Need some bowsite ideas on point creep
Colorado
So I am lucky enough to participate in a sportsmans panel on Friday morning at 8am at the Embassy suites in Loveland. It was finally described to me that Chairman Howard would like to hear "new ideas" on how to deal with point creep. I have some, whether they would ever be adopted is a completely different question.
Come out if you can, I think the public can ask questions of the panel and the commission.
I think the Colorado forum of bowsite has some of the smartest, most in tune guys you will ever find. Can you guys give me your thoughts? What are your "new" or never been tried ideas to deal with point creep?
Much obliged for the ideas.
Here a couple of mine: 1. No more double dipping – you can’t apply in the draw, get a point, and then go get a voucher to save your points 2. Purchases any male tag, leftover or second choice – you lose your points 3. No more use of the preference point hunt code. You can still get a point by applying for a unit you won’t draw, but CPW can better predict where people want to hunt, and plan for it 4. Include a section in herd management plans that specifically define how the herd plan ties into statewide objectives for creep, and what impact staff recommendations will have 5. Pause issuance of any further points for 5 years, let people start spending points so the system can reboot. 6. Develop a targeted strategic plan for each species, understand demand bottlenecks, and availability “oversupply”, use various tools like access expansion, and outreach to promote and direct hunters.
What am I missing?
I think you are spot on. Any bull/either sex tag should burn up your points, regardless of what choice it is. Obviously any cow tag that you drew 1st choice would as well. The other option I see is to implement a system where it only takes the maximum required points rather than all of them. Then guys who had 14,15 points could change their plans and hunt a 7-8 point unit twice. I think you would get a lot of guys who are in "no mans land" to rethink their plans and go for other units. That would in turn reduce the number of guys trying to go to the premier 20+ pp units. Eventually lowering the PP required for 10,201,etc. I've got 8pp and would love to hunt a unit that takes 4-5, but no way am I going to waste 3-4 pp to do it. Now let me hunt it twice, possibly twice in a row even, now we are talking.
I thought they stated they would never do point banking again although I liked the idea. The only way to totally alleviate point creep is to get rid of the voucher loophole and also the otc. I don't see how you can alleviate point creep when you can apply for a point and then buy an otc tag. You either need to eliminate otc units which I doubt they will do because they generate too much revenue or eliminate points altogether and go to a random lottery like New Mexico. I also wouldn't mind a system similar to Wyomings if they could make that work.
The only way point creep will be fixed is to not give out points for a period of time and force people to use them. So for instance, if the CPW put a moratorium on preference points, meaning for lets say 5 years, you cannot apply for a point and also, you cannot earn a point if you don't draw, that might force folks to start dropping points on units to hunt, so point creep wouldn't slow down for 3-5 years. OR, and this solution might really piss some people off, but I don't think the CPW really cares about who they upset.. Give guys 2-3 years to use their points and if they don't they lose them, so a 'Use em' or Lose em'" type deal for Elk, Deer, Pronghorn and bear. So they could disclose to everyone that you have until 2021 to use your points after that, everyone is brought to zero.. The only good thing about this is, for a couple of years everything become a truly random draw, then the points start to climb again. But I think some sort of solution to eliminate point creep is a necessity in conjunction with turning OTC units into draw only for non-residents. Because we have OTC units, it lets guys hunt every year and keep racking up points until they decide to just dump their 15 points on a 5 point unit because age, time and everything else is getting away and that coveted 20+ unit keeps getting further away..
My only suggestion would be no points for 2nd through 4th choice and leftover draws, that is if you draw a license in the formal or leftover draw, you at minimum do not gain a point.
Without tampering with the otc tags, pick a point in the draw history and establish minimum points required to draw each unit. Those who meet the minimum are random draw. Then include the 2nd choice as a point choice. So a guy with 10pts has no better chance than a guy with 7 for a 7pt unit.... or add an extra chance per point over the minimum. That will halt creep and cap it. Could also cap the extra chance per point.
Also avg group points to encourage high point holders to share the wealth with others such as their children.
Great ideas, keep them coming. Thanks
I don't want to lose points drawing second choice tags, I'd be ok with not having the PP hunt code. What Burns me up is the people drawing a premium unit then turning in the tag because they drew an Arizona tag or the like, some dude out there that would of hunted it didn't get drawn and some smuck gets lucky on the leftover/turnin list with the tag. I think this is especially a problem for Colorado since our draw is last! Needs to be a serious medical emergency or natural disaster to keep your points after turning in a tag. I know they changed the turn in parameters this year but I can't remember much of what that was other than the thirty days prior thing! I'd like to see more draw units also especially in the Front Range units!
1. If you get any draw permit by any means you spend your points. Even if you get it in leftover draw, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, 80th choice. 2. If you return any draw tag you get monetary refund but your points are gone. 3. If you get an RFW or landowner tag your burn your points. 4. To apply for a permit or preference point you must submit a nonrefundable fee equal to 25% of the cost of the permit. If unsuccessful in the draw this fee may be used in the same year to offset the purchase an OTC tag if one exists for that species/weapon. If not used that year it is forfeited. 5. Increase the number of archery tags for most draw units and decrease rifle tags to target an equivalent harvest rate. Archers don't actually kill many elk so the needed decrease in the number of rifle tags will be far less than the increased number of archery tags. 6. Accept that point creep will be an issue as long as people want to elk hunt and that is not entirely a bad thing. It actually will eventually plateau due to mortality and the same "problem" demand for permits that feeds draw creep also lets Colorado fund the CPW agency easily.
^^ agree with the front range units becoming LE
1) Please no random draw, I love knowing when I can hunt. I am from N.M. unit 17 and now reside in Colorado 17 years and will probably never hunt N.M. in my lifetime. You want random draw apply in N.M. just like I do. 2) 84% of tags go to residents. Just like N.M. that will eliminate some P.P. 's and applicants. Non drawn can still buy a OTC tag. 3) No point banking. Plenty of guy's burning high points now to get out of the draw. It has also been talked about before and we all know it will point creep the lower point units. How long has point creep been going on guys? Come on. Get rid of your points if you were not willing to deal with it years ago. It is a tough decision many of guys had to make. 4) Left over tags go to next in line and you lose your points if you want to hunt it. Unless it was your second choice of course. There is no way in hell it can cost more than what they are currently doing. 5) Turned in tag holders lose there points. Unless unforeseen circumstances arise just like other states.
Make all units draw for elk, R and NR.
Take all accumulated points for reissue tags - or at least an equivalent number to the minimum to draw the tag.
Seems silly that some guys get returned tags on reissue and get to keep their points when the people that put in for the draw on time and paid the application fees get their points pulled whether they had just enough or way too many.
I still like playing the game to get a point and a tag, but maybe it’s time to shut that down. Take points for the first 2 choices at least.
Change the preference points to squared bonus points across the board with a chance in the draw for every point. The 3+WP system is a joke and guys with high numbers of WPs have less of a chance of drawing every year because of all the other people hitting the magic 3 point level.
Allow parties to average points.
Don’t return points on returned tags. Maybe make one exception for military personnel re-deployed.
Since Point Creep is caused by basic supply/demand, one or the other has to be addressed.
Even tho this is a 'bowhunting' forum, Point Creep is not limited to just archery and it must be viewed wider than just archery. If it is presented 'looking thru a straw hole' it wont be received well.
Point banking CAN work, but it has to be in effect for a minimum of 3yrs, preferably 5yrs.
Create a couple more seasons in the 'Quiet Time'. They have already done it in GMU 10 and GMU 61.
Point sharing works and is popular [i.e. Wyoming]
Any tag taking 10 or more PPs cannot be returned for refund/PPs re-instatement.
Create 'Resident Only' archery/rifle Elk seasons/units [i.e. moose]
Brooke has some valid points.
Declare a moratorium on weighted points and for a set period (10 years?) convert WPs into PPs to allow those with high WPs to actually use them before they die. Or at least make a cutoff with those holding, say, 15 WPs for a species eligible for a separate tag pool so the other 3+X people still have a chance, but it increases the odds for the high WP holders.
A tweak to the moratorium idea, what about allowing a certain time period where hunters can sell or trade their points? Say someone has 4 elk points, and realizes they are never going to catch up to 20+ point units. Allow those low point holders to sell them back in a "marketplace" to some high point holder that is willing to pay for one last top level hunt.
I'll dump a few thoughts out. I haven't put all these ideas through the grinder but these are things that come to mind when trying to reduce creep when increasing resource supply and decreasing hunter demand aren't really options. Some form of a few of these have been suggested already.
I wouldn't enact any big change for at least 5 years after announcing it so people can make a plan to on how to use their points
Any over-subscribed list A tag takes your points. No matter how you get it including RFW, LO and returned or relisted tags. I won't include under-subscribed or OTC tags because it might decrease revenue too much if losing (or not gaining) PP when you buy an OTC or 2nd choice tag entices people to hunt other OTC western states instead of here. Solutions that decrease revenue dramatically won't get much traction.
For a big fix, freeze points where they are. No one loses their "spot" in the pool because no one behind you can gain a point. It also lessens the immediate impact of the huge increase in applicants due to the fee change. At some point in 5 - 10 years, everyone's deer, elk and antelope points reset to zero. Folks with points have until that time to decide what to do with them. It isn't fair but I think the slate has to be wiped clean if a more workable system is to be implemented. Especially with the fee change, we need a major rework.
That workable system is probably something like weighted points but with more "weight" than how our sheep, goat and moose works. Still possible to draw with minimum points but a bigger advantage to those who put in time and stay engaged in the process every year.
Ram, goat and bull moose go to once in a lifetime harvest. The supply/demand ratio is silly. For guys just starting (and a bunch of us that have been in the game quite a while) its already basically OIL without some crazy luck and when the giant crop of new applicants we found this year catches up...
Any deer, elk or antelope tag that requires more than 10 (15?) points becomes a once in a lifetime.
As someone above stated, look at hunt codes where more of the tags can be shifted to archery. If you look at 1 bull elk available to harvest from a DAU, you can usually remove more point holders from the pool by issuing archery tags to achieve that harvest due to our lower success rate. And, 8 or 10 people get to hunt vs 3 or 4. And, the CPW gets more license revenue. A rifle harvested elk creates about 25 recreation days. A bow harvested elk creates about 60 recreation days.
Increase supply. No, we can't really make more elk and deer but we can increase the supply of attractive hunt codes. Using the quiet period for a new shorter bow season with tag numbers low enough to allow for a high quality (low crowding) experience would entice folks to spend points on it. They did something similar when they added the totally limited first rifle season for elk. No change to current archery season, just an additional option. If the season had 1/10th the pressure (4800 bowhunters statwide) that could be very popular and it knocks 4800 point holders back to zero every year. It also reduces the pressure in regular bow season by 10%. I'll be a bit selfish and say it should be archery since rifle hunters already had that happen. As cnelk pointed out, they already crossed the imaginary red line and have some elk seasons in the quiet period. I guess it wasn't exactly as sacred as we were led to believe.
Add some hunt codes that allow a "season choice" where you can hunt every season (archery, muzzleloader, rifle) until you harvest. That might be something people would spend points on. People are busy and having the option to hunt throughout the Fall would be attractive. They do it with a few tags already out east.
Just some thoughts.
Do we all, or most, agree that party app points should be averaged?
Not sure. I'm ok with it as long as they don't allow a high point holder to apply with a group, return the tag, get points reinstated and do the same thing next year. Granny just never has the time to make the hunt but its handy that she has 20 points to apply with :^)
I have no idea if it would help point creep.
I guess I’m lost in this whole discussion. I do like some of the tweaks. But those tweaks are just improvements or modifications to a system that try’s to balance too much demand for a limited resource, all while trying provide a somewhat quality experience and somewhat predictable draw year. When 20,000 people want 100 tags there is going to be a backed up line. I also don’t like all the new drivers clogging up MY roads that I used to drive by myself. But unfortunately the population everywhere continues to expand. If you want all random draws apply for NM. Of course u may never draw. If you want a hybrid apply in Utah, again you may never draw there either until you are in the max pool. And none of those state systems does away with the fact that a few draw and many do not. It happens in every state, not just Colorado. It’s just more visible in Colorado. People could have used their points at anytime along the way. Some have made the choice to go for max points. They could have had 3 quality hunts with those points. But to bank 25 points then complain seems strange to me. But again I’m sure I’m missing something here. I do like Wy point sharing option for group apps option as along the years groups tend to change. With less point holders coming into a hunt group. If you don’t like point creep use them and go hunt.
There are some good ideas listed here, and probably many more to come...... but....
The CPW has an opportunity to do something about point creep in the next BGSS. The real question is 'will they'? Or is this just another exercise so it can be said they listened to options?
If they decide not to address point creep in any way in the next BGSS, the answer will be quite obvious how they feel about point creep.
Point creep is not the problem of the cpw but of the choices us hunters make. So I see blaming the cpw is just blowing hot air..
What would 100% work.
#1 ANY time you hunt ANYTHING for ANY reason you burn all your points.
Done point creep solved. But again will not happen as hunters - not the cpw want to have our cake and eat it too.
Anything that requires WPs has basically become a lottery anyway.
As far as elk creep, maybe a variation of the system like WY had. More limited areas, allocate the huge majority of limited tags to residents (90%) while allowing residents to hunt OTC units every year if they don't buy a point. A guy with 15 points either draws a unit somewhere and burns points, or chooses between getting the 16th point or hunting OTC. No more double-dipping. So we can choose between the point game or hunting every year.
Make nonresident hunting ALL draw, statewide, even for OTC units. NRs would be capped at a total of 10% of the total OTC licenses sold to residents the previous year.
This would be for archery elk only, primarily to eliminate the crowding issues in OTC now and improve the quality of the experience. But it would also free up more resident limited tags, make more units draw to encourage burning points and would eventually reduce creep by a small amount. It wouldn't be that much of a revenue hit since the majority of revenue comes from NR rifle hunters.
Sheep, Goat, and Moose, raise the minimum from 3 to 7 points prior to drawing a Ram, ES Goat, or Bull tag. (7 + weighted pts) I doubt the CDW will change anything significantly or address complex changes. This is simple and it gives the folks with max points a much better opportunity to draw this once in a lifetime tag. Bull Moose should be a season choice tag, start in archery season and hunt through rifle with weapon of choice.
deer, elk, pronghorn, bear - a lot of good "points" made above. For them to be considered they will have to be something simple, does not cost more $ to implement or result in lost $ that has already been earmarked for some special interest program. It will need to improve the outcome for all hunters... good luck
Point creep is what it is. We all have a choice when it comes to elk/deer/lope etc. If you want to get out of the rat race and really put in the time you can scout out areas that are 1-3 points to draw and probably put yourself in elk every year. If people (myself included) didn't feel like it was worth it to hunt my OTC every year saving up for a once in a lifetime unit then I wouldn't be building points every year and I would have blown them by now. I'd be more worried about the low point creep than the top units.
I feel people are a little bitter with the big 3 system (probably because they haven't drawn) but there are just more people than tags available. It's working IMO exactly how the DOW wants it to. Maybe you add a couple years where it takes 5 weighted to get in the draw but the won't and don't need to upend that system. See the odds of drawing moose the past 4 years. Definately not a true "lottery" as mentioned above. Max points has around 3-4 times the chance drawing than min points.
The resident non resident 90%-10% solution is great if you only hunt your home state. If Alaska and all other states did that it wouldn’t be a pretty picture.
INCREASE RESIDENT PERCENTAGE OF DRAW TAGS. Point banking will only decrease point creep at the high end units but increase it at mid and low point units. Only allow people with the initials MK to gain points.
I like Glunts Idea of having a seasons choice, where you can hunt til you harvest! That would have great interest to myself. That would make it an attraction on units not in super high trophy demand. I always try and find tags via multiple species to extend my season. Or the longest seasons available.
The only way to fix the point system and point creep is to limit the points going out.. otherwise the pool of points sitting out there will keep growing, even if at a minimal rate. At some point, the CPW will have to wipe the slate clean with everyone at zero points.. as extremely unfair as that may seem, the point system is just that, a system.. so, as racking up points to go after a high point unit is the way the current system works and everyone has worked and leveraged this system to what it has become.. nothing is set in stone to say the CPW cannot change it... The current system is not working and to keep doing the same thing with this system and expect it to work differently (different result).. that is insanity
Additionally, I am a fan of Wyoming's model for a few reasons..1. General tags for residents but non-residents must draw 2. Point averaging for groups 3. If you draw a rifle tag, you can hunt archery also, with an archery stamp and if unsuccessful you can hunt rifle season, basically hunt all seasons giving you the opportunity to be successful.. I mean in Colorado, all the seasons are too much (archery, muzzle, early cow rifle, high country buck, rifle #1, rifle #2, rifle #3, rifle #4, rifle #5) I mean come on, it's gotten out of hand with how complicated it is.. you need a damn PHd to read the regulations and figure out all the different seasons..
My issue with the "hunt til you harvest" thing would be that the woods would be flooded with gun hunters that say "i thought I'd try bow hunting". Wyoming gets hit with those.
We talked to a guy at a pretty good elk draw unit in Wyoming probably 7 years back that said he was bowhunting "because he was allowed to" and that he "bought a bow a week earlier and sighted it in yesterday". Then proceeded to tell us that he took a 50 yard "head shot" because the vitals were behind a tree and that was his only shot.
In my opinion, the last thing archery hunters need are more rifle hunters in the woods during their season.
From the hip: Make draw units "hunt til you harvest" but OTC units strict season-only. Would get more people into the draw if they think they've got the opportunity to extend their season.
Having "played by the rules" in the point game for over 20 years, I'm not a big fan of a rule change now. Grandfather the system for those already in the game, terminate/switch to a lottery for all the newbs. In a system that is first and foremost revenue driven, adding a few seasons (and selling more tags) until the points are all gone is probably the most likely simple solution. Upping the cost of a point would also likely reduce the overall number of points, while generating revenue at the same time. If only it was that simple. One thing is for sure, it makes me glad that ~90% of my hunting years are behind me. And after waiting over 20 years that I (hopefully) still have one more great hunt ahead of me.
One thing I noticed in the part of WY I hunt - those rifle hunters who bowhunt early seem to go opening weekend and hunt halfheartedly, then give it up until October. After opening weekend last year I only encountered one other bowhunter in the woods the whole season. And that was because I hiked in from beside his camp. I did encounter some rifle deer hunters though, since they start Sept 15th.
On the flip side, there are about as many hunters in CO as the total population of WY, so it's not comparable. But they treat resident hunters right, where CO seems to throw residents under the bus in favor of NR $$$
Keep deer and pronghorn as they are currently.
But for the elk (trophy areas only), do away with the point system all together and make it a luck of the draw /once in a lifetime permit. And leave the OTC areas as is.
If you run the hunt til you harvest like they do the youth, it would still give some incentive.
Ditch the points and go total random draw.
Reserve a 10% quota of tags to go to "special" point holders, kinda like WY does to extract more $$ from hunters. First year give 1 special point for each current preference point. No more preference points. You can a) participate in the totally random draw with no points if not drawn for the 90% of tags in the unit, or b) buy and OTC tag, or c) use your special points for the limited 10% of quota tags for a premium price.
Special points can build just like preference points over time. Maybe put a max, like 10 pts or something, and each point is an extra chance to draw a tag out of the 10% of the quota or the unit. If you draw, your special points go to Zero.
I'm the opposite of the "lose your points for any Tag" crowd.
You're saying only hunters who don't hunt Colorado regularly , get the premium tags, NO WAY. That would cost millions in revenue in reduced OTC and leftover tags sold.
I say you CAN'T collect a point if you don't buy some CO big game tag that year. Result: no more non-resident creep. Or, raise the cost of a point for those who don't hunt that year.
And, point banking won't work. I worked it out last time. Tens of thousands of points currently lost would be retained each year and added to the problem. We don't need 3-5 years to try it so some hunters in no-mans land can get a few tags. You know who you are. Ken
I'm against point averaging
Just stop issuing points, the rest of the system will work itself out. Eventually every unit will become a 0 point unit, but the guys with 20 points, or 6 in my case, can still use their points...
I like the point sharing, I like the all limited elk units like deer, and I like 90-10 R/NR split, and those good ideas could be implemented in addition to the above, but bottom line is the only way to eliminate point creep is to eliminate points...
Colobull, that's the problem with the system.. it was built to keep stinging guys along for 20+ years in hopes of that one great hunt, but that hunt keeps getting further away.. I will say this, whoever designed this system is a genius, as it seems the goal is to keep guys playing the game and generating revenue.. but the majority of guys play until they realize that unit their waiting for is to far away and they dump their 20+ points on a 10 pt unit.. thus the problem of point creep was born... Bottom line is if they put a plan in place to fix it, you can bet somebody's getting screwed.. most likely it's gonna be Colorado residents that have played by the rules.. I say that only because everything the CPW does usually does not have Colorado resident hunters best interests in mind... Whatever plan they decide on you can be certain will have the highest projection of revenue, it will not be a plan based on what's the right thing to do.
I've come to expect a kick in the ribs for bein the loyal dog I am. This will be no different.
Lots of interesting ideas being put forth. I am in favor of some sort of tweaking, but not just throwing the system away. I like a preference point system because you have a good idea of when you can draw a specific unit. Every state's system has some good points and some bad. The vast majority of people will never get to hunt the most prized units in any state. I personally hate the totally random draw like New Mexico. I am in favor of more draw units for elk, that would create more product and burn more points. I also like the idea of putting a 5 year freeze on points being distributed for the next 5 year season structure. That would allow people to use their points and create more time to make improvements to the system. Returned tags should go to the next person in line and that person uses their points to get the tag. Another thing to remember is as Cnelk said, this will be based on all hunters, not just archery. Last time they did surveys before the new 5 year structure, they found most people were happy with their hunting opportunities in Colorado. Most of us on this forum are informed, serious and opinionated about our opportunities and the overall hunting experience. The largest numbers of hunters are rifle guys that are not that dedicated and mostly happy to get a chance to go into the woods one week a year. That plays right into the hands of CPW's revenue creating strategy as they can honestly say most people are happy. That is why I believe we need to shoot for some tweaking, rather than a wholesale dumping of the system.
I would probably feel like you residents do on this subject if I lived in a Western hunting state. I do probably own more land in Colorado than 90% of the residents there but I don’t begrudge the rules on nonresident hunting licenses. Land ownership is not residency. And I actually agree with that policy. I would be hesitant to go 90% resident 10% NR.tag issue Think it through. The only reason it works in NM is because NRs can apply in NM then hunt somewhere else while waiting to draw in NM. If every state did that where would the majority of the hunters paying the bills hunt. 1.They would either quit hunting outwest. Some would say great! 2. They would start going more guided or buying land owner tags. Both of which would drive costs up for residents. 3. Next time the economy turns bad and states don’t have enough revenue from residents. your tags would go through roof. Like $600- $1200 for an elk tag. Or they would go broke and sell the land to a foreign country. Which many in Washington already want to do. I understand that many look at NRs as carpet baggers and too many eastern hunters (not majority) are slob hunters. But the revenue keeps public land in our hands for now. I might do the same if I were in your shoes but please Don’t look at us as the enemy.
COYO, I'm lucky - the old system has almost assuredly worked for me. I'll almost no doubt get those dream hunts in the next year or few. I feel sorry for the guys who don't stand a chance, which is why I'd support phasing over to some kind of lottery. End the point system, and let it fade away as guys use up what they have. But just throwing my 20+ years of effort out the door seems like a profoundly unfair proposal. How would you feel if you finally won a lottery tag after trying for 20 years, and someone said "no fair", and took it away? Hopefully some kind of sanity will prevail.
Altitude we know NRs are not the enemy. We just want the residents in our state to be taken care of. It’s not just NM most western states have higher percentages of tags that go to residents.
I agree. I used NM as the example state. I’m just worried a step in the wrong direction speeds up the inevitable ending of the American model. And a faster path to the European model. The hunter numbers we all complain about taking our tags are also what pays for this system. If we lock out a large percentage of the hunters from all western states who pays for the American model. I think it would survive for a while but animals would no longer have funding for research and law enforcement. Poaching would be rampant. Older age class animals would be a distant memory.
Not sure if this was not clear, but I was NOT advocating 10% NR quota. Just that 10% of the tags in the total quota for a unit be treated similar to the special draw in WY.......higher chance of drawing but at an increased cost and allow those points to build while ditching the existing pref point system allowing existing points to transfer into special points for that smaller draw pool.
Let the rest of the 90% (or whatever percent works best....10/90 was just for an example) be totally random. I see NO reason to treat NR and residents differently beyond the existing system for allocating between them in each unit's quota.
That way you can have the majority of tags go totally random for all draw units and still retain a point system that generates additional revenue as a cost of participating and having an increased chance to draw.
And I would suggest making all units draw like for deer. Then the leftover tags would be available after a date at least 30 days prior to season to buy resulting in essentially a pool of "otc" tags but unit specific. They could bundle units together as they do now.
Just trying to think outside the box. Every system can be gamed and every system will have winners and losers. No way around it.
One think about having a portion of tags in every draw unit available for random draw vs. points is it encourages NEW hunters to join our sport and have a chance to get a quality on a level playing field......which I think would be a positive goal of CBA and CPW. As a new hunter the points based draw system is confusing, intimidating and discouraging once you figure out the really good units will take years and years to get in position to draw.
Some good ideas here. The one thing I keep thinking though is, why not work this backwards. What I mean by that is come up with a system that would be in place in five years, 10 years, whatever, and start managing toward that system. If the point system remains, then affect the change over the next period of time to bring it in line with the system objective. If it's some other type of system, then work toward eliminating the point system over the next period of time.
They had a mechanism in place this year to Purge a lot of points but they didn't follow through. We all know there were a lot of tags on the leftover sale on the 7th that weren't on the leftover draw earlier due to lack of payment from the first draw back in April. The rule in the regulations was if you did not pay for your tag that you drew you would lose your preference points. They didn't follow through when people complained and they were reissued their preference points. I know this isn't the solution to the problem it just makes me shake my head. I don't know what the solution is and I don't envy those who will construct the "solution", because no matter what they come up with there will be a bunch of unhappy people. Judging by the $3 app fee pay structure of this year I suspect it will once again be those with high preference points who end up being unhappy, especially since we are the smallest group. Hurry September!
I propose raising the minimum age to apply for the Big 4 ( two sheep, goat and moose) to age 16. The way it is structured now, a kid could theoretically draw a Big 4 tag at 16 while so many of us are reaching the end of our hunting years and still haven't drawn. I would raise the minimum points required for the Big 4 to 8. I would make the harvest of a male sheep, either sex goat and cow moose a "once in a lifetime and done" like it currently is for bull moose. I think point banking could work but they would have to have it in place for a period of years to see the best results. I like the idea previously suggested to take those with 15 WP and above and put them into a separate tag pool with more tags or somehow give more "weight" to weighted points. I also like the idea of making moose a season choice tag and creating more seasons for season choice designation. Selfishly, I would like to see a portion of tags set aside for seniors 62 and above like they do for the youth tags. I think there have been some good ideas presented by many of you but I seriously doubt that CPW will take any of these and put them into practice.
Colobull, I agree 100%.. it would be profoundly unfair... But like I said someone will get screwed.. if they phase out the system, then there will always be guys right on the cusp ready to draw... The problem is the current system, nobody thought it through when it was implemented and only saw dollar signs... Or maybe they did think it through, but never thought it would be this big of a problem..
Unfortunately, I’m still missing the point. Sometimes I’m slow though. If there are 20,000 people wanting a chance a 100 elk tags there is going to be a line. Why is it unfair for the people that got in line first to get the tags first. Just because we got in line 10 years later. We shouldn’t now want to jump in front or now change the rules because someone is in front of us. And the line isn’t moving fast enough. It takes many years to clear the thousands ahead of us when one unit will only produce 2-5 trophy class animals per year. Sure you could double the tags but the age class wouldn’t be worth waiting more than 3 yrs. Changing rules or playing some sort of new shell game with points does not make a Unit produce more 7- 10 year old bulls per year.
altitude sick ^^ exactly. Wait your turn, and if you don't want to wait your turn apply for lower point units or OTC. I'm with you, I don't really see the system as the problem. The problem is we aren't Oprah.
You get a trophy bull....and you get a bull. You in the back, you get a trophy bull too. Come on.
Can someone try to explain to me what the bigger issue with point creep is?
It will max out at some point, people only live so long and eventually people with 30 or 40+ points will start dying. You are still able to walk out the door and hunt Elk and Deer every single year, but unfortunately we can't all be in 201. In my opinion whoever waits in line the longest should get to hunt it.
Big 3 could use some modifying. I like the wait until you are 16 idea or maybe a couple extra weighted points, but again not everyone can have a ribbon.
I don't think the issue of point creep is about everyone being able to hunt units like 201 and getting a 'ribbon'.. I personally feel its more about being able to hunt units that take 2-5 points and then that turns into a 5-7 point unit, because the guys that have the large number of points are dropping on those lower pointed units because they decided they don't want to wait for those higher pointed units any longer. There are several units that have been discussed here on bowsite that once were 1-2 point units 5 years ago and now are 5+ point units.. That is the issue of point creep.. There is such a large pool of points out there that guys are holding on to and then using those large amount of points on a lesser point unit.. Its kinda like the housing market.. Lets say you had a neighborhood where homes are currently valued at lets say for easy math $300k.. But then a couple of the neighbors decided they want to move and they decided just to sell and take what they can get and sell cheap at say $150k .. Well the rest of the neighborhood is now screwed b/c home values are based on comparables in a given area... So its not fair, but it is what it is.. that is similar to point creep.. the 'point market' for a given unit is dramatically skewed because guys get tired of waiting.. so, its less about everyone wanting to hunt units like 201 and more about guys not wanting to wait to hunt units like 201 and dumping their points to get out of the 'point game'..... I do agree from a ethical/moral/right thing to do stand point its not fair to penalize the guys that have been in the point game for 20+ years, but they may not do that.. My point is only to be prepared if they do.. There is no legal recourse for the CPW if they decide to change the system.. And all I am saying is, if they do decided to change the system, somebody will absolutely get screwed, might not be you, might not be me but somebody.. Whatever rules the CPW puts in place, they cannot possibly satisfy all parties involved.. The CPW is run like a business and whenever you deal in a business transaction, not everyone walks away happy.... If the CPW does come to a solution, the solution will probably be a utilitarian solution, where it benefits a majority but not all and will for sure benefit the CPW from a revenue standpoint.
I personally have no problem with the current system and do not wish to see guys who have worked it for 20 years getting screwed out of all that patience just as they are close to drawing.
I simply was responding to the question asking for ideas............
COHOYTHUNTER you make a very valid point, but at the same time, it's all supply and demand. These 1 and 2 point units that are now 5 and 6 point units are doing that for a reason. I bet crappy 1 and 2 point units from 5 years may still be 1 or 2 point units because people would rather go hunt OTC. I think the system is good the way it is. Instead of hunting those 1 and 2 point units from 5 years ago - you have to go hunt OTC and wait 4-5 years.
db999, agree with you 100%.. however, the CPW may not... Life ain't fair and my only point is to be prepared for some unfairness if the system is changed....
Wow....some really dedicated patient folks out there holding points. We have one resident holding 30 pts, and 2 more holding freakin' 31 pts. 2 residents with 29 pts and 1 non-res. 4 residents holding 28 pts and one non-res. 5 residents with 27 pts and 6 non-residents. 11 residents with 26 pts and 50 freaking non-residents.......
Eye opening.......
I think at a certain point people like to brag every year how many points they have. A very close friend of mine passed away this spring with 20 mule deer points. And 21 antelope points. Luckily he burned his elk points in 61 knowing he would never get into the top 2 units. He was looking to burn the other points when he got sick.
Convert to draw for all elk tags in Colo. This doesn't mean the CPW will sell fewer tags. They could offer the same number of tags but hunters would have to burn their points if they draw a tag as their first choice. The CPW could finally manage elk numbers and hunting pressure with all draw. This more than anything else would curtail point creep. Take a look at all the fantastic deer tags that can be drawn on a regular basis! Also, the quality of Colo muledeer bucks has gotten national attention since converting to all draw for deer! I would also recommend returning to pay up-front! It was a HUGE mistake not charging for tags when applying!
I’m all for the leftover A licenses, taking your points.
I don't have a solution but I was one of those guys that used 9 points on a 5 point tag. When I started the preference point process my goal was to hunt 76. At that time it took 6 or 7 points. I did not apply for a point every year. As my points grew so did the required minimum for 76. At age 66, I realized I was never going to hunt 76 while my body was able. I burned 9 points for a 5 point tag. Best hunt ever. I can't imagine 76 being better. I would sure have been disappointed if, after waiting in line for so many years, CPW had changed the process.
So, what happened in the meeting? If I understand correctly, it was yesterday morning...?
When 2/3 of the elk units in Colo are OTC it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that point creep will continue to escalate as more and more hunters apply for the few high demand tags that exist and continue to hunt OTC without burning points each year. Switching to all draw or requiring hunters to burn their points if they hunt OTC units will change this in a dramatic fashion! I'm also curious why hunters that buy landowner licenses don't burn points...this also should be changed! Returning to paying up front to apply for tags will change this in dramatic fashion...especially for nonres.
Idaho has lots of OTC and I’m not hearing whining of them switching to all draw for elk
The higher the points to draw the more expensive the tag. Example: starting 2019 all points are locked with a *mark beside existing points. All additional pionts added add $100 to the price of the tag.
Say I currently have 4 points today *4 points locked. I add 4 more points to draw a tag in the area that needs 8 points. I owe $400 more for my tag now
Cnelk.....what about if only an extra charge for non residents? I don't play the point game so I really don't have any skin in the game but I do like to hunt Elk in several states each year.
The meeting is over. It would be nice to restart the discussion with some facts. As has been said, they aren't going to please everyone, & most seem to prefer something that favors their particular situation. In that vein, I say "Screw everybody with fewer points than me, leave the system alone, get in line and quit yer whinin". Fricken line jumpers... :o ( Sarcasm)
Another thing to think about and something I've really put into perspective recently, with being a new father, is... With the point system being as messed up as it is and OTC available to everyone on the planet that wants one.. how might that impact the future of bow hunting and hunting in general?? If we are trying to keep the tradition/culture alive but the young folks that are getting into the sport don't have good hunting experiences (not necessarily harvesting an animal, but overall experience) why would they continue to participate.. The bottom line is Colorado's Big Game Hunt process is broken.. from the application process to point creep issues to the number of seasons to non-resident tag allocation percentage.. It all needs to be fixed and fixed right.. maybe we'll get a new governor that doesn't want to make Colorado into Colorfonia and push the CPW to fix it, just maybe
I'm going hunting in OTC in two weeks and I'm excited about it. I basically like our system and don't think it needs a total overhaul. Some of the ideas to tweek things that have been proposed here are interesting and could help, but I don't want to see slash and burn tactics that completely change things. It's taken me all these years to learn how our system works, I don't want to start over. As several have said, there is simply more demand than supply for quality hunts and that won't change whatever happens. I'm getting ready to enjoy our archery season and I won't be thinking about this stuff at all. Good luck and good hunting to all.
Jahvada +1
For the hunters that want and think point banking and point sharing will help reduce creep please explain it to me. I don't understand how it would help?
Here is how I look at point sharing. I have 10 elk points. My dad has 0, my brother has 2. We apply as a group and draw a 4 point tag. My points basically drew 3 tags instead of just 1 tag. So how is that going to reduce creep? There are only so many tags. By sharing points you are increasing the demand but not increasing the supply.
Point banking is almost exactly the same. Instead of me hunting 1 tag with my 10 points I can now hunt the same tag 3 years in a row if its a 3 point or less unit. How about a 2 point tag? I just drew it 5 years straight instead of only once? Again supply is staying the same but you are increasing demand.
The best way to reduce creep is to lose your points if you have a tag for that species. Make OTC tags a draw tag. It can be a guaranteed tag, you just have to apply for it. CPW would still make money on the apps that way. For the hunters that don't want to lose their points if they have a tag for that species they want their cake and to eat it also. They want to hunt every year, but they also want to be able to hunt draw tags. Problem is hunters are more efficient, hunt harder, less supply, etc. Something is going to have to change.
Again the best way is to lose your points if you have a tag for that species.
Everyone losing all their points is the most ridiculous idea presented. You accuse guys with many points of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Well, that is the system we have and some guys have been abiding by it for 20 years, or 15, or 10. It would be grossly unfair to punish everyone who has been playing the game, even for a few years. Someone earlier made an example of a person waiting in a line for hours and then other people show up late and expect to go to the front. That is exactly what you are suggesting. What we have is basically first come first served, that is fair. Abandoning guys who have been playing by the rules for 10 to 20+ years is not!
Too late for the big 3 Brun, already been done.
I actually like the idea of burning points if OTC tags are issued is a great idea! Either that or turn all elk units to limited....similar to deer. There aren't many deer units in Colo (especially archery) that take many pts to draw. Why should elk be different than deer? The CPW could certainly manage the booming elk herd and elk hunter numbers rather than it being literally a free-for-all (no pref pts burned and unlimited hunters) with OTC tags!
Guys who want no change I am in your group my vote is for no change or leave it way it is - just fine with me I dont chase points.
But this is a thread about how to reduce point creep and the only way I see to do that is to use them. Why add a layer to the onion? Or I would keep it simple as possible. Again what would work for elk draw only every unit in the state. I believe a 80%-20% hard cap for res/nonres is beyond fair. Change deer/lope to the same.
Then make the change that anytime you hunt you use all your points. Buck, bull, cow, doe, lo voucher, returned tags, 2nd choice tags, and the lot burn all your points.
Guys would either burn em or build em and I think most hunters hunt so in a couple of years point creep would be eliminated.
As far as other ideas point banking is asinine to think will help point creep. It does nothing but help a single individual to hunt more increasing point creep or very dumb idea if you want to limit point creep.
Point sharing might help as high holders have incentive to drop out but not sure how it would play out and as others have said creates a couple of loop holes that would need to be looked at with returned tags.
my 2 cents..
My boys are on the other side of the fence so I have some perspective. Under the current setup, one may get to hunt 201 in 30-40 years, and the other - maybe 50-75. Both can apply for a hybrid tag, which really seems to be about as good an option as anything any change may bring about. They both enjoy OTC - we get out in the woods, spend time together, and still get onto elk every year. The system is screwed up, but there isn't much likelihood a new one would be any better. 'Still hoping to see a synopsis of Friday's meeting... Steve???
One easy bandaid would be to require burning points for all returned tags. To get a 5 point returned tag you'd need to have 5 or more points, and when you get the tag you lose all of your points.
"The higher the points to draw the more expensive the tag." Hell NO. If you want to play that game, all tags in units that require 4 or more points are auction tags. Only the wealthiest get to hunt.
I have never met an elk Hunter in the woods from New Mexico to Montana and I have never met a broke Elk Hunter. Almost every outfit you see parked is new plus their four wheeler or razor. Campers wall tents. There might be a few locals but most guys that have the time to chase Elk have the money to do it as well.
Great thread, it's going to be interesting to see what eventually happens with this. It sounds like it is at least on CPW's radar.
Just a question, what exactly is "Point banking?"
Is it this:
Hunter has 10 elk points and wants to hunt a 5 point unit next year, hunter then burns only 5 points?
I am in favor of all elk units going to draw. There will be lots of units you can draw with 0-2 points. Also in favor of leftover/returned tags requiring you have and lose the minimum 100% drawn out at number in order to buy.
Woobie - yes. Apparently it didn't go so well the first time around. I think they pulled the plug on it too soon. 'Not sure it would fix anything - just increase demand on lesser units, raising the point requirement.
I can't see how going all draw would fix anything. They would have to have unlimited licenses in most of the same OTC units in order to maintain revenue.
I get a real kick out of the guys who want to take away my right to hunt if I don't blow my points. That's hilarious!!! To that I'd say - anybody without 3-5 points, stay home. There'll be more trophy elk all over the state in a few years and guys will be dumping points left & right. Problem solved. Sound's good ( or at least equally absurd) to ME.
Steve (Grasshopper) - the silence is killing me. 'Hope it isn't bad news, although any change will likely be bad news for someone...
This was not an action item for the Commission this month, meaning no changes were made or even formally proposed. They were just gathering information.
Obviously too late for the meeting, but I agree with the majority, if not all, OTC units going draw. CPW could then manage the allocations for each unit as they see fit to maintain revenue. I agree with leftovers, and choices other than 1st also costing someone their points. I would make cow tags an exception maybe.
Or how about this for out of the box. Leave the system (elk) exactly how it is with one major exception. After the draw, everyone who was unsuccessful for 1st choice or applied specifically for a PP, goes into a pool. Then instead of all of them receiving a PP, a limited number of points are issued by a pure lottery selection. The number of PP issued could be a percentage (25% for example) of the average of PP's issued over the last 5 years. This would reduce points issued, everyone keeps their current points, OTC is still a available, and consequential creep should slow down. As creep was reduced, the number of PP's could be adjusted up or down as needed.
Going to draw for most or all OTC units and making them use points will certainly also alleviate crowding because most won't play that game. It will also devastate the CPW budget cause most NonResidents aren't gonna burn points on those OTC units. And if you do that, you are punishing those that hunt regularly in Colorado (and therefore pay CPW's bills) and reward those who don't regularly fund CPW.
Under that system the only people who will draw the premium and better units are those who do not regularly pay CPWs bills. That's just dumb.
"I have never met a broke Elk Hunter." Well allow me to introduce myself. I'm a retired, broke ass elk hunter. I use a 2003 S-10 to go hunting. My bow is a 2008 Diamond Black Ice, or an old recurve. I do have an old Yamaha Big Bear ATV but it's purpose is to plow snow, it does not go hunting. My other car is a 97 Subaru. Not everyone, not even most, who hunt elk are as well off as you portray. Most of the hunters I meet are regular guys and girls with regular vehicles, regular camps, wearing military or Walmart camo. So again, Hell NO to anything that makes my retired broke ass pay up, or lets only the highest bidders hunt.
PECO my long lost brother! Como esta mi amigo!
I don't know if I believe you two guys, I see an awful lot of well off people driving older or at least very modest cars and a lot of people that don't have a pot to piss in if try lose their lease driving expensive high end rigs!
Usually the frugal fellas have a nest egg.
06 Toyo, 77 trailer. For quite some time, the biggest hit I took when elk hunting was missed work. Other than that, it was a cheap vacation. 30 years of accumulated gear has brought the cost down to mostly gas & groceries. Now that I'm "retired" I can spend a month in the woods for next to nothing. Our OTC hunts are still usually pretty decent. Guys who think they aren't obviously just don't try hard enough. Playing by the rules has gotten me the opportunity for a great PP hunt. As I've said - most of the griping seems to be coming from line jumpers who aren't willing to play by those same rules. All of the suggestions of ways to force me to burn my points, or not get to hunt, make me feel the same way about them. In the mean time, for the sake of my low point holding boys, an expanded hybrid lottery would at least give them (and everyone else) a better chance of drawing a great hunt. 1-2 more tags per premium unit, placed into a "come one, come all" ( Res, NR, whoever) lottery pool, surely wouldn't destroy the balance. I mean, with an overall 15-20% success rate, it doesn't even add up to one animal until you hit several tags.
As I've also said ( I think) going to an all draw no point lottery would just end up with some guys still NEVER getting a premium tag, even after 50-60-70 years. Any change that reduces the overall number of tags sold probably just AINT GONNA HAPPEN unless they start raising fees to offset the losses.
For elk, The more I think about it the more I think that you should actually have to buy an OTC tag in order to get a preference point that year rather than taking away peoples points for buying an OTC tag.
The guys who buy an OTC tag every year are the ones who are funding CPW and should be rewarded for that by getting points that eventually will get them a premium hunt. Why reward people who aren't contributing???
