In your exact situation it would be a wash. However, you need to set a blanket rule no returned tags period.
Your example it's had 2nd choice apps drawing it and leftovers. So you could've applied for it as a leftover if you didn't get your moose tag. If still left overs a week before season it becomes a 1st come 1st serve OTC tag.
We need to "punish" people for buying tags as "backups" if they don't draw a tag. Ie Idaho is the prime example. And to do that all tags would need to be under the same rule. To hand pick which tags are affected and not would way to hard on systems that can't even do a standard draw right.
I’m a proponent of fighting unjust point systems that lock out young people, new hunters, late entrants etc. There are a number of methods I believe would help. Eliminating point only applications is one of the methods I’m in favor of. If you apply, you’re at risk of drawing a tag, and thus loosing your points whether you hunt or not. BUT that’s not necessarily a blanket statement regardless of tag marketability. I often see suggestions to punish opportunity regardless of demand, but I actually think ignoring demand would make point creep worse. There are hunts in NM that I have hunted, and continue to make my third choice on applications, that I would never trade for a point if NM went to a point scheme. The tag I returned, I have hunted twice, and would be happy to hunt again. I’ve drawn it with zero points all three times. By offering a refund, I let someone else go hunting when I drew a very unlikely tag to draw. Honestly though, I apply for things for which results are later than CO results, and I wouldn’t apply for that CO tag if a refund wasn’t an option. It’s an OTC unit that gets fewer hunters during OTC seasons than during the first rifle draw season. Sure you can call it a backup. How does that change the fact that they have more tags than they do hunters who want to hunt there? If CO didn’t offer a refund, I would just hunt OTC. What would be the result? Well, no one would get an extra draw tag. They already have extras. CO would loose about $100 in application/license fees though.
What’s my point? My point is simply that you must consider demand or tag quality when addressing point creep. There are tags that people are happy to hunt as long as they aren’t giving up too much, but which no one would hunt if it came at a higher cost. So, when considering point creep solutions, you need to offer some exceptions for tags for which there is no point creep. You do need hunters to go kill those animals, and you do need hunters to fund those game agencies.
As a slight aside, point creep has nothing to do with refunds or returns. Point creep is entirely a result of points. In a random system who cares if you can return a tag? You may never draw it again. Go random, offer returns up to 30-60 days before the season starts, offer a partial refund to justify the state’s cost of reselling the tag, and demand the original tag fee(if it was an NR tag and a resident buys it, they pay the NR fee) and who gives a royal rats behind that it got returned? If you don’t offer a refund, then people who can’t hunt, won’t return it to someone who can.
CO actually has a decent system for return. You either get your money, or your original points, but you don’t get your additional point. If you draw, and then return to original point level, you will almost certainly miss out on drawing next year unless it was a zero or one point tag. If it was a high point tag, you will likely wait a very long time before you draw again as a consequence of not gaining this year’s point. CO’s return system does not substantially contribute to point creep. Their point system does, but their return system does not. If it’s a decent tag at all, the person who returns it gives up at least on point. Where’s the problem?
