Man, I hate to be that guy, but I doubt CO ever had enough leg hold trappers to stop Front Range driven voter initiatives. It's just demographics.
Point Creep realistic topping out number
- Thread starter ChrisB
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Well good, tell me what I should do with 21 deer and sheep points in Utah then...I reckon I'll have 40-50 points for sheep there before I kick it.I couldn't agree more. No hunt on this planet is truly worth 30 years of point investment.
Where it gets a little broken and a little more justifiable to wait that long is in a state like CO where you can just save for that supposed great hunt with those points and than just get an otc tag. I really wish every state in the west required non residents to use their points for any tag they buy...level that playing field a bit more
But, according to some, its all young guys hunting sheep...
LopeHunter
Well-known member
Most of you are aware that available primo tags are never going to meet demand. A few ways to manage demand other than driving off existing hunters with higher and higher costs exceeding the rate of inflation or chasing away potential new hunters as they realize they face a multi-decade wait ahead of them to "earn" a chance to have a ball in the hopper for a state such as Colorado.
There are ways states can lessen demand for hunts while keeping hunters hunting.
A state such as Colorado should require you to forfeit all points for a species if you obtain a tag. Draw a tag 1st choice, buy a landowner or auction tag, pick up a leftover tag, win a raffle tag, etc. If you have a tag then you no longer have points for that species. Point creep will slow and fall for all but the top few hunts. I know guys that hunt elk and or deer every year in Colorado and all their points still.
A state such as Wyoming should make you choose if you want to apply to pronghorn, deer or elk and then you get one more application for either sheep or goat or moose or bison. You only get a point if you apply for a tag and do not end up with a tag for that species.
You have a wait period for a species if you draw a tag. The demand for the tag you drew provides the wait list years. 100 people apply for 10 tags is 100/10 so you wait 10 years to apply again for that species.
If applying as a party then when drawn everyone has to buy their tag and everyone loses their points.
Points cap at 5 more points than today's max for that species. If someone had 32 sheep points then 37 will be the max and at that point you do not get more points but you can still apply as a kid spends the next 37 years getting to your point level.
You get one choice per species so you no longer get to take a moon shot for the best elk hunt in NM then put your 3rd or 4th choice as a safety choice. Demand on the primo tags will ebb as some hunters prefer a good hunt soon rather than a 1 in 100 chance for the next 20 years' of applications.
Do not require hunting tag costs upfront to apply. That merely reduces what hunters can afford to fund multiple tags when they are very, very unlikely to draw all tags applied for that year. Give someone 16 days to pay for the tag then hit the phones calling the next person in line with 1 day to pay for the tag.
Well, tossing some stuff on the wall. I would like to see more hunters with more opportunity for big game hunts. I am content chasing turkeys or plinking squirrels out of a hickory so do not need a big game tag to hunt. I do like to big game hunt and there are hunts I simply can no longer hunt as I could have when in my 40s. My hunting world is shrinking due to aging more than lacking funds or time to get into the woods. The circle of life.
There are ways states can lessen demand for hunts while keeping hunters hunting.
A state such as Colorado should require you to forfeit all points for a species if you obtain a tag. Draw a tag 1st choice, buy a landowner or auction tag, pick up a leftover tag, win a raffle tag, etc. If you have a tag then you no longer have points for that species. Point creep will slow and fall for all but the top few hunts. I know guys that hunt elk and or deer every year in Colorado and all their points still.
A state such as Wyoming should make you choose if you want to apply to pronghorn, deer or elk and then you get one more application for either sheep or goat or moose or bison. You only get a point if you apply for a tag and do not end up with a tag for that species.
You have a wait period for a species if you draw a tag. The demand for the tag you drew provides the wait list years. 100 people apply for 10 tags is 100/10 so you wait 10 years to apply again for that species.
If applying as a party then when drawn everyone has to buy their tag and everyone loses their points.
Points cap at 5 more points than today's max for that species. If someone had 32 sheep points then 37 will be the max and at that point you do not get more points but you can still apply as a kid spends the next 37 years getting to your point level.
You get one choice per species so you no longer get to take a moon shot for the best elk hunt in NM then put your 3rd or 4th choice as a safety choice. Demand on the primo tags will ebb as some hunters prefer a good hunt soon rather than a 1 in 100 chance for the next 20 years' of applications.
Do not require hunting tag costs upfront to apply. That merely reduces what hunters can afford to fund multiple tags when they are very, very unlikely to draw all tags applied for that year. Give someone 16 days to pay for the tag then hit the phones calling the next person in line with 1 day to pay for the tag.
Well, tossing some stuff on the wall. I would like to see more hunters with more opportunity for big game hunts. I am content chasing turkeys or plinking squirrels out of a hickory so do not need a big game tag to hunt. I do like to big game hunt and there are hunts I simply can no longer hunt as I could have when in my 40s. My hunting world is shrinking due to aging more than lacking funds or time to get into the woods. The circle of life.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I don't know, I reckon people that have applied for sheep and hunted all their lives probably outlive the average...
You know, physical activity, fresh air, all that stuff that most hunters experience and probably skew that data on life expectancy to the older side.
I'm no doctor so maybe inhaling gun powder and lead drives the age lower...
LopeHunter
Well-known member
No need to worry. You are correct that trappers are a small part of the voting population. Trappers did not form an alliance with big game hunters, bird hunters, trout fisherman and people that support harvesting fur/critters/fish. Whistling through the graveyard hoping to have more personal opportunity to trap/hunt/fish in the outdoors is a selfish yet winning strategy in the short-term. Long-term, perhaps there is not a winning strategy to keep it legal to trap/hunt/fish but a winning strategy will not include reducing the number of hunters.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Sir, I’m going to need your reply in .xls or .xlsx format.
I think the problem is a table shows the one dude at 88 with a tag, but doesn’t show the 134 guys who died at 64 of heat disease, the 10 guys who died of lymphoma, or the 5 guys who gave up because their gout got so bad that they couldn’t hunt any more. There is a decent amount of attrition at high point levels, though I guess you could be right and it’s sheep hunting is self selecting.
That said I also wonder… we have seen a 40 years old who starts applying for sheep in 1980 will keep applying till 2022+
Will a guy whose parents put in for him make the same decision… like if your 45 and have 44 points will you honestly say, yep in until I die?
Will enough folks do that, and not draw to make a point pool?
Those factors are why I think 45 is kinda the max magic number.
Last edited by a moderator:
BuzzH
Well-known member
I would say guys with 20+ are in for life...Sir, I’m going to need your reply in .xls or .xlsx format.
I think the problem is a table shows the one dude at 88 with a tag, but doesn’t show the 134 guys who died at 64 of heat disease, the 10 guys who died of lymphoma, or the 5 guys who gave up because their gout got so bad that they couldn’t hunt any more. There is a decent amount of attrition at high point levels, though I guess you could be right and it’s sheep hunting is self selecting.
That said I also wonder… we have seen a 40 years old who starts applying for sheep in 1980 will keep applying till 2022+
Will a guy whose parents put in for him make the same decision… like if your 45 and have 44 points will you honestly say, yep in until I die?
Will enough folks do that, and not draw to make a point pool?
Those factors are why I think 45 is kinda the max magic number.
You think I'm tossing my points before I'm dead?...won't happen and if I have to hire 4 packers, 12 horses and crawl to a place to hunt sheep at 90, that's exactly what I'll do.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Exactly, but me with a handful of points looking at you… not exactly inspiring me to stay in the game. “Oh great so 30 years from now when I’m 65, I still won’t have a chance cause Buzz will still be decades ahead…”
That thinking causes people to drop out and keeps it from getting to 65, at least that is my theory.
If the preference point pool gets above ~ 40 no rational person will apply, what’s the point.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Sucks to be you I guess.
BrentD
Well-known member
Why do you work so hard at being a jerk, Buzz?
seeth07
Well-known member
I think you are correct here. Case in point: Wyoming Moose. Look at what happened in the draw last year due to the change with no requirement to purchase points now. The random units all saw more interest and rather than just about every unit going up a point, only some did. There are so few tags and so many people above 10 points that I believe the current amount of years required to clear them out is something like 98 years. Obviously due to deaths and dropping out the points won't get that high.
I know I have the amount of non resident application point breakdown from the 2020 season for moose and I should get the 2021 numbers pulled together because I can than show how many people "dropped out" and didn't pay for the point anymore.
I don't think Buzz is a jerk. mtmuley
BuzzH
Well-known member
Not being a jerk at all, if people in the lowest point pools are going to try to get the top-tier tags, its going to suck to be them.
Wouldn't you agree?
The other fact is, that those in the upper tier point pools aren't going to drop after 40-45 points...unless they draw or die.
People like my nephews, who started getting points at age 10....they very well could top 40 points before they drew say sheep.
I would guess the upper pools will eventually be larger since younger and younger hunters are acquiring points.
But who knows the earth could spin off its axis or get hit by a meteor too...
Last edited:
Just thinking out loud here on how states could clear points out the fastest prior to swapping to a true random draw if that is what the future holds-
Where would you each stand if they allowed you to combine your points into an aggregate 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.
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.
*edit*
You'd see some crazy point numbers across the board after reading how many points some of you have. Billy Bob would have 114 points for that Gunnison late Mule Deer, and Jimbo would have 132 points for Arizona Sheep...
Where would you each stand if they allowed you to combine your points into an aggregate 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.
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.
*edit*
You'd see some crazy point numbers across the board after reading how many points some of you have. Billy Bob would have 114 points for that Gunnison late Mule Deer, and Jimbo would have 132 points for Arizona Sheep...
X13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
- Messages
- 1,831
If we're all just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, here's my take...
As the high point holders age out the politicians and commissioners will be more receptive to the grumblings of a point deprived younger audience. States will transition to AZ/WY like draws with split pref/random aspects. Eventually an expiration will then be placed on all existing points and any leftover after that time will be forfeited ending up with a truly random system. This will give folks a time period to spend their accumulated points before the rug gets pulled out from under them.
....Then the pigs start to fly....
As the high point holders age out the politicians and commissioners will be more receptive to the grumblings of a point deprived younger audience. States will transition to AZ/WY like draws with split pref/random aspects. Eventually an expiration will then be placed on all existing points and any leftover after that time will be forfeited ending up with a truly random system. This will give folks a time period to spend their accumulated points before the rug gets pulled out from under them.
....Then the pigs start to fly....
RobertD
Well-known member
I have spent a few days thinking about ways states could work towards policies that help discourage point banking/earning.
@LopeHunter and @YoungGun both offer a lot of good examples of ways that could happen and I won't try to restate their lists/ideas. I think their reasoning is sound, though, and their ideas would help slow point creep.
I am starting to fear now though that states have no real incentive to actually stop point creep, and all kinds of incentive to ensure it continues. Points don't just represent dollars spent, but also, because of human psychology, they work to ensure a captive customer base. So maybe states should do a lot more to force NRs to spend their points and should discourage point hoarding by NRs, but they won't.
I think we'll continue to see what we see now - point creep everywhere, with lots of opportunities hidden in plain sight for guys who are diligent, dedicated, good with numbers or just good at hunting.
I still don't buy that point creep and demand for Western hunts is eternal, though. Multiple factors created this heightened demand, and those same factors will eventually play a role in the trip back down the mountain.
@LopeHunter and @YoungGun both offer a lot of good examples of ways that could happen and I won't try to restate their lists/ideas. I think their reasoning is sound, though, and their ideas would help slow point creep.
I am starting to fear now though that states have no real incentive to actually stop point creep, and all kinds of incentive to ensure it continues. Points don't just represent dollars spent, but also, because of human psychology, they work to ensure a captive customer base. So maybe states should do a lot more to force NRs to spend their points and should discourage point hoarding by NRs, but they won't.
I think we'll continue to see what we see now - point creep everywhere, with lots of opportunities hidden in plain sight for guys who are diligent, dedicated, good with numbers or just good at hunting.
I still don't buy that point creep and demand for Western hunts is eternal, though. Multiple factors created this heightened demand, and those same factors will eventually play a role in the trip back down the mountain.
Duck-Slayer
Well-known member
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. I’m going to make a separate post.
Matt
Matt
I’d like to see an interstate 90/10 resident/non resident split, unsquared bonus point random draw, no point/tag transfers, or deferral mechanisms, any male tag purges points.
This seems like a good start to:
A) acknowledged how out of control daunting some of the point schemes have become
B) not completely dismiss the years of contribution “seasoned” applicants have made
WY/CO are in route to 90/10.. let’s go to the negotiating table while we can!
This seems like a good start to:
A) acknowledged how out of control daunting some of the point schemes have become
B) not completely dismiss the years of contribution “seasoned” applicants have made
WY/CO are in route to 90/10.. let’s go to the negotiating table while we can!
SAJ-99
Well-known member
You assume they are still alive.
Similar threads
