CO CPW Draw Process Working Group

[AvidIndoorsman]

Or, even easier, just stop allowing tag returns outside the medical and bereavement categories that are already on the books. Reissue problem solved and money saved.

I can kinda get on board with MSG, to the extent that it puts a tag in someone's hand, and it's a super small number.

But reissuing preference point tags, GMAFB, the whole reason we have point creep and can't get rid of them is folks "love that it makes things predictable"... so you drew your "predictable" tag and want to return it.

CPW should never have extended the reissue to Elk and Deer and for MSG it should never have go past calling the next 5 folks.

 

[vanish]

Seems to me like the people who would most appreciate a really good tag are those who are willing to slug it out in cruddy otc units every year, which is counter to the argument that any tag should take your points.

 

[Bigjay73]

Seems to me those people are just playing the game, having their cake and eating it too. I've hunted plenty of otc archery tags, never felt like I was "slugging it out" more like "grateful to be hunting"

 

[Mallardsx2]

 

[Deleted member 52847]

Looks like they just posted the updated video. I think they had some tech issues yesterday

 

[Foldem]

I haven't watched but heard we may be pushing for only being able to put in for one of moose, sheep, or goat each year? @Oak please say it ain't so!?

 

[Mallardsx2]

Applying the resident/non-resident allocation through the secondary draw is a bunch of NONSENSE. I can't believe that is even being discussed.

If residents truly want a tag, they can EASILY get a tag in choices 1-4 where they already have preference.

The only reason to allow a resident/non-resident allocation through the secondary draw is so the residents can continue to build points and still get tags.

THIS IDEA SOLVES NOTHING and would continue to introduce point creep into the future draws.

 

[MtnElk]

Applying the resident/non-resident allocation through the secondary draw is a bunch of NONSENSE. I can't believe that is even being discussed.

If residents truly want a tag, they can EASILY get a tag in choices 1-4 where they already have preference.

The only reason to allow a resident/non-resident allocation through the secondary draw is so the residents can continue to build points and still get tags.

THIS IDEA SOLVES NOTHING and would continue to introduce point creep into the future draws.

I think this is a good idea ONLY if they implement the A tag rule that burns all points. Otherwise you’re 100% right it doesn’t solve point creep.

I would like to see resident preference on leftover tags… but I’d rather see the A rule wipe out your points. My two cents

 

[Mallardsx2]

Nobody should have preference on leftover tags or returned tags.

NOBODY WANTED THEM....Why on earth should anyone have preference for them? lol

If anything, the people with the most points (Resident or NR) should have preference and they should have to use their points to get them.

 

[Oak]

I haven't watched but heard we may be pushing for only being able to put in for one of moose, sheep, or goat each year? @Oak please say it ain't so!?

Recommendations were advanced on split votes to:

• Add RM bighorn ram and all mountain goat harvest to OIL moving forward (not retroactive) to existing OIL for desert sheep and bull moose. (10-3 vote)
• Allow applicants to apply for a hunt code for only one species among RM bighorn, desert bighorn, moose, and mountain goat. Applicants could purchase points for all species they don't apply for (excluding desert bighorn). (8-5 vote)

 

[winmag]

Add RM bighorn ram and all mountain goat harvest to OIL moving forward (not retroactive) to existing OIL for desert sheep and bull moose. (10-3 vote)

No bueno

 

[MtnElk]

Nobody should have preference on leftover tags or returned tags.

NOBODY WANTED THEM....Why on earth should anyone have preference for them? lol

If anything, the people with the most points (Resident or NR) should have preference and they should have to use their points to get them.

you missed my point... If all A tags burn points (like a full price tag in WY, as opposed to a reduced price, aka CO's B tag) then people are going to actually apply for what they want in any given year. If they are applying for what they want, then the shit they don't want is likely to be scooped up by the other people that actually want it. I think under the A tag burns points, you have less secondary and less leftover tags.

NOW... the leftover list is not a true leftover list. It's also a return list and yes, residents should have priority. Also happy to create a return list... which is exclusively for residents. You can have the leftovers

 

[Mallardsx2]

I would like to see resident preference on leftover tags… but I’d rather see the A rule wipe out your points. My two cents

I didn't miss your point....

I was addressing the first part of your sentence.

I agree with the A wipeout rule

 

[MtnElk]

I didn't miss your point....

I was addressing the first part of your sentence.

I agree with the A wipeout rule

Fine point correction.... returned tags should go to residents first. Better?

 

[Mallardsx2]

Fine point correction.... returned tags should go to residents first. Better?

No, it's not better. It's actually a bit ridiculous.

 

[Dsnow9]

Recommendations were advanced on split votes to:

• Add RM bighorn ram and all mountain goat harvest to OIL moving forward (not retroactive) to existing OIL for desert sheep and bull moose. (10-3 vote)
• Allow applicants to apply for a hunt code for only one species among RM bighorn, desert bighorn, moose, and mountain goat. Applicants could purchase points for all species they don't apply for (excluding desert bighorn). (8-5 vote)

I like the first one the second is a bit rough but I understand it.

Any word on if that point system will change at all along with those changes

 

[Oak]

I like the first one the second is a bit rough but I understand it.

Any word on if that point system will change at all along with those changes

The recommendation made was to convert preference points and weighted points to what will essentially function as bonus points (names in the hat). Applicants for RM bighorn ram, bull moose, and all mountain goat licenses could only purchase a point until they have acquired 3 points, then could apply for a hunt code (4th year of application).

 

[Dsnow9]

The recommendation made was to convert preference points and weighted points to what will essentially function as bonus points (names in the hat). Applicants for RM bighorn ram, bull moose, and all mountain goat licenses could only purchase a point until they have acquired 3 points, then could apply for a hunt code (4th year of application).

That would make it a lot easier to explain to people than the current mental gymnastics of randomly generated numbers and then multipliers and all. Seems like odds would be about the same on that.

 

[winmag]

This is a disappointing meeting.

 

[Hyhunter]

That MSG recommendation is weird. But it also makes sense, aligns a bit with idaho. I like the oil. And protects people from wasted prior pp purchases and lawsuits. Seems like the only option.

If it's approved my 3+3 for all three seems useless. Seems better to not be chasing all three at one time.... maybe pick 2 to chase?