I have a group of friends with a pile of CO points that will probably never use them and if they do it'll be with a guided private land outfitter. They started buying into the system and don't want to quit.
Ideas on Point Collecting/Point Creep
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
wyoelkfan15
Well-known member
I think it would have a greater impact on draw odds and lowering point creep. I know multiple people, most my hunting partners that started putting in for points 18-20 years ago, that simply put in for points because they can draw it someday when they are ready to do a hunt rather than next year and they got in on the point game early enough that under the current system they are guaranteed a tag eventually. If they had to put up front tag costs and apply every year to get a point I'm guessing half of those folks wouldn't do it. Now I'm talking resident moose and sheep. Personally I think it would increase draw odds, I'd have to do a math model on it to prove it, too busy with other stuff right now to work it out.
It would be nice if the various state wildlife departments and government in general would start with the premise of "doing what is best for the future/kids". Unfortunately it seems like in most cases they just do what is politically expedient, easy, and generates the most $ in the short term.
Interesting watching this discussion and the point schemes as they play out over the years.
As has been mentioned several times on this and other threads, there is no "fix", only different methods of allocating a limited supply of tags to the masses. What's the best or most fair? That's likely to be different for each person you ask.
However, I think a majority would agree, what certain states, like Colorado, have done is not working out very well in the long run... Wyoming is running into that as well.
The prospect of never drawing due to the simple math of it stinks for a majority of would-be applicants with low points. Creating a system that gives some chance at that stuff is better in my mind.
Raising the stakes for a drawn tag also makes sense.
The ability to just buy points seemed great when it started, but at this stage in the game it makes less sense. Lots of guys are just buying snake oil. Should they let that keep up? Humm...
The ability to return tags at a whim is ridiculous. This should only be allowed if there are documented extenuating circumstances.
There will always be arguments over the best way to dish out tags for the limited supply of animals we all want so much to hunt. The reality is, with limited supply, not everyone gets a chance.
These ideas probably belong on another thread, but the root of the matter is supply of tags. We haven't generally seen many increases in tag #s over the long term and we aren't likely to, generally speaking. I've watched this stuff over 20 years, and opportunity has gone down with each passing year for the most part.
The only way I can see tag increases is by limiting weapon and/or limiting access by closing more roads. This could conceivably create some room for more tags because harvest would likely decrease, while hunt quality [matter of opinion, I know] may very well increase.
Thanks Randy for the awesome videos and for giving us a place to discuss this stuff.
As has been mentioned several times on this and other threads, there is no "fix", only different methods of allocating a limited supply of tags to the masses. What's the best or most fair? That's likely to be different for each person you ask.
However, I think a majority would agree, what certain states, like Colorado, have done is not working out very well in the long run... Wyoming is running into that as well.
The prospect of never drawing due to the simple math of it stinks for a majority of would-be applicants with low points. Creating a system that gives some chance at that stuff is better in my mind.
Raising the stakes for a drawn tag also makes sense.
The ability to just buy points seemed great when it started, but at this stage in the game it makes less sense. Lots of guys are just buying snake oil. Should they let that keep up? Humm...
The ability to return tags at a whim is ridiculous. This should only be allowed if there are documented extenuating circumstances.
There will always be arguments over the best way to dish out tags for the limited supply of animals we all want so much to hunt. The reality is, with limited supply, not everyone gets a chance.
These ideas probably belong on another thread, but the root of the matter is supply of tags. We haven't generally seen many increases in tag #s over the long term and we aren't likely to, generally speaking. I've watched this stuff over 20 years, and opportunity has gone down with each passing year for the most part.
The only way I can see tag increases is by limiting weapon and/or limiting access by closing more roads. This could conceivably create some room for more tags because harvest would likely decrease, while hunt quality [matter of opinion, I know] may very well increase.
Thanks Randy for the awesome videos and for giving us a place to discuss this stuff.
hogcarpy
Well-known member
This is a very interesting and popular thread. Great thoughts and ideas!
I am with Randy with most of the ideas brought up. Specially with the (lose points if you pick up a returned tag or get a landowner tag) That would be so sweet in Colorado. I burning points as fast as I can. I just want to go hunt, tired of building points I may never be able to use. Like my Nevada desert sheet points (20 this year). My odds are 1.07% to draw a tag this year!!! Up from 1.01% with 19 points...
Duck-Slayer
Well-known member
IMO-disssolve the points, mandatory buying a hunting/fishing combo license for anyone applying or getting a tag, I would think that would make up the millions being made on points every year? Here in Idaho $264 just to apply or get a tag, that’s 7.54 million just for deer/elk license holders. Not including the actual tag fees. Oregon is $282.50 - not sure on there quota if any, you should get the my point, no pun intended lol 
I think that would solve the states income issues? This would include nonresident fishermen having to pay the same $282.50. I didn’t dive real deep into this but could be feasible imo? @BuzzH @Big Fin
Matt
I think that would solve the states income issues? This would include nonresident fishermen having to pay the same $282.50. I didn’t dive real deep into this but could be feasible imo? @BuzzH @Big FinMatt
The problem with "fixing" a point system is everybody has a different idea of what a point system is ment to accomplish. What's the goal of implementing a point system?
In my opinion all a point system SHOULD be is a safety net for unlucky random draws. That's it. An attempted to eveny distribute tags amongst those who want them is a random draw with a few point tags. Not a way to scheme tags, not a way for more wealthy guys to draw more tags, and not a way to get ahead in the draws. It should just catch the statistical anomaly guys. That's it.
I agree with most of what you're saying. The only deviation I can think of would be depridation tags. A farmer or rancher is asking for help so we could cut a little slack there.
I personally feel that if a point system does nothing more than guarantee a tag once you've tripled or quadrupled the random odds That's what it should be. A small percentage of tags are point and the majority are random. Any random draw approximately 14% of applicants will never draw. All points should do is catch those guys and get them a tag.
50/50 odds and you haven't drawn in 8 years? Here's your tag. That's it.
In my opinion all a point system SHOULD be is a safety net for unlucky random draws. That's it. An attempted to eveny distribute tags amongst those who want them is a random draw with a few point tags. Not a way to scheme tags, not a way for more wealthy guys to draw more tags, and not a way to get ahead in the draws. It should just catch the statistical anomaly guys. That's it.
I agree with most of what you're saying. The only deviation I can think of would be depridation tags. A farmer or rancher is asking for help so we could cut a little slack there.
I personally feel that if a point system does nothing more than guarantee a tag once you've tripled or quadrupled the random odds That's what it should be. A small percentage of tags are point and the majority are random. Any random draw approximately 14% of applicants will never draw. All points should do is catch those guys and get them a tag.
50/50 odds and you haven't drawn in 8 years? Here's your tag. That's it.
Last edited:
fowladdict
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,540
Eliminate NR party apps for all point holders (or all point holders must have the same amount of points). No more collecting points for every member of your family so you can use their points when you need them to help you get a tag. NR party apps for the random draw only.
Buffs35
Well-known member
I would make preference points only available for purchase after the last season closes. Hunters are only eligible to purchase a point if they applied in the primary draw and didn't draw a tag in primary or secondary draws (doesn't matter what choice), and you also failed to pick up a tag on leftovers or hunt OTC. If you hunt, you can't also acquire a point. Never gonna happen since selling points is so profitable.
TheGrayRider
Well-known member
Raffles seem like the latest and greatest money makers. Any raffles for extra bonus points and preference points out there yet? Somebody has to jump on that…
good point
