What to do with 8 Wyoming elk points?

[WapitiBob]

parties aren't split

 

[DFS]

On balance, I don’t think it would matter much if states disallowed POINTS ONLY apps.

In almost every state/species/system, I could find a way to apply for an unobtainable (or nearly unobtainable) tag. So, I’d still get my annual point even if I couldn’t technically apply for POINTS ONLY.

And once we all caught on to doing that, those “app dump” tag codes would have odds so close to zero that those codes would essentially function as POINTS ONLY apps for us.

But yes, the person would have to accept a small risk of drawing to do this.

Money is up front in some states. I apply for wyoming elk it sucks I applied for Idaho moose once. Sucked when that money went away. A lot bigger commitment than just buying a $50 point.

 

[WapitiBob]

up front money is just another scheme to keep the other guy out of my app pool

 

[Addicting]

I would support points zeroed out if you draw a tag & wait time in the penalty box before you can apply again.

 

[homers]

How about you use your points if you draw a tag

 

[WapitiBob]

Newberg had 4 solid ideas and nobody got screwed. Seems like a reasonable path forward for everybody that's invested in points.

 

[WildWill]

Newberg had 4 solid ideas and nobody got screwed.

Except everyone born after 1999. Those ideas would definitely slow creep, but I doubt it would stop creep and certainly not reverse it. The system is not sustainable long term. So how long do the states wait to change it? I have points all over and would gladly give up everyone of them to see hunters of all ages put on the same playing field.

 

[rmyoung1]

I doubt I have the connections to change anything. When you say "Fix it," what is the the fix you are seeking?

If it is getting rid of these point schemes, that isn't happening. I have a video about to drop that explains why that won't ever change, no matter how much I dislike these schemes.

Let's take just one state and one species, Wyoming elk, which is the subject of this thread. Those elk points cost $50 each. Multiply that by 140,000 point buyers. That's an easy $7 million, without putting any additional pressure on elk, without selling one more tag beyond the 7,250 statutory non-resident limit. If Wyoming can generate that much money, from one species, in one year, with no additional hunting pressure placed on elk, it is not changing. Nor is it changing for other species in Wyoming or in other states where point selling is an alternative manner of raising funds without any pressure on the wildlife resource.

There will be tweaks and changes, but the systems are here to stay. I may not like them, but they are a reality, so I produce a lot of content around those systems in hopes it helps people who aren't inclined to hire a "tag consultant" to do their apps for them.

In that video, I give other ideas that I am sure will cause me to get lit up. Fine, light me up in the YT comment sections. Even with the push back I'll get, the ideas below are worth throwing out for discussion, as they would have an impact on the amount of point buying/collecting that currently exists. Here is a summary of the changes I think would be easiest to implement and have the most impact on "point collecting." And yes, I've "collected points" for species in states, so these ideas would also impact some of my applications.

1. No more point buying. You have to apply for a hunt code. I know a lot of folks buy points "Because you never know when you'll need them." That's fine, but allowing such is why we have states where more applicants have been buying points than actually apply for a hunt. This would sort out who is serious about hunting. This suggestion might not be necessary if the items below were adopted.

2. Adopt the Colorado system for party apps. The party gets assigned the same point total as the lowest point holder in the group. I get that point averaging has some reasons behind it. But, when you see people online seeking strangers to share points, maybe the Colorado system is the best route. And if that was adopted, maybe #1 above wouldn't be necessary.

3. No matter how you acquire a tag, your points get reset for that species. Doesn't matter, draw tag, auction, raffle, landowner tag, whatever; you get a tag, your points go to zero. Not sure why states wouldn't allow this one. Seems to have the least negative impacts with the greatest positive impact. Again, this might eliminate a need for #1.

4. Adopt the Nevada system for hunt choices. No matter what hunt choice you draw, you burn your points. Want a general tag, an OTC tag, draw your second choice hunt, get a leftover tag, receive a returned tag or get a tag awarded to you as an alternate, you use your points in the process. Imagine what that would do in Colorado OTC elk hunting pressure or how much it would reduce point creep from folks who do OTC while also building points. Imagine what it would do in MT for the limited entry hunt codes if you lost points for using a general tag.

The videos I've done for this season are to get people to think about these systems and how they are headed down a terminal path. I doubt it will change any minds. I'm sure this next video with the four ideas above will get even more comments, almost all will be complaints, given how much heat I got from my first video when I suggested people burn their CO and WY points before the big changes coming in the next five years.

I think there have been some threads here on HT that discuss some of these ideas I mention in the video.

Anyhow, back to your comment to "fix it." What do you want to see as "fixed?"

@Big Fin , can you expound a little on your #1 proposal? Wouldn’t this just drive everyone interested/invested simply to apply for the most difficult hunts to draw and, thus, actually fuel point creep for those top-tier hunt codes? I absolutely agree with your #2, #3, and #4 suggestions. Are we assuming in #1 that forcing people to apply will keep the noncommittal or undecided from applying altogether?

I think #1 would actually make point creep worse (at least for each state's prized hunt codes) now that these point schemes are so mature and the point-buyers are so invested. Having half the crowd on the sidelines makes predicting future draws absurdly difficult, but it does serve to keep a lot of points out of the game each application cycle.

Without derailing the thread too much, I’d love to hear your reasoning behind #1. And, yeah, 2, 3, and 4 … I wish every state would adopt those immediately.

Looking forward to the videos. I'm like a moth to a flame when it comes to these point-scheme discussions.

 

[WapitiBob]

Except everyone born after 1999. Those ideas would definitely slow creep, but I doubt it would stop creep and certainly not reverse it. The system is not sustainable long term. So how long do the states wait to change it? I have points all over and would gladly give up everyone of them to see hunters of all ages put on the same playing field.

Since we're talking WY and with the reality check that points aren't going away; Wife, daughter, brother, hunting partner, and me, all have the same or fewer points than someone born after 1999 and every one of us can hunt multiple species in 2023. Take advantage of the system in place and get on with life.

 

[WildWill]

Since we're talking WY and with the reality check that points aren't going away; Wife, daughter, brother, hunting partner, and me, all have the same or fewer points than someone born after 1999 and every one of us can hunt multiple species in 2023. Take advantage of the system in place and get on with life.

I do and am grateful for the opportunities those states offer. Dosen't mean I can't wish for something better. I was talking about point systems in general not just Wyoming.


Let me give a little example using Colorado the oldest there for most broken system. A guy born in 1999 couldn't get a point till 2011 if his parents were buying them for him and most realistically don't start buying points till early to mid twenties. Let's say this kid was quicker then most and started buying at 16 he'd have 8 points today. How long till he could draw a bull tag in unit 2, 76, or 66? Could he ever draw those tags in his life? I know people don't have to hunt the best "trophy" units to have a great hunt but should they be excluded for no other reason than they were born after xxxx date? And it won't stop with top tier units eventually mid tier units will be 20+pp. Hell at this rate the Wyoming general will be a once in a lifetime for anyone born after 2020. Many hunts older guy's were able to do frequently if not annually over the last 40 years are now once or twice if at all in your life trips

Also never say never! The moment states figure out a system that makes more money then selling points that will be what they go with.

 

[mxracer317]

What is y’alls thoughts on the fact that perhaps a lot of these point buyers are baby boomers and they won’t end up going due to health, age, etc? Wouldn’t that clean out a lot of the point creep issue?

 

[Big Fin]

@Big Fin , can you expound a little on your #1 proposal? Wouldn’t this just drive everyone interested/invested simply to apply for the most difficult hunts to draw and, thus, actually fuel point creep for those top-tier hunt codes? I absolutely agree with your #2, #3, and #4 suggestions. Are we assuming in #1 that forcing people to apply will keep the noncommittal or undecided from applying altogether?

I think #1 would actually make point creep worse (at least for each state's prized hunt codes) now that these point schemes are so mature and the point-buyers are so invested. Having half the crowd on the sidelines makes predicting future draws absurdly difficult, but it does serve to keep a lot of points out of the game each application cycle.

Without derailing the thread too much, I’d love to hear your reasoning behind #1. And, yeah, 2, 3, and 4 … I wish every state would adopt those immediately.

Looking forward to the videos. I'm like a moth to a flame when it comes to these point-scheme discussions.

Yup, I think #1 would have a short-term increase in point creep for those highest demand hunts, like you mention. And like you also mention, I think (my thoughts could well be wrong) it would force the hand for those noncommittal or undecided folks. The biggest impact would likely (assumption on my part) come by sorting out the the non-hunting folks for whom points are bought that will be shared with with "someone," and that "someone" is the person paying for the points. That is why I say if 2-4 were adopted, #1 would probably be moot.

A bit more explanation of #1, which might be me having too much time on my hands and too many spreadsheets going back too far.

This might be a false analysis on my part when I look at Colorado, but I think the Colorado point sharing rules limit how many phantom folks points are bought for. Why would you buy grandma a bunch of points, if you can't average them? You wouldn't.

I think that is part of why Colorado has a higher churn rate than WY or UT. Part of it is a function of tags issued. But, especially at the high point levels, I think the point sharing rules in WY result in a different ratio of "applicants to point buyers." Colorado has always been close to 50/50 as the ratio of applicants to point buyers. Wyoming is 20/80 in the ratio of applicants to point buyers. This WY/CO difference extends across both elk and deer.

When I look at the maturation of the WY and CO systems, WY is following a very close path to what CO was at the same stage of maturity with one big difference; that being the ratio of applicants to point buyers. I attribute that to the difference in point averaging. And part of my thinking on #1 was an attempt to smoke out some of that activity. Again, maybe I have too much time to dream up ideas based on false analysis.

I know #1 would be a hard sell to those who are collecting points for "someday," with someday being when they retire, when they have more time, when (insert here). Whether it's a change I suggest or some other proposal, every proposal is going to have people opposed because of how it impacts them.

Under #1 I think those point collecting folks would apply for the absolute best of the best hunts, hunts that already are pretty much max points in Preference Point schemes of those hunts the hardest to draw in Bonus Point schemes. That would almost be like buying a point, given how low odds some of those hunts have. But, requires everyone to be in the game.

And in some states where you have to front the money, such as Wyoming, some of the casual folks would make a different analysis when sending in the upfront cost, versus $50/$40/$30 to buy a point in July. Especially in the situations where points are being bought for the sole purpose of sharing with someone who is paying for those points. Again, probably not gonna result in a huge change, but there is not a single change that results in a huge change. Any change, if so desired, is going to come from a combination of ideas.

Probably a lot of false assumptions on my part, but that is why these are ideas for discussion. I wanted to toss ideas out there for consideration and force people to think about this stuff more. And if history repeats, the proposals with the greatest resistance are likely the changes that would have the most impact.

I agree that #2-4 would result in the greatest change, and if those were adopted #1 would be unnecessary.

 

[RobertD]

What is y’alls thoughts on the fact that perhaps a lot of these point buyers are baby boomers and they won’t end up going due to health, age, etc? Wouldn’t that clean out a lot of the point creep issue?

There are a lot of places where I think this holds true, but I doubt it's a bug enough % to make a huge difference

 

[Jape]

1. No more point buying. You have to apply for a hunt code. I know a lot of folks buy points "Because you never know when you'll need them." That's fine, but allowing such is why we have states where more applicants have been buying points than actually apply for a hunt. This would sort out who is serious about hunting. This suggestion might not be necessary if the items below were adopted.

2. Adopt the Colorado system for party apps. The party gets assigned the same point total as the lowest point holder in the group. I get that point averaging has some reasons behind it. But, when you see people online seeking strangers to share points, maybe the Colorado system is the best route. And if that was adopted, maybe #1 above wouldn't be necessary.

3. No matter how you acquire a tag, your points get reset for that species. Doesn't matter, draw tag, auction, raffle, landowner tag, whatever; you get a tag, your points go to zero. Not sure why states wouldn't allow this one. Seems to have the least negative impacts with the greatest positive impact. Again, this might eliminate a need for #1.

4. Adopt the Nevada system for hunt choices. No matter what hunt choice you draw, you burn your points. Want a general tag, an OTC tag, draw your second choice hunt, get a leftover tag, receive a returned tag or get a tag awarded to you as an alternate, you use your points in the process. Imagine what that would do in Colorado OTC elk hunting pressure or how much it would reduce point creep from folks who do OTC while also building points. Imagine what it would do in MT for the limited entry hunt codes if you lost points for using a general tag.


THIS. Preach it!

Been saying it for years......almost got strung up for even mentioning it...funny how people are not attacking you for even mentioning it.... apparently, your fin is much bigger than mine. lol

These ideas, all implemented at once, would solve a TON of the problems we are facing.

I would also add that in Colorado they need to go back to fronting the fee....that would weed out a lot of people.....

All great ideas that I REALLY like, but even with those changes I don’t think we would see an appreciable change in the problems big fin articulated. The real problems are driven by a HUGE increase in interest/demand that is nearly exclusively caused by the availability of information and the commercialization of wildlife. It is incredibly difficult to regulate that, even assuming one would want to regulate it, and thus the problem never gets fixed. The only things I foresee changing the dynamic are huge economic downturns and/or a significant decline in hunting interest.

 

[RobertD]

All great ideas that I REALLY like, but even with those changes I don’t think we would see an appreciable change in the problems big fin articulated. The real problems are driven by a HUGE increase in interest/demand that is nearly exclusively caused by the availability of information and the commercialization of wildlife. It is incredibly difficult to regulate that, even assuming one would want to regulate it, and thus the problem never gets fixed. The only things I foresee changing the dynamic are huge economic downturns and/or a significant decline in hunting interest.

I was hopeful for a long time that comments like these were cynical or even just wrong. I've come around to agree with your comment and others like it though. There's money being made and demand is still as high as ever. Nothing will change until that demand goes away by choice or by circumstances.

I do think that day will come, but it may not be soon and it may not be all good when it gets here.

 

[Jape]

I was hopeful for a long time that comments like these were cynical or even just wrong. I've come around to agree with your comment and others like it though. There's money being made and demand is still as high as ever. Nothing will change until that demand goes away by choice or by circumstances.

I do think that day will come, but it may not be soon and it may not be all good when it gets here.

I should’ve prefaced it by saying that I’m really not trying to be cynical and there are still some opportunities out there, but it really is not like it used to be and it won’t be for a very long time and we need to accept that reality. So, we do our best and hopefully we all still get some good hunting in even if we haven’t been saving points for the past 30 years.

 

[TheTone]

What is y’alls thoughts on the fact that perhaps a lot of these point buyers are baby boomers and they won’t end up going due to health, age, etc? Wouldn’t that clean out a lot of the point creep issue?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of points vs. age of buyer

My dad has been a pronghorn point buyer and he’s wanting to get rid of them sooner rather than later

 

[rmyoung1]

Yup, I think #1 would have a short-term increase in point creep for those highest demand hunts, like you mention. And like you also mention, I think (my thoughts could well be wrong) it would force the hand for those noncommittal or undecided folks. The biggest impact would likely (assumption on my part) come by sorting out the the non-hunting folks for whom points are bought that will be shared with with "someone," and that "someone" is the person paying for the points. That is why I say if 2-4 were adopted, #1 would probably be moot.

I think that is part of why Colorado has a higher churn rate than WY or UT. Part of it is a function of tags issued. But, especially at the high point levels, I think the point sharing rules in WY result in a different ratio of "applicants to point buyers." Colorado has always been close to 50/50 as the ratio of applicants to point buyers. Wyoming is 20/80 in the ratio of applicants to point buyers. This WY/CO difference extends across both elk and deer

Thanks for fleshing this out @Big Fin . I didn’t ever look into that point-buyer:applicant ratio difference between CO and other states. Pretty fascinating. SD is the only other state I know of with a CO-type party app rule. I bet they’re a lot closer to the CO ratio, but i don’t know if SD published their points-only applicant info. I’ve never seen it. Anyway, I’ll quit derailing. Sorry, OP. It’s a pretty interesting discussion, though.

 

[Mallardsx2]

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of points vs. age of buyer

Me too. But maybe I don't even want to know. lol

 

[Big Fin]

......The only things I foresee changing the dynamic are huge economic downturns and/or a significant decline in hunting interest.

If you go back through the history, the economic downturns of 2000-2002 and 2009-2011 did have an impact on applicant number, albeit temporary, but no much impact on point buying. In a downturn, the data would indicate that the folks who might be making hard financial decisions just go more to point buying to keep their place in line. Colorado history would tell me that downturns might have a short window where draw odds get better for a year or two, but those folks who stopped applying still bought points. And when the economy recovers, they jump in with even more points than they had before, so the rate of point creep accelerates once the economy starts to recover.

A new dynamic that I don't have in my history of spreadsheets is the huge increase in new resident population of favored western hunting states. I don't have any charts that show big changes in the allocation between resident/non-resident tag percentages. It happened in Oregon in 2007, but with the large price increase for the non-resident license combined with a tag reduction, it is hard to tell which caused the big drop in NR applicants. Likely both. And most of those NRs who bailed on Oregon at that time likely used that money to start applying in other states. None of this happens in a vacuum.

I think we are going to see more changes where residents start demanding more. That is why my last video focused on the changes coming in WY and CO. Those are the two most generous western states. Their past generosity also makes them the most likely to change the resident/non-resident allocation. If that happens, even if the number applicants were to decline by 10%, it would still result in huge point creep due to a much lower churn rate when less tags are allocated to NRs. And if Vegas would let me bet money on the future, I have $10,000 that says in ten years both CO and WY have reduced NR allocation, to some degree, for elk/deer/pronghorn.

CO, more than WY, is growing like crazy. Population growth is impacting herds. More residents and herds being hammered by development aren't a good sign for NRs who are making long-term plans in CO. When that happens, and I think it will, the NRs currently in "No Mans Land" of Colorado elk will regret not burning their points a long time ago. They'll never catch those units they are chasing if the NR percentage ever gets cut in CO.

To your point, history shows that economic downturns have temporary changes, only to be usurped when the economy recovers.