CO CPW Draw Process Working Group

[Foldem]

Is group point averaging still being considered? I know I’m in the minority but I don’t really see it as a bad thing. You don’t hear many complaints about it in the states that do it now. Granted they don’t have a point system as old as CO or near as many point holders.

I don't like point banking and here's why. My friends, kids, and I all hunt easy 0-2 pt units as often as possible. If you point bank it shifts the opportunity from guys and kids like us that prioritized hunting every year and learning units to the guys who've hoarded points waiting for their easy trophy hunt that they've finally realized is not reality. There is undoubtedly going to be an impact in point creep on the low point units and kids and new hunters or guys like me are going to pay the price.

 

[seeth07]

I don't like point banking and here's why. My friends, kids, and I all hunt easy 0-2 pt units as often as possible. If you point bank it shifts the opportunity from guys and kids like us that prioritized hunting every year and learning units to the guys who've hoarded points waiting for their easy trophy hunt that they've finally realized is not reality. There is undoubtedly going to be an impact in point creep on the low point units and kids and new hunters or guys like me are going to pay the price.

Isn't this an argument to continue to allow point banking? Those folks are going to apply for a PP in the draw and/or a high point unit and leaving those 0-2 point with less applicants applying for them. This gives you an advantage in your scenario keeping those units where they are at, at 0-2 points. If point banking goes away and you have to burn your points for all A list tags, those point bankers are going to change their strategy in applications and you will see higher creep at its onset for those 0-10 point units overall.

 

[Mallardsx2]

I don't like the idea of point banking AT ALL. No thanks.

 

[winmag]

Point banking will immediately result in point creep in low point units. No thanks.

 

[seeth07]

Point banking will immediately result in point creep in low point units. No thanks.

You mean point banking will keep point creep from happening in low point units. Point banking is already happening in CO, very significantly.

 

[winmag]

You mean point banking will keep point creep from happening in low point units. Point banking is already happening in CO, very significantly.

We’re defining “point banking” differently.

What I’m referring to, and I think the commonly understood definition and what is being discussed by CPW, would be a change from the current process. Instating point banking would mean you’d only burn however many points it takes to draw the tag, and you get to keep the rest for future years. This is not how Colorado works currently.

 

[seeth07]

Point banking has always meant to me that you save your points from year to year and instead pursue a tag in another way that doesn't use your points. I have never heard of a system or idea that you only lose part of your points. Every state, every draw that I know of takes them all...what kind of joke is that?

It may be unpopular but the point banking that is happening in CO is actually a good thing IMO because it does keep creep off those low point units.

 

[Deleted member 52847]

Point banking, in my opinion, would be disastrous to the lower end of point spectrum units. I can understand why some folks would want it however.

I'd hope we can beef up security somehow for the current reissue process, and also use up any points on any List A tag that you aquire through primary draw, secondary draw, leftover day or reissue process. Other then that, leave the reissue process alone

 

[TOGIE]

Point banking as being discussed by the commission is specifically a change to only use the points necessary to draw a tag and you keep the rest.

How many points to draw the tag depends on the applicants that year. Which is true now, but it will be wildly pronounced in more units and could swing back and forth. You will never have certainly on how many points the tag will even cost.

It will absolutely obliterate low point units with creep.

It one of the stupidest $*)Q!#@$ ideas ever discussed by the commission in regards to preference points in recent years.

 

[seeth07]

What is what I described called in Colorado then? Point saving? Point hoarding?

 

[winmag]

What is what I described called in Colorado then? Point saving? Point hoarding?

Dunno if it has a name but I like point hoarding. And unfortunately I think we’re all guilty of point hoarding.

 

[winmag]

Another one that keeps getting brought up is averaging points for group applications. This will have a similar result as point banking when it comes to introducing point creep to low point units. This one is slightly more reasonable than point banking, but I’m still against it.

 

[Ckleeves]

I don't like point banking and here's why. My friends, kids, and I all hunt easy 0-2 pt units as often as possible. If you point bank it shifts the opportunity from guys and kids like us that prioritized hunting every year and learning units to the guys who've hoarded points waiting for their easy trophy hunt that they've finally realized is not reality. There is undoubtedly going to be an impact in point creep on the low point units and kids and new hunters or guys like me are going to pay the price.

Never said anything about point banking. Group point averaging, like WY or AZ.

I believe it helps keep point hoarding in check at least a little bit. Lots of guys out there stuck in No Mans land (which at this point is getting to be a continent) that I think would jump at the chance to piggyback their sons, father, brother, friend, etc into a lower tier unit.

It could cause some creep, but at some point that individual’s points are going to more then likely cause creep anyway when he finally sees the writing on the wall that he isn’t going to catch the NW corner in his lifetime and burns them on the very few mid tier units available.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Almost all of the problems go away if they just take all your points for an A-list tag and if they stop letting people turn in their tags.

It solves a ton of problems.

 

[Wallow]

In the past when we had point banking, you used the number of points needed to draw plus 1 additional point. The commission board asked CPW staff to do a presentation on point banking earlier this year (maybe it was last year?). I forget the staffers name but he did a great job and showed why point banking is a bad idea. It was encouraging to see that CPW does not support point banking.

One of the current CPW commissioners, is an outfitter that has a history of pushing the point banking idea. Point banking is a good thing for outfitter business. Consider this scenario: you're an outfitter and your muzzleloader elk hunt requires one point to draw. You have a potential client with 4 points. Spending 3 points more than needed may cause him to not book the hunt as he will lose all 4 points.

Let's say that the hunter bites the bullet and ends up booking the hunt and wants to come back with the outfitter the following year. He can't do it because he has to sit out a year until he gains a point. If we had point banking, his decision to book is a lot easier - he books and only uses 2 points (1 to draw plus 1). He can then book again the very next year and use his other 2 points. I could be wrong but I think that's the story behind the story on why an outfitter would want point banking.

 

[winmag]

Almost all of the problems go away if they just take all your points for an A-oust tag and if the stop letting people turn in their tags.

It solves a ton of problems.

I agree, but I already know what the response will be.



Any guesses?



The outfitters will give the same response that they give to every proposed change. They will cry that it will put them all out of business. In this case it will put them all out of business because their units are OTC or low points, therefore their clients won’t burn their points to hunt with them.

 

[Ckleeves]

Almost all of the problems go away if they just take all your points for an A-oust tag and if the stop letting people turn in their tags.

It solves a ton of problems.

That’s what needs to happen but I highly doubt it will. Maybe in a roundabout way IF things go all draw and IF the amount of tags issued isn’t so insane that you can still get a bull tag with a 2nd choice app. The turning in and re-issue wouldn’t be a big deal if it also took all the points of the person getting the tag.

 

[RunNGunSC]

I just think it's time to make it more fair. By fair I'm not talking about what works best for us as individuals but for the majority of the residents of Colorado. If I'm looking out for myself and being greedy, I'd choose to go back to random issuing from Tuesday to Thursday. That would benefit me because I have the time and the discipline to grind it out until I score. But I realize this isn't fair to the vast majority of hunters who cannot sit at a computer all day long. As for the current system, I do feel it is being exploited by bots and it also gives people with super fast internet an advantage. I also believe some people have figured out flaws in the current system and are taking advantage of it.

I'll be the first to admit that I loved scoring tags and not using points but I'm changing my stance on that now. The Secondary Draw and Re-issued tags should require you to burn your points. Conduct the Secondary Draw just like Primary with the 75/25 and 80/20 splits. Re-issues could be done as a weekly draw with the 75/25 and 80/20 splits. Those with the most points get the tags. No advantage to bots, no advantage to retired guys who have all day to try for random issued tags, and no advantage to those with the fastest internet or to those that can be in-person at a CPW office or other licensing location.

Also to be eligible for the Secondary Draw and Re-issues, make it a requirement that you had to have applied for that species in the Primary Draw. Changing the Secondary Draw to the same process as the Primary Draw would take no work on CPW's part - the system is in place. This could be done in 2024. Having a weekly draw of Re-issues would take some work but is certainly doable. Even a totally random drawing each week (with Res/NR splits) for 2024 would be better than the current system.

I don’t totally agree with all of your suggestions but the reissue process is broken. It is clearly being gamed. The working group should focus on changing the process and trying to obtain a reasonable value for each quality tag, i.e. taking points out of the system. Velocity/turnover is what keeps point systems sustainable. Too many tags are being obtained while accruing massive point piles adding to point creep, putting more and more quality opportunities out of reach for those not already in line.

Two additional reissue possibilities: Any tag that takes a certain number of resident points in the primary draw takes the drawers points. alternatively, if you get a type A tag through either the secondary or reissue process you don’t accrue a point that year.

 

[Big Fin]

Finally had time to look at some of these proposals and the scope of this committee.

Not sure this is the purview of the committee and maybe I'm out to lunch, but effective solutions in Colorado seem pretty obvious, at least as it relates to the non-resident portion of the draw. These solutions seem to be off the table, for reasons that is hard to understand.

Wyoming has set the precedent of having different rules for residents and non-residents. Colorado could also have different rules, based on residency.

For non-residents, I'd start with these to cover about 80% of the issues with only a few tweaks.

1. Any tag (any choice), by any means, burns your points (Nevada already does this.) I'm talking leftover, reissue, landowner tag, raffle, auction, OTC elk tags; whatever tag you get, you better want it enough to burn your points.

2. Reissue tags stay within that residency status. Returned resident tags can only be acquired by residents and returned non-resident tags can only be acquired by non-residents. (Nevada seems to have a much better system than CO for the reissue process).

3. Make the OTC elk tags a draw for NRs with some acceptable cap. It would burn a lot more NR points and would lessen pressure in OTC hunts, making them higher quality experience for residents and non-residents.

No change in point averaging. Colorado has solved that abuse we see in other states by not allowing averaging, rather going with the lowest point holder.

Do those few things and a lot of the commonly-stated problems would be addressed. Again, I'm probably oversimplifying.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I got my working group rejection letter a while ago, but went hunting and thought about this during the experience and what I would focus on if I had made it on the group.
My main realization in the field was: The primary/secondary/re-issue has become it own hunt. Almost disassociated from the actual experience. Maybe it’s the world we live in, but I think the suggestions below would smooth that out a little bit.

1. Re-issue procedure is trash. Go back to random surrendered tag additions to leftover list as returned tags are processed, Tues-Fri.
Sometimes now tags that are returned just before season do not make it on the list until days after the season starts or never before the season ends. Plus it helps to solve bots/land rush issues. And it creates a “random” style of releasing tags without a “mini draw” every week and the same issue of tags expiring after season starts/ends. AKA-no reissue list.
2. If it remains, Reissued/leftover tags follow Nevada system for R/NR designation/allocation quota.
3. R/NR 80/20 split for all tags.
4. In order:
a. Limit unit tags individually by management objectives.
b. cap each Zone
c. OTC caps
5. Points only burn for 1st choice in primary/secondary draws. Leftover are impromptu/random/unplanned trips and not taxed points. I think a lot of A tags would go unused if points were required to acquire them off the leftover list.
6. Secondary draw 50% youth. 80/20 R/NR included.
7. Tag surrenders allow points back if insinuating circumstances include medical, deployment, etc…
8. Tag surrenders eliminate the option to acquire another list A for the calendar year if the surrendered tag is list A, and same for list B tags. But, points are burned if the surrendered tag was acquired during the primary or secondary draw, exception being bullet point 7.
9. GSM says the same.
10. Hybrid draw specs are fine.