A Way to Repair Broken Points Systems?

gallagher71

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
82
I have a point system solution question phrased in the form of an idea.

It's based upon some assumptions. They are as follows:

Assumption #1 - There are many states today where the "Point Creep" phenomena along with the amount of 10+ point holders causes lots of people (like me) to completely dismiss ever pursuing a tag requiring points in those states. As a result, many opt out of buying points in those states. Think Utah, Nevada, etc.

Assumption #2 - States see point buyers as a revenue source without an expense. Especially non-resident point buyers. (There's no additional cost to a state who sells a tag to someone whether the hunter had no points or 10 points.) However, the hunter with 10 points paid a 10-year annuity to the state that the zero point hunter didn't.

Assumption #3 - Maximizing engaged hunters in a state (and point buyers) is good for hunting, access, conservation, and state budgets so long as natural resources are managed well.

The IDEA:
Going forward, in one of the western states we'll call "Huntingland", no individual can accumulate more than 10 points. If you have 27 points today, you can keep them by applying for a tag or paying the point fee, but you cannot accumulate more points. If you have 0 points or 9 points, you can purchase a point and have one more for next year. But whether you were unsuccessful in the draw or you pay the point fee, you can't get past 10 points going forward.

Wouldn't the results be as follows:

For the benefit of Huntingland:
1. Hunters like me who are newer to the game start buying and building points in Huntingland. Many more of us start paying the state every year for our points. This provides a direct benefit to the residents of the state of Huntingland.

2. More hunters are planning to come to Huntingland because more of us are actively buying points to get there. This also benefits the residents of Huntingland.


For the benefit of high point holders today:
1. High point holders don't lose their place in line. There's no random carveout of tags that are taken from higher pointholders and given to everyone else.

2. Nobody is forced to use it or lose it. Your points are yours. If you can't hunt for the next five years, pay your point fee and preserve your points to save your place in line. Nobody sneaks past you because nobody gets more points after 10.

For the benefit of low point holders today:
1. Point creep has an end. Burning through the 10+ point holders will cause greater higher point applications in premium units, but the pain is temporary. The level of the peril of each state's point system determines the length of the "short-term" pain. But because point creep does end, buying points no longer becomes an exercise in futility.

2. Point holders with 3 or 4 points have a path to get to "max points" of 10 within a finite period. Even Utah, who's point system has decades of pointholders who aren't hunters, has 11,000+ pointholders with 10+ points. It would take those pointholders 6.7 years to work through the system if they all started applying for tags next year. But when I have 10 points and the decks are cleared of most of the 10+ pointholders and nobody's accumulating more than 10 points, I'm the new max point holder along with my 10-point peers. There's many more people with max points but the points get used.

For everyone:
1. Planning a hunt in Huntingland becomes realistic. There will be plenty of 10-point holders but it's attainable for all.

2. More income for Huntingland as more jump in to buy points because it's now reasonable to assume they can be used means more dollars for habitat, access, and management. More of these lead to more opportunity and better quality hunts.

By the way...10 points is an arbitrary number I used for illustrative purposes. Different states, depending upon their points distributions and non-resident limited entry tag counts, need to model the best figure for each of their states.

Okay, I'm missing something because smarter people than me have been trying to solve this. Please educate me. What am I not considering?
 

ImBillT

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
3,160
Too complicated.

Just eliminate the purchase of any new points and make 50%-90% of the tags random. If you don’t apply, you lose your points. In other words, to maintain your points, you must attempt to draw a tag. The same percentage of people get tags every year regardless of point scheme, but if you stop selling points, then current point holders lose no advantage they do not currently have, but eventually new entrants will be at no disadvantage compared to anyone else.

Are you missing something? One of is. I was thinking that last time I checked it would take over 120yrs to get each current point holder in UT one elk tag. How did you come to 6.7?
 
Last edited:

bpeay4

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2021
Messages
37
Location
Moscow, Idaho
I feel like eventually the number of people with max points would be be very high and the draw for most tags would basically be random. Not necessarily a bad thing but you would being paying the point fee just to participate in a random draw. It's one way to level the playing field though. At this we point we are lucky if something in point systems ever change for the better.
 

gallagher71

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
82
Too complicated.

Just eliminate the purchase of any new points and make 50%-90% of the tags random. If you don’t apply, you lose your points. In other words, to maintain your points, you must attempt to draw a tag. The same percentage of people get tags every year regardless of point scheme, but if you stop selling points, then current point holders lose no advantage they do not currently have, but eventually new entrants will be at no disadvantage compared to anyone else.

Are you missing something? One of is. I was thinking that last time I checked it would take over 120yrs to get each current point holder in UT one elk tag. How did you come to 6.7?
This solutions sounds good but two problems:

1. No way a state turns off the moneystream from points. Especially points only. When a point costs $50 or more when a license is required, the point revenue for a 7 point tag is more than the tag fee itself.

2. Making 50% to 90% of tags random in a previously true preference point state doesn't work. Can't bait and switch those point buyers who've invested in points for 15, 20, or even 30 years in some states by diluting their pool to those levels.

120 years includes ALL point holders. There are 11,759 pointholders with 10 or more points and 17,000 total LE tags issued annually (of which 10% are available to nonresidents.) 11,759 divided by 1,700 = 6.9 years and not 6.7. I stand corrected.
 
Last edited:

gallagher71

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
82
I feel like eventually the number of people with max points would be be very high and the draw for most tags would basically be random. Not necessarily a bad thing but you would being paying the point fee just to participate in a random draw. It's one way to level the playing field though. At this we point we are lucky if something in point systems ever change for the better.
I agree you are right. You'd end up with a random draw from the 10-point holders for a lot of tags. But since there's no likely path where states will forgo the free point revenue they receive in these systems, it's a solution that puts an end to creep at the max 10-point level.

I'd rather have a random draw at 10 points and allow access back to more states than perpetual point creep with no clear end.
 

gallagher71

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
82
Damn, the horse just never stops getting beaten.
You could be right...but then again, consider the following:

Here in Liberal Minnesota, my permit to carry application was rejected in 2004 because I didn't show adequate cause for concern of personal harm even though as a business-owner I was couriering over $30,000 in cash and checks per trip on a weekly basis. Post-Heller case, I hold a Minnesota permit to carry and I haven't couriered anything since 2008. I'm grateful everyone didn't throw up their hands and consider 2A issues dead.

If the system is broken, we should be identifying it, discussing why, and finding ways to fix it. I believe that's a key ingredient in the recipe that's made the US uniquely special.
 

HighCountryCommando

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
101
Current point holders keep all their points. Everybody plays by the following new rules.

(1) You draw a point for that species and tag type, when you apply for that specific species and tag type. No more buying points without applying.

(2) Miss two years in a row applying and you lose your points.

(3) 50% of tags are a random draw.
 

Buffs35

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
737
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
How about no OTC for NR, limit Colo to 90/10 split, and only residents can receive a tag in units that take more than 5 resident points. Increase the costs on nr tags to make up the difference. Then Colo could get rid of it's points system for NR, go random for NR. Your problem is solved. (rolls eyes)

Of course, if you don't like our systems, you could just not apply. No one is forcing you to apply. Also, if you are only interested in glory tags, and can't find value in readily available tags, maybe western hunting isn't for you.
 

runningmt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
716
Here's a crazy idea: If you don't like a state's draw system, don't apply. They are what they are.
Yup

Points or no points, odds suck for most, making it “better” really means “better for me” which almost certainly means worse for someone else.

This conversation seems akin to wondering how we can make it fair for everyone who didn’t buy Apple stock in 1980
 

BenInMT

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Messages
382
Location
Western Montana
Good luck taking the cash cow away from the bureaucrats who have gone so far as to hire influencers to pump up the number of applicants when there is already way more demand than supply.
 

gallagher71

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
82
Current point holders keep all their points. Everybody plays by the following new rules.

(1) You draw a point for that species and tag type, when you apply for that specific species and tag type. No more buying points without applying.

(2) Miss two years in a row applying and you lose your points.

(3) 50% of tags are a random draw.
I like it. Couple thoughts.

1. Not much difference whether someone buys a point or applies for a glory tag they'll never draw to get their point.

2. Tough to change the rules to only offer 50 percent of tags to the higher point holders. They didn't do anything wrong but send a lot of money to the state.
 

gallagher71

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
82
Good luck taking the cash cow away from the bureaucrats who have gone so far as to hire influencers to pump up the number of applicants when there is already way more demand than supply.
I think cash goes up. I don't buy points in NV or UT right now because I'll never be able to use them. I'm a buyer for 10 years of I'm a random max point applicant when I get my 10.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
102,468
Messages
1,651,784
Members
32,004
Latest member
Bowhuntn50
Top