Fresh Tracks Weekly - Point Schemes Disguise Tag Declines

[Big Fin]

Marcus and I did this video, knowing that when draw results come out from a lot of states people will have all kinds of ways to revamp the point schemes we deal with. Almost like point schemes somehow create larger herds, which results in more tags - NOT!

More animals in the hills goes a long ways towards improving draw odds. @DFS, thanks for the numbers you posted a while back. It got me thinking beyond just Montana. I went back to some of the tag numbers I've seen in other states for other species, and the track record was very similar. Other than antelope in Nevada, deer and pronghorn numbers have decreased across the west. Elk are the only bright spot, as a species. Colorado is one state that has shown positive results with sheep, goat, and moose, yet most other states follow a trend similar to Montana.

If point schemes were going to solve the problem, the vast array and complexity of point schemes would have rescued us by now. It still gets back to quality habitat, in large quantities - not sexy and not an easy problem to solve. But, we have no other choice.

Enjoy.

 

[wytex]

I've always seen PP schemes as a way for G&f agencies to make money when herds were low and license numbers drop. They sell PP to make up the diff.

 

[El Jason]

They sell PP to make up the diff.

And make people happy who feel they deserve a tag.

 

[ovis2]

As one who has eventually benefited, and paid for in time and money, across the points schemes, I think most of them are just superficial frosting for hunters to believe we'll eventually get that prized tag. Being somewhat of a statisical nerd, I have submitted numerous public comments to several western game departments, but alas the points go on. As mentioned, the various point schemes don't change the number of critters on the ground. Habitat preservation and development, as well as good scientific management, are the keys to good game populations. Then it becomes supply and demand. With the growth of social media and what I call checklist hunting, the strain on permit availability will only continue. Somewhat countering this rant, Wyoming's sheep and moose preference points' large costs (and non-resident permit availability) seems to have actually started reducing the number of applications - and I am happy to say, after this latest go-round I don't need to donate my annual sheep money .

 

[Forkyfinder]

Colorado is one state that has shown positive results with sheep, goat, and moose, yet most other states follow a trend similar to Montana.

I would like to understand - what did they do?

I appreciate the commentary about our predecessors taking care of things - but the reality is that our problems are a lot different.

 

[MTTW]

Look at the last 20 years and project it out 20 more.

It works because a bunch of entitled old guys enjoy stealing from the next generation.

I read the other day that some people would eat shit just so others would have to smell their breath.

In other words they think they are winning only because others are losing.
I should get what I want because I have been wanting it longer. Where else does that work?

 

[Big Fin]

I would like to understand - what did they do?

I appreciate the commentary about our predecessors taking care of things - but the reality is that our problems are a lot different.

I'll let @Oak or @Sandbrew chime in on what Colorado did.

I agree, our problems are a lot different. In Montana, we could do some things for moose/goat/sheep that would be very helpful, with only one of the problems related to hunting/hunters.

1. Make it illegal to shoot a nanny. There is no reason a hunter cannot tell a nanny from a billy after a bit of observation. When some units have 50% harvest of nannies, we know the end result is a reduced population.

2. Quit being so passive with sheep relocations. The legislature needs to be pressured by hunters to encourage FWP to expand sheep herds, a position different than the last 20+ legislatures.

3. Moose is going to be a hard one, as it is mostly ticks, which are a function of not having cold winters.

Everything else is habitat. Intense daily human use of every segment of land displaces fawns/calves and hurts herds. Lack of funding for forest management and invasive weed control lets habitat quality shrink every year. Local planning regulations that do not consider wildlife issues hammers winter/migration habitat in areas like Bozeman, Missoula, Flathead, other booming areas.

Very little of the decline is hunting regulations, though that is what most hunters spend their time complaining about. Habitat is hard work. It is expensive, even more expensive ten years from now. Habitat investment is like planting trees - the person doing it seldom lives long enough to see the full benefit. Habitat requires giving wildlife the same priority of other important public land uses.

So long as we ignore habitat, we better get used to accumulation of wildlife on private lands. Every species is smart enough to seek habitat that is higher quality forage/water, less lead poisoning, less motorized disturbance, and does not have dog walkers, mountain bikers, hikers, and other human activity ongoing at every daylight hour. It's not like landowners are harboring wildlife, it's just wildlife making a smart decision of where is the better place to live.

The reason for the videos is to hopefully get a few viewers to realize that Point Schemes are doing nothing for their long-term benefit. They are a response to old farts like me worrying they might die without getting their third or fourth moose tag. They are born of the frustration driven by shrinking opportunity, all of which is a function of our failure to invest in habitat at levels commensurate with those who built what we enjoy today.

 

[406dn]

Speaking as an old fart who has now drawn four moose tags, making them a once in a lifetime tag, would give more hunters a chance to hunt the big three.

After looking at the draw odds, I decided that waiting for a bull moose tag, would likely mean, never drawing a tag. So, I have always applied for a cow tag. My life would be unharmed if I had only gotten to hunt moose once.

I did decide to make a personal choice to not apply for mountain goat, after drawing a tag many years ago. That goat and the one I killed in British Columbia felt like my share of a limited resource.

The odds are that I will age out before drawing a ram tag. The dream has been a reason I work hard to stay in shape. At some point thou, I will not be able to do the tag justice.

So, my fix would be to go to a straight lottery for the tags, and make them once in a lifetime. Another fix would be to make the annual ante to get into the draw a little steeper.

It is just a tough reality that the demand (desire) for the opportunity to hunt the big three greatly outstrips the supply.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I'll let @Oak or @Sandbrew chime in on what Colorado did.

I agree, our problems are a lot different. In Montana, we could do some things for moose/goat/sheep that would be very helpful, with only one of the problems related to hunting/hunters.

1. Make it illegal to shoot a nanny. There is no reason a hunter cannot tell a nanny from a billy after a bit of observation. When some units have 50% harvest of nannies, we know the end result is a reduced population.

2. Quit being so passive with sheep relocations. The legislature needs to be pressured by hunters to encourage FWP to expand sheep herds, a position different than the last 20+ legislatures.

3. Moose is going to be a hard one, as it is mostly ticks, which are a function of not having cold winters.

I agree with all of these - but seperately would add that it is a measly 12 dollars for residents to apply for each species (bonus point + non refund app fee) isnt conducive to funding the biologists, research, etc necessary to keep them. Doubling that immediately and making price increases annually automatically based on inflation seems like a low bar.

@Oak still waiting for your response

 

[Oak]

@Oak still waiting for your response

Sorry, really bad week for a response from me. I'll give you the CliffsNotes version.

Sheep: I would say that we have done a good job of maintaining what we have (not growing), while also encouraging the issuance of more licenses. I went through an intensive data crunch back in 2015 and determined that over the 2010-2014 timeframe, CO had a ram offtake rate (harvest) of 1.8% of the population statewide. I lobbied hard for the state to increase that to closer to 2.5% ot increase hunter opportunity, and to his credit, Director Broscheid supported and encouraged it. I just looked at 2025 harvest numbers and we killed 151 rams last year, or 2.3%. At 1.8% we would have harvested 127 rams. Our statewide RM bighorn population estimate in 2014 was 7,035, and in 2026 it is 7,047.

The truth is that we have just been lucky on the disease front, which has unfortunately changed in the last few years. We are seeing declining populations all along the Front Range due to disease, and corresponding reductions in licenses. We have reduced sheep licenses by 23 since 2023. We will always be susceptible to large fluctuations in license/population numbers as long as we have a disease threat.

Goats: An introduced species (reintroduced???) in good habitat often does very well. Unlike other jurisdictions, we sometimes struggle to kill enough goats to keep populations at objective. We were issuing 80 goat licenses in a single unit as recently as 2023, 20 of which were nanny only licenses.

Moose: Again, an introduced species in high quality habitat, with few predators or disease/tick issues at the moment. They are flourishing.

 

[406dn]

Another change I would make for the big three tags is make the license valid for two years. Shit happens, any number of things could monkey wrench a tag holder's plans.

I can see many benefits to having two seasons to fill a tag. A big one is settling for an animal, when it gets late in the game. It still might work out that way, but not hopefully not too often.

IIRC, this was a suggestion from Jack O'Connor in one of his books.