IMO, all's that would do would push you into a random draw after you accrued max points, thereby making the points nearly superfluous.
Wyoming Resident Poll for or against preference points
- Thread starter TheDudeAbides
- Start date
brownbear932008
Well-known member
A huge NO for reasons stated above. I have no dog in this fight but a little thing called point creep is the reason for my answer no. Look at any state with a preference system and you will see the staggering odds and the mess. Several of those states IMO will find a way to back peddle out of those systems in the next several years because of this mess created. I like a straight up random draw or if there was not that a bonus point system. As far as planning a hunt I think 6-9 months is pleanty of time to plan a trip.
TheDudeAbides
Well-known member
A guy I work with drew his 3rd moose tag this year. So, there is hope for everyone.
No system fixes 900 applicants for 9 tags.
With SW Wyoming and pronghorn resident odds of 20-25% it makes sense, so you don't run through a 16 year stretch of bad luck.
Point creep has a few different definitions. General raising of points due to more applicants, people switching units with more points than you, people cashing in on the points only option, or an excuse why you didn't draw.
I believe being born in 85-00 is the millennial cut off date.
TheDudeAbides
Well-known member
In lottery states the issue of more people applying for the availability of a resource is about the same as 'point creep' other than your odds only worsen as more applicants join the pool.
Flatland Crusoe
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 570
Heaven forbid Wyoming residents drive a few hours within their own state to hunt antelope. What's next, getting out of the truck and walking?
Brad Daniel
Member
I know a guy that has received five moose tags and three sheep tags in Wyoming. I really don't know what the answer is but screwing our children cannot possibly be the correct one.
brownbear932008
Well-known member
This in a nutshell along with screwing hunters New to the sport. Quit being selfish and self centered folks. It's a perfectly fair system now for resident hunters. Idaho has my favorite system by far. Wish all states with the trophy species would follow their lead..
BuzzH
Well-known member
Post of the year on this subject. I cant fathom the "reasoning" that goes into creating a point system for pronghorn in Wyoming. If a resident hunter is not hunting a quality area each year in Wyoming, its by CHOICE, not because of the lack of a point system.
There are areas Residents can draw on a second choice that take 4+ points for a NR to draw...and yet some still like to argue about the need for point systems. Makes no sense.
As to the moose and sheep tags, one harvest per species per hunter. If you draw and don't kill one, 5 year wait before you can apply again.
TheDudeAbides
Well-known member
I can see both sides of the argument on this issue, because I work with people that are residents and non residents to Wyoming. A few non residents have hunted antelope unit 95 more than residents that apply to the same area. This to some people isn't fair. The draw stats of the unit are 25% which if a point system was in place it would be every four years that a resident would hunt the area. One guy went 16 years between tags for this unit. I can see the case for both.
You mention youth as a case for not implementing a points system and I mention that there are people who do not hunt when they do not draw. It's not about what will best help me, because I look at the numbers and crunch them & am willing to drive. It is the casual hunters that I mention the point system would help out. Also, it would help out the older hunters who are physically unable to go deer and elk hunting in the mountains anymore and pronghorn is their only chance to get out in the field for big game.
Wyoming has an advantage with deer/elk having OTC for residents, so there really isn't a reason to put a draw into place. I would be ok with a points system with antelope as long as you can cycle people through the system. It's not going to effect someone who is willing to drive and it will help those who grew up hunting the area and want to hunt the area that their parents and grandparents hunted.
As far as Idaho having the best system, it would be better if they split or went to an up to 20% system for non residents. They do have a strange way of giving tags randomly to non residents, but the numbers are not as in your favor.
As far as comparing Wyoming to other states with point systems, I think it would compare more to Colorado than any other state. A lot of archery, muzzleloader, 1st, or 4th rifle tags can be drawn with few points. A few units take a lifetime, but I think Wyoming would be more comparable to Colorado in that regard.
Lastly, hunting for the next generation will be in jeopardy not because of a point or non point system. It will be three things a growing US population, privatization of tags, and the transfer/sell/regulation of public lands. The bigger the population and the more people applying means that there is more competition for the resource, which means less drawing regardless of the system. OTC tags will become less available, because the demand outweighs the supply. Privatization of tags as seen in Utah with the CMWU program and New Mexico with the landowner program will allow people to jump ahead in line by having deeper pockets. This will really put strain on families that have issues affording such hunts. If the public land access goes, then some areas will go with it and other areas will fall into the privatization of resources. Youth will have to turn to bird hunting on crowded refuges or draw a blind to do any hunting at all. These three things are much scarier than whether a state has and does not have a point system.
You mention youth as a case for not implementing a points system and I mention that there are people who do not hunt when they do not draw. It's not about what will best help me, because I look at the numbers and crunch them & am willing to drive. It is the casual hunters that I mention the point system would help out. Also, it would help out the older hunters who are physically unable to go deer and elk hunting in the mountains anymore and pronghorn is their only chance to get out in the field for big game.
Wyoming has an advantage with deer/elk having OTC for residents, so there really isn't a reason to put a draw into place. I would be ok with a points system with antelope as long as you can cycle people through the system. It's not going to effect someone who is willing to drive and it will help those who grew up hunting the area and want to hunt the area that their parents and grandparents hunted.
As far as Idaho having the best system, it would be better if they split or went to an up to 20% system for non residents. They do have a strange way of giving tags randomly to non residents, but the numbers are not as in your favor.
As far as comparing Wyoming to other states with point systems, I think it would compare more to Colorado than any other state. A lot of archery, muzzleloader, 1st, or 4th rifle tags can be drawn with few points. A few units take a lifetime, but I think Wyoming would be more comparable to Colorado in that regard.
Lastly, hunting for the next generation will be in jeopardy not because of a point or non point system. It will be three things a growing US population, privatization of tags, and the transfer/sell/regulation of public lands. The bigger the population and the more people applying means that there is more competition for the resource, which means less drawing regardless of the system. OTC tags will become less available, because the demand outweighs the supply. Privatization of tags as seen in Utah with the CMWU program and New Mexico with the landowner program will allow people to jump ahead in line by having deeper pockets. This will really put strain on families that have issues affording such hunts. If the public land access goes, then some areas will go with it and other areas will fall into the privatization of resources. Youth will have to turn to bird hunting on crowded refuges or draw a blind to do any hunting at all. These three things are much scarier than whether a state has and does not have a point system.
charliebravo77
Well-known member
While these are valid concerns another big issue is hunter recruitment. These awful millennials with their texting and skinny jeans are the future of hunting whether anyone likes it or not. 5% of the population hunts, and unless people my age and younger start getting interested it's going to fall to the wayside and the already small outlier of the population that cares about wild places and conservation will continue to dwindle. It's probably a lot easier to raise money in support of a Disney character shot in Africa by a dentist than it is for people to contribute to and care about the elk, mule deer, bighorns and waterfowl that live in our own backyards.
I've witnessed what happens when a new hunter works a whole year towards multiple hunts, draws tags for areas overrun with hunters and lack of opportunity, and strikes out. No surprise, they give up on hunting.
Should they have kept with it? Maybe, but without good opportunity for newer hunters it's hard to convince someone "no really, just keep buying these intangible assets and some day you might actually get to use them."
Say what you will about jeans and Tshirts, but hunting is already almost prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of the country that doesn't live in WY, MT, or CO. Gas, hotels, gear, tags, time off from work, etc. all adds up especially if you are new to outdoor sports. All told I probably spent $5k in the first couple years of hunting which is a lot of money and faith to put into an activity that someone might not get hooked on. Having a fair shot at drawing even an average tag would go a long way to provide opportunity to new hunters.
I'm an adult onset hunter, and I have my heart set on WY moose in area 38. Based on 2016 quota and applications, if I had started purchasing preference points 20 years ago, the probability of me having drawn a tag at least once over 20 years is 5%. Without a preference point system, the probability would have been 12%. Theoretically, the probability is eventually 100%, but because of point creep, every year a preference point system continues, the number of points needed to guarantee any unit can only go up in the long run. The point system does not work in the long run. For me, the odds of hunting in area 38 will never be as high as they would be without a preference point system because the number of max point holders and one-less than max point holder will always exceed the number of preference point tags.
I keep thinking about trying to model some of the preference point systems to figure out at what point a new applicant will never get a tag in their lifetime without resorting to a unit that is much easier to draw. I have a feeling we're close to, or past that point in at least one state.
TheDudeAbides
Well-known member
I have a buddy that is in the Non Resident Max Point pool for elk area 100. He applies in the special draw every year to try and hunt the red desert elk herd. In a discussion, I mentioned that he could have hunted Wyoming 4-5 times in the same time frame on the general tag. He responded that if he had known that in the beginning he would have went that route instead of waiting for the desert and now that he has max points he will continue to put in for the desert until he draws.
The point is that we all have to make decisions on whether we want that unit that everyone else seems to want or a lessor unit for the same prize. If you look at this year for residents Area 38 gave out twenty tags and area 26 gave out 40 tags. In area 26 the lowest point holder to draw a tag was 14 and the lowest in Area 38 was 21 points. If you look at the random draw for each unit area 26 gave out 9 tags with 974 people applying and area 38 gave out 4 tags with 2,267 people applying. If you take 20 tags and divide it by 2,000 people every year, even in the lottery system odds are you would never draw that unit. Not, saying that preference points are the answer in this case. I am saying that switching to a lottery system would still most likely leave you disappointed after 20 years.
You can draw another unit and hunt or wait to see if you get lucky, the choice is yours.
If it were me, I would put in for 26 next year and hunt.
TheDudeAbides
Well-known member
Well, that is the issue.
If you look at NR fees in AK, it is a sign that they will go up in every state. It is becoming harder and harder for a non resident hunter to hunt other places financially. There are a lot of people that pay a lot of money to hunt.
You say this
"I've witnessed what happens when a new hunter works a whole year towards multiple hunts, draws tags for areas overrun with hunters and lack of opportunity, and strikes out. No surprise, they give up on hunting. "
How would this be any different in Idaho where tags are up to 10% for non residents or New Mexico which is %6 unguided for non residents? Odds are that you would miss on the draw and have to hunt the general which can be overrun with road hunters or are in areas with a lack of deer.
I could use this argument to put in for a first or fourth season in Colorado for deer or elk as a first hunt.
"5% of the population hunts, and unless people my age and younger start getting interested it's going to fall to the wayside and the already small outlier of the population that cares about wild places and conservation will continue to dwindle. It's probably a lot easier to raise money in support of a Disney character shot in Africa by a dentist than it is for people to contribute to and care about the elk, mule deer, bighorns and waterfowl that live in our own backyards. "
For most of the country what you stated above is a land access issue. People lose their hunting land or lease and had no previous ties to conservation, because they had no idea what it even means. I would also be careful with those hunting statistics such as 10%, 5% or 3% hunt. Generally, what they do is take the number of licenses sold and divide it by the population. Which the census sucks at counting people and counts everyone against hunting. For example my father and grandfather are retired from hunting, so they didn't buy licenses last year. The would be counted towards to the percent of the population that does not hunt. They would hunt if health permitted, but the overall number accounts for them in the group of non hunters. The numbers are hard to measure and should be taken with a grain of salt, because if they didn't buy a license they are still counted in the demoninator. Those that buy licenses are counted in the numerator. I hope that makes sense.
(Licenses Sold)/(Population - including those too young and too old to hunt, military olibigations, felons, potentially undocumented immigrants, etc)
Lastly, there is only so much game to go round. If we do not preserve habitat and grow populations, it will not matter what the system is. It will cost more than most of us can afford. If I had to pay 5k to hunt elk every year on a landowner tag, it would be doable. Others it would be a stretch and some it would be a once in a lifetime opportunity. We need to protect lands and protect wildlife to have enough game for the next generation to hunt.
TheDudeAbides
Well-known member
You can either choose to hunt more often or hunt a great unit once in a lifetime.
The demand will always outweigh the supply for rut elk hunts with a rifle and it doesn't matter whether it is a lottery or a points system.
No system helps 71 tags for 3,007 people applying.(Wy Elk 100)
The only way to help the 3,000 people hunt the unit is to increase the tags.
If you want to hunt the very best units that each state has to offer, then you will have to wait in line with the rest of the people that want to do the same.
Little Big Man MT Chris
Well-known member
as a guy from Oregon who is turning 47 that just started to hunt again in 2013 and have no points saved for any states, i just started to learn about out of state hunting the last few months and i want to hunt other states like Wyoming i NEED TO KNOW THAT I KNOW that i can get a tag, my job we have to make our vacation picks this November 2016 for the weeks i want off in 2017, 6 or 7 months before most states issue drawn tags, while my job is great and i get 4 weeks a year vacation, and in a few more years i will earn 5 weeks of vacation , picking a week off then hoping i get drawn to find out i dont ,then my vacation week is wasted for a hunt im not going on, i need otc hunts or buy points till i know that i will get a tag when i apply , so i can pick my weeks for a out of state hunt knowing i can HUNT
Last edited:
I have a degree in math with a focus on probability and statistics. In the long run, ones odds of eventually hunting a top tier unit in a given span of time is twice as high under a lottery system than under a pp system. I can show you my spreadsheet if you doubt me. The only way a pp system guarantees an eventual draw is in a middle tier unit for which the sum of max point applicants and one-less-than-max-point applicant is less than the number of tags more than 50% of the time. If WY initiated a pp system for all species next year, I could eventually hunt elk in area 100, but my kids would almost certainly never draw. Currently the odds of drawing 100 at least once in the next 20 years are 1:3. That's not bad, and my kids will have those same odds as long as the draw system remains a lottery. The pp system as some have already stated is biased in favor of wy resedents old enough to purchase points at the initiation of the pp system. Future hunters and future WY residents are greatly disadvantaged in the long run. A lottery system is unbiased and incentivizes new WY hunters. If you disincentivize new hunters, you can kiss federal lands goodbye.
Similar threads
- Poll
