The future of Preference Points

[Ben Lamb]

Lots of good thoughts here, but the poor residents feeding their family always rings hollow with me. Not because I don’t believe it is true or that I don’t have empathy for folks on that end of the economic spectrum (which I came from), but rather - if this is truly a state owned resource that is the difference between hunger and not, why does the state favor the 25% poor that hunt over the 75% of the poor that don’t. Why does a poor 35 yo get to fill a freezer with “shared” meat, while the 65 yo widow gets zero? If game is a poverty prevention resource for the citizens of the state shouldn’t they either (a) sell tags at the highest dollar and use the surplus funds to stock food shelves; (b) require hunters to turn in half of each carcass to go to food shelf; or (c) have professional cull hunts with the meat going to food shelves.

I enjoy hunting, I value its heritage value, I appreciate the 10% or so tags that get offered NRs, but frankly, our current system is not maximizing the resource for all the citizens of the state - it gives a big perk to a particular subset - and even within that subset it advantages the incumbent. So let’s just be honest- we have an old way of doing things that advantages the incumbents so we defend it - hardly news - just more of the same.

Many states offer the program for hunters to voluntarily turn in game that they aren't going to utilize so that it can be processed for the local food banks, or be distributed.

I helped get the Hunters Against Hunger bill passed in MT way back when the world was normal. it was a rousing success. Donations outstripped demand, and by & large, the leftover meat was put to good use for the rest who don't buy a tag and hunt. MOGA deserves a lot of credit for helping get that bill passed as well, btw.

Personally, I helped place two bucks this year that were left behind by some guys from downstate who only took the antlers and left the big bodies swinging. I've helped organize doe hunts where the price of admission was $100 to the local food bank and at least one deer (7 OTC tags at the time).

So, I disagree that those who aren't hunting don't get the benefit of it. States have an obligation IMO to create & fund programs that do help those who are in need get that resource, rather than let it rot due to the selfishness of some hunters.

But that's a state issue - not a federal one. It has to be addressed by each state. Furthermore, the economics of hunting are such that it is a large sector of the outdoor recreation economy - and that means people in bars being served by a barkeep who hates guns, but also hates that burger is for the wealthy now. It means the hotel cleaners who are working 40 hours a week have a wage to buy some costco chicken and feed their family, etc. It's not simply "1 person who hunts benefits, while the others don't." So I reject the notion that those who do not hunt receive no benefit from the trust.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not.

The states have already entered into compacts denying poachers licenses across the country from the scenes of their crimes. By your definition, that would be nationalization already. It's not. States still control their wildlife. You can't have it both ways.

BTW I think the cross-state poacher ban post dates Lacy by quite a bit. Lacy is quite different in focus as I recall and really about interstate commerce.

That could be.

But I disagree that disallowing someone to pull a deer tag in NV and KS is on the same par as disallowing someone who poached in WY from hunting other states.

 

[Firedude]

Those in the womb of time. It takes away from those who are not participating in the draw at the inception of the game

And for the 4th time. I agree with you on crazy low odds.

On higher odds deer, elk and antelope tags a small percentage point system levels out the results.

And I still agree with you on low odds draws. Points favor 1 group.

Taking a chance at not drawing 4 times to lose a 12% chance of coming up broke over 20 years on higher odds hunt is a bet I would hedge every time. Especially for my kids.

And yes.... on very low odds hunts it doesn't work.

My chosen elk hunt was 17% average (30% the year I started). I would have drawn once with points while others still drew 3 times in random. Never drew.

But it low odds examples you keep posting it still doesn't work. I get it.

My deer hunt was 18% average odds. 16 years no tag.

In low odds hunts..... It.... still.... doesn't.... work.

There's nothing wrong with saying we're going to level the results in some tags but if your swinging for the fences you have a different set of rules. That's ok. A state can say turkey, deer, and, antelope tags are 95% random. 5% point. While simultaneously saying Bighorn sheep tags or late season buck tags are completely random 1 and done. As demand for the other tags increases to the growth you are showing, points go bye bye in those hunts and with good reason.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

I don't think I would classify death as voluntary

but yeah I get your point.

Death rates are sub 1% up to approximately age 60. The 16% attrition rate in your model would have to consist of much more voluntary giving up than dying over the age range of the hypothetical youngster chasing a top tier tag.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So many self serving framing and definitional skews and mischaracterizations of the premise, not even worth a response. This is pointless. I am out. Everything is perfect, no new ideas needed, just hum a happy tune and send your money west - ‘cuz NAM (ya right)

Welcome the the internet. The first day is usually the roughest.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Only for residents.

I do think the fully random + some sit out period, maybe OIL for some codes, can't draw a code and then apply for it the next year, maybe a few codes are 4 year sit outs. Would likely be best... and would decrease participation and therefore improve odds

Although random draw isn’t my preferred system, I fully agree with a sit out provision.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Death rates are sub 1% up to approximately age 60. The 16% attrition rate in your model would have to consist of much more voluntary giving up than dying over the age range of the hypothetical youngster chasing a top tier tag.

Fair point... though we don't know the age of the point holders

Also the attrition rate is borrowed from @Oak I believe that was about the rate that he observed in vivo

 

[Oak]

Fair point... though we don't know the age of the point holders

Also the attrition rate is borrowed from @Oak I believe that was about the rate that he observed in vivo

You get my name out of this thread. I’ve successfully avoided it after reading the first five posts.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

View attachment 227916


Although random draw isn’t my preferred system, I fully agree with a sit out provision.

You got me... I was just wrong as chit lol

Look like it has been that way for at least a decade too

Doesn't apply to bears though

 

[Ben Lamb]

You get my name out of this thread. I’ve successfully avoided it after reading the first five posts.

Someone's gettin' jiggy wid it.

 

[Jdp010]

View attachment 227916


Although random draw isn’t my preferred system, I fully agree with a sit out provision.

View attachment 227916


Although random draw isn’t my preferred system, I fully agree with a sit out provision.

So... It is my understanding that the CO Hybrid draw is ran AFTER the primary draw. The NR cap for all of the of the hybrid hunt codes is met with the primary draw. So while an NR could theoretically draw in the hybrid - it doesn't happen because the NR cap was already met. (sounds alot like the old AZ GFD first pass problem, right?)

And yes, that page from the CPW should fully disclose all of this. But disclosure isn't a CPW strength.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

@Ben Lamb taking no prisoners today.

 

[Stocker]

hahahahahahaha. I'll be pulling for you

Hey thanks for pulling for me. Just found out I drew that Nebraska bull tag! Let’s thumb our noses at the losers complaining about the system! Bonus points forever!

 

[noharleyyet]

You get my name out of this thread. I’ve successfully avoided it after reading the first five posts.

 

[rmyoung1]

I feel like most of the issues here would be solved by implementing 2 rules:
1. If you hunt a list A tag you lose your points.
2. No applying for points only. Only get a point if you apply for a hunt.

#2 is repeated so often, and I object every single time I see it proposed (see post #85), but it’s still thrown out there. So I’m gonna take another tactic:

Can someone please explain to me how this would actually help? If applicants aren’t required to front tag fees, how does this help point creep when essentially everyone who isn’t planning to hunt this year can simply apply for the longest-odds unit and absolutely drown those hunts with applicants?

This was me back when MT didn’t have the points only option. I wanted antelope points, so I just threw in for HD 215 every year. Never intended to draw or hunt 215. Never did. But got the points and then switched gears to another HD when I was ready to draw. Apologies to those who wanted to hunt 215 and had to deal with me and my like-minded buddies out there. Wouldn’t it be better to keep me on the sidelines if you actually cared about point creep???

Maybe there are weirdos out there who think, “Gee… I don’t want to draw this year I better not put in.” But I’m not convinced. Especially for those with a pile of points, they’re not gonna walk away from it. They’ll instead flood the top units with apps if forced to do so. If you think point creep is bad now… just require the habitual point-buyers to apply and see what happens.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

So... It is my understanding that the CO Hybrid draw is ran AFTER the primary draw. The NR cap for all of the of the hybrid hunt codes is met with the primary draw. So while an NR could theoretically draw in the hybrid - it doesn't happen because the NR cap was already met. (sounds alot like the old AZ GFD first pass problem, right?)

And yes, that page from the CPW should fully disclose all of this. But disclosure isn't a CPW strength.

I looked at results for all codes on the 2022 hybrid draw list and only found one (AM003O1R) where NR's actually got tags via the hybrid draw. So yes, it appears that the hybrid draw is mostly a farce for NR's. The brochure makes it sound like 20% of tags will be set aside to be awarded via random draw, but it's not actually being done that way for NR's (plenty of examples of residents getting tags via hybrid draw).

 

[Alabama]

#2 is repeated so often, and I object every single time I see it proposed (see post #85), but it’s still thrown out there. So I’m gonna take another tactic:

Can someone please explain to me how this would actually help? If applicants aren’t required to front tag fees, how does this help point creep when essentially everyone who isn’t planning to hunt this year can simply apply for the longest-odds unit and absolutely drown those hunts with applicants?

This was me back when MT didn’t have the points only option. I wanted antelope points, so I just threw in for HD 215 every year. Never intended to draw or hunt 215. Never did. But got the points and then switched gears to another HD when I was ready to draw. Apologies to those who wanted to hunt 215 and had to deal with me and my like-minded buddies out there. Wouldn’t it be better to keep me on the sidelines if you actually cared about point creep???

Maybe there are weirdos out there who think, “Gee… I don’t want to draw this year I better not put in.” But I’m not convinced. Especially for those with a pile of points, they’re not gonna walk away from it. They’ll instead flood the top units with apps if forced to do so. If you think point creep is bad now… just require the habitual point-buyers to apply and see what happens.

I applied for the same unit in hopes of NOT drawing. My apologies to those who wanted the tag those years. I agree 100%. Keep those point buyers on the sidelines while those who want to hunt this year apply. An easy solution for CO is any tag for antlered, horned or either sex tag and points go to zero. It doesn't matter if it's leftover, OTC, or FCFS. you get a tag and you start over at zero points.

If i were king for a day all preference systems and random systems would go away. Bonus points where you get 1 chance for every year. Never excludes anyone from drawing but it never guarantees anyone anything either. It increases odds for those with shit luck and makes it less likely those with great luck will draw multiple times. I'm not king though so I'll just keep playing within the current rules that are sure to change.

 

[BenInMT]

OK - but then (1) no hunting on federal land by in-state residents without an outfitter, (2) no taking of animals that spend at least 25% of the time on federal lands, (3) zero federal funding for in-state wildlife or conservation activities, (4) zero share of Pittman Robertson funds generated outside your state, (5) no federal tax deductibility for conservation charitable donations that are spent in your state, (6) no upland/waterfowl hunting or fishing outside of your state, (7) your children may not attend state funded universities or colleges out of state, and (8) reduction of all federal funds to median level of other 49 states. Feel free to run your state as an island if you wish, but stop spending dirty NR money doing so. Either you are part of the republic or you are not. Our money and other resources are not your plaything.

Aww all that because you can’t come slaughter something on our soil? What about all of the other non-hunting benefits of the wildlife? Aren’t hikers, bird watchers, photographers and others also stakeholders or is the wildlife just sport for you one week out of the year? So much entitlement. You deserve no tags and you should be grateful for the convoluted systems that give you a chance. Direct your anger at the people who turned western hunting into a profit center social media bro douche culture.

 

[MtnElk]

 

[VikingsGuy]

Aww all that because you can’t come slaughter something on our soil? What about all of the other non-hunting benefits of the wildlife? Aren’t hikers, bird watchers, photographers and others also stakeholders or is the wildlife just sport for you one week out of the year? So much entitlement. You deserve no tags and you should be grateful for the convoluted systems that give you a chance. Direct your anger at the people who turned western hunting into a profit center social media bro douche culture.

I have no anger, I just find it humorous when folks pretend to be self sufficient - yet lecture others about entitlement. But I understand your need for the self-comforting narrative. Carry on.