New points theory

[Duck-Slayer]

In theory you could keep a modified points system. You only get one set of points, let’s say $150 per point, you can only put in for one species per year. So in theory you could thin out the points I would think pretty fast. If anyone wants to add onto this theory. We all should try and make up the best points system between all of us we could probably come up with some thing a game and fish department could use.
Matt

 

[Duck-Slayer]

Also, all current points could be added up and averaged for a starting points total. Then go off the $150 per point per year and only apply for one species as a non-resident.
Matt

 

[RobertD]

@YoungGun tagging you because you were kind of getting at the same idea in your post on the other thread.

Matt would points be sperated between Deer Elk Antelope Other vs Moose Sheep Goat Griz Bison?

 

[seeth07]

I really do like the "apply for only one species" aspect and its the reason why every year I apply in Idaho. While I do like the zero points in Idaho system, I do not see it as a bad thing allowing some sort of point system (bonus preferred for sure over pure PP).

This applies only to NR. I don't like anything but random draws for residents, regardless of species.

 

[YoungGun]

@YoungGun tagging you because you were kind of getting at the same idea in your post on the other thread.

Matt would points be sperated between Deer Elk Antelope Other vs Moose Sheep Goat Griz Bison?

I'm just spitballing- but in essence, I think there'd be a state or two that would get sued if they just straight out eliminated points altogether. The basis for the lawsuit would probably hinge on everyone being refunded at value for any points that were washed away. So if there were to be shifts to random draws, I think states would be well served to avoid the potential of a lawsuit or refunding folks, and my initial idea is to force folks to combine their points for one species.

Basically if I have 10 points for Sheep, 10 for Moose, 10 for goat and 3 for elk, I would be required to combine them all for one species, i.e. 33 pts for moose. The points you gave up, sheep, goat, elk, would clear the way for other hunters that maybe chose that species instead, and then you'd start applying in the random draw pool for those species while you apply in the bonus pool with your 33 points for moose until those points are used, at which point, you also enter the random draw if the state isn't OIL.

It seems like this would be one way to phase points out altogether while avoiding (some) of the backlash from those that have spent their time and money building points waking up to all random draws some day.

Obviously, I think some species would get very clogged with stupid point totals- Sheep would probably require 100+ points. But maybe those top-tier deer and elk hunts could then be had after a couple years at a much lower total that the 20+ points we see now if that's what you chose to combine your points toward. Younger hunters/those with less points would do well to apply for Elk/Deer/Antelope, while those with the most points/age would probably go after their dream hunts of Moose/Sheep/Goat etc. This would provide some semblance of equity, in that the younger hunters would still get a quality hunt, while having many more years to try and draw a random tag. The old guard would have a simplified drawing with less applicants to compete against while they look to use their points before they die or are physically unable to enjoy that hunt.

For my purposes, @RobertD, I think the state's would be best served to not separate Deer/Elk from Moose/Sheep/Goat etc., as it would clear points out that much quicker. If two or three states switched to this method at once, think Montana, Utah and Arizona, hunters could combine their points in a more diversified front- say Desert Sheep in Arizona, Elk in Utah, and Bighorn Sheep in Montana.

Just a thought.

 

[seeth07]

I'll play the game a bit further because this is something I think way too much about....some of the things I bring up in the system as I explain it are not necessarily about being "super fair" but I have really tried to think about this from the state perspective as well knowing that they need to still make money on this.

I'm going to use Arizona/Wyoming as guidelines because I do like a lot of what they do. Here is how it would work. ***NON RESIDENT ONLY*** Residents should be able to cheaply pay for a random equal drawing for every single species.

This only applies to tags that are for male species. All female species tags are offered in a random draw and I'm not going to explore that.

There is a division between elk/deer/antelope and moose/sheep/goat/bison.

For moose/sheep/goat/bison:
1) Application to apply due sometime in January/February.
2) You are only allowed to pick one species to apply for. You are only given a first choice. If there are leftovers they will just move to the resident random drawing.
3) Your application fee to apply is in the ballpark of $20-$50
4) You do not have to front the tag fee but it will be automatically charged at the drawing so you need to have a CC valid and ready to be charged if drawn.
5) 10% of all tags from the overall tag allotment for each hunt go to non-residents. If there are less than 10 tags, a tag will be issued for each 9 tags that have already been issued to residents. Example: 2020 - 5 tags total, they all go to residents. 2021 - 4 tags total, they all go to residents. 2022 - 4 tags total, non-residents have now earned 1 (9 tags have been issued to residents in the past two years) and that leaves 3 left to still go to residents.
6) Of the tags available for non-residents, 50% go to a random draw pool and 50% go to a bonus point pool. If a hunt has an odd number of tags, the extra tag alternates where it goes. One year it would go to the bonus point pool and the next time its an odd amount for that unit, it would go to the random point pool.
7) To gain bonus points, you need to purchase them every year. They are not earned by not drawing. The purchase cost for a bonus point is in the ballpark of $150-$200.
8) Bonus points apply to your application, not species. This is because you can only select one species to apply for.
9) Bonus point pool is done first before the random draw.
10) Once you draw a tag for that species, you can never draw a tag for that species again if you are successful.
11) Results posted before the elk/deer/antelope draw - March sometime.

For elk/deer/antelope:
1) Application to apply due sometime in April.
2) Same as above.
3) Same as above.
4) Same as above.
5) Same as above.
6) Same as above.
7) Same as above.
8) Same as above.
9) Same as above.
10) Once you draw a tag, you can never draw that tag again in the Bonus point pool ONLY. If you select that tag again as your first choice, you can only receive the tag in the random drawing.
11) Results posted in May sometime.

 

[fowladdict]

I'm just spitballing- but in essence, I think there'd be a state or two that would get sued if they just straight out eliminated points altogether. The basis for the lawsuit would probably hinge on everyone being refunded at value for any points that were washed away. So if there were to be shifts to random draws, I think states would be well served to avoid the potential of a lawsuit or refunding folks, and my initial idea is to force folks to combine their points for one species.

Basically if I have 10 points for Sheep, 10 for Moose, 10 for goat and 3 for elk, I would be required to combine them all for one species, i.e. 33 pts for moose. The points you gave up, sheep, goat, elk, would clear the way for other hunters that maybe chose that species instead, and then you'd start applying in the random draw pool for those species while you apply in the bonus pool with your 33 points for moose until those points are used, at which point, you also enter the random draw if the state isn't OIL.

It seems like this would be one way to phase points out altogether while avoiding (some) of the backlash from those that have spent their time and money building points waking up to all random draws some day.

Obviously, I think some species would get very clogged with stupid point totals- Sheep would probably require 100+ points. But maybe those top-tier deer and elk hunts could then be had after a couple years at a much lower total that the 20+ points we see now if that's what you chose to combine your points toward. Younger hunters/those with less points would do well to apply for Elk/Deer/Antelope, while those with the most points/age would probably go after their dream hunts of Moose/Sheep/Goat etc. This would provide some semblance of equity, in that the younger hunters would still get a quality hunt, while having many more years to try and draw a random tag. The old guard would have a simplified drawing with less applicants to compete against while they look to use their points before they die or are physically unable to enjoy that hunt.

For my purposes, @RobertD, I think the state's would be best served to not separate Deer/Elk from Moose/Sheep/Goat etc., as it would clear points out that much quicker. If two or three states switched to this method at once, think Montana, Utah and Arizona, hunters could combine their points in a more diversified front- say Desert Sheep in Arizona, Elk in Utah, and Bighorn Sheep in Montana.

Just a thought.

As a non-resident building points in Wyoming, I would rather all preference points converted to bonus points with no option to buy more points. I think this gives the younger hunters with zero points (or few points) a chance.

As for Idaho, as a resident, I would like to see the sheep, goat and moose stay the same. I think with our growing population it would be beneficial to only allow resident hunters to put in for two species instead of all of them AND the general tags for deer to be limited to one weapon and one unit similar to elk.

 

[TexanSam]

As a non-resident building points in Wyoming, I would rather all preference points converted to bonus points with no option to buy more points. I think this gives the younger hunters with zero points (or few points) a chance.

I would like to see this for all states. I think any preference point states should just go ahead and convert to a bonus point system. Maybe do like Arizona where 10% of the tags go to the highest point holders to keep the long time holders happy.

I also think you should lose your points if you get a tag no matter what. That applies to OTC, second choice, leftovers, landowner vouchers, cow/doe/antlerless tags. If you hunt for species x, you will enter the draw for that species with 0 points next year.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

This is why it's so good that every state has its own system. I can apply in the states with systems that I like, and you can apply in states with systems you like. If you have so much money that you are even applying in states with systems you don't like, you have a first-world problem.

QQ

 

[seeth07]

I would like to see this for all states. I think any preference point states should just go ahead and convert to a bonus point system. Maybe do like Arizona where 10% of the tags go to the highest point holders to keep the long time holders happy.

You could make it a slow transition by starting year 1 with 90%points/10%random and every year drop it 10% until you reach the desired break amount. This will make it easier for high point holders to make decisions about what to do in this transition.

I also think you should lose your points if you get a tag no matter what. That applies to OTC, second choice, leftovers, landowner vouchers, cow/doe/antlerless tags. If you hunt for species x, you will enter the draw for that species with 0 points next year.

Yes but only for male tags. Female tags are used when population objectives are being exceeded and its issuing female tags as the tool to address it. You don't want to discourage people from getting those tags in any way.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

The other thing I like that I don't see mentioned often is that point systems are like a free market economy. If you want to wait 30 years for a tag, it's your choice. If you want a tag that takes 5 years, it's your choice. If you want to hunt every year, you can choose to make that happen. But the point value of a given hunt is set by the market, and individuals can respond accordingly.

One unintended consequence of moving numbers of people out of the high point hunts will be a marked increase in demand for hunts that you can currently do every year or every other year. In my mind, it might be better to let those people keep applying for those high point hunts.

QQ

 

[Gr8bawana]

One way to thin out the pool of bonus point holders in states that have otc tags and a draw would be to prohibit a person who applies for a tag and not draw the tag then go buy an otc tag for the same species.
Guys applying for a perceived trophy unit would be forced to choose whether they want to keep applying for a premium unit or just go hunt, not both.
Or as TexanSam said no bonus point if you buy an otc tag for the same species.
How many thousands of people apply for a tag and then when they don't draw their wanted tag just go and buy otc tag and go hunt in a different unit.

 

[TexanSam]

The simple solution for one who does not understand anything would be to have enough animals on public lands that everyone gets a tag

 

[homers]

Get a tag, use your points. Doesn't matter if it is antlerless, doe, 1st draw, 2nd draw or 3rd draw. A lot of hunters in the field who have a tag but didn't use their points to get it.

 

[Cheesehead]

I think about this too much as well. For me, I think the 'gold standard' is straight random. There is an obvious blowback situation if you made peoples' points worthless overnight. There is also a long term damage to the state if say, in 2035 it takes 12 points on average to hunt an elk out west. If I were a benevolent dictator, I would have:

1) states cease selling new points Year 1
2) remaining points continue to be useful in the 'old schema' of the state but a gradual phase out of the pool of tags that are in the points side vs the random side
3) so for example, Arizona 20 / 80 split would phase to a 15 / 85 in year 3, 10 / 90 year 6, then year 10 goes full random...something like that...

Alternatively, you could move states like Colorado 80% point / 20% random Year 3, 50/50 year 6, then be 20 / 80 by year 10 and then stay that way long term

 

[rustednuts]

One way to thin out the pool of bonus point holders in states that have otc tags and a draw would be to prohibit a person who applies for a tag and not draw the tag then go buy an otc tag for the same species.
Guys applying for a perceived trophy unit would be forced to choose whether they want to keep applying for a premium unit or just go hunt, not both.
Or as TexanSam said no bonus point if you buy an otc tag for the same species.
How many thousands of people apply for a tag and then when they don't draw their wanted tag just go and buy otc tag and go hunt in a different unit.

This is my viewpoint as well. If you have a tag you don't get to build a point for that year. I hunt a lot of OTC hunts, so it would hurt me but I think the double-dip is an issue. It would probably also reduce crowding in OTC units.

 

[Mica Man]

Random draw with no point system works great. Level playing field for all no matter the age or when you start playing the game.

 

[Duck-Slayer]

Definitely a lot of good “points” pun intended lol when should we start writing the regulations up for states to adopt?
Matt

 

[BradA]

Sounds like this is very similar to resident Utah draw. One of the issues If you don’t make it straight across the board for residents and NR is that people will build points then either move there or move out of the state to capitalize on there points they have banked up. People do that now in Utah apply as a nr then move there and have stacked points and draw a sheep tag one year then a moose then etc.

 

[Cheesehead]

People do that now in Utah apply as a nr then move there and have stacked points and draw a sheep tag one year then a moose then etc.

That’s a hot tip of the day right there!