Contributors to this thread:
Would U support CO Pref Point 'Banking'?
Back in July of 2009, there was a DRAFT topic of discussion for the upcoming Colorado 5 Year Season Structure, to bring back Pref Point Banking.
"[Preference Point Banking - Option 1 - Reinstate banking with no expiration] aa.5. In the regular drawing, successful deer, elk, pronghorn and bear applicants will only be assessed that portion of their preference points necessary to draw for each species, plus one additional point."
Point Banking was implemented for one year [2006?] but it was abolished later.
Now, with Colorado Pref Point discussions currently a hot topic, would you support Pref Point Banking in the next 5 Yr Season Structure?
No I would not, this is no a savings account.
I would advise people to have a plan for their points. If you have a plan you aren't likely to get caught in between.
So somebody with 21 points could hunt a unit that takes 5 points (plus one), and still have 15 points remaining?
That's a good question. I think it could benefit a lot of guys who've saved up the points over the years but may still be a few points shy of the top units. They could spread their points over a couple quality hunts rather than chasing point creep.
I'm not really in a position where it would have a significant impact on me personally. I have a handful of points for a couple species so I'd only be able to hunt low-point draw units a few times before I ran out anyway.
I wonder if that would end up combating point creep at all? Some folks may just decide to stop chasing points and spread them out over a few hunts.
This post was written purely with stream of consciousness. You've got my gears spinning now!
I’m not the smartest feller around, and certainly not a banker. I’m sure there are issues I’m not aware of, but that said, in general I think I would.
I would actually argue that as it is now it IS a savings account, you are proposing using it more as a checking account. Use your points (all or some) as you see fit when you see fit. I’m for that.
But I’m not a CO resident, so it probably is a moot point what I think!
As someone that doesn't have 18 points to split up for numerous hunts under the banking system, no.
No, because it will screw up the draw odds for many years. Right now everyone knows whether they will draw and can plan accordingly. It's a bummer that so many are in a virtual "no man's land" but point creep has been a fact of life for a couple decades and the rules are the same for everyone.
Life is about choices.
No I would not support it. Changing the rules midstream is a big complaint of applicants. You would see all low to mid tier units skyrocket in points as folks who want to partially cash out could hunt the low point units multiple years in a row.
Point creep would not be fixed. Failing to plan is planning to fail. No one should expect DOW to appease proponents.
There's not a better way to increase point creep than point banking.
If I remember correctly not too many guys took advantage of it the year they implemented it. It could possibly flush some top point holders out, but it would not alleviate creep at all.
It would only help with point creep for the top units. It was increase point creep for mid tier units for several years.
I think it would have a negative total effect on point creep.
I would, however, be in very much in favor of points averaging for group applications, though. Pretty sure all the western states draws are set up that way with the exception of Colorado that sets the group application to the lowest point holder in the group.
I know I would have shared points for elk far earlier to be able to have a good hunt with buddies or my son rather than a high point unit that no one else could go enjoy with me. You end up finally drawing the tag and having to go it alone, unless you have really good buddies that will drop their own hunts at the same time to come up and just hang out. In the same predicament now with antelope points and, to some extent deer.
As convoluted as Colorado made the "weighted points" you would think that they could set up the simple math for averaging a group applications points.
Pretty sure a bunch of guys with high points would jump in on a group hunt to go with relatives or friends.
Dang it Tavis :)
This thread was a setup question for the next topic of ‘Would U Support Colorado group applications’
Makes sense to me. I have about 10 preference points for elk and plan a hunt in two years in a unit that only requires 2. A guy that has been banking preference points for years should not have to use them all to get a tag that is not in high demand. I'm sure others will disagree.
NO I'm getting to where most of my personal hunting is out of Colorado even though I live here.
Please NO! This would make every lower tier unit have rapid point creep.
“I would advise people to have a plan for their points. If you have a plan you aren't likely to get caught in between.“
This is a novel concept, but you can’t make much of a plan when game agencies are constantly pulling the rug out from under NR’s by changing the rules in the middle of the game. Had this happen soooooo many times.
MathewsMan, so is mine.
Sucks to have to pay the extra for a non-resident license to get a quality hunt out of your own state, doesn't it? Hell, I have quite a few points in other states for other species and put in with guys with lower points to have a fun hunt on quite a few of them every year.
That's OK, Colorado is raising all of our resident hunting licenses to cover the shortfalls that are mostly related to fishing and trying to figure out how to get more people in the field and we should all be jumping for joy!
No, too many PPs out there already.
No way I would support point banking, but point averaging on group apps I would in a heartbeat. More guys would burn their points if they could share them with a buddy and both go on a mid tier hunt. Flushes the system in a fair way IMO.
It would be interesting to know how many points to no's had.
Don't care either way regarding banking. I used it the year it was available and spent 1 point to draw a tag that could be drawn with zero, but not as a second choice. Killed a nice deer and went back to saving. Now I have a ton and can't really come up with a deer hunt that I want to do. I would likely spend them hunting a 1 point whitetail unit I have great access in but have never hunted because it seemed silly to spend double digit points to hunt it. As stated above, if a bunch of guys did that, it would bump up creep in low to mid units.
As for group averaging, that would be ok with me as long as one scam is accounted for. An applicant with 20 points puts in with a group. The group draws due to him bumping the average way up. He turns in his tag, gets points restored and is ready to do it again next year. The rest of the group makes sure he is compensated for his "favor".
No I' am with Treeline i wish they average the group app
Glunt, good point. Maybe only allow restitution of points to the group average?
Wyoming has group app averaging and Pref Point creep is alive and well there too
And you can’t even turn in your tag for a refund or get your points back there!
My points never last long enough to bank.
People talk about the current system creating pt creep, the lower draw units would see a jump big time I bet.
Naw I’m not a fan of it.
Im a No. I agree that point creep will extend to all of the lower point units and make it worse for everyone. No thanks. However let guys pool their points in a group and average them out like Wyoming does. Im in favor of that.
Yes I would burn my 22 points so fast if I could bank them for several years. I'd hunt a unit that took 4-6 points and hunt it till I ran out of points. In my fathers taxidermy shop he's ask clients for years if they would bank point and 100% of clients are for banking
Don't care for banks...... I put all my points in a jar and bury em in the back yard....
Should allow group averaged party apps. Yes.
How many points you folks might happen to have? Just curious...... =D
Antelope- 21 Deer- 11 Sheep - 3+11 Goat -3+12 Moose - 3+max
Point banking was goofy and yet another “funny math” concept by CO DOW. No way to figure out how many points were needed for any of the hunts and did not slow down the point creep in those few upper units.
Go to group average and only reinstate points for the whole group or at the group average if a tag is turned in from the group.
Nope. Points go to zero when you draw first choice. I’m out on party points too.
Point creep is gonna creep. It can creep on the high end, or on the low end. They aren't making additional hunting opportunities -- just moving them around. There is nowhere that can absorb all of the hunters applying.
I don't support any form of preference points when demand outpaces supply. It is one of the dumbest schemes ever conceived.
no, use them and get out of the way.
I have 12 worthless deer points... I'd love to hunt the 1-2 point whitetail units. Big yes for me. Ed F
Absolutely not and the reason is simple. I'm sitting on 19 deer and elk points so this may be a bit strange, but I also realize we are dealing with a system that is extremely discouraging to those either starting to hunt or the finally have reached the stage in their life where they can afford to hunt the west, eventually.
Sometimes it has to be about what is good for the hunting community and not just about me.
I don't think deer is as big an issues as elk in CO. There are many limited units people can and should use their deer points on.
I think creating more limited elk units would help the point issue there. I'm sure someone knows the number but I thought the original plan was to have like 30% elk units as limited? And we only have like 17% now? Actually creating multiple mid-tier elk units would be a start.
The only way to limit point creep is to limit points. Probably not popular at all but look at UT. As a resident you can ONLY build points in 1 Limited species! And if you draw a limited hunt there is a waiting period. That would take a lot of future points out of play.
I dunno... in a way, it'd be nice to hunt a unit that only takes x amount of points and not burn up the rest of your points. Gets kinda old not being able to hunt where you want cause of your points...
Right now folks are realizing they likely will never draw the unit they had their heart set on when they started..... and are seeing having accumulated a good number of points will do them no good. So as we speak already have or are considering just burning them on a mid tier so as they don't get stuck on the mountain with their walker..... doing so they are essentially commandeering the mid tiers. Fair enough, they have the points to do so, paid their dues many times over... more power to them.
Allowing folks to draw , 2, 3 or even 4 times on accumulated points will certainly flood the mid tiers for many more years than they are/will be right now. If point creep bail out was showing it self at the mid tiers before, it will hit the nitrous button allowing banking. And will do nothing to alleviate creep at the upper end either. Even taking 1/2 the upper end out will not do that considering the limited numbers drawn every year.
I also understand it really sucks to have put in for so long paying out so much money to be "forced" to downgrade.
Allowing point averaging for party apps may be one way to partially ease the pain. But ultimately isn't it the same effect on drawing the unit when a party of 4 draw the unit? Would it have the same effect on creep as banking? I don't know.
All depends. Sucks when you have to rely on Depends when you finally draw also.......
There is a simple way to solve elk point creep if you make all elk hunting units limited draw. Guys will spend their points, just like they do for deer. Anyone want to see Colorado elk go to a totally limited draw, and do away with over the counter licensing?
archery elk hunting participation has doubled from 24,000 in 2002 to 48,000 in 2016, and 70% of archery elk hunters hunt in OTC units. At some point, hunter crowding and hunter density degrades the hunt. How many is too many, and who would support totally limited elk licensing?
Just asking, not proposing so don't get upset.
Steve, I would support it IF (and that's a BIG if) CO would do as WY and other western states do and so severely limit NRs that residents truly have a significant advantage. Make a bunch of current OTC units "general" and structure it so residents can still save points if they so desire but have a chance to hunt every year in those general units if leftover licenses exist, can hunt general every year with zero points, or take their chances with a few points for more limited units. Nonresidents would need to buy points and could only hunt general every three years.
Of course, no real limitations will ever be placed on nonresident elk participation because NRs are the geese that lay the golden eggs. Honk honk!
No. CO made its bed and congrats because it has the crappiest point system in the west for elk and deer.
CO and WY are crumbling under a point systems which are flawed and that fact is obvious now to even the densest observer. Non-resident attrition is real for those applicants who finally draw and then after the hunt have to think long and hard whether is worth it to go to the back of the line to wait even more years than just waited to draw. At a higher cost per year of waiting. Unsuccessful applicants with 10 points can do the math and bail as well once figuring up the expected cost to apply for another decade or two to draw a primo tag.
Sure, WY and CO can sell every primo tag 10x over but what they can't replace is the money kept from unsuccessful non-resident applicants. WY makes more from NR sheep points now than they do from NR sheep tag sales. The masses have to believe for WY to keep growing revenues. As long as applicant's perception is in just a few years more and a few dollars more they will draw a primo tag then the revenues grow for F&G.
Point-banking and hybrid draws and whatever smoke and mirrors is put forth to distract from the brokenness of the underlying point system is delaying the inevitable which is CO F&G can't raise tag costs and application fees fast enough to overcome the attrition that has begun.
While I have heard the predictions about 15 years from now, CO really isn't losing any big game hunters currently. Archery has doubled. We had some years where participation was up, but so was the elk herd. Not sure what your talking about with the fees, this year you have to drop a whopping 3 bucks to get your preference point. We have millions and millions of NR's across 49 states we can sell licenses to, so I doubt that will be a problem.
Absolutely no on banking but a big yes on averaging out group apps. Won’t solve the problem by any means but will help cycle through some of the top point holders... maybe!
No point banking or point averaging.....point averaging creates point cows like in Utah. Building points for non hunting family members and then throw them on a group app after the hunter pulls a tag and burns points, then return tag for refund for the non hunting member.
I vote no. My strategy in Colorado is to draw low-mid tier tags every 3-4 years. Drawing such tags is relatively predictable and that is a big scheduling benefit for me.
Why does CO always go all or nothing?
When we went 100% draw for deer the way that was set up had a lot of issues - particularly with the way the DOW set the percentages for archery, muzzle loader and rifle. There are many issues with Colorado’s big game season structures that really suck. Especially for bow hunters.
I would be all for limiting NRs across the board to reduce crowding. Why can’t residents still have OTC and limit NRs?
I would be all for completely limited licenses for elk if CPW would give at least some consideration for quality. I also have to question CPWs elk population estimates. It always amazes me when I hunt other states that supposedly have far fewer elk and see significantly more elk and bigger bulls than here.
I can agree with that treeline. But like most things I think if you follow the money you’ll get your answer.
Where I hunted last year I saw 3 to 1 out of state plates. Minnesota and Texas seemed to be very popular.
Drove a little loop out from the house last year during archery season and the only Colorado plates were on local rancher’s trucks. I think half the population of Wisconsin was in one camp with several other huge camps along the way. We saw at least 8 different states represented around that loop. Little wonder the elk all run down on private land to get away from all the people!
Haha I forgot about Wisconsin! I saw 3-4 of those too. Lots of guys driving around tho which I never understand during archery season on otc.
To point banking - HELL NO! It would cause the worst point creep to get worse than it is already.
To make the point system better they would implement a rule that would eliminate your ability to hunt any species you drew a point for that year. The vast majority of people I know draw for a point but still elk hunt in some otc unit. This would make those units better. If you are awarded a point for unsuccessful draw you are unable to hunt that species that year. This would also help with point creep because most would want to hunt and therefor would either use their points or not apply for one.
A big no to both point banking and point averaging.
Why not zero points anytime you buy an elk tag, period. People can build points or hunt elk. Let them choose. It would definitely change things up. Possibly lower some pressure in OTC units and hopefully prevent point creep in the low tier units.
No wiser: That would reduce elk license sales and that's a solution the CPW isn't interested in.
Let's assume Co went to a all LE system. Do any of you think that would in fact t slow the creep in Wyoming? Are there many folks who build points in Wyoming every year knowing they can hunt CO every year?
I build points in multiple states for multiple species to, hopefully, draw a few really good tags for different species in my lifetime. Wyoming's price increases for building points have me looking to draw out soon and quit playing their game.
Here is another angle, Archery elk participation has doubled in 15 years. We have fought since 1969 to maintain a 30 day archery season for elk, while our rifle seasons have been chopped into as many as 6 or more short seasons. As participation grows with no bounds due to unlimited OTC licenses, proposals will eventually hit the table to implement multiple shortened archery seasons to deal with hunter crowding, dissatisfaction, animal movement, or other issues.
Not making a pitch here, but going totally limited in some TBD fashion may improve point creep for either residents, or NR's - and maintain a 30 day season. Not getting a license would suck, but getting a license for a 5 day archery season would also equally suck.
Heck Steve, I would just like to have an archery season without all the gun hunters in this state!
When you pile on the muzzle loaders, early cow elk, early rifle buck deer, rifle bear, rifle sheep and rifle goat hunts into September on top of archery hunters, there are some times in some areas that are more crowded than during the regular rifle seasons...
YES. The number of NO's on this thread shows just how stupid people are.
Or it shows that many don’t build their pts for 20 years and burn then at a relatively low rate. It’s only good for those that haven’t used pts to draw an LE tag for many many years.
Dave, who are the stupid ones? The ones who build a few points and burn them (who would be hurt by this) or the ones who forked over their money to CO for 20 years without doing to the math to figure out they'd never draw the hunt they were after?
How many points do you currently have Dave? Just curious, I don't really have a dog in this fight.
I certainly would have used my points earlier for a hunt with a good group of guys for elk rather than holding out 22 years. Would have probably been able to hunt a decent unit multiple times instead of a high demand unit once in Colorado. Based on what I saw last year, CPW has really reduced the numbers of elk up in the NW Corner and there is probably a better chance of killing a good bull in any one of several much lower point units. Maybe even a better bull than what you could get up there.
Treeline, you could of done that if you just used them every 4-6 years and didn’t hold them for 22 years :)
Lol good thing Dave from california knows best! Nothing like calling people with differing opinions stupid on a forum. Always gives you lots of credibility.