It’s application and everybody is planning their hunts, me included. After listening to various podcasts, reading forum posts, and looking at draw stats it’s very clear that point creep is real and will only get worse in the future. I’m fairly young and have been in the points game for a short time and I have been cycling through my points every couple of years. It’s insane to see that a hunt that I did 4years ago in Wyoming for 1point guaranteed now requires 4 points. I will likely not be able to hunt that unit again in the near future nor do I want to wait that long.
So how do the states fix this and allow more people to cycle through their points? As I thought more about the situation I came up with an idea that I would implement if I had the power. Feel free to shoot holes in it but I would like some constructive ideas of how these draw systems should be improved.
Let’s take Colorado for example. It takes 20+ points to draw some units and anybody with less than that will likely never get to hunt top tier units. My suggestion would be to lock in everybody’s current preference point number today. There are about 13800 nonresident hunters that applied in the draw with over 10 points and about 550 were successful in the draw. This could be due to various reasons but it would take about 25 years for these folks to cycle through.
Now I am not saying to get rid of the points system completely, I think they should cap the amount of points that you can hold at a certain number for a certain species. For this case let’s say 10 points is the cap on elk. Anybody with less than 10 points will be able to accrue points until they reach 10 and then they will have to pay the preference point each year to keep those points. If you forget to apply or don’t want to pay the fee you go back to zero.
The next step would be to allow points to be averaged across the hunt group to help eliminate the point holders above 10 points. The state would continue to get their money, high point holders would still have the greatest odds of drawing the unit of their choice, and once the high point holders were out then the max points would be 10 and basically it would be a random draw for the highest demand units. There would be no incentive to keep accruing points because your odds don’t get any better. Over the long term the middle units would experience point creep, but would level out and everybody that stays in the game for at least ten years will have chance, albeit dismal, to draw the top tier units.
Obviously other species would have different preference point totals or systems but for deer, elk, and antelope this would even the playing field and eventually whether you’re 12 years and just leafally old enough to start getting points or 40 and just getting into the draw you are only 10 years away from being in the max point pool.
Thoughts?
Species in Wyoming are a premium now. The book is out. Last year there were 88,869 unsuccessful applications despite Wyoming increasing licenses, antelope licenses increased 8.45%, deer 5.51% and elk 5.39%. All draw odds will continue to go down as the word spreads further.
You can look at a state like New Mexico with a lottery system and hunts like 16A have elk rifle odds of 0.66% and 3.1%, because a lot more people want to hunt it than the available tags. In Idaho elk units 56 and 57 have draw odds of 1.7%, so it is the same problem. In Utah they only give 1-2 NR tags in each unit weapon type in a lot of elk units. There isn't a system that can fix the amount of people wanting to hunt a specific unit. Nevada same issue. Colorado same issue.
I think trying to find units that are easier to draw and changing weapon types is the best route forward.
Moving archery out of the rut or having a bunch of late archery tags (low success) could increase the number of tags while maintaining quality.
Limiting scopes on Muzzleloaders or going to open sights and moving the hunts out of the rut, would create low success hunts which would result in more tags.
Rifle hunters with the new scope technology and the ability to shoot longer ranges is an issue, because no matter the season unless you throw thousands of people in a unit the harvest rate will be moderately higher than the rest.
No me it doesn't matter the point or no point system, it is more of a limited resource and too many people applying for it.
Increasing tag prices makes the tags only for the better off in life and can cause a loss of hunters.
Trying to grow more animals is a decent way, but you cannot control the weather or disease in a lot of situations.
Land owner programs are an option, but they do come with a monetary price either paid by the hunter or the state (tax credits, subsides, etc)
Opening up land out east to the public and trying to grow elk herds in new areas can lead to more people, but also more oppurtunity.
It is really a complicated case, a lot of ins, a lot of outs, and a lot of what have yous.
