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.