Having sat on the MT committee that came up with our point system, it was known from the start that it would not accomplish what some were hoping for. It's just simple math for most of the issues. And as much as bonus point systems are inherently flawed, preference point systems are even more flawed when applied to the stated purposes most claim for wanting a point system.
When you give away 200 ram tags and have 25,000 applicants, a point system, whether preference or bonus point system, is not going to do anything to improve anyone's odds in a meaningful way. Especially when tens of thousands were in on the ground floor and you are competing with them more than any other group.
We had a statistician talk to the committee about the benefit of squaring points. He showed us what a folly that is for species having very few tags and thousands of applicants. It was shown that squaring points does nothing, other than screwing over someone who wasn't born early enough to get in on the ground floor, so the committee rejected the idea. Yet, what did the legislature do after about ten years? - passed a law to square bonus points.
By the mere fact that these systems stay around for decades, the table gets slanted by those who design the system. I was the junior member of the committee by at least ten years, and twenty years the junior of most members. It was pretty easy to see how the table was going to be slanted; the old and gray carried the votes.
Making the Big 3 a Once-In-A-Lifetime tag was considered, but soundly defeated. Not because of the merits, but too many people hoped they might get a third or fourth sheep or moose tag in their life. Waiting periods for trophy bull elk was suggested, but again, defeated by old folks worried they might not get enough of those in their lifetime.
We also considered keeping some of the tags as random and not part of the point draw. Again, the old birds killed that without even allowing much a debate.
At the time of this committee meeting and giving recommendations to the legislature, most of the analysis was based on the old system where money had to be sent in as an upfront cost. As poorly as a point system performs under that "pay up front" situation, a point system is even more of a joke when you get rid of the "pay up front" and double, triple, or quadruple the number of applicants for the few tags awarded.
None of this comes as a surprise, especially with the changes the legislature has made. Anyone who thinks a point system puts more sheep or goats or moose of elk on the landscape is kidding themselves. I would argue that it does the opposite, possibly festering a sense of entitlement for the purchase of points. As if purchasing points somehow magically produces more animals and more tags into the system.
I'm sitting on max points for sheep in MT. If MT said they wanted to get rid of the point system for sheep, I'd be for it. I'd like to see half the tags carved away from the bonus point system and be a random draw. I'd be fine with making the Big 3 a OIL option, even if that happened retroactively. I'll never apply for moose or goat again, even when I'm out of the seven year penalty box. I know others feel differently. I'd be fine with a seven year waiting period for limited entry elk or deer that have less than 10% draw odds. And, I'd really like to require the cost to be paid in advance.
Reading these discussions about point systems does confirm that the systems are not going away anytime soon. Too much money for the agencies and too many hunters now feel invested and expect something for their purchase of points, however small that financial investment might be.
Carry on .....
