Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping System

What to do with 8 Wyoming elk points?

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.
Which is another reason why applying and fronting the money should be required to obtain a point.

Although, it always amazes me what some people are willing to spend on hunting. I know individuals taking out $30,000 loans to go hunt in Alaska. Absolutely insane IMO.
 
What if you did away with buying points all together. (Please keep reading) Everyone can keep the points they have if they choose too. And will use them as explained below.

Going to use WY for the below points:

1) Points would only be good for LE entry units, General tags would go 100% random.
- This would let guys wanting premium tags be in a pool with other like minded hunters.

2)If you buy a point you CAN NOT apply for a general tag.
- This would let people just wanting to hunt be in a pool. It would also eliminate the point buying to average a group in order to go more often.

3) If you skip more than 1 year of buying points you lose them all. If you draw ANY tag you lose your points.
- this would make people decide if they are going chase LE or just want to hunt.

4) Now onto the cost part as like Randy mentioned points are a HUGE cash cow with limited loss of resources.

A point would cost $200
To apply for general would be full tag price up front with a non refundable $175 fee.

Using Randy's number of 32175 new point buyers last year as the number of applicants in WY. Assuming 40% of them go point only that is 12870 point buyers for a total of $2.57mil. Now 60% apply for general or 19305 people for a total guaranteed income to state of $3.38mil.

Bringing the total income for just applicants to $5.95mil. That is $1.05mil less than what they get now. To offset that decrease raise the regular license to $1000. By raising the regular that $300 the state gains $1.3mil. And now with the roughly $600 increase in special price that is $1.74mil additional from last year.

Odds wouldn't be horrible for any of the players again using the 32175 number. 40% point buyers and 60% tag buyers.
12870 point buyers with 3675 LE NR tags in WY
- 28.5% odds. *edit I realize this is year 1 odds and those odds would decrease as the "point pool" grows. To combat that have a 3-5yr waiting period to buy points or apply for any license.


19305 tag buyers with 3575 tags
- 18.5% odds

I am guessing that those odds would probably be better for the general with more people buying points but decided on 60-40 lol.
 
Last edited:
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 think the day will happen when or real shortly after CO is no longer OTC. I think a lot of people want to "try" elk hunting and having CO so easy to get a tag allows this. Now that's not a bad thing at all. But in today's instant gratification ways I think a lot won't have the interest knowing they have to plan and wait until they have the points to go.
 
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.
My problem with proposal one would be there has been a argument we need more hunters and the fact that it would eliminate a group of hunters that may not be able to afford to apply every year and front the tag fees but want to build points and be able to hunt every 3 to 5 years.

I see it similiar to the wyoming special draw its a mechanism to allow hunters with more funds to obtain a a tag easier maybe I am looking at it wrong but that's just how I see it.

2 through 4 I think would eliminate the need for 1 and would work well
 
For WY application year 2020, there were:
82,833 antelope "point only" purchases, at $31ea; $2,567,823
91,527 Deer "point only" purchases at $41ea; $3,752,607
97,275 Elk "point only" purchases at $52ea; $5,058,300
that's 11.3 million in 2020

And this is just the revenue from people who only bought a point and didn’t apply for a hunt.
That money isn't going away quietly. When the legislature pulled 6-8 million in gen funds a few years ago, the dept instantly added the 2.5% cc app surcharge. If you want points to away you’ll need to find a way to replace that money.
 
Last edited:
For WY application year 2020, there were:
82,833 antelope "point only" purchases, at $31ea; $2,567,823
91,527 Deer "point only" purchases at $41ea; $3,752,607
97,275 Elk "point only" purchases at $52ea; $5,058,300
that's 11.3 million in 2020

And this is just the revenue from people who only bought a point and didn’t apply for a hunt.
That money isn't going away quietly. When the legislature pulled 6-8 million in gen funds a few years ago, the dept instantly added the 2.5% cc app surcharge. If you want points to away you’ll need to find a way to replace that money.
Sad and true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zim
I am also in no man’s land… I just put in and hope to grab a random tag… I have 14 deer… what do you do with those??? I have applied for some limited entry and yet hear, burn ‘em on G or H… Epic crew didn’t even have much to say cuz there is not a “trophy” unit that sticks out… yeah, 130 or 128 could produce a giant, but anywhere in Wyoming could… I say put in to try and grab a random elk tag or burn them on a fun hunt where you won’t be concerned with trophy quality (I did this with my 11 elk points in Colorado- on a muzzy tag)
 
I know that Big Fin talks often about the doomsday scenario where all the point buyers jump in and drive point creep to unprecedented extremes, but has anyone tried to measure that historically? I get that it creates a high level of uncertainty in the system, but how have these point buyers behaved historically? My impression is that a large portion of point buyers are doing so without a plan, and they will simply continue buying points and still have no plan. How often has it actually happened in the past where an event actually resulted in an appreciable spike of point buyers joining the draw? It can't be too often if 80% of Wyoming elk apps are still point-only.

QQ
 
BP and BP-squared/cubed states may never need to make major changes.

The PP states will slowly catch on and convert to some type of BP/random model (as WY seems to be doing). AZ added the 5/5 NR split, etc.

CPW will be the last to understand. They're slow like that.

I will be shocked if any state has the courage to abandon a points system and somehow unwind to 100% random.

It's not a straightforward 4 point solution for every system. Each state is messy in its own unique ways.

God Bless NM and AK. Purposely omitting Idaho over their distribution foolishness.
 
Honestly you guys are overthinking a very simple math problem. A limited supply of NR tags and an ever growing demand. Every draw system has its pluses and minuses, but in the end there are just more people vying for the supply. I personally like bonus points, but even those draws like Nev. have drastically gone down hill over the last many years. No points states like ID or NM, yeah its all random, but that does not mean it's not going to still take you forever to draw a good tag. Yeah, sure make some tweaks, great, but its still not going to change the underlying issue.

The only real solution is to pick the state where you want to hunt the most and move there! Seriously, the days of NRs expecting good tags in other states on any frequent basis are gone! I'll keep playing the game as will my 20 year old son(Who has drawn AZ unit 1 elk as well as NM 34 by the time he was 18) for those little nuggets here and there, but I will also make the move to WY because I want to hunt and live there.

If you think there is some sort of "solution" to NR tags that will somehow bring things back to the way it used to be. Sorry, it ain't happening.
 
A guy with 8 should have already burned them 2-3 times on general tags! Truth.
Yeah yeah I hear ya, but I have WY resident friends that hunt a draw unit (unit 7) I have hunted it 3 times for cows with my buddies over the past 8years. My plan was to use the knowledge gained while cow hunting to find a great bull once drawn. When I started putting it it only took 5 points to draw, I figured I’d catch the creep before now, but I was wrong. Currently unit 7 takes 11 points. I have 3-4 other options with 8 points. I put in every year. Additionally, I’ve been drawn for elk in AZ, OR and MT and for deer in UT, OR, CA, NV, and AZ; additionally I’ve drawn pronghorn in WY and ID…not to mention my whitetail farm that I hunt every year in November…during those 8 years…so it’s not like WY is my only option to spend my available vacation days.
 
Last edited:
Yeah yeah I hear ya, but I have WY resident friends that hunt a draw unit (unit 7) I have hunted it 3 times for cows with my buddies over the past 8years. My plan was to use the knowledge gained while cow hunting to find a great bull once drawn. When I started putting it it only took 5 points to draw, I figured I’d catch the creep before now, but I was wrong. Currently unit 7 takes 11 points. I have 3-4 other options with 8 points. I put in every year. Additionally, I’ve been drawn for elk in AZ, OR and MT and for deer in UT, OR, CA, NV, and AZ; additionally I’ve drawn pronghorn in WY and ID…not to mention my whitetail farm that I hunt every year in November…during those 8 years…so it’s not like WY is my only option to spend my available vacation days.

Yeah I get it. My 20 year old son has 9 points, but he just has not had the time yet. Now he's in a place where I don't like any of his options under 10-11. I'm hoping the special increase goes thru and I can buy him one good WY tag in his life. I have hunted WY 8 times for bulls over the last 12 years. 3 LE and 5 general. If he was not young(he also wants to hunt the WY desert once) I would put in for general with him and feel 100% confident in getting him on a bull like this WY general bull. Most WY LE hunts are just easier, not necessarily better. I mean in terms of what sort of DYI bull the average hunter will take home.
 

Attachments

  • horns.jpg
    horns.jpg
    304.4 KB · Views: 56
My mind is numb after reading all of the replies. However, I appreciate everyone who chimed in. It has made me more aware of the current status of preference points.

I personally have a strategic plan in place for where and when I will hunt elk in the western states. I am accumulating points in some states as I hunt in others. i.e AZ, UT, CO and MT. (I should be hunting in CO this fall in a LE unit that only takes a couple of points, and probably will return to that same unit or another in CO in my off years in MT, and probably WY) My plan is "long term", and extends over the next 16 years (to age 70). I realize I'm not hunting some of the trophy units in some years, but I'm hunting and who knows what the future will hold in terms of some of the states where I'm accumulating points. I agree with the statement, "that, it will change". However, I am not going to stop purchasing points because of possible "fall out" in the tag allocation.

I do support the idea of a higher fee to purchase a point and not enter the draw. As a NR, "you have to pay to play", otherwise stay home.
 
The funny thing is that the state agencies don’t need more money. So I wouldn’t want to be the guy with the “increase the fees to eliminate the competition bellow”. In essence, increasing the fires heat…..I think that’s the wrong path.

Perhaps forcing people to apply and front the tag fees in every is the answer. If you don’t apply, you don’t get a point. Strictly buying points, clearly isn’t sustainable but it clearly is a lucrative business.

What needs to happen in Colorado is people need to loose their points for ANY male or either sex tag drawn, regardless of what stage of the draw they draw if.

It’s all a mess. That’s for sure.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,675
Messages
2,029,371
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT
Back
Top