Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping System

What to do with 8 Wyoming elk points?

Birddog916 said:
Hi Hunttalkers,
I'm interested in burning my Wyoming elk points and I'm considering 4-5 different units. I started to save points 8 years ago when the unit I've been applying for only took 5 points to draw...now it takes 11 and it seems I'm not really catching up. I have hunted that unit 3 times for cows, but am giving up on drawing a bull tag there. I'd rather hunt bulls now that wait especially with all the talk of changing the non-resident tag allocations. In a perfect world, I would like to avoid wilderness areas because we are DIY kind of guys but would consider a drop camp situation it that get us into the wilderness, have a success rate at or above 40% and have an opportunity to hunt both the archery and rifle seasons (type 1 or 2 tag). There will be 2 of us. I'm seeking input about specific units and would like do reach out to hunttalkers who know Wyoming well. I'm not interested in specific locations rather general information about specific units. Right now I'm considering units in the bighorns, one in the northwest, and one in the eastern central part of the state. I'd rather not post the unit names of units for all the typical reasons. I do have Gohunt and have already narrowed it down, but there seems to be negative information around the internet about nearly every unit we are considering.

I do not care about grizzly bears, wolves or lions....I do care about overcrowding, lack of access, and success rates. If anyone is willing to chat with me it would be much appreciated please reach out by messenger.

Joe
Click to expand...
99, 39, 35 are good areas in your point range.
 
8 points. Hmmphh.
I have 10 and I still cannot get to where I want to go
 
Big Fin said:
That is why I think Idaho (and NM and AK) should be commended for resisting that feel-good temptation of a point scheme, with schemes mostly pressed for by old gray-haired farts worried they won't get their fourth moose tag before they're done. If ever you see that idea again taking hold in ID, please use these platforms to combat such foolishness.

This same analysis I provided above holds true for the preference part of the UT system and the entire CO system. Just different churn rates due to different tag numbers, different numbers/percentages of non-residents as point collectors, and different maturity of the system based on how long it has been in place.

My Colorado spreadsheets are the oldest. They are a great historical road map to what happens as preference point schemes mature. And that history supports the same conclusion you and the Idaho bios came to. We are not many years away from some folks having applied long enough to accumulate 40 elk points in the Colorado system.
Click to expand...
@Big Fin Serious question… with your industry connections, i.e. RMEF, how difficult would it be for you to talk to upper brass at these states and propose a plan to fix it? Forgive me for being totally ignorant on this question.
 
mxracer317 said:
@Big Fin Serious question… with your industry connections, i.e. RMEF, how difficult would it be for you to talk to upper brass at these states and propose a plan to fix it? Forgive me for being totally ignorant on this question.
Click to expand...
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?"
 
Hunters need to take a long look in the mirror when they decide they need a top-tier tag and then complain that the line is long to get there.

Hunters are notoriously terrible at cost/benefit analysis. If a hunt is "not worth the points it takes to draw," then apply for a tag with better value.

QQ
 
States could implement a process to donate accumulated points to charitable or 501(c)(3) organizations that support outdoor activities for veterans and handicapped hunters - much like donating a drawn tag.

Donor gets tax writeoff for value of donated points. Donee organization accumulates points for possible draw for veterans and handicapped hunters in future draw. Thinking out loud…
 
With so many point only buyers jumping in this year it will be interesting. I probably won’t get what we want but might as well try for it. Thanks to everyone that responded. Good luck in application season.
 
To add to the above ideas, there has been mention many times over the years the idea of "point banking" in CO. This one is controversial, usually depending on where one sits in terms of points. Would it help take pressure off high point areas, put more hunters through the system, or only stand to wreck odds in midpoint hunts?

Also, with regard to CO again, have NO option to return your tag except with extreme medical circumstances that are documented. Too many people apply willy nilly knowing they can return the tag if they end up drawing something else or conditions just aren't looking great leading up to the hunt. And they can keep their points! The ability to return tags so easily should be ended.

In terms of "fixing it" - there is no fix as long as demand far exceeds supply, only creative ways to help alleviate it.
 
Last edited:
Big Fin said:
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?"
Click to expand...
Meanwhile Colorado is again considering point banking 🤦‍♂️
 
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.....
 
Big Fin said:
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?"
Click to expand...
I’d say that is an excellent explanation and fantastic ideas.

I realize pretty much each State has their own mess to deal with, but an advocate like yourself who directly suggests any of those ideas with “decision makers” might get the ball moving in the right direction?

Either way, thank you for your reply.
 
I think a very interesting number to watch in the next few years will be the churn rate due to other reasons (ie not drawing). According to Randy's spreadsheet, that was 11,795 last year. How many are going to throw in the towel when we see another big creep? How many boomers are going to age out or have health issues?

One last thought, I wonder how the demographics of the top +-2,000 point holders differ from those with 1 point? Is the new class more or less likely to be responsible hunters who actively support conservation and public lands? How many of these "new" hunters are just the same hunters as before but applying in more and more states?
 
Big Fin said:
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?"
Click to expand...
Whole-heartedly agree on all of your points, no pun intended.

When Washington went to not fronting the cost of the OIL tags, moose, sheep and goat, the applicants increased dramatically, bad idea. I feel if you are a dedicated hunter, then put your money where your mouth is, pay up front. With our point system in WA, many of the elk and deer hunts could also be classified as once in a lifetime. I have been applying for over 25 years for the big three and have serious doubts of drawing before my death.

The system all across the West is screwed up and agree that it won't get better unless major changes are implemented that will upset many people, and that "getting better" won't be like going back to the good old days of getting a tag every few years, but more like drawing a tag before you are too old to do it justice.
 
Big Fin said:
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?"
Click to expand...
3 and 4 are without question winners.

I’m always surprised that many states don’t have any sort of waiting period after you acquire a limited entry tag. Seems to me even making people sit out one year after acquiring a tag would help cycle people through faster. I’m sure outfitters would truly hate not having the repeat clients each year
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
NM elk archery vs rifle hunting?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Vanishe187
Vanishe187
BQ12
Solo Elk Hunt in Colorado: Am I About to Embark on a Glorious Disaster?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
3K
BQ12
BQ12
POk3s
Any Missouri River Breaks Experts
2 3
Replies
55
Views
4K
BuckRut
BuckRut
icefish
Wyoming Cow Elk
Replies
14
Views
2K
homer1983
H
recon6036
Tag or Refund
Replies
7
Views
527
Gynaroo
G
Advertisement

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,467
Messages
2,022,428
Members
36,182
Latest member
Corsen

Share this page

Back
Top