Colorado Draw Changes

[hunter49]

They went through an entire application process from CPW. And then CPW has reps on there as well and other folks who literally built the draw process.

It's a meeting between a whole bunch of different people representing different points of view and stakeholders. It isn't meant to be entertaining

Didn't think it was. Figured the goal would be to come up with meaningfull solutions not have to explain what a A or B tag is and why the current system is in place.

 

[hunter49]

To be fair, the second half discussion has been good.

Still a few head scratchers but definitely more on point and addressing the issues at hand.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Anytime there is a discussion to “solve” point creep…

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[MtnElk]

-50/50 (Pure preference/Bonus) split recommendation tag allocations.
-Preference points will be burned on the first draw choices 1-4.
-75/25 one split recommendation for DEBP.

Seems to me that the choices 1-4 pp burn will do nothing but kick the undesirable tags down the road to the next draw. Almost every single good tag gets drawn in the first choice first round so it seems kind of silly to worry about taking people points on choices 2-4.

People will just put in for those great tags as their first choice and then wait to see what happens in the secondary/leftover/re-issue days. Hopefully they address what happens to people points at those phases in the draw. It was brought up several times, but no decisions were made that I heard.

I wish they would have gotten more granular on WHO (R vs NR) turned in those tags and what tags they were (M,E,F). That would have been interesting data.

Preference points even burned on B and C tags?

 

[Mallardsx2]

Preference points even burned on B and C tags?

I don’t think they want to do that.

 

[elkduds]

@Oak, Really disappointed to see so much attention to 50/50 hybrid/split draw, for this reason. It increases, not decreases point creep for most desirable units. Check my math: Say 20 tags are available for a unit that takes 20 points to draw. Under current rules one season of that draw removes 400 pps from the points pool and zeroes out 20 high point applicants. Under 50/50 hybrid draw only 10 tags to to the highest point bidders, say those tags creep up to 13 points because there are now 10 available instead of 20. That is 130 points gone from the pool. The other tags go randomly to applicants with a hypothetical average of 3 pps, could be even lower. Another 30 pps gone from the pool, totaling 160 pps used for that draw under the 50/50 hybrid. Current draw would remove 20 holders of 20 or more points from the pool, 50/50 would remove only 10 holders of 20+ points, and another 10 holders of many less points. 50/50 leaves 10 high point holders in the pool in exchange for taking 10 low point holders out, and leaves at least 240 pps in the pool compared to current system. Mathematically, hybrid cannot decrease point creep and will in fact increase it for the 50% that go to the points-only 1st half.

In listening to hybrid discussion of 2nd meeting, it becomes clear that high point holders are more likely to draw in a bonus, so that would increase the # of points used more than I calculated above. I have not heard discussion of reducing point pool and creep as a result of proposed changes, or calculations about impacts of each recommendation on point pool/creep. "That is not part of the vision of this group." Hybrid split is not designed to reduce point creep, rather because it is perceived as more fair.

Plus I never heard serious consideration of any hybrid ratio beside 50/50 by the group. Even 75/25 would reduce total points in the pool more that 50/50, and would reduce the creep in points-only half that will come when some portion of point tags switch to hybrid.

No need to reply unless you care to, however I hope the group would consider the math involved, in light of their stated objectives.

4:20:20, Commissioner said she doesn't support increasing point fee, "(CPW) already has an excess of funds."

 

[marksjeep]

The ratio was discussed a little in the first meeting. IIRC, it was framed as "let's start at 50:50, and retain the flexibility to adjust the ratio (annually?)".

The budget surplus seems an appropriate topic when proposed allocation changes are framed by some such that changes will result in profound loss of revenues to CPW. The agency had an $18M surplus the wildlife side of the house in FY22/23. https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Funding.aspx

 

[elkduds]

The ratio was discussed a little in the first meeting. IIRC, it was framed as "let's start at 50:50, and retain the flexibility to adjust the ratio (annually?)".

The budget surplus seems an appropriate topic when proposed allocation changes are framed by some such that changes will result in profound loss of revenues to CPW. The agency had an $18M surplus the wildlife side of the house in FY22/23. https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Funding.aspx

Do you think the hybrid draw will reduce point creep? Currently listening to meeting #2, sounds like the hybrid draw would only apply to 1st choice in 1st draw, possibly 1st choice in 2nd draw.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

They want to solve point creep the solution is simple.

You lose your points no matter what tag you get. Landowner, second choice, first choice, leftover, doesnt matter. You get a tag you lose your points. That is the simple solution.

 

[Bluffgruff]

I don't think they necessarily want to solve point creep, just keep it from eliminating opportunity for hunters arriving later in the game to hunt premium tags.

Solving point creep is easy - don't allow anyone to buy points ever again. Everyone who gets any tag any way has points set to zero, and we transition to 100% bonus situation for a couple years, then all points are set to 0 after that and we go full random with waiting periods for high demand tags.

Boom, no creep.

 

[hunter49]

They want to solve point creep the solution is simple.

You lose your points no matter what tag you get. Landowner, second choice, first choice, leftover, doesnt matter. You get a tag you lose your points. That is the simple solution.

Not that simple.

The agency needs people to pull the trigger to manage the heard. No one will burn points on a BS opportunity hunt.

 

[Qubo]

I am 100% for getting rid of points and going random. That would be my choice. But I do think that if we are going to keep points then as a resident I should be able keep/buy points while hunting OTC. As someone who doesn’t have the money or time off work to hunt out of state I shouldn’t, in my own state, have to choose between hunting the mediocre OTC units every year and not hunting for several years just to get a decent unit. Now if we are only talking NR then that’s a different story. But most of the time when this issue comes up nobody specifies.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't think they necessarily want to solve point creep, just keep it from eliminating opportunity for hunters arriving later in the game to hunt premium tags.

Solving point creep is easy - don't allow anyone to buy points ever again. Everyone who gets any tag any way has points set to zero, and we transition to 100% bonus situation for a couple years, then all points are set to 0 after that and we go full random with waiting periods for high demand tags.

Boom, no creep.

You’d still have creep until all the tags were drawn for point holders.

Point creep isn’t a “problem” of the system it’s a feature.

Say day one 100 people apply for 10 tags.

First year 90 folks with 1pt

Next year 80 with 2pts

Sure you can accelerate it but as long as demand outstrips supply it will always be there.

 

[Bullshot]

holy moly did they really say it!

 

[RunNGunSC]

Just finished listening to the second session, it started rough but I think they starting to bring together a reasonable approach. Split draw with bonus; all primary draw options use points (encouraging and supporting hunters that choose a hunt versus just collecting points); allocation with guaranteed bonus draw tag…

 

[elkduds]

Finally finished the whole recorded meeting.

Just finished listening to the second session, it started rough but I think they starting to bring together a reasonable approach. Split draw with bonus; all primary draw options use points (encouraging and supporting hunters that choose a hunt versus just collecting points); allocation with guaranteed bonus draw tag…

Adding to this, group will recommend to CPW Board: (more recommendations to come)

No change to youth draw preference.

No recommendation for point banking or group averaging.

Firm 75% res/25% NR for all draw deer, elk, bear, pronghorn tags across all seasons, no change for high demand tags. This applies in both halves of the hybrid draw, where 1st half is only based on pref. points, 2nd half is random draw with pref. points counting for extra entries in the draw. It applies in primary and leftover draws.

 

[Addicting]

When would these be implemented?

 

[cgasner1]

Just switch it all from a preference to a bonus system.

 

[BrokenArrow]

4:20:20, Commissioner said she doesn't support increasing point fee, "(CPW) already has an excess of funds."

Then fund a program for mandatory harvest reporting for s$!ts sake

 

[BrokenArrow]

Interesting how youth hunters have been “put in” by their parents since 2nd draw changed, meaning that the spike in youth hunters coincides with when 2nd draw went youth preference? Is my math wrong?

I also believe that influencers had a lot to do with the mid 30s hunters being such a large portion of applicants. I’m 45 and luckily I’m ahead of that curve. there are lots of guys out there where I live that are in this 30-35 age range. Most of those folks already kayak, climb, ski, raft, bike and express The desire to hunt because it’s just another $2000 sport which they can get out during When other sport is slow. And it’s “ organic” meat that their girlfriends might actually eat.