Well, you did but you skipped the primary definition.
Fair: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
WY Game and Fish wants your thoughts on the preference point system (Moose and Sheep)
- Thread starter Tiredofthebickering
- Start date
Fair: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
Nick87
Well-known member
Fair- see doesn't exist.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
No bonus point Ponzi schemes!
How about a system that makes sure that, as much as herd sizes/management will allow, every willing hunter can have at least one hunt a year? I want a Fed law that says that hunters who cross state boundaries to hunt are limited to one big game tag a year anywhere outside of their home state in initial draws - if there are leftovers people who seek multiple cross-boarder hunts can jump back in then. Each state can decide for itself how much gluttony it will tolerate for instate hunters.
(Of course I know it will never ever happen because of power wielded by "big time hunters" who have to get 5-7 tags a year to be satisfied - how big are these guy's freezers anyway?)
How about a system that makes sure that, as much as herd sizes/management will allow, every willing hunter can have at least one hunt a year? I want a Fed law that says that hunters who cross state boundaries to hunt are limited to one big game tag a year anywhere outside of their home state in initial draws - if there are leftovers people who seek multiple cross-boarder hunts can jump back in then. Each state can decide for itself how much gluttony it will tolerate for instate hunters.
(Of course I know it will never ever happen because of power wielded by "big time hunters" who have to get 5-7 tags a year to be satisfied - how big are these guy's freezers anyway?)
Nick87
Well-known member
Which of my freezers are you referring to?
Didn't take long for the greedy implications to come out.
How about this, same PP scheme, how many you have is how many times you're in the draw. No squaring etc, just enter your PP in the draw, everyone in the same pot and random draw the licenses. You would be requires to have at least 1 PP to enter the draw.
How about this, same PP scheme, how many you have is how many times you're in the draw. No squaring etc, just enter your PP in the draw, everyone in the same pot and random draw the licenses. You would be requires to have at least 1 PP to enter the draw.
How is changing the rules 27 years after the fact “fair” to the ones with ~ 22 - 27 points then? A group I’m not part of BTW.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
The knowing purchase of an item that may disappear tomorrow is not result in its disappearance being unfair. PP are a gamble - like many life choices. Anybody who thinks PPs will last for eternity are fooling themselves.
I'm not blaming the point systems for the diminishing resource, which I think we agree resource is the supply side of this equation. The cause of lowered "supply" is habitat and our management strategies. not point systems.
Point systems are focused more on demand, ways to slice and dice the demand, and ways to give some in the demand pool a leg up over others in the demand pool. Thus, discussions about point systems will almost always focus on the demand side and manipulating that demand. I was interjecting that there is more to it than just demand, thus my comments on supply (management and habitat).
I am of the opinion that when we adopt these systems, or start to trick them out with new ideas, it takes our focus from the core problems of "supply," which I feel are habitat and management strategies, and it gives us a false sense that these new schemes and tweaks are doing something to solve these bigger problem.
Point systems don't solve the issue of competition for hunting opportunity (supply), regardless of demand, a demand that has been growing across the west since before I made my first non-resident application in Colorado in 1995, has continued to grow, and will likely continue to grow long after I'm in the dirt.
The point systems were promoted as ways to help with increased demand that states were seeing, however incorrect that sales pitch was at the time. Everyone of these systems were brought forth as a supposed solution to the demand-supply curve. Even in the late 80s and 90s, when many of these systems were designed, it was shown that with demand and supply curves going opposite directions, the outcome would be what we have today. And predictably, the response continues to be tweaking these systems, channeling demand to the benefit of a smaller and smaller section of the demand pool, without focusing on core supply side issues of habitat and management.
I'm not blaming the point systems for resource issues. And I'm not just focusing on supply or demand. Both supply and demand have went in opposite directions since these systems started. The tweaks that are the subject of these threads seem to focus on demand and ignore supply, thus me interjecting that supply plays a big part in this. I'm stating that if demand for western hunting continues the direction it has in my adult lifetime, all the tweaks and schemes in the world will have no net benefit if we ignore the supply side that is driven by habitat and management.
The demand side has grown significantly in my decades of applying. Both resident and non-resident demand. Non-resident demand for tags is not capped, though actual tag numbers for most NR hunts is capped. The combined result of less NR supply and higher NR demand reduces drawing odds for non-residents. Nothing unexpected there.
Resident demand has increased dramatically in many western states. Just a function of population growth these states are seeing. Resident tags are often not capped. When we have shrinking supply and growing resident demand, that is going to cause residents to look toward reducing NR supply (tags) as a way to improve their situation. A function of the state-based system and the political realities that NRs can't vote.
Your final statement that these systems have failed "due to overwhelming demand" correctly highlights that demand is part of this, yet does discounts the supply side of the equation and does not acknowledge that the systems were destined to fail from the beginning, if success is defined as improving the odds of getting a tag (improved odds was pitched by many as what point system solved and is still the pitch when folks don't draw in ID, AK, or NM).
When the system started in Colorado demand was already exceeding supply; thus the pressure "to do something." Demand was accelerating while supply was decreasing, creating a gap, a gap that has grown most every year, even in a state that issues a lot of tags. The gap of accelerating demand and decreasing supply is not solved with point systems.
None of the frustration expressed today is a surprise to anyone who was looking at numbers then, or who was looking at numbers along the way. And anyone looking at the numbers today will quickly see the future; that being when the 50-80% of folks who are double digit "point buyers" actually start applying for what is an even smaller supply, each year will have wider and wider delta between demand and supply. The delta between supply and demand was there when systems started and every indicator then was that the delta would to grow and every indicator for the future is that it will continue to grow.
One factor I don't know how to calculate, but I've seen it happen time and time again, is the fact that point systems cause a mindset of "I better apply so I don't miss out or so I don't get further behind." Great for state wildlife budgets and application services who will provide the point buying service for clients, but to some degree it creates its own inherent demand. When a state goes to a point system, or changes the point system that incentivizes more point accumulation, we see even more people make sure they get into that system.
None of this is going away with changes and tweaks. Demand will continue to increase as it always has (though @wllm has made a case that it will reach a point that the decreasing value proposition will cause demand to flatten). An increased, even stable, supply will result in better outcomes, for both residents or non-residents.
Bullshot
Well-known member
I dropped out of the moose preference point ponzi scheme in WY already, it is a mathematical dead end and was costing real money I can not afford to just light on fire. Thus, for once, I can honestly and with a clean conscience say that I simply don't care what they decide. This is LIBERATING! Breath the free air!
I recommend everybody with fewer than max points or (very close) does the same and let the unwinnable game clear out over the next 30 to 40 years before considering jumping back in.
I recommend everybody with fewer than max points or (very close) does the same and let the unwinnable game clear out over the next 30 to 40 years before considering jumping back in.
Wyoming is not interested in fairness with this, they are interested in keeping all the NR money flowing in (and more) while taking away more and more of what the NR gets for said $$$$$
Everyone’s point of saying the juice is not worth the squeeze is different. They are getting very close to my breaking point.
Everyone’s point of saying the juice is not worth the squeeze is different. They are getting very close to my breaking point.
BrentD
Well-known member
It appears that no one wants to talk about that, unfortunately.
Raising "supply" has severe environmental and multiple-use consequences. Wildlife are not just targets and it would be a shame to see our management of wildlife turned into just that.
Hunters are going to have to be limited as you suggest, but I doubt it will happen. There is a certain degree of greed here that we all have and we all have to get over.
I actually agree, to an extent. I live in Idaho. Wildlife is always secondary to other uses here. There are areas where wildlife numbers could be doubled and no consequences. But that MIGHT affect other uses so it will never be done. I've seen dozens of antelope shot and left to rot because they were eating hay. I've seen elk slaughtered by the dozens because, "They were on my land!" Simultaneously the range around grows to unreal fire danger levels because there's not enough wildlife to eat it.
If they use point money to purchase land or purchase public hunting access we would both win. Buy fencing to keep the wildlife off private qnd fix some issues.
Really important point, Brent- well said imo.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
Funny, we all know that 90% of us will start buying NM and ID points the second either of those states adopts a point system.
Because we know that if you start a year too late, you’ll never have a chance to draw a decent tag again in either state.
There is no way in hell I will ever catch up to draw a moose or sheep tag in Wyoming. So I voted to move it to a bonus point system. I understand mathematically my chance of ever drawing is still very small but it’s still improvement from the current. I would also support moving it to it all random draw. To the people complaining that their 20+ points would be wasted, tough crap. You were never guaranteed anything. No one owes you crap.
brownbear932008
Well-known member
Simple just quit selling points and allow the ones holding points continue to burn them. Eventually everyone will be on the same page again. Problem here is like stated above game agencies have gotten use to that cash cow they call point systems.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'll be in the 10%.
cahunter805
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,464
Why not a 50/50 split? 50% of the tags go to the highest point holders. 50% go into random pool. With 90/10 not sure it would be many tags for NR though.
Similar threads
