http://www.coloradobowhunting.org/Resources/Documents/BGSS-Survey%20Results_140130.pdf
No way to predict the future, but IMO all that point banking may achieve is bring new point creep to the low- to mid-tier hunts. And have little effect on point creep for the high-demand hunts, for a long time. Most guys with 15+ points won't stop building points and applying for the high-demand hunts.
trophyhill, what you've described is exactly the feature of the present system that HELPS REDUCE point creep. Put in with 10 points for a hunt that requires 1 point (many people actually do this), and you lose them all. And of course point banking eliminates that feature.
fulldraw1972, no I don't think so. That'd probably have no effect. If you're a NR with less than 18-20 points, simply apply for the highest demand rifle elk or deer hunts. You won't draw and you'll gain a point. And even if you don't apply for up to 10 years, you keep your points.
Every year a hunter utilizes banking is a year they will spend some points and not accrue a new one.
In my case, I have 9 deer points. If they try point banking, I will spend them in a unit that currently takes 0 or 1 to draw (they will take at least 1 from my "bank") until they are gone. It will take me out of the pool of guys saving for a premium deer tag.
No way can it solve point creep but it might give guys more options without a big downside.
I spent my elk points so whatever effect it has on low point holders will effect me on that side.
There isnt much available for 4-5 PPs or 7-8 PPs. So if it makes more units to use those Pref Points, isnt that a good thing?
There's a bumper crop of points out there.
If they want to stop point creep, they need to create some units that are worth 4-8 points. The only way to do that is to cut tags in those units and grab a few OTC units, make them LE, and cut the tags so that in 4 years, there's bulls there that will make people want to spend significant amounts of points on those units.
Another option is take units like 24 and make all the rifle seasons draw, limit the tags, and make the White River units worth spending points on.
Both those options are unpopular because they take a bite out of someone's sandwich.
If they just leave it as is with point banking, what you will have is the lower point units costing more points and having the same animals.
There is no way to stop point creep without cutting opportunity. If they want to do something about it, they have to start managing for quality a little more and opportunity is going to suffer.
How can point banking not increase point creep? If somebody with 10 points applies for a 1 point unit he will draw 5 straight years. Unless the unit starts creeping.
Instead of said person losing all points for that 1 point unit he loses 2, and then hunts it 4 more years and takes the tag from other possible hunters.
Some of you have kids. They will be middle-aged when can draw the primo elk and deer units. If instead, they decide to hunt less desirable units then can apply for the low-end units or buy a landowner tag.
Now, add in point banking to the above. I decide to give up chasing the primo unit but I have 15 points. Normally, I would either burn every point or buy a landowner tag to hunt a limited unit. With point banking, I can apply year after year to a low end unit. I will be joined by others bailing on the strategy to hold out another decade or more to get a primo unit. We have quite a few points whereas your kid has one or two. Point inflation will happen at the lower end units for several years. We are playing with house money for a few years.
Why give up on the primo strategy? Landowner tag increase creates a direct decrease in number of tags left for us to draw thus point creep at high end accelerates.
The solution to me is if you obtain a limited tag, drawn or leftover, or buy a landowner tag, then your points go to ZERO.
Hunters will be able to draw several tags with their pref pts rather than just 1 tag which will only make it that much tougher to draw tags!
I can't believe the CBA didn't offer a better explaination and implications in regard to point banking. If you are a CBA member I would start spinning your wheels and complain to who ever introduced this mess!
The CBA better do some back-peddling and figure out what next step to take to retract their opinion! I don't think CBA members were educated before making this decision? HORRIBLE IDEA!
I am SO upset about this issue that I will never again support the CBA! This issue alone will impact the difficultly for drawing tags in Colorado in the years to come!
Mark my word, the CBA has REALLY screwed up on this one!
Eliminating the PP only code changes nothing as anyone with less points than those 7 or so who draw will apply for these high point units and gain another point.
[For a Resident] In general terms, anyone that has ~10+ PP probably isnt going to burn them year after year on 1-2 point units, Even with point creep they know they will catch 76/61
Anyone that has a SIGNIFICANT amount of points has a plan. Whatever that plan is, Point Banking wasnt part of it.
Those with a LESSER amount of points will probably take advantage of Point Banking and even then, they will be out of PPs by the next 5 Year BGSS revision.
But, the ONLY way Point Banking will work is if it is effect for a minimum of 3 years, hopefully 5.
Like I said, just my thoughts
What should the CBA do?? They asked there membership!!! So now some think that they should of poled and then said we don't care what our membership said..
You can not of ask for a better thing in them poling us.. Seeing what their members wanted and then speak.. So now the members that did not get what they want from the pole are pissed off at the CBA..
If ur not a member, respectfully you should not say anything that the CBA should of done.
Oldgoat,, For many of nonres. It could cost them up to $43/$44 perpoint. It cost me I think $56.00 plus the, $3 or $4 app fee per point for my points for deer elk and lopes.. But I'm not sure how much revenue the Co DOW makes on points.
Ed
It will take a few years and then guys will start to run out of points. Short term fix for a long term problem...
Ed
I don't know about you but this is a serious matter that will dramatically change how difficult it is to draw tags in Colo! One reason I archery hunt in Colo is the ease of drawing tags with 0 to 2 pref pts. Those days will be gone if point banking is enacted.
Take a look at the following CPW website: http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hun...efPtsbyRes.pdf You'll notice that approximately 60 to 75% of the total deer and elk applicants only have 2 or less pref pts. The majority of hunters in Colo only have a few pref pts and prefer to draw tags more often. Point banking would make it take longer for the majority of hunters in Colo to draw tags. It could be called "point leaping" in units that currently take 0 to 10 pref pts to draw.....HORRIBLE IDEA!
The CBA has done a HORRIBLE job of communicating and educating it's members PRIOR to it's poles the positive and negative aspects on current issues in their poles. Hopefully this changes in the future! From what I've heard the CBA did a similar thing with landowner tags that will go in effect in 2015. A larger chunk of public tags will go in the landowner pool rather than being available for all hunters...thanks CBA!!!!
Point creep will by the CPW's own projections increase low to mid tier units by 2-3 points.
So current 0 point units will jump up to 1-3 current 1 point units 3-4 current 2 point units 4-5 current 3 point units 5-6 Current 4 point units 6-8 So on and so on and this is the CPW's projections! That is for deer there are so many elk points out there that the above #'s will jump by 1-2 points or more.
Also I talk with a lot of folks and for you that dont think point banking is coming back think again. Both the outfitters association and CBA are pushing hard for it. This tried and failed idea is getting the push it needs to come back....
Let the CPW know how you feel or if you dont have a ton of points get ready to either buy a LO voucher or give up hunting your 0 point unit every year as soon that unit will take 2-3 points to draw. If you dont have points and point banking comes back it will be 5 years until you draw a current 1-2 pt unit...
Again this is the CPW's plan and their goal is that it will take more points to draw. It is ignorant to think that point banking will not slam the everyday hunter who hunts and does not build points. In reality it will as there are a ton of points holders out there with 8-12 points that will never draw 44 4th and are looking to jump off the point ship.
Ed
Here's the letter they sent to the director of CDPW.
===============================================
"Dear Director Broscheid:
On behalf of the Colorado Bowhunters Association, I would like to submit the following proposals to Colorado Parks and Wildlife for consideration in the Five Year Season Structure process currently underway in your agency. The CBA represents approximately 2317 members here in Colorado and exists to promote bowhunting in Colorado.
The CBA Board of Directors has put an extreme effort into obtaining input from our membership to develop these proposals, including 2 membership surveys. The first survey was conducted to identify general areas of interest in potential changes to the Big Game Season Structure, and was followed up by a more detailed survey to identify specific proposals. I will list our proposals in the priority order that our membership assigned to them. Also, attached I have included copies of the results of the surveys that we conducted to provide you more information on the views of CBA Members.
1. The CBA requests that the Archery Elk Season begin on the last Saturday in August and extend through September 30 each year. The CBA believes this proposal increases bowhunting opportunity without negatively affecting any other hunting group. This proposal will not significantly increase the length of the season. Our membership strongly support this proposal. We also would like to encourage Colorado Parks and Wildlife to collect detailed information regarding the early seasons to quantify impacts to bowhunters by increased early season participation by all methods of take in regards to bowhunter satisfaction.
2. The CBA would like to have CPW reestablish a Preference Point Banking System similar to the one established a few years ago. The preference of the CBA is that this be a permanent program rather than a temporary one. Our membership identified this as a high priority proposal in our survey.
3. The CBA would like to see a late season archery deer hunt west of I-25 in areas where deer populations are at preferred objective levels. This season could be in the form of a pilot project to determine impacts and success rates.
4. The CBA requests that archery deer licenses for the eastern plains be good on private land from the start of the archery season through December 31. On private lands the landowner controls access, and would manage any potential conflicts with rifle or muzzleloader hunters. This would allow for increased hunter opportunity.
5. We would like to explore the possibility of starting the eastern plains archery season on September 15 to increase bowhunter opportunity without impacting rifle or muzzleloader hunters. The CBA offers to work with the staff of Colorado Parks and Wildlife to further any or all of these alternatives. We appreciate the opportunity to submit input into the Big Game Season Structure for the next five years.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Yeary
Chairman
Colorado Bowhunters Association"
================================================
If I decide to hunt a unit (for whatever reason) with lower PPs needed, it doesn't bother me at all that I need to use 3 or 4 of my points instead of all 10. People have different reasons and desires for building PPs. Just because their reasons aren't the same as yours doesn't mean they aren't informed or are wrong.
The main thing for me is consistency. If they make this change, it should be for good and not just a temporary thing. Not knowing what is going to happen from year to year is much worse than either scenario.
Also, as Kadbow said, this is only one of several recommendations that the CBA made. Do you think this is worse than the recommendation to make the archery season go from the last weekend in Aug. to the end of September? In a democracy, you win some and lose some.
Express your view to the Commission. Talk to others and try to sway them to your way. Explain your view to whoever will listen! Sorry about the venting, but it sure rubs me the wrong way to have you blame the CBA for ONE proposal that the MAJORITY supported but you didn't!
It would be scarey if Americans going to the election poles didn't know much about what they are voting on! I certainly hope the CBA considers this in the future. You may not be able to see it from your position but you are painting a black eye on the CBA for what happened with landowner tags and now the point banking issue! You may see your membership drop if this continues!
Pros:
Any applicant that utilizes banking uses at least some point(s) and does not generate a new one that year, possibly reducing the overall amount of points in the pool.
It allows hunters more flexibility in a system where many feel their options are limited when they have saved some points but may never catch the high demand units.
Some hunters with a decent amount of points, but still years away from their original target unit, will take themselves out of the running for the premium units as they decide to spend their points on lower point units.
Cons:
Some lower point units will experience point creep.
Throwing a new rule into the game changes the predictability of figuring out when you will draw a particular tag.
Uhhh, on second thought, never mind...
One of the biggest negatives to point banking is it pretty much disregards young hunters just starting out! If they can't draw tags in a year or 2 I can see their lack of interest in the great sport of hunting!
For what little good point banking does there are SO many negatives!
I think it will have less effect on elk than most think because most guys have a plan for elk points.
Deer odds will be all over the place for a while because of all the guys sitting on tons of deer points with no plan for what to do with them.
I'm personally against it because I think it rewards those that just bought points with no plan and ended up in no mans land. That being said I think the CBA did right by listening to there members.
Here are the points I have-
Something will have to change with the current system. I see this as my kids grow up with 0 points and previously no chance at good units (thanks hybrid draw) but that generation may not force the change till the older generation either dies, or stops hunting. Plus there are less numbers of youth involved in hunting anyway.
The current system favors older hunters with many points, who also are more likely to vote, and belong to clubs etc.
Point Banking favors older hunters with many points that they feel entitled to get max value from. Self interest is very common in democracy!
The older generation understandably wants whats best for them, but it may be at the cost of a future generation of hunters.
If the Youth do not take up hunting, eventually, through Democracy as there will be more anti-hunters than hunters, it will be ended. Many examples already prove this agenda- Mt. Lions in CA, Spring bear in CO etc..
so I would appeal those to look to the future.... but it you don't have kids who hunt, or care then Self Interest will take over....
There are still many great hunting opportunities in OTC units and there is always LEFTOVER opportunities in many draw units. You just got to know your options. And if you're denied the 1st Choice on your application doesnt mean youre not hunting.
Also, why should the CBA inform members what Point Banking is? People should take the initiative to know all by themselves.
Many OTC areas are not known to be quality experiences with high success.
Limited draw areas, could be key to retaining youth interest, especially the ones on the fence.
Point banking would make it really hard to draw the low tier units by causing point inflation.
Even waiting 3-4 yrs is an ETERNITY for kids (remember High school is only 4 yrs!)
I know the "instant gratification" argument, But the point is if they don't enjoy and like hunting NOW, many will be lost.
(FYI I am not worried about my kids since I am willing to put the work in and spend the money to give them the experience needed, but the average hunter, and I am including ALL hunters- rifle, muzzy, will not put as much into as I will. I am arguing to recruit as many future hunters as possible!)
Youth get Preference on limited tags.
Page 5 of the Regs.
It's a quick fix to appease the small faction of point holders who are deep into point building and want out without "giving up" their points by not continuing to wait for that top unit.
I see the negative as having an equal offsetting positive.
If a guy with 12 points, that was wanting to hunt 201 someday, spends the next 5 years hunting a low point unit, he's basically gone from the premium unit race forever other than hybrid tags, and 5 years from now he is at zero. Thats a benefit to anyone who is planning on going for a premium unit whether they have 14 points or are just starting.
Banking can not provide any solution to the real issue of supply vs demand, but I think it could provide more flexibility. I think the increase in points needed in lower units will be acceptable and offset by getting guys to burn points and exit off the premium tag highway. I expect the impact will be small on both ends of that.
The alternative I proposed would be much more controversial, but it would 'fix' the system once and for all IMO. The highest demand elk/deer hunts are so severely limited they are in the class of Sheep or Goat or Moose tags. So they should be treated as such. Each person's PP's for elk/deer would be capped at say, 5 points (or some other low number). All points accumulated thereafter would be weighted points. You could still draw the lower- to mid-tier hunts with preference as long as it took 5 or less PP. But after reaching the PP cap, all points are weighted. Then every single applicant is in the draw for the high-demand hunt they applied for.
I believe this would siphon a ton of guys off the lower tier hunts, making them easier to draw with preference. And would give everyone who applied a chance to draw the highest-demand hunts, but with the higher point holders still getting the best draw odds.
I have no doubt a stink would be raised by the high point pool guys over such a plan. I'd give it a 3-year grace period before implementation. Do it once, and be done with it. I rarely hear complaints about the sheep/goat/moose draws. Most people accept that it is about the fairest system possible for extreme-demand hunts. This proposal would treat the highest-demand elk & deer hunts exactly the same way.
Its strong medicine and will go down hard, but the current system won't be acceptable to most folks.
Nothing that makes a significant change will come without someone getting the short end.
As more and more hunters give up on drawing the highest demand units (2, 10, and 201) point creep for lower pref pt units continue to creep. What a lot of guys don't consider is the number of hunters that just apply for pref pts every year hoping someday they will be able to draw a top tier limited tag.
Many applicants are realizing their dream of hunting 2, 10 , or 201 elk will likely never happen. This is where point banking comes in and will drive 0 to 10 pref pt units through the roof! Hunters are figuring out that they better get with the program and forget about top tier tags and draw/hunt mid-tier tags. I'm sure everyone agrees that it's pretty tough to burn 18 pref pts on a unit that only takes 10 to draw! I'm wondering if this is possibly where the mind-set for those that voted favorably to pt banking in the CBA pole? Many guys that voted in favor likely didn't know what point banking is and others had their own short-term motives in mind!
If you ask me this is a very selfish way to look at drawing tags....especially if you consider looking at this issue long term. When I talk about pt banking being a horrible idea I'm considering long term effects on young hunters, new hunters just starting out, and hunters 20 years from today. I'm laying to rest my own selfish wishes for drawing tags and thinking about the future of hunting in Colorado.
There is a lot of misconception that pt banking will drive lower pref pt units up intitally and then point creep will slow or return to normal. I actually believe the opposite will happen. Once pref pt creep increases by leaps and bounds it will continue to increase because of the ever increasing high demand for these tags. What took 0 to 2 pref pts today will likely increase to 2 to 4 pref pts and so on!
There are a lot of great big game draw options available currently in Colo....we are actually spoiled. If pt banking comes into play I can almost guarantee things will change in dramatic fashion for the worse! I hate to say it, but I'll be saying "I told you so" to the CBA 5 years down the road if pt banking is accepted! HORRIBLE IDEA...end of story!
You Failed to mention the preference is ONLY on DOE/COW tags.
I talk to Youth all the time, spend lots of time at church Youth groups, Boy Scouts, and see over 100 a year. Most Young Men have an innate interest in hunting even ones with no back ground on it and would love to get a buck and especially a Bull elk. I encourage them to get into it and suggest doe/cow hunts etc. When they or their Dad's want to know about chances at a good bull and then go into the PP system here its a major turn off.
I think there needs to be a random chance (like UT and AZ) to encourage Newbies to get into it.
What they are trying to do is reduce the total point backlog, and point banking does it while giving people much greater flexibility. Win - win there. Does it benefit the older generation who may have lots of points but not enough years of elk hunting left? Sure, it also benefits the younger generation who wants to wait for the high quality tag. Loss is that it will push up the points required for some low to mid point units - probably a pretty fair trade when considering you are really not limiting opportunity in the big picture.
I will say that they don't know the results that point banking would bring because no one does.
Its common sense that it will cause demand increase in lower point units. I have no idea how much. That is a negative for the guy that currently targets those easier to get limited tags. Guys that hunt lower point limited units have been benefitting from reduced competition from all the guys stuck in no mans land who just keep hunting nowhere or OTC units.
I don't see the guys that would use banking as greedy at all. They already gave up years of hunting other limited units which has kept the required points low in them.
A 12 year old can have 5 points saved and have hunted every year by the time the next structure rolls around and he or she is 17. I think CO is a great place for a newbie to find opportunity as far as getting to hunt. Access out east is limiting, but for mountain hunting a new hunter has alot of opportunity.
With the current system there are lots of options for young and new hunters.....mark my word, these options will shrink and possibly be eliminated with pt banking! This is actually one of the spookiest issues Colorado has faced for a long time that will have major long-term implications!
If you want to limit/eliminate point creep, then point banking in conjunction with NO OTC tags, AND PP being spent for 2nd, 3rd, etc., choices would work. Or, you could make PPs non-species specific in conjunction with point banking. Let the hunter decide what he REALLY wants to hunt.
Of course, these will no doubt result in other consequences.
Status quo is not the best solution. Point banking, as proposed, should even out demand to some extent among all classes of areas from OTC to high demand. It's worth a try. The one year trial several years ago was NOT indicative of what a long term point banking system will yield.
Sorry, but so what if they are Doe/cow tags? They have their whole lives to get a bull/buck. If you're teaching them it's all about the antlers right off the bat, something's wrong. I grew up in Tx with zero tag restrictions. Lots of opportunity for youth to hunt does but bucks was a different story, just a culture that you have to work your way toward shooting a buck.
Mid tier units that take 2-7 years to draw will likely double... some of these hunts have <10 tags for NR. Takes very few of the hundreds to thousands with top end points bailing ship to push those numbers up. And there will still be enough in line for those top tier units that they will not go down. Sure it slowly gets rid of some total points out there, but at the expense of those just wanting the decent mid level unit to hunt.
People saving points for decades made a conscious decision to do so, and we shouldn't amend the rules to give them a better way to use their points now that they realized it was a mistake/hopeless to build points that high.
I definitely could get on board with 2nd/3rd choice hunts burning points as well though. You get the tag, you used up your points. Period. Sounds simple and fair.
"Point banking, as proposed, should even out demand to some extent among all classes of areas from OTC to high demand." I'm not exactly sure what was meant by this but I interpret it as averaging. Or, that at the very least it means that lower point units will see a remarkable increase in points needed to draw.
Let me try an example to illustrate the affect of using banked points.
Unit 'X' takes 3 points to draw now. The point banker applies for this unit and has to use 4 points to draw (the 3 it normally takes plus 1 - the formula that was used the first time banking was used). For every one tag that goes to the banker, there are 4 people that gain 1 point that they previously didn't need - the guy that has 3 points, the guy that has 2, the guy that has 1, and the guy that has 0.
How does this decrease point creep? One guy drops 4 points, and now 4 guys have to accrue an additional point(up to 4 points instead of 3). And that's just the first year. Sure it reduces one guy's points, but it increases everyone else's!
POINT BANKING IS A BAD IDEA
388 out of 520 is 74%
Something needs to be done to get rid of the huge point accumulation and the resultant creep. No one really knows the impact of a multi-year banking system because this is an unprecedented situation. It may take years for everyting to start leveling out.
But unless something dramatic is tried (short of offering significantly more tags in the premium units), the situation will only get worse.
Math was never my subject, so bear with me. I'm assuming you mean a unit where 3 points guarantees you a tag, which means a few 2 point guys draw as well.
I don't see why the banker guy drawing 1 tag requires 4 people to gain a point. The 3 point guy would also draw that year (he doesn't need the extra point to get the tag), so he has a tag and is out. The 2 point guy that doesn't draw had to get at least one more point anyway to guarantee a tag, the 1 point guy would be needing 2 more and the 0 point guy would need 3 more anyway.
The only impact the banker guy has is that he takes one tag that a 2 point applicant could have drawn. Thats one guy adding 1 point to the pool and the trade off is the bankers 4 points for the tag leave the pool
If enough banker guys apply, it could raise the unit from 3 to 4 points to guarantee a tag, which is actually likely in some units I suspect. The trade off is that the banker guys would be charged 5 points and are gone from the pool one year quicker.
The CBA made a giant mistake....especially when those that voted likely didn't know the implicatiions or details about point banking! It's the CBA's responsibility to inform their members of potential effects in regard to different issues before placing them in a poll....especially when only a fraction of it's members respond or know anything about the issue!
It's obvious that units that currently take 0 to 10 pref pts to draw will not only "creep" but "leap" if this passes. I'm looking beyond my selfish desires for drawing tags with pref pts built up over the years and am considering young hunters and others that may be just starting out hunting. Point banking is a horrible idea! Me and others will definitely hold CBA accountable if this passes!
Sounds like a really great plan. Not.
Off topic. Pretty sure the CBA had a poll awhile back and said not enough members voted so it was not accurate. How is that any different then now? They also did nothing to stand up for sportsmen on the new landowner voucher proposal that got passed. They also misrepresented a drawing with pictures of animals from other states.
Makes a guy really think about why would you join an org like that.
This is going to help the state hunting scene and the children that I haven't even had yet will now have a chance at drawing those top tier units if that's what they wish to do. They don't call those hunts once in a lifetime for nothing. It really is once in a lifetime and when you have all those high point holders dropping out of the race than that tiny little speck of light at the end of the tunnel just got a little brighter.
If this proposal gets approved at all, it would not start until 2015 applications. Who knows where it may go.
Personally I like Status Quo on the entire 5 year issue including all the draw methodologies currently in place.
Of course I am biased having only not hunted Desert Bighorns which have no PP system, being at 0 PP's for all species except elk, which I could have already drawn a unit 2 bull tag with my current points.
If you cannot figure out a few options with 4 choices in the draw, OTC elk options, you should look at the liberal options we have here in CO as compared to AZ, NV, MT, UT, and such.
The CBA can't help it if many members are too apathetic to vote. I'm involved with another organization of 1,600 members that we poll periodically. That's about the percentage who care enough to respond to any given issue.
Branden - the flack the CBA got from that is exactly why they are going with what the members vote for NOW. The CBA is the only effective organized voice for bowhunters in Colorado. More than a good enough reason to join for me!
Jims - as Jaquaomo said, the only ones who count are those who choose to vote. I think you are way off base saying most of those who did vote probably didn't "understand." I think they understood very well and that is why they voted.
As Jaquaomo also said, we can't really tell what the impact will be until it is tried for more than a year or two. (BTW, as long as there are still OTC units, everyone can hunt EVERY year if they want to.)
Once the initial hit wears off (people burn accumulated points on medium units over the next few years), it is difficult to see it having a dramatic affect. If a person like that wanted to do so again, it would take another *10* years or so to put them in that position. I think the vast majority of those people would simply accumulate enough points to hunt in one of the medium units just like they do now and not bank points.
Also, just because a person with points burns 4 points in a unit now doesn't mean everyone will need at least 4 points NEXT year to draw (again, refer to Glunts post - he explained it very well). Not only does point banking remove some people from the pool of those going for the best units, but each time they get penalized for using a part of their points, they reduce the number of total points available to be used in draws (their one point penalty that simply goes away).
In my opinion only members should be saying what there organization should of done. ED
It is obvious that point creep is becoming more and more of a concern for the majority of PP builders hoping to hunt a quality unit, and some solution is deemed desirable. Point banking is the ONLY option that has been proposed. So either accept the status quo and stop bitching about point creep, offer another viable solution, or wait and see how point banking effects the situation in the long run.
No one really knows what the "best" solution is. The only thing that CAN be guaranteed is, no matter what is done, some of you won't be happy.
Let's say a portion of the applicants for the hunt code holding 4 points drew, and no one with less points drew. You opted for point-banking and entered the draw with 6 points. Then you should be left with 6 - (4+1) = 1 point for next year's draw.
This seems logical, since the minimum points needed to guarantee drawing this hunt in the current year was 5 points. Therefore the point banking applicant should lose 5 points.
They couldn't use a previous year's "minimum points to draw" to calculate your banked points for the current year. Because the minimum points required usually "creep" or even "leap" from one year to the next.
In fact some hunts could see an immediate "leap" in minimum points required, once this program is in effect.
Banking allows you to overcome that somewhat and you can have the guy with 15 points share camp with the guy with 3 points, and the guy with 7points and still get into a limited unit without the 7 and 15pt guys feeling like hey got screwed out of another opportunity - big benefit in my eyes - esp for getting kids or new residents into the sport.
To think that everyone has a grand plan with their points may be a bit of a stretch. I believe there is a much greater percentage that has been accumulating points by 'default' like myself. I have an OTC unit and a unit that can be drawn as a second choice as where I primarily hunt every year. I get points b/c it would be stupid not to. Have no idea where I'll spend them but once I get enough and I can work out the timing to dedicate to the hunt, I'll use them. No grand plan - think there are a lot more in hat boat than folks shooting for 2,10, or 201
So I ask, how can we fix it so I can hunt unit 61??
I sure some people don't care if ever get to hunt my unit of choice as long as they get to hunt their unit of choice every year.
It seems some guys only care about now and don't care about where it we will be 5 years from now.
It's like a bridge on a road. It needs repair.. No ones happy that one lane it closed for repair.. Very inconvenient for a time.
Ed
This point creep crap stinks...
There are so few limited elk units in Colo that it takes a pile of pts to draw the highest demand units. There are decent elk units that can currently be drawn with relatively few pref pts if you are willing to put in the time researching and hunt hard. Colo deer is totally different because every unit in Colo is a limited unit...which spreads applicants over more units than Colorado elk. There are currently incredible deer options that can be draw in Colo with 0 to 5 pref pts! That is one reason why I'm so upset about changing to a pt banking system....the pref pts it takes to draw these units will escillate!
As mentioned many times on this post it is pretty much impossible to please everyone. Point banking will raise how many pref pts it takes for you and your kids to draw limited tags in Colo compared to the system now in place and any draw system available in the country! There is pretty much no question this will happen with point banking!
Are there draw systems available in other states that give hunters that have applied the longest a better chance of drawing while still giving everyone that applies a smaller chance to draw the same tag...HECK YES!!! The bonus pt systems in both UT and NV work this way. I believe they are about the "fairest" draw systems availble. The only problem is guys with maz pref pts in Colo will likely complain...especially changing a pref pts system that has been in place for over 20 years!
I certainly hope the CWP is willing to wait and think through what will be best for the majority of young and old hunters in Colo rather than hastily going with a pt banking system that will only make it tougher to draw tags for everyone in the long run.
There were 137 non-resident elk licenses statewide that took 15 or more points to draw (minimum pp required). There were 4,587 non-resident applicants with 15 or more points.
There were 147 resident elk licenses that took 15 or more points to draw. There were 2440 resident applicants with 15 or more points.
How many of those people do you believe will stick it out to the bitter end for a high demand unit?
Here's a good question: how will point banking be applied to non-resident applicants? Will preference point loss be based on the minimum number of points required for a non-resident to draw, or anyone to draw?
That is PURE conjecture. Until it is in place for at least a few years, and we see how hunters manage their points, the results can't be known.
As far as Utah's system. There are only 3 NR bonus point holders for bison with more points than me, and it sure hasn't helped.
Ed
CO Oak's Link
501 resident archers would have a total of 863 more points for the 2014 drawing.
267 nonresident archers would have a total of 596 more points for the 2014 drawing.
Ken
501 resident archers would have a total of 863 more points for the 2014 drawing.
267 nonresident archers would have a total of 596 more points for the 2014 drawing.
Leaving that many points in the point pool each year is the definition of point creep. This is in addition to hunters changing their plans to take advantage of point banking.
I am against point baking. Here is my analysis:
After the 2013 Archery elk drawing (if point banking were allowed)
346 more resident archery elk hunters would have 1 point for the 2014 drawing.
92 more resident archery elk hunters would have 2 points
35 more resident archery elk hunters would have 3 points
18 more resident archery elk hunters would have 4 points
12 more resident archery elk hunters would have 5 points
3 more resident archery elk hunters would have 6 points
3 more resident archery elk hunters would have 7 points
5 more resident archery elk hunters would have 8 points
2 more resident archery elk hunters would have 9 points
1 more resident archery elk hunter would have 10 points
137 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 1 point for the 2014 drawing.
54 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 2 points
25 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 3 points
19 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 4 points
14 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 5 points
9 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 6 points
2 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 7 points
4 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 8 points
1 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 9 points
1 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 10 points
1 more nonresident archery elk hunters would have 11 points
This data was collected from 2013ElkHuntRecap and 2013ElkDrawSummary from the 37 archery elk drawing units.
I counted the number of points over the number required to guarantee a drawn tag.
For example EE004O1A required 1 point to GUARANTEE a resident one of the 293 tags. Most hunters drew with 0 points.
23 hunters applied for EE004O1a with 2 points, so they would have 1 point after a point banking drawing.
5 hunters applied for EE004O1a with 3 points, so they would have 2 points after a point banking drawing.
1 hunter applied for EE004O1a with 7 points, so they would have 6 points after a point banking drawing.
There are also 372 drawings for Bull or either sex elk rifle or muzzleloader tags which may multiply these numbers by 10.
How many rifle or muzzleloader hunters may switch to archery to take advantage of point banking? How many of the 67,668 hunters collecting points (EP-999-99-P) will start applying for the hunt you want?
The point creep that will be caused by point banking is permanent. The hunters who would have drawn without point banking now have 1 more point for next year.
Ken
what I do know is without point banking the PP creep up 1PP every second year in the quality units and the reg. draw units 1PP every 2/3 yrs. So if say they implement point banking and the guys who have 10/11pp or more who are tired of the tag chase decide to put in for a lesser unit with the chance to draw that unit again the next year with their left over PP, doesn't that help the guy who hangs on to all his PP for the higher QD units, say he had 11/12/13+pp, this should help this persons odds of drawing and the guy who decided to bank points wins to because he's still hunting a reg. draw unit, maybe the next yr as well.
However, using your required +1:
There are only 410 Archery Elk Resident tags which require more than 2 points.
This year 44 more Archery Elk Residents would have 3 or more points than they have with point banking (required +1).
Can you say Point Creep?
Point Banking, Just Say No!
Ken
What do you think the point creep will be now?
Ken
For instance, I build points for specific reasons. I would be very reluctant to burn significant extra points, even if my plans changed. However, under point banking I MIGHT be willing to use 1 extra point for an area I wasn't previously considering. Thus taking more points out of the system than otherwise would happen.
Even if you're just accumulating points, a system that encourages hunters to use an extra point to draw an area, rather than just horde points or accumulate them for the highest unit, should eventually result in fewer total points in the system. The opposite of point creep.
Ken has hit it on the head and we dont know how many rifle hunters will look at the easier to draw archery seasons and jump in...
There is no doubt that the biggest effect will not be on the guys with 15 or 20 points waiting for 4th season basin deer hunts or are one point from 201 are going to drop out so there will be little to no effect on these units.
The big effect will be on units that take 1-6 points to draw. It is very likely that you will see a point jump of 2-3 points possibly more in these units. It will effect deer more than elk.
Just for the sake of argument lets look at unit 49 elk first. Archery res is 3 pts now first rifle it will take you 6 for a res 8 for a non res. Now there is enough points that we will see the points jump 2-3 points in the first year. So if you are a nr and have 14 points then put in for first rifle to bank your points you are looking at 8 last year + 2 point jump (if it does not go up 3 pooints) +1 bank point or you will burn 11 points to hunt a unit that took 8 this year. Now that would only leave this guy with 3 and unable to draw another tag for that 5 year structure..
Man wont take long and folks will figure out how to get the most bang for that pp buck or realize that the archery tag in 49 only takes 3 now +2 point bank leap +1 bank fee or this non res would only have to spend 7 and could keep 7. For the guys looking at this years numbers you are fooling yourself as the draw odds in 1-6 point units will jump 2-3 points in the first year of point banking. Plan on units like 49 to go from 3 points to draw up to 7 or 8 under point banking as this will happen. Now how many hunts are you going to get in for your banked points??
If you dont have major points banked and want to hunt a 1-6 point unit under point banking you will have ZERO chance of drawing said tag in the next 5 year structure if point banking is brought back.
Now most 0-1 point holders are hunters who hunt and this will just add to overcrowding in OTC units. For species like deer a low point holder will be screwed as 1-2 point units will go up to 3-4 possibly higher and for the next 5 years anyway your hunting will be limited to landowner voucher or watching hunters who banked points taking all the lower tier licenses over, jumping in and out, and locking up every single license in many units.
Ken
Ken
I'm heading turkey hunting for a few days so have at it! I just hope the CBA learns from this and other issues they are representing at the state level. To me it seems like the CBA is giving themselves a black eye from this and other issues (in particular the landowner tag issue they just helped pass).
Now add new applicants because of Point Banking. That is a recipe for disaster.
Ken
THE DEMAND OUTSTRIPS THE SUPPLY AND THEY AINT MAKIN ANY MORE!!!!
The only true way to get rid of "point creep" is to offer more tags exponentially, or to get rid of the amount of applicants. I don't know about anybody else out there but I would HATE to see either one of those contingencies put into place.
I enjoy the fact that we have LE units, however hard they are to draw. I like that we have the opportunity to hunt OTC units EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
But there is one thing that I LOVE. That's the fact that the demand has risen so much over the last decade. As sportsmen we have all come to the conclusion that our sport is dying in one form or another. Younger generations haven't been joining our ranks like they used to and "point creep" is showing us that we have fresh blood in our sport.
Yes it sucks that it takes a few years to get a "good" hunt. But what is a "good" hunt? A unit that you don't see a bunch of other whistle blowers running around? A unit that you see lots of mature bulls? What do you guys want? Both of these requisites can be found in OTC units every year.
Let's just be happy that 1) we have enough hunters in the field to justify "point creep"..... And 2) that the DOW has heard all the whining and is trying to make at least a few of you guys happy.
It could be worse, they could expand the no spring bear hunt in Colorado, no lion hunts in Cali, less sheep tags, less antelope tags..... and then no tags.
The numbers I'm using are ACTUAL 2013 applications.
Those points WILL be added each year plus any addition of point bankers.
There will be more hunters with more points unless:
1. More tags are allocated
2. Less hunters apply
3. More points are required to draw.
Ken
Oak that's a good question. While thinking that over, it occurs to me there's one potential side effect to point banking, detrimental to RESIDENTS, that I haven't heard mentioned. I assume CDPW will run the actual draw process exactly the same as currently. That means the applicants with the highest point totals receive tags until they're gone, subject to the NR cap of 35% for most hunt codes. Point banking will be nothing more than post-draw calculations, which only need to be done prior to updating each individual's PP status tables.
So, to my point.....more residents & NR's who are in the higher point pools are expected to "come out of hiding" to burn & bank their points on lower-tier hunts. That's the goal of the program after all. Here's one problem with that for residents. Residents have a numbers edge in the 5 and under point pools for elk right now. But starting with the 6-point pool and up for elk, non residents have the numbers edge on residents. By that I mean there are more NR's than Residents in every point pool between 6-15 points. Right now there are plenty of lower-tier limited hunts where residents currently win 90%-100% of the tags by using a point or two. With this change, NR's could start winning a greater portion of their 35% allocation ceiling in these lower-demand hunts. If NR's choose to participate en masse, they can win more limited tags than ever.
Longer term though, the whole process could push more 65/35 units into the 80/20 allocation. And that of course will benefit residents. But since those ceilings only get updated once every 5 years, it'll be a while before that pay-off comes.
1. More tags are allocated
2. Less hunters apply
3. More points are required to draw."
Repeat - "3. More points are required to draw."
Isn't that EXACTLY what you are arguing WILL happen, in the lower point units, where more hunters already apply? More hunters, spending more points, equals less total points in the system. After a few years, you have a new equilibrium with fewer points being held.
Equilibrium may be reached but it will take at min this 5 year cycle and very possibly more.
Dont doubt that if you dont already have a bunch of points point banked if reinstated point banking will basically eliminate you from drawing any draw tag over the next 5 year cycle.
The hunters who would have drawn if not for the point bankers will have more points as will the hunters behind them.
I hope for all our sakes time doesn't tell.
The masses of inefficient applicants I described in my numerical analysis will always swamp the rest of us.
Ken
Pref pts will never stabilize nor return to levels they currently are with point banking! It's pretty easy to follow if you consider the trickle down affect and additional number of applicants with pt banking.
"There will be more hunters with more points unless: 1. More tags are allocated
2. Less hunters apply
3. More points are required to draw."
#1. There will be fewer tags alloted since pt bankers will be able to draw 2 or more tags with their pref pts rather than 1 tag.
#2) There will be more hunters applying since there are more point bankers applying for tags rather than just applying for pref pts.
#3) It will take more pref pts to draw with point banking since pt bankers can draw 2+ tags with their prf pts instead of just 1 tag plus more applicants are applying for tags rather than just applying for pref pts.
What happens when many of those 64,000 elk and 49,000 deer applicants that originally just applied for pref pts start applying for actual units to draw. What's even spookier is those that point bank can draw at least 2 tags and displace those that have been applying for tags all along 2+ times! Can you say "POINT LEAP!"
The misconception many guys can't seem to figure out is pref pts will leap and never slow because there potentially are 64,000 elk and 49,000 deer applicants that currently only apply for pref pts..many of whom will start applying for tags! THERE WILL BE MORE APPLICANTS VYING FOR TAGS RATHER THAN JUST APPLYING FOR PTS FROM THE ONSET OF PT BANKING FORWARD NOT JUST A FEW YEARS AND RETURN TO NORMAL!
I had 7 PP as I have my own reasoning for burning them and Im OK with leaving 3 on the table.
This sort of thing happens every year without Point Banking. So that kinda blows the data outta the water dont it?
Even without Point Banking, Point Creep has also been caused by herd objectives coming back into line as tag numbers have been decreasing.
The Wild Card of Point creep is tag allotment.
Also start to let guys split there points with other guys they want to hunt with, again points start to get burned
Now I don't have all the answers to this but can this work???
Ed
Colorado's creep problem is largely due to the fact that you can keep accumulating points and still get a tag every year. If the rules were such that you get a tag, you don't get a point, creep would diminish greatly.
Hunting public would hate this b/c it forces the choice between hunting every year, and waiting on a primo unit.
If I were to gaze into my crystal ball, point banking could be a bridge to this ultimately. You give people the flexibility with point banking, to keep the value of their points. Then, You move to a general draw (or at least a system where if you buy a list a or b tag , your point for the year is removed).
At least in this scenario those in the high end of the pool can keep their points, but they have to decide if they are going to trade annual hunting opportunity for continuing to grow their point total.
I think that's a much easier sell than a weighted pp system for the primo units b/c if you open up the primo unit opportunity further to new applicants, you just really ticked off the people who have been waiting in line for 15+ years - who are probably the most engaged in this process (long time dedicated resident hunters)
I'm against it but 1 year would be better than 5 years.
Ken
Teeton, your idea along with variations of it (like making all OTC units LE and turn them into 0-1 pt units) has been suggested many times and it would absolutely work.
The problem is, that lots of folks have been having their cake and eating it too for a long time (building points while hunting OTC every year and not losing points) and would freak out because they've been doing this for decades and now would have to choose between hunting every year or continuing to put in for 2/61 till they finally got it.
As far as elk are concerned, I don't think that a lot of higher end point holders are going to use point banking. They're either after 61 or they're after 2 and they're not going to stop until they get it. Some will for deer, but the deer game has changed recently and there's great units out there for minimal points that someone that's been saving can hunt every year for a long time with point banking. That just isn't the case with elk.
Part of the problem is that, below the level of 61, there's not enough units that have the quality to spend a significant amount of points on.
Let me give you an example: In AZ, you can draw 3A for 10-11 points and you have been able to for the past 5 years. CO has no 3A for 10-11 points. You can draw 6A for 7 points and you have been able to for the past 5 years. CO has no 6A for 7 points. Maybe you would say that CO76 is better than AZ6A, but the way things are going, CO76 will cost 13 points to draw in 5 years and possibly more if people with 11-15 points start putting in for it due to point banking. Starts to make 6A look like a bargain at 7 points!
In CO, you have the 76 level, which has 1 point of creep every other year, then you have the 61 level, which has a 1 point of creep every year, then you have the 2 level, which has a point of creep every year.
CO must make more 76s and 61s by either limiting tags in units like 54, and/or by taking some OTC units and limiting tags to the point that they become 76/61 type quality in a few years, and/or wipe points to zero if you hunt even an OTC unit, and/or make the entire elk system LE.
Otherwise, it's going to remain at the status quo with possible small improvement or worsening with ideas like point banking.
First of all, CO Fish and Game makes big money off of NR OTC hunters. Guys from Mississippi, Texas, California, Wisconsin, Virginia, New Jersey; people from all over the country come to CO every year, or every few years, or OIL, because, no matter their weapon of choice, they all know that all they have to do is show up on the right dates, stop at Walmart and buy a tag, and they can hunt elk. I've talked with a lot of these folks from around the country. They often leave empty-handed, but year after year, they come back for a week and plop down their 5-6 hundred bucks to go into the elk woods squeezing their Hoochie Mommas and dream.
If you forced all these OTC hunters to put in for a draw, you would lose people and tag money. They could buy left over tags, but these aren't the kind of hard-core hunter/planners that are going to put up with having to have a plan B in another unit if there's no tag where they've been hunting OTC for the past 20 years.
Are the people who actually make the decisions that depend on this money for their pay check going to bite the hand that feeds them to fix a problem that a minority of CO elk hunters are affected by? I doubt it.
Another problem is, that the hordes who only hunt CO OTC preserve the current structure of NR elk applications by not overwhelming the system. If they all started applying for CO instead of just buying an OTC unit, a little research is going to create a lot more NR applicants and decimate state odds in places like AZ and Utah and it'll start with WY Gen tag point creep. If these folks wised up, there would be thousands of additional applicants in other states.
Another potential side effect would be large amounts of former CO OTC hunters migrating to ID and MT. And possibly OR.
So, perhaps, CO trying to "fix" their problem could ripple across the elk hunting world and create other problems.
There's no perfect answer. I'll restate a previous opinion that I think where there are not enough tags to go around, that a PP system is just a bad idea that allows only the old to hunt. If there's not enough tags to go around, a BP system is superior and people just have to realize that they might not get a tag before their too old to hunt it and enter the draw game knowing what they're up against.
Along with the hunters wishes and the CPW budget, there are many local economies here that rely on our maximum opportunity system. They have a lot of clout in these type of decisions.
I think CO has a great system where we can hunt every year and get limited tags occasionally. The only thing missing is getting into really good trophy units in an acceptable number of years.
Pretty hard to change anything without negatively impacting some group. I would like to see a pilot program of 6 point antler restrictions in a group of limited units. No reduction in tags and maybe the possibility of similar success rates we have now but with higher age class bulls after a few years. That could be a way to create more attractive units without taking a whole lot from anyone. If it worked, it would displace the guy that is use to hunting that unit every couple years as applicant numbers go up, so its not perfect either.
I'm not really promoting any fix for CO, just pointing out the problems. Although, I do think point banking will hurt deer point creep, specifically for NRs without a bunch of points.
I won't pretend to know how it shakes out if they try it, but I don't expect it to be a dramatic positive or negative.
I'll agree if they spend them without the benefit of point banking. Otherwise, I'll strongly disagree. With point banking, they can 'shop' at the same lower point unit for 2 or more years, thereby shutting someone else out for a year or more, making them suffer point creep.
Ziek, "You're still making assumptions on how hunters will manage their points." & "and the lower point units should return to about where they were" Who's making assumptions? "Should"?
Every hunter that plans to use a limited tag should be against Point Banking.
Every hunter better express their opinion to CPW or the POINT BANKERS will hose us all.
Ken
I hope so, but I doubt it. If the majoriy of folks that currently have say 4+ points decide to spend them and get out. That would be great.
The biggest effect on point banking will be for the folks who have been banned from buying points by law...
Kids who have not gained points will be statistically cut out of the draw for any draw unit over the next 5 years under point banking.
I was talking with a friends 13 year old son and he was heart broken when he learned the 1-2 point unit he hoped to draw to hunt mule deer will take 4-5 points under banking. If reinstated he will be 19 or 20 before he will be able to hunt..
Tragic that the CBA position will be to again statistically eliminate KIDS from any tag that currently takes 1 point or more to draw...
I wonder why the CBA would support a position that will again statistically eliminate young hunters from hunting deer the next 5 year structure.
CBAs position cant be denied will eliminate opportunity for youth hunters shame on the CBA..
The CBA essentially attacking youth hunters who have not had the ability to build points due to the law is simply greedy and pathetic.
"I wonder why the CBA would support a position that will again statistically eliminate young hunters from hunting deer the next 5 year structure."
They aren't.
Ed
Yes I'd say this assessment is correct. I am one of the many dreaded point bankers (18) locked into point hell between marginal elk units 76 & 61 with nothing to gain. No doubt if banking is approved I will break up my points for low point units. However, one kicker with guys like me is generally we also have high points in many states where we know we will draw soon. For me it's ~99% Arizona elk next year, ~99% Utah deer 2016 & ~99% Oregon elk 2017. I can about book these three (if no point cheapening occurs), and I intend to devote a lot of vacation days to these hunts given my long waits. On top of these I'll have many other possible longshots I should hit on. So burning saved CO points may not even be an option for me until 2018.
The main reason for a pure PP for elk, deer and pronghorn was so a hunter (mainly NR) could know with reasonable certainty when he would draw that coveted unit and be able to make plans ahead of time. These species also have other reasonable opportunities to hunt besides the 'quality' units.
It should also be noted that there were always plans for more LE units, and hunters mostly wanted them - except "not in MY back yard". That would help with point creep for sure.
You guys that are so sure you can predict the future should be playing the horses. I'm sure you'd be rich in no time with your prescience.
Jahvada - Your ranting is just hysterical!
"In 2013 there were approximately 26,000 resident and 38,000 nonres that applied for elk and 21,000 res and 28,000 nonres that applied for deer using the pref pt code (DIDN"T APPLY FOR A UNIT).
What happens when many of those 64,000 elk and 49,000 deer applicants that originally just applied for pref pts start applying for actual units to draw. What's even spookier is those that point bank can draw at least 2 tags and displace those that have been applying for tags all along 2+ times! Can you say "POINT LEAP!"
The misconception many guys can't seem to figure out is pref pts will leap and never slow because there potentially are 64,000 elk and 49,000 deer applicants that currently only apply for pref pts..many of whom will start applying for tags! THERE WILL BE MORE APPLICANTS VYING FOR TAGS RATHER THAN JUST APPLYING FOR PTS FROM THE ONSET OF PT BANKING FORWARD NOT JUST A FEW YEARS AND RETURN TO NORMAL! PREF PTS WILL NEVER RETURN TO THE LEVELS THEY ARE TODAY!"
Everyone gets a chance and the top point holders are also assured a tag. Point banking will be nothing more than a disaster
These are all LEFTOVER DRAW TAGS - Public & Private land [excluding OTC]
DEER
Archery - 1252 tags
ML - 1084 tags
Rifle - 5675 tags
ELK
Archery - 148 tags
ML - 876 tags
Rifle - 33,874 tags
You're probably right, but the better units that cost 0 sure could.
"Why don't they start drawing for elk"
Money. They make a ton of money off the current system (apps + NR OTC hordes)
Take a look at how few deer units take over 10 pref pts to draw in Colo! That kind of tells you something about the demand for the few decent limited elk units in Colo. There are lots of elk in the OTC units but also a lot of hunters!
All the numbers I see deer more than elk have supported a 1-3 point jump under banking. Lets see from you that are saying it how there will be any 0 point units left at all for deer.
I still think kids will be effected the most and think that it maybe a good idea to let them put in at birth or age 4 so that they can have points "banked" when they get to hunting age and will be able to compete for tags.
There is no set of numbers I have seen so far that show how banking will not hugely effect the 0-6 point units and am still waiting for it. In fact I hope to see it!
The system is the system and while I think point banking is the worst idea to come along in a while I will still be hunting every year - so yea why should I worry about what this will do to other people's kids or low point holders.
It is good this topic is getting some press from folks of every opinion. Thanks to Jims for the discussion!
Yes, but CODOW finally figured out the lucrative business that profiting off of trapped applicants is, like the other states have. So they will sell a boatload of useless $54 2013 fishing licenses, and $40 points off guys who don't have a clue their refund checks will be light. And that will morph into more before long.
I for one find myself personally in a very unusual situation, having gotten so used to being bent over by every F&G on earth (except AZ & NH) year after year by having my points cheapened and NR opportunity decreased. This is the first time I recall I would actually benefit from virtually any moving of the CO goalposts. I sit firmly at the top of no man's land, with 18 points, with absolutely nothing to gain in my lifetime due to a pin hole sized bottleneck above me. To those out there who have stated guys like me simply stack points with no draw strategy, please think again. It's not a hobby of mine to stack points. I started out with a realistic goal of a 61 archery elk tag, but CODOW yanked the goalposts midstream by reducing NR tags for units requiring over 5 points to draw. That eliminated my chance for a 61 tag in my lifetime. So please don't blame me.
However, I don't feel strongly about this issue one way or another. Every time F&G's change point systems, it benefits some and hurts others. No way around that. That is why I hate point systems. One things for sure........the guys most vocal against point banking have only 0 or 1 point. They have figured out the system and love not having to compete against the no man's land guys. Whatever the powers that be decide, I will simply strategize accordingly and move on.
We have ONE year of point banking in Colorado, and the participation numbers were only about 20%, at best. still not enough data to prove your claim, the numbers show it would need about a 75% participation all at once to jump as fast as you claim. History shows that will NOT happen. Not enough data to come to your conclussion or others.
FACT! the loss of tags to the landowner voucher deal IS going to be the biggest jump in PP needed to draw this year(NOT point banking)or when the CPW implements the tag exchange.
Over a thousand extra points in the 37 archery elk drawings just from last year.
Now add the points added from the 372 rifle/muzzleloader drawings. Also add the points which would not be surrendered from the 625 cow elk drawings.
Now you add the POINT BANKERS to that.
Ken
Also a lot of guys are upset with the CBA and think they should of done differently. Even saying that thay will not support them any more.. Are you supporting them now? If not why not? Those that talked about what the CBA should of done, are you a member? Should I start calling names asking if ur a member??
Respectfully asked Ed
Ken
Was this caused by point banking? There were about 195,000 resident applicants in all three years.
Ken
Now, if someone were trying the math without ALL the variables, well of course the numbers are going to be blown out of proportion(Prof's comment)after I tried strait numbers, so humiliating sometimes when conversing with this guy.
Bottom line is everyone is getting worked up about something that has not happened yet, and may never happen. The sky hasn't fallen yet, right!
But we have to start some where, So I'm just going to sit back and see what the wildlife commission does and not waist any more energy on this issue. And who knows what the commission will come up with, after all it has to HELP grow the profits not shorten them, right. And the CBA is not the only stakeholder in this game that has responded to the CPW questionnaire for the 5yss.
Ken
"Just look at a few of the sets of data and see how many hunters applied with more points than were required to draw." Are you referring to the last point banking or just in general draw?
If its the general draw, any of those that applied with more than needed PP, lost ALL PP they had, putting them out of the game all together. these are the numbers you have to subtract.
If a tag required 3 points to draw and two hunters drew the tag with 6, both would have 2 points next year if POINT BANKING had been in effect (required +1). They both now have 0 without point banking.
That’s four points which would have been added to the point pool in 2014 if point banking was in effect in 2013.
A similar number will be added each year if they start point banking in 2015.
There are over 10 times more rifle/muzzleloader tags than archery tags. There are about 17 times more cow tags than archery tags. I guessed low and multiplied the archery points I counted by 10.
It's not calculus, just addition and multiplication. No math majors required. I’m a software engineer if that matters.
Ken
If you can’t see it, you don’t want to see it.
Ken
"A similar number will be added each year if they start point banking in 2015." That is simply not true! The points don't just come out of nowhere. Once they are burned, they are gone. It is not because I "can't see it", it is because it is NOT there.
After a few years there will be next to NO difference except that there will be fewer people trying to save up for the best units. I would be amazed if more than 1% of the hunters in future years (3+) utilize banking. Who, knowing the system, is going to build points for years only to get penalized each time you "bank"? You guys are taking what might happen the first two or three years and acting like it will happen forever!
It *might* bump up the points needed in some medium point units for a year or two, but it will quickly level out. It gives the few hunters who want to use point banking (for whatever reason) the chance to do so that they don't have now, it takes those hunters out of the pool going for the higher point units and points are taken OUT of the total pool because of the penalty.
With banking in place, a banker (who otherwise would not apply for a 1 point unit) drawing that tag removes more points from the pool than a guy with 0 or 1 point who draws and the same as a guy with 2 points that draws the tag (since bankers forfeit the required +1). To calculate whether thats more or less than how many points get removed under the current system, you need to know how many guys with 1 or more points than needed currently apply in each unit, and how many actual "extra" points are currently being being forfeited by that group beyond the required +1 amount.
Then we would have a number to compare against the guess of how many people will utilize point banking and how that would effect the point pool.
Not discounting that eliminating the burning of all "extra points" would have an effect, but its is a complicated guess as to what that and banking result in.
It's not the small number of hunters who change their application to take advantage of point banking. It's the masses of others who lose more points currently when their points are zeroed.
THOUSANDS of hunters will use more points to draw a tag next year than the minimum. TENS of THOUSANDS of those points will not be zeroed if Point Banking.
It would take TENS of THOUSANDS of point creep to counter this. Either way it’s BAD, BAD, BAD.
No, They both started with 6 points. Without point banking they have 0 points, with point banking they each have 2 points.
1. Applications for lower-demand hunts increase permanently, and therefore the points required for those hunts increase permanently. This seems likely, but impossible to say to what degree.
2. The proportion of Point-only applications increases. This seems extremely UNLIKELY. But it might happen the first year, as people take a wait-and-see approach.
3. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice tags, and Leftover tags, all DECREASE in number. Meaning more tags get drawn by use of points. This could happen, but will probably take some time to blossom.
The success of the whole thing depends on accelerating point creep for lower-demand hunts. I can't see any other way for it to work. There has to be some mechanism to permanently consume significantly more points than are being used each year now. The proposed points+1 feature alone, probably won't suffice.
This would be a modification/combination of the Hybrid draw system and Point Banking.
That way people [and kids] can hunt the lower PP units as they do now, or save for a Point Banking Unit, or save for a High PP unit.
Units that currently take 5 pref pts would dramatically leap in coming years and never return to what they are today. It would make even more units in Colo that much tougher to draw.
