ImBillT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 3,821
I’ll open with an imaginary alternative and close with some beefs that I have with point systems.
What if each state went to a random draw with three choices and conducted draws two weeks apart from each other? Assuming ten states, perhaps Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming that would take twenty weeks and could go from January to May. States could rotate order from year to year. Arizona would be first in year one, then drop to last for year two while everyone else bumped up a slot in the rotation. Hunters wouldn’t want to draw a mediocre hunt in Jan and be sidelined from applying for the hunt they really wanted later, and states wouldn’t want to be at the bottom of the list after a high percentage of hunters had already drawn their tags. A solution would be that all states offer a refund of most of the tag for up to two weeks after the draw results are posted for the final state. Leftover and returned tags could then go into a first come first served pool at the NR price. Then the states would get more application and license fees, as well as a percentage of returned tag fees, plus potentially have some residents return a tag that then gets sold at the non-resident price. With all of this imaginary coordination between states, why not have a multi-state license package? Fill out one form and pay one lump sum and bam, you have a hunting license in all ten states and are now eligible to apply in their draws. They now have P&R money coming their way even if you draw the tag you really want before ever even applying in their states drawing. Would the odds on some of the middle ground hunts go down as people put them as their second or third choice now that they aren’t going to lose points? Sure, but when they draw a better tag later in the order then turn in back in for a partial refund and now that tag is available OTC, or perhaps in a second drawing that costs another $10 to enter.
A) Point schemes are biased against the new hunter whether he is new to the hunting world or simply young. Does someone truly deserve less probability to hunt a “glory” unit or tag simply because their parents didn’t know to start buying them points at age 12? Does it really benefit hunters to lock out new comers from the hunts we dream of?
B) Point schemes allow someone who has absolutely no intention of hunting this year to “cut in line” ahead of those who are actually ready for a hunt the year that they apply. One of the supposed intents of point schemes is to help someone who was unlucky in the draw to be drawn before a luckier person gets drawn a second, third or fourth time, but what happens instead is that people buy points who do not intend to draw any time soon and then EXPECT to draw in the future. It seems innocent and harmless enough, but when someone who wants to hunt a certain hunt 12yrs from now starts accumulating points today, they do so at the cost of someone who is born today, or who first discovers hunting 12yrs from now. The point system allows those who CHOOSE to wait today, to FORCE others to wait in the future.
C) Point schemes force a hunter to choose between a glory hunt many years into the future or a less desirable hunt within a shorter time frame, and choosing the second option destroys the chance at the first option. In a random draw with multiple choices one can roll the dice for a glory hunt while still taking the less desirable hunts at greater frequency without negatively impacting the hunter’s odds to do either one in the future.
D) Point schemes result in some sense of entitlement and the feeling that the purchaser has purchased something of value. This puts pressure on the state to maintain a system even when a change is warranted. It also leaves a great many hunters feeling cheated after paying into a system that they believed was going to pay them back one day despite the fact that when 1000 hunters apply for 1 tag, about 950 of them will never draw regardless of the scheme put in place.
What if each state went to a random draw with three choices and conducted draws two weeks apart from each other? Assuming ten states, perhaps Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming that would take twenty weeks and could go from January to May. States could rotate order from year to year. Arizona would be first in year one, then drop to last for year two while everyone else bumped up a slot in the rotation. Hunters wouldn’t want to draw a mediocre hunt in Jan and be sidelined from applying for the hunt they really wanted later, and states wouldn’t want to be at the bottom of the list after a high percentage of hunters had already drawn their tags. A solution would be that all states offer a refund of most of the tag for up to two weeks after the draw results are posted for the final state. Leftover and returned tags could then go into a first come first served pool at the NR price. Then the states would get more application and license fees, as well as a percentage of returned tag fees, plus potentially have some residents return a tag that then gets sold at the non-resident price. With all of this imaginary coordination between states, why not have a multi-state license package? Fill out one form and pay one lump sum and bam, you have a hunting license in all ten states and are now eligible to apply in their draws. They now have P&R money coming their way even if you draw the tag you really want before ever even applying in their states drawing. Would the odds on some of the middle ground hunts go down as people put them as their second or third choice now that they aren’t going to lose points? Sure, but when they draw a better tag later in the order then turn in back in for a partial refund and now that tag is available OTC, or perhaps in a second drawing that costs another $10 to enter.
A) Point schemes are biased against the new hunter whether he is new to the hunting world or simply young. Does someone truly deserve less probability to hunt a “glory” unit or tag simply because their parents didn’t know to start buying them points at age 12? Does it really benefit hunters to lock out new comers from the hunts we dream of?
B) Point schemes allow someone who has absolutely no intention of hunting this year to “cut in line” ahead of those who are actually ready for a hunt the year that they apply. One of the supposed intents of point schemes is to help someone who was unlucky in the draw to be drawn before a luckier person gets drawn a second, third or fourth time, but what happens instead is that people buy points who do not intend to draw any time soon and then EXPECT to draw in the future. It seems innocent and harmless enough, but when someone who wants to hunt a certain hunt 12yrs from now starts accumulating points today, they do so at the cost of someone who is born today, or who first discovers hunting 12yrs from now. The point system allows those who CHOOSE to wait today, to FORCE others to wait in the future.
C) Point schemes force a hunter to choose between a glory hunt many years into the future or a less desirable hunt within a shorter time frame, and choosing the second option destroys the chance at the first option. In a random draw with multiple choices one can roll the dice for a glory hunt while still taking the less desirable hunts at greater frequency without negatively impacting the hunter’s odds to do either one in the future.
D) Point schemes result in some sense of entitlement and the feeling that the purchaser has purchased something of value. This puts pressure on the state to maintain a system even when a change is warranted. It also leaves a great many hunters feeling cheated after paying into a system that they believed was going to pay them back one day despite the fact that when 1000 hunters apply for 1 tag, about 950 of them will never draw regardless of the scheme put in place.
