Colorado leftover list is out

[AvidIndoorsman]

they need to only reinstate preference points due to medical or other "extreme" circumstances with returned tags.

that's one piece of the pie that needs changing

Here's the thing I can't reconcile, there are definitely people drawing tags, scouting all summer for a monster, then returning their tag when they don't find Big Hank. Definitely kinda annoying because they can do that every year if they want.... but them returning their tags does let people like LCH and I hunt tags we wouldn't have had a shot at otherwise. Sure we didn't have time to scout, but we got to go... I guess I prefer that rather than a tag sitting in some dudes desk drawer.

 

[cedahm]

For this year, they didn't have the schedule together in time to be able to get the initial returned tags on the list for the secondary draw. In the future, they intend to do that.

I agree on timing, they were really clear on that in the presentation during one of the meetings last winter. During that presentation, they had clearly put a lot of thought into it and had a roadmap to decrease the data transfer time for every draw (given their current need to hold the draw on a different platform than where app data is collected). It will 'help' when more and more reissued tags get into the secondary draw.

I'm on the fence about taking points, at least taking them via current structure. These are tags the department WANTS to issue. If you keep the same all-or-nothing point requirements, then you're indirectly excluding a significant chunk of your potential buyers.

Let's say there's a 4 point tag on the list. Folks with 10+ are very unlikely to go after it in the current method. Guys with 0-3 points would be all over it.

• Do you exclude the <4 point guys (further shrinking the customer base)?
• Do we re-invoke the old 'point banking' system here where the minimum number of points required are taken? (I know point banking was a mess when they tried it, but things have changed a lot in the decade or so since then. )
• Do you make the points 'Bonus' points for the secondary draw(s) where you get a higher probability to draw but still lose them?
• Maybe you baby step while you continue to work on the underlying process and technology - and simply DON'T allow gaining a current year point if you get an 'A' tag through any means (excluding OTC codes)? Seems it would be pretty easy to not award points until all the leftovers are finished and while that woudln't drain the point bucket, it would help point creep.

It's like unraveling noodle soup thinking about this stuff...


P.S. The deer tag I missed and the Elk tag I'd apply for if I had a point or two are both on there so I guess I'm getting involved in the Tuesday circus. I'd already mentally resigned myself to dog training with the new Brit this september but couldn't live with myself if I didn't try

 

[TOGIE]

Here's the thing I can't reconcile, there are definitely people drawing tags, scouting all summer for a monster, then returning their tag when they don't find Big Hank. Definitely kinda annoying because they can do that every year if they want.... but them returning their tags does let people like LCH and I hunt tags we wouldn't have had a shot at otherwise. Sure we didn't have time to scout, but we got to go... I guess I prefer that rather than a tag sitting in some dudes desk drawer.

that's a solid point

but when i think of reasons why places like wyoming are generally such a good experience I think of the aggregate reasons that come together to create more than just the sum of their parts

though, colorado just simply isn't managed like wyoming, do i want it to be, in a lot of ways, absolutely. but in the real world, it can't be, under current economic and legal realities much of the models i want colorado to look like are not feasible

doesn't change that colorado is a fantastic hunting state

 

[Mallardsx2]

@Mallardsx2 and @seeth07

Mallard I’m not sure about your comment... that is how the system works already, all leftovers are random draw first time around, all reissued licenses and leftover leftovers are first come first serve. I’m not sure you could do all random unless you did a weekly drawing through Jan. Ie last year it was possible to get a DM43E1R tag 4 days after the season opened.

Maybe what I said was a little confusing.

I was referring to a guaranteed trade for trade prior to leftover day.

In other words if someone drew a tag worth 1 point and then then saw there was a tag worth 4 points out there that they could gobble up BEFORE leftover day.....

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

that's a solid point

but when i think of reasons why places like wyoming are generally such a good experience I think of the aggregate reasons that come together to create more than just the sum of their parts

though, colorado just simply isn't managed like wyoming, do i want it to be, in a lot of ways, absolutely. but in the real world, it can't be, under current economic and legal realities much of the models i want colorado to look like are not feasible

doesn't change that colorado is a fantastic hunting state

I mean the reality is WY just isn't managed, and that works because the resources has 0 pressure, obviously comparatively, management and pressure.

Like you said CO is a different game, we are really trying to max out mixed use.

 

[seeth07]

they need to only reinstate preference points due to medical or other "extreme" circumstances with returned tags.

that's one piece of the pie that needs changing

At least now it costs them their points or the cost of the tag. They just need to take it one step further with a rule that says you can't apply for a tag you drew and returned for a period of 5 years.

 

[Mallardsx2]

There is a ton of ideas floating around and common consensus from what I am reading is everyone would like to see point creep reduced. lol

What is really interesting is that a lot of the people saying things now were 100% on the other side of the fence 5 years ago....I find that most interesting.

 

[TOGIE]

What is really interesting is that a lot of the people saying things now were 100% on the other side of the fence 5 years ago....I find that most interesting.

which side of what fence?

i didn't even own a hunting rifle 5 years ago

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

There is a ton of ideas floating around and common consensus from what I am reading is everyone would like to see point creep reduced. lol

What is really interesting is that a lot of the people saying things now were 100% on the other side of the fence 5 years ago....I find that most interesting.

CO pt creep is a weird deal though right, it's not like say WY for NR where even the lowest tags are getting hard to draw... ie the general elk tag is like 3-4.

92% of our elk are in units hunt-able every year. In some ways CO elk points might as well be sheep or goat in that opportunity is so small most people wont get a tag no matter what. Pretty much an impossible situation.
It's almost like there are two systems, folks trying to hunt elk and folks trying to hunt unit 10.

Honestly I think elk should go to the MSG hybrid pref/point system and then be done with it.

 

[seeth07]

There is a ton of ideas floating around and common consensus from what I am reading is everyone would like to see point creep reduced. lol

Its beyond point creep at this point. There is just this monsterous gap in the points required for a unit.

For a NR, 1st rifle, you have this breakdown of 100% draw success in the 2020 draw:
1 point hunts = 19
2 point hunts = 6
3 point hunts = 1
4 point hunts = 2
5 point hunts = 3
6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 point hunts = ZERO
14 point hunts = 1
15 point hunts = 0
16 point hunts = 1
17 point hunts = 1
18,19,20,21,22 point hunts = ZERO
>23 point hunts = 9

Does anyone else see the massive problem here?

 

[TOGIE]

I mean the reality is WY just isn't managed, and that works because the resources has 0 pressure, obviously comparatively, management and pressure.

Like you said CO is a different game, we are really trying to max out mixed use.

and i truly don't know exactly what i want

i think the resource is too pressured in colorado, from every angle - hunters, recreation, you name it

i think we provide a little "too much" opportunity, frankly, and there's no risk. applicants need to be making choices of which they can't so readily back off from - to me if that means a tag sits in a desk and goes unfilled than sweet, less pressure on the resource

bottom line, i'm an introvert and simpleminded - chaos frightens me. colorado is just chaotic

 

[seeth07]

It's almost like there are two systems, folks trying to hunt elk and folks trying to hunt unit 10.

bingo winner winner....even before I posted my question lol

 

[Blackcats06]

Its beyond point creep at this point. There is just this monsterous gap in the points required for a unit.

For a NR, 1st rifle, you have this breakdown of 100% draw success in the 2020 draw:
1 point hunts = 19
2 point hunts = 6
3 point hunts = 1
4 point hunts = 2
5 point hunts = 3
6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 point hunts = ZERO
14 point hunts = 1
15 point hunts = 0
16 point hunts = 1
17 point hunts = 1
18,19,20,21,22 point hunts = ZERO
>23 point hunts = 9

Does anyone else see the massive problem here?

I really don't see the issue with the numbers you gave. There are more hunts available with 3 or less points than all other hunts combined. Which means opportunity for everyone, even new to the game. If you're complaining about a person never being able to draw a 23 plus point unit, well that's the game played in Colorado. Its the same game in AZ. Its just not possible for every one to get to hunt the "great" units in their life time.

 

[Oak]

Its beyond point creep at this point. There is just this monsterous gap in the points required for a unit.

For a NR, 1st rifle, you have this breakdown of 100% draw success in the 2020 draw:
1 point hunts = 19
2 point hunts = 6
3 point hunts = 1
4 point hunts = 2
5 point hunts = 3
6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 point hunts = ZERO
14 point hunts = 1
15 point hunts = 0
16 point hunts = 1
17 point hunts = 1
18,19,20,21,22 point hunts = ZERO
>23 point hunts = 9

Does anyone else see the massive problem here?

You might be surprised to learn that this data is exactly what CPW uses to justify the status quo, and it's difficult to argue with. The important thing to look at is the number of licenses available at each of those point levels above. When you do that you find that the vast majority of licenses can be had for 5 or fewer points.

 

[seeth07]

I really don't see the issue with the numbers you gave. There are more hunts available with 3 or less points than all other hunts combined. Which means opportunity for everyone, even new to the game. If you're complaining about a person never being able to draw a 23 plus point unit, well that's the game played in Colorado. Its the same game in AZ. Its just not possible for every one to get to hunt the "great" units in their life time.

Your totally missing the entire point of having a preference point system in the first place.

 

[Oak]

Your totally missing the entire point of having a preference point system in the first place.

I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this because the way I interpret it is that you believe the preference point system is designed to guarantee an opportunity at any license for those who are patient enough and live long enough. That's just not reasonable for hunt codes that have 10-20 licenses annually.

 

[seeth07]

You might be surprised to learn that this data is exactly what CPW uses to justify the status quo, and it's difficult to argue with. The important thing to look at is the number of licenses available at each of those point levels above. When you do that you find that the vast majority of licenses can be had for 5 or fewer points.

yes that is a good point but there is no point in anyone new every collecting more than 5 points. Maybe I'm just so sour because when I started applying in Colorado 7 years ago, the unit I wanted took 8 points and now its 14 and I'm now in this shitty reality of my current 7 points for next years draw means nothing anymore because I'm now in that monster gap between the very good areas and the good areas

 

[seeth07]

I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this because the way I interpret it is that you believe the preference point system is designed to guarantee an opportunity at any license for those who are patient enough and live long enough. That's just not reasonable for hunt codes that have 10-20 licenses annually.

Well in a perfect world, the true point system should work on a linear scale where the more points you have, the quality of the hunt unit should improve. A zero point unit should be an area with difficult access, lower populations, lower trophy quality. A 20 point unit should be an area with abundant access, high populations (or at least high opportunity/chance for success), high trophy quality. All units in between fall along that linear line. The amount of time you wait to get your limited entry tag should be equivalent to the quality of the area. This is obviously hard to do but it can be done or at least close. This will be like comparing apples to oranges in a way but I'll give a mention to one system that accomplishes this. In Wisconsin, black bear tags are limited entry and based on a pure point system. There are currently 4 zones - A, B, C, D. Area C is the easiest to draw (2 points) but bear densities are low (.57/sqmi) and the amount of public land where the bears live is relatively small (7.4%). Area B has high bear densities (1.0), largest amount of public (54% public and you can literally drive down the forest roads early morning or late evening and shoot a bear from the truck if you wanted to hunt that way) but it also takes 12 years to draw that tag. Area A and area D are between these two and take 9 and 6 points to draw respectively. The system works as intended where the longer you wait to get a tag, the better quality hunt a person could expect to have. Now this is for only 13k permits with 35k applicants each year so its obviously on a much smaller scale but hopefully I was able to get my point across.

 

[beginnerhunter]

yes that is a good point but there is no point in anyone new every collecting more than 5 points. Maybe I'm just so sour because when I started applying in Colorado 7 years ago, the unit I wanted took 8 points and now its 14 and I'm now in this shitty reality of my current 7 points for next years draw means nothing anymore because I'm now in that monster gap between the very good areas and the good areas

Yeah, burn ur points or wait it out to see if the system changes.

I know we've been over it, but someone tell me again why preference points are better than bonus points?? Seems like bonus points are better and provide incentives for lower point holders, but somebody probably has a good argument for why not (besides folks sitting on max preference points).

 

[Oak]

I understand your "perfect world" scenario but don't agree because quality was never a consideration for creating a PP system in CO. It was demand. The strategy of limiting license quotas is, for the most part, not to create a "trophy" area but to better manage hunting pressure and animal movements. There are a handful of exceptions statewide, and those are the ones that create angst over the system at large. Your data above illustrates that perfectly. The Colorado application brochure is littered with elk hunt codes that take 5 or more points and are really not much better quality hunts than OTC.