May CPW Commission meeting

[elkduds]

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.

CPW has heard every version of every proposal from every source. Their stated concern is what is most fair for most hunters. This was restated repeatedly during the last Commission discussion on point banking, which a few commissioners intend as a band-aid for point creep. IMO the only thing that will sway them to action is lots of feedback that hunter priorities have changed w the times and that there is some consensus around which way to proceed. They also want a fair way to transition out of the current point system. They kick the can because there is no agreement about what is the next best plan, and are reluctant to disappoint "customers."

 

[winmag]

At one of the preference point focus group meetings I proposed some sort of long term transition away from points. One example would be to pick a date far enough in the future to allow people to plan, perhaps 20 years from now, where all points would be eliminated in favor of a total lottery system like NM. All the max/near max point holders (the ones who don't actually want to make the system any more fair, they just want their fairytale tag) will be dead or otherwise unable to hunt in 20 years, and everyone else can plan accordingly.

Or make 2 tag pools, a point pool and a random pool, and every year transition more tags into the random pool until the points pool goes away in 10-20 years.

This didn't really get any traction.

I imagine they'll go down some points squared path, then points cubed. Then what's next? Points ^4? It'll be dumb.

 

[huskyhunter]

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.

I really should have stated that my idea of points being used for any A tag would really be for NR. As a R, you should obviously have some privileges that us NRs don't have. Now if they decided to do this for R, I think it would take some time(to get through current point holders), but I do think a R would be able to draw some pretty decent tags after only a couple years of chasing cows instead of bulls.

 

[Buffs35]

Make all current archery tags into recurve only tags, make all muzzy tags into archery tags, and all rifle tags into traditional muzzy tags. Profit.

 

[RunNGunSC]

Cap points at the current max and declare the point system retired after that number of years. So if max is 20 points, the system goes completely random in 20 years. Reduce the max points allowed annually by one point. Current point holders can continue to buy points to hold their seniority or re-enter the pool, but everyone knows the max point level will keep declining. This forces those with max points to find a hunt or face worsening odds as the number of max point holders increases annually. This also allows those chasing a hunt a random chance at some point of catching that hunt, but at the risk of waiting too long.

 

[TOGIE]

if we frame it as something about how "old white guys hold all the power" i bet we could collect enough signatures at sprouts and whole foods to get a ballot initiative going for dismantling the points system in favor of random

 

[WildWill]

if we frame it as something about how "old white guys hold all the power" i bet we could collect enough signatures at sprouts and whole foods to get a ballot initiative going for dismantling the points system in favor of random

I can see it now.

 

[grasshopper]

Personally, I don't think the points system needs to change at all for elk, deer, antelope or bear. I have a couple of different elk hunt codes with low hunter density and abundant mature bulls that can be drawn with 2 to 3 points. (I ain't telling more)

Look at the stats from 22. While there is 730,000 points out there, so what. The average resident carry's less then 3 points. CPW stated something like 90 plus percent of all hunt codes take less then 2 points to draw.
We could blow up the points system, or you guys in favor of that could find a better place to apply.
Using toprut, all the units in green have at least one bull tag hunt code available for 3 points or less.
Moving to 75/25 and 80/20, just aided residents and resident point creep, I suspect slightly, in some hunt codes.

If you want change, change your own mind.

 

[Stevo74]

Personally, I don't think the points system needs to change at all for elk, deer, antelope or bear. I have a couple of different elk hunt codes with low hunter density and abundant mature bulls that can be drawn with 2 to 3 points. (I ain't telling more)

Look at the stats from 22. While there is 730,000 points out there, so what. The average resident carry's less then 3 points. CPW stated something like 90 plus percent of all hunt codes take less then 2 points to draw.
We could blow up the points system, or you guys in favor of that could find a better place to apply.
Using toprut, all the units in green have at least one bull tag hunt code available for 3 points or less.
Moving to 75/25 and 80/20, just aided residents and resident point creep, I suspect slightly, in some hunt codes.

If you want change, change your own mind.

I have to agree with you. I don't feel like anything needs to change. Those of us that have been playing this point game for 20+ years understand you're probably only going to get a 61 or 76 bull elk tag as a NR once in your life time. Those just getting into the system don't feel they should have to wait 20 years to get that tag. Seems like they feel entitled to have just as much chance to get the tag with 0 points as the guy with 26 points. With that being said, I'm betting Colorado goes to some type of hybrid draw system like Utah in the near future with some random tags being available for each hunt code.

 

[Archer86]

Only change I would like to see across all states is get a tag loose your points. I don't care how the tag was obtained if you get a tag and have points they are burned.

 

[232401a]

With that being said, I'm betting Colorado goes to some type of hybrid draw system like Utah in the near future with some random tags being available for each hunt code.

CO premium deer and elk units would be 100 point draws under a Utah or Wyoming model with split preference/bonus designs.

No preference point component can exist for these types of hunt codes. They just saturate too quickly.

CO understood that when they designed weighted MSG (straight bonus). Which is why it is so funny to watch CPW struggle with the other species. Rather than make the hard decisions, they play around with Point Banking for months.

 

[thecoloradosportsman]

The May Commission meeting is in progress now. You can watch it live at the link below. It will be interesting to see how well they can stay on track with the agenda, given they will be approving the wolf management plan this morning.

The Commission went into executive session at the outset to discuss the wolf plan, and also Commission authority to shorten or cancel hunting seasons. During Commissioner comments (about an hour into the live broadcast), Commissioner Haskett talked about impacts of the winter to big game herds in NW Colorado. There are lots of photos in her presentation. She implied that she would be making an additional recommendation on how to deal with the impacts this afternoon following approval of big game license quotas.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Meeting Day 1

www.youtube.com

Nothing ever gets done