The future of Preference Points

[TheJason]

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Because the landowner allocation comes out before the NR allocation. 32 total tags, landowners get 6, NRs get 20% of what is left or 5.2 tags.

I thought that might be the case. With 26 tags it's still possible that 1 NR tag could've been awarded randomly without violating the 20% NR cap or 20% random cap. The fact that it didn't shake out that way seems to confirm that a NR will only have a chance in the random portion of the hybrid draw if the 20% NR cap wasn't reached during the preference point portion...in other words, NR's have no chance in the deer/elk hybrid draw.

	R	NR
PP	17	4
Random	4	1

 

[Buffs35]

Preference points are great for busy folks that like to plan their hunts in advance and don't feel entitled to glory tags for their insta. #alltagsmatter

 

[Pelican]

That’s it. So this hunt code is another example, actually, of one where the NRs had no shot at a hybrid draw tag. Thanks @Pelican

Ok… carry on

That’s it. So this hunt code is another example, actually, of one where the NRs had no shot at a hybrid draw tag. Thanks @Pelican

Ok… carry on.

 

[ImBillT]

When you’re at the back of the line at the ice cream store you sneak behind the counter and unplug the freezer don’t you.

Maybe if they were shuffling people in front of me for being the wrong gender or race…or for living in the wrong state…even though I’m a part owner of the shop.

You think people won’t stand up for their own interests at one point or another? I will. Am I supposed to have some intrinsic concerns for the wildlife? They’re unlikely to go extinct just because humans stopped hunting them on federal land. If you think you should be allowed to hunt them on land that we both own, then you should allow me to hunt them there also.

Look at the power that outfitters have in western states. Do you think outfitters get their power from resident hunters? Do you want non-outfitted NRs against you too?

 

[Jdp010]

Also, the animals are held in trust for ALL state citizens, even though that don't hunt. "Giving up" 10% of tags by a state is not NR charity, it is a chance for non-hunting citizens to reap some economic benefit from animals they will never hunt via NR hunter spend in state.

there is no NR cap on antelope

Thanks for figuring this one out.

And WTH – Colorado doesn’t have an NR cap on pronghorn? Is anyone at the wheel in Colorado?

Arizona has NR cap on Javelina.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe if they were shuffling people in front of me for being the wrong gender or race…or for living in the wrong state…even though I’m a part owner of the shop.

You think people won’t stand up for their own interests at one point or another? I will. Am I supposed to have some intrinsic concerns for the wildlife? They’re unlikely to go extinct just because humans stopped hunting them on federal land. If you think you should be allowed to hunt them on land that we both own, then you should allow me to hunt them there also.

Look at the power that outfitters have in western states. Do you think outfitters get their power from resident hunters? Do you want non-outfitted NRs against you too?

Yes, you should have an intrinsic concern for wildlife. That's being a good steward of the world, a stand-up American and a decent human being, and it helps ensure that there's clean air, water and open space to help keep soil in place and stop erosion far downstream, as well as help filter pollution in wetlands, etc. It means farm and ranchland that stays in production, and it means we have the capacity to escape the maddening crowds to find some solace and comfort in quiet and untrammeled lands. There is value in the Shenandoah wilderness, even though I likely won't ever be there. There's value in a marine national monument that eliminates commercial fishing, even it means I can't buy cheap Mahi.

But it's a fair point that if we alienate the DIY NR hunter, then we lose a powerful voice in state-based wildlife management. That's why nobody is talking about eliminating NR's entirely - it's a discussion about the best way to move forward w/o allowing people to jump in line & buy their place, just as it's a discussion about the fact that people who hunt out of state are doing this for recreation versus those who live in state, even if they only participate for recreation (looking at myself here as well).

Folks should remember that it was a massive outpouring of DIY Non-residents who helped stop MT's rush to privatize last session in both SB 143 & HB505. @ImBillT is 100% correct that our discussions can't alienate those folks, while we seek to find balance between resident & NR crowds - which I still maintain that eliminating PP's & going to a straight draw for everyone can get us.

 

[DFS]

Killing SB 143 was a win for nonresident hunters, it was not a win for the wildlife that reside on public.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Killing SB 143 was a win for nonresident hunters, it was not a win for the wildlife that reside on public.

Respectfully disagree. The privatization of the resource creates fewer opportunities for all hunters, while handing management of them to interests with only their self.

Keeping the current model may not be perfect, but it puts all of us who care about wildlife into the discussion, rather than ceding it to those with political power.

Keeping seasons the length they are now wouldn't change at all if the discussion is bifurcated into private & public. It just puts the issue of quality into the private sphere while the public hunters continue to argue over the scraps and just wmto make it so fewer & fewer get the "quality" bucks versus the forkie shooters because of tradition.

 

[DFS]

Respectfully disagree. The privatization of the resource creates fewer opportunities for all hunters, while handing management of them to interests with only their self.

Keeping the current model may not be perfect, but it puts all of us who care about wildlife into the discussion, rather than ceding it to those with political power.

Agreed. If nonresident and resident tags were cut which needs to happen to maintain the resource would you support that? Seems like people could care less about wildlife and more about drawing a tag.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agreed. If nonresident and resident tags were cut which needs to happen to maintain the resource would you support that? Seems like people could care less about wildlife and more about drawing a tag.

I'm certainly open to that, just as I'm open to season structure changes, moving the dates away from the rut, etc.

Guest view: Montana issued 59,395 deer/elk licenses to nonresidents

Montana issued 59,395 deer/elk licenses to nonresidents, Skyline Sportsmen's Association finds.

mtstandard.com

Part of the issue is the reissuance of the deer combo after the B10 portion is turned back in, along with the increase on antlerless - not that antlerless harvest is bad but unmitigated pressure is unmitigated pressure. It doesn't really matter what you are pursuing if you're in the woods & prairies - you're having an impact on distribution. We ignore, at least on deer in MT, the notion of a cap entirely for the deer combo.

For other states, like CO, with no cap on NR elk or pronghorn, there's other solutions at bay.

Other states still can soak up that kind of pressure - especially in places like the Great Lakes, Southeast, midwest, etc where habitat cover & deer density are totally different than western states (which, let's be honest, we're talking about western states hunting).

By & Large, I think there's opportunity to put the resource first, and while a huge part of that focuses on habitat management, another huge part of the equation is the allocation of that resource. If that means a NR has 4 years between hunts rather than 2, I think that's a fair bargain, just as I think we need to seriously look at resident hunting opportunity versus effective management of the resource.

But at the end of the day - none of that is about preference points and the fact that they're not helping the situation, they cause people to die before they catch up to point creep (someone here mentioned they've been applying for 22 years and giving up points now means they'll never draw - which the irony there is compelling & rich).

Straight draw, no points, equitable allocation of the resource with better distribution of hunters to match the current population of humans, and to help manage the current population of deer, elk, pronghorn, etc.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Maybe if they were shuffling people in front of me for being the wrong gender or race…or for living in the wrong state…even though I’m a part owner of the shop.

You think people won’t stand up for their own interests at one point or another? I will. Am I supposed to have some intrinsic concerns for the wildlife? They’re unlikely to go extinct just because humans stopped hunting them on federal land. If you think you should be allowed to hunt them on land that we both own, then you should allow me to hunt them there also.

Look at the power that outfitters have in western states. Do you think outfitters get their power from resident hunters? Do you want non-outfitted NRs against you too?

You clearly have no idea what my comments have been to the taskforce and department, largely in support of maintaining NR opportunity.

The concept of burning down public land hunting to make a point and stomp your foot is laughable, and certainly shows some true colors.

 

[ImBillT]

Yes, you should have an intrinsic concern for wildlife. That's being a good steward of the world, a stand-up American and a decent human being, and it helps ensure that there's clean air, water and open space to help keep soil in place and stop erosion far downstream, as well as help filter pollution in wetlands, etc. It means farm and ranchland that stays in production, and it means we have the capacity to escape the maddening crowds to find some solace and comfort in quiet and untrammeled lands. There is value in the Shenandoah wilderness, even though I likely won't ever be there. There's value in a marine national monument that eliminates commercial fishing, even it means I can't buy cheap Mahi.

But it's a fair point that if we alienate the DIY NR hunter, then we lose a powerful voice in state-based wildlife management. That's why nobody is talking about eliminating NR's entirely - it's a discussion about the best way to move forward w/o allowing people to jump in line & buy their place, just as it's a discussion about the fact that people who hunt out of state are doing this for recreation versus those who live in state, even if they only participate for recreation (looking at myself here as well).

Folks should remember that it was a massive outpouring of DIY Non-residents who helped stop MT's rush to privatize last session in both SB 143 & HB505. @ImBillT is 100% correct that our discussions can't alienate those folks, while we seek to find balance between resident & NR crowds - which I still maintain that eliminating PP's & going to a straight draw for everyone can get us.

While the statement I made asks the question “should I care about wildlife or not?” What I was getting at, was that banning hunting on federal land would not necessarily doom that wildlife. I often read and hear statements suggesting that our intrinsic concern for wildlife is somehow supposed to be a substantial reason for us to go out of our way to protect HUNTING OPPORTUNITY for others, even though those very people are actively excluding us/me/NRs from that very hunting opportunity. Guess what. The wildlife will probably not go extinct, and if a western resident thinks that the wildlife will not be fine without hunting opportunity, they should not be so quick to outlaw non-resident land owners from hunting there.

Just a clarification. Not a beef with your general thoughts.

 

[DFS]

Umm who is outlawing nonresident landowners from hunting? If you are having trouble finding opportunity to hunt as a nonresident I can help there are plenty of opportunities available.

 

[Ben Lamb]

While the statement I made asks the question “should I care about wildlife or not?” What I was getting at, was that banning hunting on federal land would not necessarily doom that wildlife. I often read and hear statements suggesting that our intrinsic concern for wildlife is somehow supposed to be a substantial reason for us to go out of our way to protect HUNTING OPPORTUNITY for others, even though those very people are actively excluding us/me/NRs from that very hunting opportunity. Guess what. The wildlife will probably not go extinct, and if a western resident thinks that the wildlife will not be fine without hunting opportunity, they should not be so quick to outlaw non-resident land owners from hunting there.

Just a clarification. Not a beef with your general thoughts.

Thanks for that, and I agree.

 

[PrairieHunter]

The numbers I quoted were just draw tags. There are even more given out via OTC. We could cycle through EVERYONE in a year with OTC (unlimited). And sure the success rates are low, but I’d like to see a @wllm graph showing your likelihood to shoot an elk when hunting low success units every year vs hunting a premium unit with 80% success once every 40 years. I bet you’re more likely to kill an elk hunting the low success units. That’s not even taking into account the fact that elk hunting once every 40 years puts you at a disadvantage because you’re not exactly an “experienced” elk hunter at that point.

Again, OTC only works in unique situations where success is really low. Unlimited sheep units, Colorado elk where elk can hide on private, archery only antelope units where success is low, etc... OTC does not work in 99% of situations.

Colorado has about 300k elk, Wyoming only 100k so there are some major differences in the resource as well.

For me I would not accept an OTC Colorado elk tag even if it was free. No interest in going to a crowded trailhead with a bunch of hunters on 4 wheelers hoping to get lucky. No thanks.

Colorado OTC elk seasons are not the answer to point creep in Wyoming. The solution is to reduce the # of applications.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Every single LE tag from every state goes into a hat, anyone who wants to draw buys a $100 raffle ticket. They start at moose/sheep and work their way down to the tags nobody wants. If you draw a tag and don’t want it you go back into the raffle.

Get what you get and don’t throw a fit.

Just imagine if the states handled tags like Huntin Fool or the other services.

Premium tags are 10k +

Great tags in the 5-10k range



Rich powerful people would never agree to a system like you suggest. The game will always be about making rules for the rich to get their tags first.

 

[Bigjay73]

Me: googling bifurcated

 

[BuzzH]

We have both said this several times, but when will it get traction?

Never...so may as well give up on it.

 

[dk88]

Idaho

No point system.

Restricted to one draw hunt per year.

I like it.

I love the Idaho system as well and wish more states would make you pick one of the big 3 tags and make them all OIL tags. I am a little partial to Idaho since I drew a moose tag this year but my odds of drawing the unit I applied for as a non-resident were considerably higher than almost every unit in Montana as a resident with 13 points.