The future of Preference Points

[Deleted member 28227]

The attrition you speak of is a voluntary choice to quit trying.

I don't think I would classify death as voluntary

but yeah I get your point.

If a 30 point tag like CO unit 201 elk were converted to random draw and had 4% draw odds (on par with NR odds for a Gila elk tag in NM), the 12 year old who spent 35 years applying has a 24% probability of not getting it in that timeframe (while others [41%] draw it multiple times).

Right so 24% lifetime probability of drawing versus perhaps a 0% chance.

I agree that everyone has their own opinions, personally I'd take a bunch of swings at 4% odds over putting into a system for 30 years and then having the system changed making those years of "loyalty" patiently waiting amount to nothing.

Great system though if you're in on year one and gaslight thousands of people into letting cut the line and go hunt with the hope someday they might get a crack at it lol


At year 30 all the dudes who invented the system will have hunted and then died, and that 12 year old still won't have a tag in their pocket.

 

[RyGuy]

The attrition you speak of is a voluntary choice to quit trying. If someone wants the "best" tag in Colorado, the path to it is clear: start early, apply every year, and be patient.

If a 30 point tag like CO unit 201 elk were converted to random draw and had 4% draw odds (on par with NR odds for a Gila elk tag in NM), the 12 year old who spent 35 years applying has a 24% probability of not getting it in that timeframe (while others [41%] draw it multiple times).

There is no definitively "correct" answer; some folks prefer a small chance every year while others prefer to plan and wait for a much greater chance in the future. The more desirable the tag, the smaller your yearly chances in a random draw and the longer you wait in a preference point system.

I think the random benefits the nonresident most. They can apply for multiple states and multiple species and have a good chance to draw something every year.
As a resident I like the “predictability” of points. I put that in quotations because point creep is a thing. But I think the Colorado system could be much better without going full random

 

[Mighty Mouse]

@Mighty Mouse the entire premise of preference points is that there are enough tags that everyone gets on within a reasonable amount of time.

My cut off is around 5 years. So 1000 applicants 200 tags.

"Reasonable amount of time" is subjective. You define it at 5 years, I think preference point systems can work fine well beyond that...neither opinion is objectively correct.

As you're probably aware, Colorado has a hybrid system (80% preference point, 20% random with 5 point minimum) for some of the most premier tags (including unit 2 and 201 elk).

If you get to 1000 applicants and 5 tags the system is just kinda pointless. Most folks wont ever draw.

Most folks would also never draw that tag in a random system (70% probability of drawing it 0 times over 70 years).

 

[Irrelevant]

Obviously this post is in jest, and very well done at that.

However, there is probably some real effect of the opposite of this happening over time. It used to be a PITA to access draw data, look at unit maps, research quota changes for the year, etc. I'm hardly an old codger but even 10-15 years ago most state game agency websites were a mess compared to what they are now.

And there's a plethora of youtube videos to hold your hand through the process.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't think I would classify death as voluntary

It depends on how many of these threads you've read. For some, death is the only sweet release left.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think the random benefits the nonresident most. They can apply for multiple states and multiple species and have a good chance to draw something every year.
As a resident I like the “predictability” of points. I put that in quotations because point creep is a thing. But I think the Colorado system could be much better without going full random

That’s why I like 1 buck tag nationwide limit for first round of NR draws and then leftovers can be done however. Some guys getting 5 and some 1 and some 0 is a lousy way to allocate a shared resource.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That’s why I like 1 buck tag nationwide limit for first round of NR draws and then leftovers can be done however. Some guys getting 5 and some 1 and some 0 is a lousy way to allocate a shared resource.

Nationalizing wildlife management isn't a good idea until a species is in such dire need that the ESA comes into play, or if that species is truly international in it's range, like water fowl/other migratory birds.

I will fight you on this until @wllm can't spreadsheet anymore.

 

[BrentD]

That’s why I like 1 buck tag nationwide limit for first round of NR draws and then leftovers can be done however. Some guys getting 5 and some 1 and some 0 is a lousy way to allocate a shared resource.

We have both said this several times, but when will it get traction?

 

[BrentD]

Nationalizing wildlife management isn't a good idea until a species is in such dire need that the ESA comes into play, or if that species is truly international in it's range, like water fowl/other migratory birds.

I will fight you on this until @wllm can't spreadsheet anymore.

It's not nationalization. Not by any stretch. Each state still controls how many and whom can hunt.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

That’s why I like 1 buck tag nationwide limit for first round of NR draws and then leftovers can be done however. Some guys getting 5 and some 1 and some 0 is a lousy way to allocate a shared resource.

not to mention the wrinkle easy returns and preference points being restored throws into the system when people decide to pick between those 5 buck hunts... after everyone has drawn.

Some guys secondary throwaway hunt is another's primary wish list

 

[Ben Lamb]

We have both said this several times, but when will it get traction?

The big issue in the room that nobody really wants to talk about is this:

NR hunting isn't really about filling your freezer. it's about filling your memory banks. It's recreation, and it's economic activity for outfitters. As a wildlife management tool, it's not central to the overall health of any regulated species, as resident hunters would likely soak that take up in a heartbeat. The NR is a management tool only in that they are willing to pay exorbitant prices for their recreation which subsidizes the cost to Resident for their hunting licenses & the funding of their management agency.

It's great that states allow for NR opportunity, and I think it's an amazing system we have developed across the 50 various states, but let's not kid ourselves that the guy who's stacking does in his freezer from the ag field down the road is going on a premier elk hunting trip every year, or that the guy who's buying an auction tag is worried about what his kid is going to eat.

NR's are privileged, and as such, they have different metrics by which to play the game.

Residents are privileged as well, through lower tag cost but they are the trustee for which the wildlife is managed, not the NR.

What preference points do is sell a myth. They create an expectation of predictability with the bonus of perceived excellence in an unit. But clearly the math shows that over the course of your lifetime, point creep means less likely chance to draw each year, while the stat remains fairly equal if you go random. Yeah, you may not ever draw a 410 rifle bull permit. You may never get a desert sheep tag and you may not ever shoot a moose in Maine, but you, and every one else in the nation who plonks their money down for 1 chance at it have the same playing field to play on.

I love NR hunters, and I think states are pretty generous to them. Their generosity in pursuing their recreational pasttime is what truly funds the conservation agencies of the west, and in many states east of the Miss, they do as well. That doesn't change the issue at hand of what is an equitable allocation of the resource - what is the great equalizer -

And still remains to be a 100% random draw with no points.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Nationalizing wildlife management isn't a good idea until a species is in such dire need that the ESA comes into play, or if that species is truly international in it's range, like water fowl/other migratory birds.

I will fight you on this until @wllm can't spreadsheet anymore.

Can be done with zero reduction in game management control or funding for given states. Just give central clearing house the number of tags determined and the fees to collect. Easy peasy. It is embarrassing how wedded folks are to an approach that barely works and is inconsistent with allocation of a shared resource in any democratic sense. It is just another flavor of NIMBY where incumbent beneficiaries cling to benefits of incumbency far past it appropriate time - nothing new here - happens in all walks of life - doesn’t make it right.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's not nationalization. Not by any stretch. Each state still controls how many and whom can hunt.

If you are asking states to enter into a compact that would disallow viable citizens from putting in for fun tickets, that is nationalizing wildlife management.

We've done it with the Lacy act because the states have agreed that a crime against wildlife in one state should be carried like a scarlet letter to other states. That's a solid management choice - but telling an agency that you can't accept one guys' app because he just pulled a Kansas whitetail tag ignores the funding mechanisms that states use to pay for conservation, while unduly restricting the interstate commerce of the individual seeking to hunt in multiple states.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can be done with zero reduction in game management control or funding for given states. Just give central clearing house the number of tags determined and the fees to collect. Easy peasy. It is embarrassing how wedded folks are to an approach that barely works and is inconsistent with allocation of a shared resource in any democratic sense. It is just another flavor of NIMBY where incumbent beneficiaries cling to benefits of incumbency far past it appropriate time - nothing new here - happens in all walks of life - doesn’t make it right.

Horse feathers.
You are trying to tell states how to manage their wildlife through the idea that 1 person can't get 2 animals. You are telling individuals that there's not enough to go around under a random draw for them to take two, so we're going to do some affirmative action to pass the tag you drew to someone more deserving, based on a gov't metric designed to pass the pain around.

Should we follow this and do the same for autos? For houses?
The place which people approach this issue from is a place of selfishness - what can I get now, or within a reasonable amount of time. It has nothing to do with the egalitarian nature of the NAM, nor does it actually provide the predictability that you are looking for.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

As you're probably aware, Colorado has a hybrid system (80% preference point, 20% random with 5 point minimum) for some of the most premier tags (including unit 2 and 201 elk).

Only for residents.

Most folks would also never draw that tag in a random system (70% probability of drawing it 0 times over 70 years).

We can disagree about where the line is... but there is a line where it's 0% odds for preference points and really crappy odds for random... insert the [So your telling me there is a chance] meme.

If we are talking specifically about CO, I've been preaching for at least 4 years that it should go MSG system for the entire state, so preference points to 3 then weighted points.

Given how CPW does stuff probably the best we can hope for....

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.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The big issue in the room that nobody really wants to talk about is this:

NR hunting isn't really about filling your freezer. it's about filling your memory banks. It's recreation, and it's economic activity for outfitters. As a wildlife management tool, it's not central to the overall health of any regulated species, as resident hunters would likely soak that take up in a heartbeat. The NR is a management tool only in that they are willing to pay exorbitant prices for their recreation which subsidizes the cost to Resident for their hunting licenses & the funding of their management agency.

It's great that states allow for NR opportunity, and I think it's an amazing system we have developed across the 50 various states, but let's not kid ourselves that the guy who's stacking does in his freezer from the ag field down the road is going on a premier elk hunting trip every year, or that the guy who's buying an auction tag is worried about what his kid is going to eat.

NR's are privileged, and as such, they have different metrics by which to play the game.

Residents are privileged as well, through lower tag cost but they are the trustee for which the wildlife is managed, not the NR.

What preference points do is sell a myth. They create an expectation of predictability with the bonus of perceived excellence in an unit. But clearly the math shows that over the course of your lifetime, point creep means less likely chance to draw each year, while the stat remains fairly equal if you go random. Yeah, you may not ever draw a 410 rifle bull permit. You may never get a desert sheep tag and you may not ever shoot a moose in Maine, but you, and every one else in the nation who plonks their money down for 1 chance at it have the same playing field to play on.

I love NR hunters, and I think states are pretty generous to them. Their generosity in pursuing their recreational pasttime is what truly funds the conservation agencies of the west, and in many states east of the Miss, they do as well. That doesn't change the issue at hand of what is an equitable allocation of the resource - what is the great equalizer -

And still remains to be a 100% random draw with no points.

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.

 

[BrentD]

If you are asking states to enter into a compact that would disallow viable citizens from putting in for fun tickets, that is nationalizing wildlife management.

We've done it with the Lacy act because the states have agreed that a crime against wildlife in one state should be carried like a scarlet letter to other states. That's a solid management choice - but telling an agency that you can't accept one guys' app because he just pulled a Kansas whitetail tag ignores the funding mechanisms that states use to pay for conservation, while unduly restricting the interstate commerce of the individual seeking to hunt in multiple states.

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.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Horse feathers.
You are trying to tell states how to manage their wildlife through the idea that 1 person can't get 2 animals. You are telling individuals that there's not enough to go around under a random draw for them to take two, so we're going to do some affirmative action to pass the tag you drew to someone more deserving, based on a gov't metric designed to pass the pain around.

Should we follow this and do the same for autos? For houses?
The place which people approach this issue from is a place of selfishness - what can I get now, or within a reasonable amount of time. It has nothing to do with the egalitarian nature of the NAM, nor does it actually provide the predictability that you are looking for.

Last time I checked houses and cars weren’t state “trust” assets so not even close to relevant. But we agree on the nature of human selfishness - so I guess that’s something.

 

[Jdp010]

Only for residents.

Bingo. The fact that the CO Hybrid draw does not apply to NRs is widely misunderstood and hugely important.

CPW can't keep up the PP charade very much longer, correct? Seems like the pain of transition will only increase every year they wait on converting more (all?) species to some type of bonus/weighted/hybrid program.

CPW (and their customers) already know their weighted MSG model, so seems like that would be the most comfortable go-to.

CPW has too much going on (True PP, hybrid, weighted MSG, youth incentives, secondary/youth, reissue). Simplify.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you are asking states to enter into a compact that would disallow viable citizens from putting in for fun tickets, that is nationalizing wildlife management.

We've done it with the Lacy act because the states have agreed that a crime against wildlife in one state should be carried like a scarlet letter to other states. That's a solid management choice - but telling an agency that you can't accept one guys' app because he just pulled a Kansas whitetail tag ignores the funding mechanisms that states use to pay for conservation, while unduly restricting the interstate commerce of the individual seeking to hunt in multiple states.

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)