D
Deleted member 40728
Guest
That is the dumbest idea ever. I’ll provide the matches
May CPW Commission meeting
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Qubo
Active member
I’m a resident and I‘d be ok with this for leftover or returned limited tags,and even all non resident tags, but can’t support it for resident OTC. As a resident who doesn’t have the leave from work, money, or kitchen passes to hunt out of state but can hunt locally I shouldn’t have to choose between not hunting elk at all for several years while I build points or only hunting the low success overcrowded OTC units so I can hunt every year. CO residents without the privilege to hunt out of state shouldn’t be forced into this position while we still host so many NR.
This is precisely where the conversation ends for the "burn points for any A list tag" solution. If someone has to burn 20 points when they book a hunt with an outfitter which happens to be in an OTC area, they're going to think twice. [CUE THE HAT-IN-HAND OUTFITTERS CRYING TO THE COMMISSION].
I'm still in favor of having to burn your points for any A list tag, but this is why it isn't moving forward with the commission.
my "hot take"
take it for it's worth
the outfitter industry in colorado is an unsustainable bubble. something will pop it. whether it's declining herds, the ever increasing resident intolerance for how many NR otc tags get sold, or solutions to point creep that ultimately pop it remains to be seen. or, more likely, cpw gets man handled by the outfitter industry as usual to keep a steady flow cash guzzling down their throats in the form of more privatized tags.
take it for it's worth
the outfitter industry in colorado is an unsustainable bubble. something will pop it. whether it's declining herds, the ever increasing resident intolerance for how many NR otc tags get sold, or solutions to point creep that ultimately pop it remains to be seen. or, more likely, cpw gets man handled by the outfitter industry as usual to keep a steady flow cash guzzling down their throats in the form of more privatized tags.
Why do we have to "get CO points used up?" I don't care if high point holders die with 50 points. It's a conscious decision they make every single year. I don't understand the idea that just because someone chose to chase an unattainable goal that we need to now change the rules for that tiny minority.
Here's the commission link to the beginning of the presentation. If you have thoughts about this topic, give it a look.
www.youtube.com
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Meeting Day 1
www.youtube.com
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think preference points convey the false idea that it’s a line and you are waiting your turn patiently instead of the reality which is allocating opportunity when demand far outstrips supply.
It’s not a line, it’s betting you can outlast the competition…
D
Deleted member 52847
Guest
Point banking definitely doesn't solve the problem. It also depends on if you think there is a problem in the first place.
I cam see the point of the side, basically where commish Hasket was coming from, where it's too complicated and it is difficult or impossible to attain some of these hunts, especially if you are in no man's land.
On the flip side, I can understand and agree that those who put in for those points, for all those years, they made that decision each year to buy a point. They should have read the regs and understood where the points were going before they got to no man's land.
The convoluted nature of the system is actually pretty simple once you think it through and read it carefully.
Most people either are not willing to take the time to understand how the system works, or they just want to be told.
I've been a CO res all my life and never had more than three pref points. There's a lot of hunting that can be done either otc or low point units.
I cam see the point of the side, basically where commish Hasket was coming from, where it's too complicated and it is difficult or impossible to attain some of these hunts, especially if you are in no man's land.
On the flip side, I can understand and agree that those who put in for those points, for all those years, they made that decision each year to buy a point. They should have read the regs and understood where the points were going before they got to no man's land.
The convoluted nature of the system is actually pretty simple once you think it through and read it carefully.
Most people either are not willing to take the time to understand how the system works, or they just want to be told.
I've been a CO res all my life and never had more than three pref points. There's a lot of hunting that can be done either otc or low point units.
D
Deleted member 52847
Guest
This was a pretty interesting meeting for a lot of reasons. Any idea on who the new commissioners will be replacing those with expired terms?
I was wondering the same thing. Blecha, Adams and Chairperson Hauser are all done in July. Blecha was the "Sportspersons" rep so that one in particular is important to us. I wish Tutchon's term was up but we have him for another year.
100% agree.
Preference points are not a spot in line. Preference points are an investment. If you made a poor investment, that's on you. [unless you're "too big to fail" like the automotive or banking industries and then the government will come bail you out...hey maybe this is why people don't get it...]
Preference point forgiveness?
I agree with Will's analogy also, but they aren't an 'investment' as they aren't fungible and only decrease in 'value' (which they really don't have). They had a "cost" (kind of. For many years there was no additional cost for a point in CO).
Even if we assume that because they had some 'cost' they must have some Value, that value is totally subjective as it is based on each individual. In the example above from @enbhunts , his 'value' cliffs at 3 points. For others, they actually are 'holding a spot in line' (e.g. the Resident Max Bear point guys looking to hunt the Bosque).
They're most comparable to airline miles. Always de-valuing and the rules and framework for use are constantly being changed. They can also Expire.
Point Banking would decrease Demand to some degree (especially with the 2-point penalty), but probably not enough to make a difference in the top 10-20 hunt codes, and it will take quite a few years for results to materialize. I doubt the 200K+ applicants have enough patience to let that play out (e.g. the last time they tried it in 2008 and the uproar that followed)
Minus the obvious "more critters on the mountain and more tags", the only current levers to increase supply of limited draw tags are to :
A - Clawback tags from Landowner/RFW programs (Absolutely Zero chance this is happening)
B - Expand the Hybrid draw, which would just exacerbate the angst from the high point holders and generate more confusion on "wHy aRE peoPlE wiTh leSS pOiNts ThAn mE dRAwiNg tags?!"
Best fix for pure preference in CO:
Last edited:
BoulderBulls
Well-known member
Unfortunately it only gets worse from here
Climates changing, predator introduction, habitat loss. All equal Less critters on the mountain.
D
Deleted member 52847
Guest
It definitely comes down to what kind if hunt you value, then those pref points will mean more or less to you based off your value of the hunt you're putting in for
Pay money now for a desired outcome in the future = an investment. And like all investments, there is risk. They are not liquid because they can't be converted to cash, but they do have value. They have value because they provide you with a chance to get what you want at a future date (especially when you consider the hybrid draw tags...5+ points = you basically have a raffle ticket to get a premier tag). Lower risk and lower value with bear points, because bear tags aren't as desirable and you can get almost any tag in the state with a couple points. Much more risk if you're trying to draw a premier elk tag, for example, because unless you've got 25 points this year, you're not going to draw 201 elk based on points, you're just hoping to win the lottery and draw the hybrid tag.
It wouldn't be too difficult to actually value points for each species. Very similar to how you'd calculate the expected return of raffle tickets to help you decide which raffle is a "better deal".
But I'm with you. Lets rip off the bandaid and burn the sucker down.
You forgot increasing non-hunting users
But, correct, and points and applicants (demand) continue to grow.
Yep - I did misuse 'fungible' - like a typical consultant. I'll have to flip back to reviewing Powerpoint decks as penance
But your post illustrates that a CO point's value is variable, subjective and dependent on the actions of other people (and their points), which is why it's challenging to apply a broad brush.
In the Unit 201 Elk example, points 1-5 had value (they got applicant into the Hybrid draw so there was a non-zero chance of a positive outcome), points 6-24 have virtually no value (unless the behavior of others radically changes, or supply increases)
Mostly - I don't think 'value' shouldn't be used in any analysis of a potential change or "fix" for a pure preference system. Most people will equate value to cost, and that's nearly impossible to do here and mostly emotional anyway.
And I would be shocked if anyone at CPW is thinking about this at as deep a level as your post...they're just looking for a button to stop the whining and complaining.
