A Way to Repair Broken Points Systems?

[Zim]

I would agree with most of your post, but I for one don't think point systems suck. I love the fact that I can reasonably predict what tags I get. I will gladly pay for points, and even accumulate more than I need, in order to plan my hunting calendar.

I agree. Only took me 27 years, but I am now very glad to be in a position where I can reasonably predict where I will draw for the next five years. Not all slammer but very good hunts. And on top of this just had a son move to Colorado so I know we can visit him during all five trips. Three en route, two actually in Colorado. Will burn points in the order of where I think they are the most likely to be cheapened first. CO & WY. Lol

 

[brownbear932008]

Here's a solution: Triple tag fees across the board. Every state. Every tag. There you go. Just fixed it. The guys who TRULY want to do it will make it happen.

Worst idea ever when we exclude large portions of this sports participants because of financial status. Pricing out the average Joe is very bad in the end. It's already happening across the board and will one day be the end of it IMO.
We really need to think about what is happening the last several years with this sport we love. It's gonna eventually get torn apart from the greed that we all feed into in hopes of having that dream tag or that dream hunt.

 

[brownbear932008]

100% agree. If you are 40yrs old and don’t have 15+ points in multiple states for multiple species, it’s not my fault. If you don’t have max pts in Wy for deer, elk and antelope? Not my fault. You had the chance to get in on the ground floor. If you are under 40, start applying now cause it might not change

But see this is exactly where these systems are flawed. It's not your fault it's the States fault for not fully thinking long term on how they set up the systems. If you are in the under 40 crowd you are at a huge disadvantage and have practically zero chance at a large portion of these available tags. Bad news when your not bringing in new blood. As a matter of fact for many top tier units the over 40 crowd will never see a tag as well.

 

[BenInMT]

Between this crap and the "Destroy All Non Residents" thread by @BenInMT thread we are in some desperate need of some draw results. Can we get some successfuls/unsuccessfuls and "I don't want your honey holes but would take a peek at them if you don't mind and will never log back in or respond" threads coming again please? Looking at you AZ...

I don’t understand why many of you feel so entitled to the ability to hunt all over the place. A lot of it comes off as greed, particularly the people who are shooting multiple bull elk each year. Just because you can doesn’t necessarily mean you should. I am trying not to impose my moral values upon others but to me it doesn’t seem right that some should take so much, take the food from the mouths of others and not even consume that food but donate it or whatever makes them feel good about the arrangement. Killing for the sake of killing, or to boost your ego, or boost your followers on social media- its not good. It’s not good for your karma. Some might call it sociopathic, to fly halfway around the world just to kill something. So if you wanna know how I feel go ahead and keep tagging me into these random threads and I will give you my unvarnished opinion which is all that this is. One day you may have to own up to all your killing, was it just?

 

[Maverick1]

four pages of this nonsense

now at six pages of this nonsense.

 

[gallagher71]

I think you missed my point. My point was simply that I do not subscribe to the idea that we should simply raise the price of tags enough to price out a significant portion of applicants thus improving draw odds. I don’t think that is the right way to distribute a public resource.

It is funny that I have seen a couple people on this forum who absolutely despise landowner tags, auction tags, raffle tags, etc. be the very people advocating for the raising prices enough to reduce the number of applicants. They want their money to buy them a tag that you cannot, but they don’t want to buy that tag

I think you missed my point. My point was simply that I do not subscribe to the idea that we should simply raise the price of tags enough to price out a significant portion of applicants thus improving draw odds. I don’t think that is the right way to distribute a public resource.

It is funny that I have seen a couple people on this forum who absolutely despise landowner tags, auction tags, raffle tags, etc. be the very people advocating for the raising prices enough to reduce the number of applicants. They want their money to buy them a tag that you cannot, but they don’t want to buy that tag from a landowner.

Understood (I think.) My point is a priority landowner tag with a trespass fee v. a priority guide tag with a outfitter fee are both more expensive hunts that price some out of the tag.

I don't like pricing folks out of hunting. However, the scarcity will be metered by something. It's time, dollars, or both. Right now, some current systems take dollars from people who will never get a chance to use their points. Some payers get nothing (ever) for the money which is subsidizing others who do. Capping a point total at a number like 10 points allows everyone who was serious enough about hunting to invest their $50 each year to participate in the jump ball. I'd rather see $50 x 10 years plus a tag fee than for a tag fee to go up another $500 because many can't or won't budget to make that work. Folks who don't wait to wait the 10 years get to bail earlier by applying for the less popular tags.

I agree MORE hunters is BETTER for hunting. Even if I have less chance to get a tag.

 

[BlakeA]

I don’t understand why many of you feel so entitled to the ability to hunt all over the place. A lot of it comes off as greed, particularly the people who are shooting multiple bull elk each year. Just because you can doesn’t necessarily mean you should. I am trying not to impose my moral values upon others but to me it doesn’t seem right that some should take so much, take the food from the mouths of others and not even consume that food but donate it or whatever makes them feel good about the arrangement. Killing for the sake of killing, or to boost your ego, or boost your followers on social media- its not good. It’s not good for your karma. Some might call it sociopathic, to fly halfway around the world just to kill something. So if you wanna know how I feel go ahead and keep tagging me into these random threads and I will give you my unvarnished opinion which is all that this is. One day you may have to own up to all your killing, was it just?

Non residents just living rent free in your head

 

[gallagher71]

now at six pages of this nonsense.

My grandfather, just before his 19th birthday, left a teaching college in North Dakota to enlisted in the US Navy. Four weeks later, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Months later, he was piloting a dive bomber on a carrier in the Atlantic. He was shot down and pulled out of the Atlantic once and pushed off the deck of his own carrier a second time when his plane wouldn't start because the carrier was under attack and all the aircraft needed to be launched (he was in the way.) Reading his log book is a treasured privilege. He returned to the US after the war to get his engineering degree, start a business and continued to serve in the USNR for several years.

While he was alive, he often told me the following:

Small minds talk about people.
Average minds talk about events.
Great minds talk about ideas.

Not all of his ideas were as good as his best ideas. But his funeral was attended by many who remarked at his perseverance as much as his accomplishments. I'm not as intelligent as he was. I don't have the perseverance he did. I will likely never understand the challenges faced by him and others in that era.

But he did teach me to focus on ideas so I might have the blessing of being around others with great minds because I learn from those people.

In my 50 years of life, I have learned...this type of comment isn't that idea discussion he was teaching me to pursue. It does demonstrate one's ability to count to six though.

 

[BenInMT]

Non residents just living rent free in your head

Did that shoe fit you all too well?

 

[ImBillT]

Understood (I think.) My point is a priority landowner tag with a trespass fee v. a priority guide tag with a outfitter fee are both more expensive hunts that price some out of the tag.

I don't like pricing folks out of hunting. However, the scarcity will be metered by something. It's time, dollars, or both. Right now, some current systems take dollars from people who will never get a chance to use their points. Some payers get nothing (ever) for the money which is subsidizing others who do. Capping a point total at a number like 10 points allows everyone who was serious enough about hunting to invest their $50 each year to participate in the jump ball. I'd rather see $50 x 10 years plus a tag fee than for a tag fee to go up another $500 because many can't or won't budget to make that work. Folks who don't wait to wait the 10 years get to bail earlier by applying for the less popular tags.

I agree MORE hunters is BETTER for hunting. Even if I have less chance to get a tag.

I’m lost trying to figure out how capping points at ten is going to increase opportunity and decrease the number of people who apply for life and never draw. That doesn’t change regardless of system. No matter what the system, tags/hunters=opportunity. Point systems(in the long run) simply make it so that the lucky X% don’t go hunting until they are members of AARP. X% never changes.

IN THE SHORT TERM those who enter a point system on the ground floor essentially enter a random system(everyone has zero points) in which the number of applicants cannot increase until they draw a tag(because everyone behind them will have fewer points). The lucky will draw top tier tags within a few years AND THEN they can apply for very good second tier units that will someday cost 20pts while everyone who didn’t draw in the first few years doesn’t want to burn their points on a mid tier unit and scraps for the top. As mid tier units climb in point cost, the lucky ones who drew the top tier first can now shift a little lower and continue hunting almost every year while they wait for the system to mature. The unlucky still entered a random system(they all started at zero) in which the applicant pool is ever decreasing(no one has MORE point if you haven’t drawn yet). Eventually the system stabilizes and only the elderly hunt good units.

Just make it random. Those who skip applying for a few years will have lost an opportunity to draw in those years. Those who apply for the most years will draw the most tags. Those who do not want to hunt this year will have no opportunity to jump ahead in the line because there is no line.

 

[BlakeA]

Did that shoe fit you all too well?

 

[gallagher71]

I’m lost trying to figure out how capping points at ten is going to increase opportunity and decrease the number of people who apply for life and never draw. That doesn’t change regardless of system. No matter what the system, tags/hunters=opportunity. Point systems(in the long run) simply make it so that the lucky X% don’t go hunting until they are members of AARP. X% never changes.

IN THE SHORT TERM those who enter a point system on the ground floor essentially enter a random system(everyone has zero points) in which the number of applicants cannot increase until they draw a tag(because everyone behind them will have fewer points). The lucky will draw top tier tags within a few years AND THEN they can apply for very good second tier units that will someday cost 20pts while everyone who didn’t draw in the first few years doesn’t want to burn their points on a mid tier unit and scraps for the top. As mid tier units climb in point cost, the lucky ones who drew the top tier first can now shift a little lower and continue hunting almost every year while they wait for the system to mature. The unlucky still entered a random system(they all started at zero) in which the applicant pool is ever decreasing(no one has MORE point if you haven’t drawn yet). Eventually the system stabilizes and only the elderly hunt good units.

Just make it random. Those who skip applying for a few years will have lost an opportunity to draw in those years. Those who apply for the most years will draw the most tags. Those who do not want to hunt this year will have no opportunity to jump ahead in the line because there is no line.

Making it random to me sounds great. But that's not the promise the state made to the guy who's currently been buying points for 20 years and playing by the rules. Capping points earned so nobody gets any more after they reach 10 gets everyone into the jump ball for the highest demand tags within 10 years with the elite point holders still getting the preference they paid for for a long time. It also allows the trustees of the state wildlife trust to preserve the point revenues for their beneficiaries, the resident hunters where a random system without points doesn't.

Point revenues are a way for states to collect more from nonresidents for the benefit of residents. That is what the job of the trustees is. We residents don't have a right to even hunt in the other states. We're buying the privilege with the point and additional tag revenues.

 

[ImBillT]

Making it random to me sounds great. But that's not the promise the state made to the guy who's currently been buying points for 20 years and playing by the rules. Capping points earned so nobody gets any more after they reach 10 gets everyone into the jump ball for the highest demand tags within 10 years with the elite point holders still getting the preference they paid for for a long time. It also allows the trustees of the state wildlife trust to preserve the point revenues for their beneficiaries, the resident hunters where a random system without points doesn't.

Point revenues are a way for states to collect more from nonresidents for the benefit of residents. That is what the job of the trustees is. We residents don't have a right to even hunt in the other states. We're buying the privilege with the point and additional tag revenues.

Stop selling new points! Make the rest random or convert current points that have some preference component into pure bonus points.

States make a lot more money on license sales than application fees, which for most states results in a point. The total license sales would not likely dip significantly. I might draw elk in AZ and stop applying in other states, but I’d still apply for deer, pronghorn, moose and sheep. Raise license fee $10 and the app fee $2-$5 and suddenly your financial problem is solved.

 

[gallagher71]

View attachment 213962

Certainly a privilege, but not free when you do math.

In Montana, 17,000 nonresident elk and combo tags and 4,600 deer tags equals $20 million a year. Excluding B tags, base hunting licenses, conservation fees, and of course, both preference and bonus point revenues.

If a resident doesn't believe they're getting their fair share from the nonresidents, they can petition their trustees...or better yet, seek to become one.

 

[gallagher71]

Stop selling new points! Make the rest random or convert current points that have some preference component into pure bonus points.

States make a lot more money on license sales than application fees, which for most states results in a point. The total license sales would not likely dip significantly. I might draw elk in AZ and stop applying in other states, but I’d still apply for deer, pronghorn, moose and sheep. Raise license fee $10 and the app fee $2-$5 and suddenly your financial problem is solved.

Tough to start carving out Utah elk tags to random when they have so many 10+ pointholders today that if 100% of tags issued for the next 6 years only went to them, there would be no others left in limited entry draws. Tough to sell licenses to people with no point sales and no tags for the next 6+ years.
Utah numbers for 2021: (UT is the only one I calculated at length because it was one of the more "broken" point systems)

15,174 nonresident points sold @ $10 plus the $72 license required to buy the point.
Total point revenue is $1.244 million

1,750 non-resident elk tags sold @ $1,000 plus the $72 license required.
Total tag revenue is $1.876 million.

Bonus point revenue for UT looks like about 40% of total revenue for elk.

Random would be great but a commitment's been made to the past point buyers and the state's not going to forgo the revenue for six or seven years to get there.

Granted Utah is more challenging than some other states with issues. However, states will struggle with forging that revenue for even a couple years even if they decided it were the right thing to do.

The 10-point cap was an arbitrary number intended to preserve the preference for the higher pointholders they've purchased while metering the lower pointholders into the jump ball.

 

[ImBillT]

Tough to start carving out Utah elk tags to random when they have so many 10+ pointholders today that if 100% of tags issued for the next 6 years only went to them, there would be no others left in limited entry draws. Tough to sell licenses to people with no point sales and no tags for the next 6+ years.
Utah numbers for 2021: (UT is the only one I calculated at length because it was one of the more "broken" point systems)

15,174 nonresident points sold @ $10 plus the $72 license required to buy the point.
Total point revenue is $1.244 million

1,750 non-resident elk tags sold @ $1,000 plus the $72 license required.
Total tag revenue is $1.876 million.

Bonus point revenue for UT looks like about 40% of total revenue for elk.

Random would be great but a commitment's been made to the past point buyers and the state's not going to forgo the revenue for six or seven years to get there.

Granted Utah is more challenging than some other states with issues. However, states will struggle with forging that revenue for even a couple years even if they decided it were the right thing to do.

The 10-point cap was an arbitrary number intended to preserve the preference for the higher pointholders they've purchased while metering the lower pointholders into the jump ball.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers. The app fee for a point, or for a hunt(which results in a point) is $15. Last year there were 17,509 non-resident elk point buyers, AND 19,856 applicants for elk tags. Both groups paid $72 for the license and $15 for the species app. Make the app fee $30 and your financial problem is solved. Your 1750 non-resident elk tags must include general elk because they only issued 279 tags through the draw.


As far as churning through those who currently have 10pts in roughly six years, again, I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Last year Utah had over 4500 non-resident elk applicants who only bought points INSTEAD OF APPLYING FOR A HUNT who had 10+ points. They had over 17,000 non-resident elk applicants buy points instead of applying for a hunt. They had roughly 5700 non-resident elk applicants with 10+ actually apply for hunts, and a total of over 19,000 non-resident elk applicants apply for hunts. They gave out 279 non-resident elk tags. So just looking at those applicants who currently have 10+ points it would take 37yrs to get each one of them a tag. At that point, those who currently have 9pts would have 46pts, and since it would take another five years to get each of them a tag, today’s 8pt holders would have 50pts. Is that what you think the state committed to? It’s not. The state of UT never committed to give anyone a tag through the draw, regardless of how many points they bought, and neither did any other state.

The thing that’s broken about Utah’s DRAW SYSTEM is giving so many tags to preference points instead of in the random. BUT that’s not the reason so few people draw. The reason so few people draw is because 36,000 people are applying for 279 tags. You can’t fix that with a point system.

It’s not hard to sell tags to someone who just applied in your state for the first time. NM and ID do it every year. BUT if UT were random who would they sell the most tags to in the long run? People who applied once in their lives or people who applied fifty years in a row? Random systems already reward loyalty!