting to see how much tags would cost to offset the preference point money. It would probably price a lot of people out of buying the tags.

They already are pricing us out. When i finally cash put these elk points, I think I'm done.

Every year I buy a point and every year point creep jumps up smptjer point (or more). At some point I will get smaryer.

 

[Kearnsie14]

Honestly the only way you are going to stop creep is to stop the increase in demand. The best way to do that would be to increase tag prices. If Wyoming doubled NR tags across the board, eliminated reduced tag prices and made R tags 4X as much then the creep would dramatically slow. The same would work in CO.

I for one do not think hunting should be one the very wealthy get to do so I think the above is a crap strategy and would gladly loose all my points across the board if all the states dropped there systems next year. That said the above would generate a lot of revenue for wildlife...

This would do it. I think R's would complain but still pay. NR demand would fall off a cliff.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

It’s application and everybody is planning their hunts, me included. After listening to various podcasts, reading forum posts, and looking at draw stats it’s very clear that point creep is real and will only get worse in the future. I’m fairly young and have been in the points game for a short time and I have been cycling through my points every couple of years. It’s insane to see that a hunt that I did 4years ago in Wyoming for 1point guaranteed now requires 4 points. I will likely not be able to hunt that unit again in the near future nor do I want to wait that long.

So how do the states fix this and allow more people to cycle through their points? As I thought more about the situation I came up with an idea that I would implement if I had the power. Feel free to shoot holes in it but I would like some constructive ideas of how these draw systems should be improved.

Let’s take Colorado for example. It takes 20+ points to draw some units and anybody with less than that will likely never get to hunt top tier units. My suggestion would be to lock in everybody’s current preference point number today. There are about 13800 nonresident hunters that applied in the draw with over 10 points and about 550 were successful in the draw. This could be due to various reasons but it would take about 25 years for these folks to cycle through.

Now I am not saying to get rid of the points system completely, I think they should cap the amount of points that you can hold at a certain number for a certain species. For this case let’s say 10 points is the cap on elk. Anybody with less than 10 points will be able to accrue points until they reach 10 and then they will have to pay the preference point each year to keep those points. If you forget to apply or don’t want to pay the fee you go back to zero.

The next step would be to allow points to be averaged across the hunt group to help eliminate the point holders above 10 points. The state would continue to get their money, high point holders would still have the greatest odds of drawing the unit of their choice, and once the high point holders were out then the max points would be 10 and basically it would be a random draw for the highest demand units. There would be no incentive to keep accruing points because your odds don’t get any better. Over the long term the middle units would experience point creep, but would level out and everybody that stays in the game for at least ten years will have chance, albeit dismal, to draw the top tier units.

Obviously other species would have different preference point totals or systems but for deer, elk, and antelope this would even the playing field and eventually whether you’re 12 years and just leafally old enough to start getting points or 40 and just getting into the draw you are only 10 years away from being in the max point pool.

Thoughts?

Species in Wyoming are a premium now. The book is out. Last year there were 88,869 unsuccessful applications despite Wyoming increasing licenses, antelope licenses increased 8.45%, deer 5.51% and elk 5.39%. All draw odds will continue to go down as the word spreads further.

You can look at a state like New Mexico with a lottery system and hunts like 16A have elk rifle odds of 0.66% and 3.1%, because a lot more people want to hunt it than the available tags. In Idaho elk units 56 and 57 have draw odds of 1.7%, so it is the same problem. In Utah they only give 1-2 NR tags in each unit weapon type in a lot of elk units. There isn't a system that can fix the amount of people wanting to hunt a specific unit. Nevada same issue. Colorado same issue.

I think trying to find units that are easier to draw and changing weapon types is the best route forward.

Moving archery out of the rut or having a bunch of late archery tags (low success) could increase the number of tags while maintaining quality.

Limiting scopes on Muzzleloaders or going to open sights and moving the hunts out of the rut, would create low success hunts which would result in more tags.

Rifle hunters with the new scope technology and the ability to shoot longer ranges is an issue, because no matter the season unless you throw thousands of people in a unit the harvest rate will be moderately higher than the rest.

No me it doesn't matter the point or no point system, it is more of a limited resource and too many people applying for it.

Increasing tag prices makes the tags only for the better off in life and can cause a loss of hunters.

Trying to grow more animals is a decent way, but you cannot control the weather or disease in a lot of situations.

Land owner programs are an option, but they do come with a monetary price either paid by the hunter or the state (tax credits, subsides, etc)

Opening up land out east to the public and trying to grow elk herds in new areas can lead to more people, but also more oppurtunity.

It is really a complicated case, a lot of ins, a lot of outs, and a lot of what have yous.

 

[Jape]

Man, this is a tough subject. Certainly, increases in big game populations would help, but there are so many politics surrounding land ownership, quotas, management, etc..., and that seems to slow any real progress.

I would love some perspective from those who have been in the game for a long time, but it seems the current systems push away many new hunters. Randy said in a recent podcast that when he sat on the Montana board when pref/bonus points were first introduced it was the older generation who was in favor because they got in on the ground level, and some of those tags are reserved for those older than 62. Does that ultimately hurt hunting?

I also wonder if there is an increase because more people are applying in multiple states. When I was a teenager we hunted the OTC units in our home state, but it never entered my mind to accumulate points for other states. With the advent of various platforms that make applying more palatable, does that increase applications across the board? If so, how do we deal with the increased demand?

Someone a lot smarter than me may have answers to these questions.

 

[BrentD]

Man, this is a tough subject. Certainly, increases in big game populations would help, but there are so many politics surrounding land ownership, quotas, management, etc..., and that seems to slow any real progress.

I would love some perspective from those who have been in the game for a long time, but it seems the current systems push away many new hunters. Randy said in a recent podcast that when he sat on the Montana board when pref/bonus points were first introduced it was the older generation who was in favor because they got in on the ground level, and some of those tags are reserved for those older than 62. Does that ultimately hurt hunting?

I also wonder if there is an increase because more people are applying in multiple states. When I was a teenager we hunted the OTC units in our home state, but it never entered my mind to accumulate points for other states. With the advent of various platforms that make applying more palatable, does that increase applications across the board? If so, how do we deal with the increased demand?

Someone a lot smarter than me may have answers to these questions.

I don't think there are answers in the form of solutions, but there are answers in terms of effects. No doubt in my mind that the systems are pushing away new (and old) hunters. I'm probably not going to chase elk after closing out my points. It will be once more and then done. I don't have 5-10 yrs to wait around trying to catch up to the leading edge of the point-creep minimums. Looks like I have one more hunt left for elk. Maybe close to the same for deer and antelope.

Where the point creep must be coming from is pretty clear to me. It is from people going for multiple tags in multiple states. In reading the posts here on HT of what people are applying for this year in the way of tags and points, I was simply stunned. It made me realize that this is rapidly becoming unrealistic for me. For young hunters or hunter want-to-bes, who are willing to start applying 6-8 yrs out, and then only in hopes of catching up to the point-creep phenomena?

My hunting will start gravitating back to small game, birds, and local deer wherever "local" may be. Out of state big game is pretty close to being over.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

There's no solution without screwing over many that are invested in the current systems. I plan to use mine as soon as I can. I'm happy to hunt leftover tags if I have to. The only reason I collected them was to share with friends and family to introduce them to Wyoming hunting. Now there's a push to eliminate point sharing. If that goes through I have no need for more than one or two points max so far.

 

[brnsvllyjohn]

Point creep is pushing out older hunters who don't have the time left to play the game. I also am not recommending that my grandchildren even start accumulating points. A 12 year old is so far behind that they may not get to hunt for 25+ years if ever in some zones. Of course their parents will make that decision. I now hunt OTC areas or a couple of zones that I can get with less than 5 points. I am referring to Ca. hunts for the most part. I gave up on the other states point systems a few years ago. OTC for me whenever I hunt another state and of course that limits my areas.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Point creep is pushing out older hunters who don't have the time left to play the game. I also am not recommending that my grandchildren even start accumulating points. A 12 year old is so far behind that they may not get to hunt for 25+ years if ever in some zones. Of course their parents will make that decision. I now hunt OTC areas or a couple of zones that I can get with less than 5 points. I am referring to Ca. hunts for the most part. I gave up on the other states point systems a few years ago. OTC for me whenever I hunt another state and of course that limits my areas.

A 12 year old is exactly who should get into the points game... a 40 year old not so much

 

[mtmiller]

A 12 year old is exactly who should get into the points game... a 40 year old not so much

Agree. They won't be dealing with me in 25 years with all the points in the world.

As for older hunters that don't have time left "to play the game", they should have planned ahead. I did in a couple states, but not others. I regret the states that I didn't jump in on. That's on me.

 

[BrentD]

Agree. They won't be dealing with me in 25 years with all the points in the world.

As for older hunters that don't have time left "to play the game", they should have planned ahead. I did in a couple states, but not others. I regret the states that I didn't jump in on. That's on me.

Should have planned ahead? As if one could know what one wants to do, or WILL BE ABLE to do, 15 yrs ahead. Hell, a goodly number of us will be DEAD by then. Not to mention, there is simply no guarantee that one can catch up to point creep in that amount of time. And then there is the cost of those points as well.

I do think the system is forcing people out. I think I'm about to become one. Certainly, for many species I am forced out already. But now the more common elk and mule deer are becoming just no longer feasible.