What if there were no point schemes?

[Deleted member 28227]

You want everyone else to pay the price for your planning. One of the reasons for the scarcity is that you are stockpiling hunts into the future. With point systems the 22yr old buried in money who already has 10pts points for everything can stockpile hunts all over the west while the 22yr old buried in student loan debt could be ten years away from his first point purchase. On a random draw the first guy has had ten years of hunting opportunities and will get ten more years of hunting opportunities before the second guy enters the system, but when the second guy finialkybdoes enter the system, he can still dream the same dreams, some of which may already have come true for the first guy.

Then don't apply in that state if their system makes you so frustrated. Also that 22yr old can, in the case of CO, apply in the hybrid draw and actually hunt before the old crusty. My buddy drew unit 10 last year in the hybrid. In Wyoming you could draw in the random draw with 0 points, etc.


Also both of your individuals can hunt elk and deer every year, soooo really we are just arguing about getting to hunt a few trophy units. For the record I'm the 22yr old whose now 30, I'm just getting into the points game I have 5 bonus points in Montana, 3 everywhere else, but since I started hunting in '12 I have drawn ~5 tags a year and hunted in WY, MT, ID, CO, AK, KS, UT and OK.... so I'm not really buying the opportunity argument. Sure I'm never going to hunt the Az strip, but I won't do a lot of things...

 

[Gr8bawana]

Nevada is not a random draw. It’s a squared bonus point. You’re welcome to like the point system. Some people do. Why do you think that going to random is going to suddenly increase the number of applicants? If the number of available tags remains the same and the price remains the same the number of applicants to Nevada will not likely change dramatically going to random. Some people would drop out because they incorrectly thought the squared points was improving their odds year, when in fact, everyone except the max point holder has odds that actually decrease each year. Some might enter in a random system. If there are people that aren’t sure about entering NM with a $65 dollar license and 4.2% draw odds, there will be plenty of people would wouldn’t enter Nevada with a $155(or whatever it’s up to now) and .42% odds.

Nevada does have a bonus point squared system but people with zero or very few bonus points draw tags every year because everybody gets a random draw chance, even non-residents.
I'm not sure in what la la land you think ANY ten states would care what other states do with their big game draw systems to co-ordinate drawing dates and then change them every year to a different spot as you propose. Sounds like one giant cluster***.

 

[ImBillT]

Also OP, please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the regs there isn't a single western state that has a system that requires you to have max points to draw top tier tag. Every state has some option that always you to throw your hat in the ring for those top units and if you look at the stats bonus points can certainly improve your odds but the odds are still so bad for some units it only is bumping you from .01% to 4.1%, which while mathematically a huge jump realistically doesn't really matter as you still probably wont draw that tag in your lifetime.

My point is simply this; Let's say we do everything you mentioned above there are still far less tags than there are people who want them, even though odds change from a range of .0001% to 4% to .01% for all most hunters still won't draw so really the only thing that has changed is the system seems more fair even though it has the same net effect. BUT by making it feel more fair you have negatively effected the resource so there are less animals, so less tags, so in reality you are even more less likely to draw.

If you actually want better odds the best thing that can be done is to help wildlife agencies come up with strategies to raise more money, which can be used to do habitat projects, restore populations, and improve the herds.

Better solution to improve odds; allow every state to max out license costs until they reach the maximum $$$ amount the market will bear.

Making it more fair by going to random, it has nothing to do with feeling, in no way shape or form changes the number of tags issued and does not harm the resource.

 

[ImBillT]

Nevada does have a bonus point squared system but people with zero or very few bonus points draw tags every year because everybody gets a random draw chance, even non-residents.
I'm not sure in what la la land you think ANY ten states would care what other states do with their big game draw systems to co-ordinate drawing dates and then change them every year to a different spot as you propose. Sounds like one giant cluster***.

Bonus points are not random. It is weighted. Squaring becomes even less random and more heavily weighted toward those with more points. True random systems give everyone an equal chance in the draw. The longer you’re in the system, the more likely it is that you live drawn at some point or another simply becuse you’ve been in the drawing more times, but in each individual drawing, your odds are the same as anyone else’s. Bonus systems are weighted, not random.

If state A thought it was in their best interest to time their draw so that it didn’t interfere with state B’s draw, then they would. Also, if they thought they would get more applicants by offering a partial refund, then they would. If we pretend that AZ and NM are both random, and I’m afraid that I’ll draw a hunt in NM that I don’t want as much as one in AZ, I might not apply in both. If NM offers me a partial refund after AZ results are posted, no I will apply in both.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Making it more fair by going to random, it has nothing to do with feeling, in no way shape or form changes the number of tags issued and does not harm the resource.

Going from a point system to random does harm the resource in that it cuts the budget of the wildlife agency and degrades their ability to improve habitat, enforce regs, etc.

Take CO: In the current system you get a pref point each year, so every year even if they aren't hunting lots of individuals are buying a small game combo license + pref point + app license fee +habitat stamp + SR fee depending on what they are applying for that might be $250-350. That's what they are paying the year they DON'T hunt, because if they opt out a season they lose their spot in line. With a lottery draw there is no incentive to apply ever year. You're having a baby, getting married and taking a honeymoon, have another trip planned, busy fall for whatever reason... you aren't going to apply for a tag because if you drew you couldn't hunt the tag. This factor, more than a bunch of old crustys wanting all the tags for themselves is why many states have point systems.

Also in CO state lands are not open to public access/ hunting and the CPAW (department of wildlife) has to lease them from the state for hunting access. A decline in license rev could effect the departments ability to lease these lands and could impact hunter access.

 

[bushman13]

In my pipe dreams it's a random draw without units. This adheres to the most basic principal at work here, the predator/prey relationship. Hunters will naturally drift away from areas with low populations and vice versa. The topic every year will be "did you draw your tag?". The answer could be "I've drawn multiple years in a row" or "I've been unlucky and not drawn for x amount of years". To satisfy hot button agriculture concerns, set aside an allocation for crop degradation permits. And be done with it.
Every other system just angers my inner libertarian.

Again, the hunter benefits but the individual state loses, there is literally 0 incentive for them to something like this...

Honestly, I think the system we have is great because it gives you a ton of options. If you are a planner and like knowing when you are going to draw then apply in AZ, CO, NV, or WY. If you hate point systems then apply in ID, NM, or AK. If you are less concerned with quality as getting to hunt, then you can go to Montana or Colorado. If you think you will likely only go on a couple of elk hunts and want a really good experience you can hold out for an AZ, NM, or WY hunt.

I really unconvinced that random is better... is it "fair" for someone to draw 5 glory tags in 5 years and someone else to never draw... that doesn't happen with point systems.

 

[vanish]

With a lottery draw there is no incentive to apply ever year. You're having a baby, getting married and taking a honeymoon, have another trip planned, busy fall for whatever reason... you aren't going to apply for a tag because if you drew you couldn't hunt the tag. This factor, more than a bunch of old crustys wanting all the tags for themselves is why many states have point systems.

I would argue it is not the reason the states created point systems, but rather one reason they keep point systems. The point systems were originally conceived to give a nod to those who did not draw. I am curious if there was any math modeling done on projected implications of the point systems for those first states that adopted them?

It was only later that states realized they could milk this for Pittman Robertson funds. You use CO as your example, but those changes to gaining PP are new this year. In the past, it only cost you the application fee.

 

[bushman13]

Is it a money grab or a tag allocation system? I would gladly pay many times the current resident tag prices for simplicity.

Going from a point system to random does harm the resource in that it cuts the budget of the wildlife agency and degrades their ability to improve habitat, enforce regs, etc.

Take CO: In the current system you get a pref point each year, so every year even if they aren't hunting lots of individuals are buying a small game combo license + pref point + app license fee +habitat stamp + SR fee depending on what they are applying for that might be $250-350. That's what they are paying the year they DON'T hunt, because if they opt out a season they lose their spot in line. With a lottery draw there is no incentive to apply ever year. You're having a baby, getting married and taking a honeymoon, have another trip planned, busy fall for whatever reason... you aren't going to apply for a tag because if you drew you couldn't hunt the tag. This factor, more than a bunch of old crustys wanting all the tags for themselves is why many states have point systems.

 

[BuzzH]

wllm1313,

There are tags issued every year in Wyoming that only the max point holders are able to draw. In fact, very few random sheep and moose tags are issued at all for NR. Even in the case of Residents here, some of the moose and sheep tags are impossible for anyone but point holders to draw. I believe that Arizona was in a similar place until recently when enough people complained that they were being excluded from some of the top elk, deer, pronghorn, and sheep tags. Montana is also another example of a place where NR's are applying for tags with no chance of drawing. There are usually moose, sheep, and goat areas where NR's are told they can apply, then withdrawn by the commission before the draw. Meaning if you apply in good faith for some of those, the commission has, at least in the past, kept application fees, point fees, etc. with the NR applicant having NO chance of drawing. Also, the region quotas can also be filled before the specific unit an applicant applied for is even considered. Also, the up to 10% rule, doesn't assure a NR will ever draw a single tag. From looking at past years, NR's are usually drawing closer to 5-7% of the tags, nowhere near "up to 10%".

As to your money argument, that's a non-starter with me as well. Its been just in the last 10-12 years that States have decided to bend us over with the requirement of hunting licenses, high priced points, and things of that nature. My first several points in States like UT, WY, MT, etc. were very cheap, some as cheap as $5 with no license requirement. So, my point is, what you contend with regard to lose of point fees will harm the revenue stream, well, that was never intended to be a way to fund the GF agencies from the get-go. The license requirements also allow states to receive more PR funding, which is the states way of gaming the point system to their advantage. What point systems were meant to be was a system to give long time applicants a better chance at a tag, period.

The GF agencies certainly have seen a potential revenue source, capitalized on it, while systematically allowing many other user groups to get off Scott free with not helping fund the Agencies. Some are consumptive users that pay absolutely nothing, others benefit from the dollars that sportsmen bring to their states, etc.

I would also contend that preference points defy the R3 efforts that many GF agencies want us Sportsmen to promote. If you're trying to retain, recruit, and reengage hunters...its a fair argument that putting them decades behind in the ability to draw a tag isn't promoting that, at all. I get it that the R3 stuff is geared more to the easier tags to access, but in the case of Wyoming, there are pronghorn tags now, that take 1-4 points that I could buy as leftovers when I moved here in 2000. Point systems create that, those that have already used their max points for tags, are now plugging up the lower tier units and making it tough to draw without points, nearly across the State.

These point systems have become an incredible quagmire with people vested in some for nearly 30 years, with agencies now smelling blood in the water as a revenue stream, and hunter numbers continuing to decline. There is no easy answer and no easy way out of them. There is also no doubt they are not sustainable and that as people become better at math, the agencies are going to be making some changes to satisfy the desire to change them. Count on it, its already happened and will happen more frequently as time goes on, IMO/E.

Carry on....

 

[Flatrock]

But it’s not s fair chance.

OFFS dude. So to the guys that have been buying points for 25 years, we should abolish the point systems and give them a big F you?

 

[bushman13]

Not at all, the first year that you do away with the point system, you offer a guaranteed tag for a certain level of point holder. This will cycle out eventually and soon you will be at true random.
A little trouble up front, in exchange for much less pain down the road.

OFFS dude. So to the guys that have been buying points for 25 years, we should abolish the point systems and give them a big F you?

 

[vanish]

OFFS dude. So to the guys that have been buying points for 25 years, we should abolish the point systems and give them a big F you?

No, just stop awarding PPs. Eventually everyone has spent their points and the playing field is even again.

 

[Pelican]

Going from a point system to random does harm the resource in that it cuts the budget of the wildlife agency and degrades their ability to improve habitat, enforce regs, etc.

Take CO: In the current system you get a pref point each year, so every year even if they aren't hunting lots of individuals are buying a small game combo license + pref point + app license fee +habitat stamp + SR fee depending on what they are applying for that might be $250-350. That's what they are paying the year they DON'T hunt, because if they opt out a season they lose their spot in line. With a lottery draw there is no incentive to apply ever year. You're having a baby, getting married and taking a honeymoon, have another trip planned, busy fall for whatever reason... you aren't going to apply for a tag because if you drew you couldn't hunt the tag. This factor, more than a bunch of old crustys wanting all the tags for themselves is why many states have point systems.

Also in CO state lands are not open to public access/ hunting and the CPAW (department of wildlife) has to lease them from the state for hunting access. A decline in license rev could effect the departments ability to lease these lands and could impact hunter access.

Colorado’s point system was started because a lot hunters mistakenly believed it would make hard to draw tags easier to draw, not to provide a funding source. Some people still believe point systems are magic, but more people are realizing they were wrong. If funding is an issue, simply raise the application fee. In CO, nonresident OTC elk tags have always been the cash cow and that is not going to change.

 

[madtom]

There's so much helpful and entertaining information on this forum, but for some reason I can't quit coming back to check this dumpster fire of a thread.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

wllm1313,

There are tags issued every year in Wyoming that only the max point holders are able to draw. In fact, very few random sheep and moose tags are issued at all for NR. Even in the case of Residents here, some of the moose and sheep tags are impossible for anyone but point holders to draw. I believe that Arizona was in a similar place until recently when enough people complained that they were being excluded from some of the top elk, deer, pronghorn, and sheep tags. Montana is also another example of a place where NR's are applying for tags with no chance of drawing. There are usually moose, sheep, and goat areas where NR's are told they can apply, then withdrawn by the commission before the draw. Meaning if you apply in good faith for some of those, the commission has, at least in the past, kept application fees, point fees, etc. with the NR applicant having NO chance of drawing. Also, the region quotas can also be filled before the specific unit an applicant applied for is even considered. Also, the up to 10% rule, doesn't assure a NR will ever draw a single tag. From looking at past years, NR's are usually drawing closer to 5-7% of the tags, nowhere near "up to 10%".

Really can't argue with this, there are definitely screwed up situations with some of the draws especially MSG where their might be only 1 or 2 tags in a unit. To some extent, I could see an argument for making MSG resident only across the board. My general sentiment is that if odds are longer than 1:100 who really cares you're not going to draw, it's a lotto ticket at that point.

As to your money argument, that's a non-starter with me as well. Its been just in the last 10-12 years that States have decided to bend us over with the requirement of hunting licenses, high priced points, and things of that nature. My first several points in States like UT, WY, MT, etc. were very cheap, some as cheap as $5 with no license requirement. So, my point is, what you contend with regard to lose of point fees will harm the revenue stream, well, that was never intended to be a way to fund the GF agencies from the get-go. The license requirements also allow states to receive more PR funding, which is the states way of gaming the point system to their advantage. What point systems were meant to be was a system to give long time applicants a better chance at a tag, period.

The GF agencies certainly have seen a potential revenue source, capitalized on it, while systematically allowing many other user groups to get off Scott free with not helping fund the Agencies. Some are consumptive users that pay absolutely nothing, others benefit from the dollars that sportsmen bring to their states, etc.

Would love to see a backpack tax, with TABOR in CO I think tags are the easiest rev stream. I'm not sure how else you could fund the system, CO has shown time and again they won't pay for anything. The states population is soaring, property values have doubled in the last 5 years and yet we spend less per student than most of the US and we can't find two pennies to rub together for roads. So 100% agree but the reality is that is how hunting licenses are being.

I would also contend that preference points defy the R3 efforts that many GF agencies want us Sportsmen to promote. If you're trying to retain, recruit, and reengage hunters...its a fair argument that putting them decades behind in the ability to draw a tag isn't promoting that, at all. I get it that the R3 stuff is geared more to the easier tags to access, but in the case of Wyoming, there are pronghorn tags now, that take 1-4 points that I could buy as leftovers when I moved here in 2000. Point systems create that, those that have already used their max points for tags, are now plugging up the lower tier units and making it tough to draw without points, nearly across the State.

Not following, what does points have to do with it... due to R3 aren't there just more people applying for tags, I'm not sure where to pull the aggregated stats, but my thought was that because of R3 there were now 100k people applying for 50k licenses instead of 40k people applying for 50k license. (number completely fabricated) Point creep is just a symptom of the western hunting gaining popularity.

Pronghorn apps 11.73% in 2 years

Wyoming Game and Fish Department - More hunters applying in Wyoming than in recent history

wgfd.wyo.gov

These point systems have become an incredible quagmire with people vested in some for nearly 30 years, with agencies now smelling blood in the water as a revenue stream, and hunter numbers continuing to decline. There is no easy answer and no easy way out of them. There is also no doubt they are not sustainable and that as people become better at math, the agencies are going to be making some changes to satisfy the desire to change them. Count on it, its already happened and will happen more frequently as time goes on, IMO/E.

100% agree, I have a feeling social media is only going to continue to make western hunting seem sexy and that we will see point creep continue even as hunting overall declines.

Carry on....

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There's so much helpful and entertaining information on this forum, but for some reason I can't quit coming back to check this dumpster fire of a thread.

It's actually a very interesting, and I would argue relevant conversation. As BuzzH said, things are only going to get worse and changes will happen, might as well have the conversation here and debate the issue and educate yourself before you go to a townhall with your state agency.

Even though I'm giving ImBillT a bit of a rough time, he does raise a great point, and the topic is well worth discussing.

 

[jvanhoy]

Again, the hunter benefits but the individual state loses, there is literally 0 incentive for them to something like this...

Honestly, I think the system we have is great because it gives you a ton of options. If you are a planner and like knowing when you are going to draw then apply in AZ, CO, NV, or WY. If you hate point systems then apply in ID, NM, or AK. If you are less concerned with quality as getting to hunt, then you can go to Montana or Colorado. If you think you will likely only go on a couple of elk hunts and want a really good experience you can hold out for an AZ, NM, or WY hunt.

I really unconvinced that random is better... is it "fair" for someone to draw 5 glory tags in 5 years and someone else to never draw... that doesn't happen with point systems.

My thoughts exactly

 

[ImBillT]

Tags/hunters=opportunity. You can’t increase that via point schemes or lack of point schemes. The idea is not to increase opportunity. The idea is to move to a random system while maintaining some of the positive aspects of points. Like I say, the primary disadvantage of a random system is “what if I draw too many tags?”. Reduced interference from draw to draw and a partial refund option would go a long way toward midigating that disadvantage.

 

[ImBillT]

It's actually a very interesting, and I would argue relevant conversation. As BuzzH said, things are only going to get worse and changes will happen, might as well have the conversation here and debate the issue and educate yourself before you go to a townhall with your state agency.

Even though I'm giving ImBillT a bit of a rough time, he does raise a great point, and the topic is well worth discussing.

Oh I have a thick skin and you’d be hard pressed actually offend me. I brought it up knowing there would be a lot of disagreement. I also wouldn’t expect a finished product, if such a thing were ever to happen, to be that close to the starting point.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Oh I have a thick skin and you’d be hard pressed actually offend me. I brought it up knowing there would be a lot of disagreement. I also wouldn’t expect a finished product, if such a thing were ever to happen, to be that close to the starting point.

Well since you put forth an idea for everyone to shoot holes in here's mine, fire away...

I don't think there is a one size fits all, but for CO at the least I wonder if you could move the entire state over to a system similar to the MSG system. Your first three points are prefer points, then after that you get bonus points. So someone with 15 points today would have 3 pref points and 12 bonus points. If you moved to this system you would definitely be de-valuing the points of those folks with more than 3 pts but they still get an advantage in the draw.

To make it even better you could eliminate future accumulation of bonus points, so once the current bonus point holders are done then it's 3 pref point then a random draw. Seems like this would be a fair-ish way of getting us out of the point system, would keep people in the system year to year, would keep someone from drawing the best units their first time out, and still be fair all around.