Colorado Moose draw system
Colorado
Contributors to this thread:
Does everyone feel the current Moose draw system works the way it was designed to. Wyoming just sent out a survey about changing the system to a squared bonus point system. Would this type of draw system be a better system for CPW to change over to? I have a suggestion and it would take some thought and work going forward. If the CPW would keep the same system going forward but changing it somewhat. Example if a moose unit would have 5 or more tags available how about at least 2 tags go into a separate draw for point holders that have at least say 20 weighted points. This would give applicants with close to maximum points a better chance at drawing, If they did not draw than there application would go into the regular draw system with all the applicants and would have two chance to draw. It seems like applicants with lower weighted points are drawing more tags than maximum point holders, that's not the way the system was designed. I feel our draw system needs to be looked at closely and changed. Opinions would be well appreciated.
Weighted points need to have more weight in all weighted point draws.
It does not work as intended. More low point applicants will continue to pull a large number of tags as they enter the pool, I believe close to another 3000 will be in there next year. The problem is everyone entering the draw regardless of their weighted points has the same exact odds of pulling an initial low random number. As the number is assigned then reversed then re allocated with a random tile drawing none of your points are giving you any advantage. The guy with 3+20 and the guy with 3+0 have the exact same odds of number and tile assignment.
The system works as designed, which has been proven by statistical analysis. The biggest issue now is the huge onslaught of new applicants over the past few years. If you're going to change something with the sole intention of channeling more tags to the top point pools, it needs to be a drastic change, like the one you described RD. Another way to go is to CUBE points, but only after you reach a certain points level, like say 15 or 20. That would have significant effect.
The reality is that we have extremely high demand for a very limited resource......too few tags and too many applicants. Draw success was .89 of 1% for all permits this year, including bull and cow. Closer to 4/10ths of 1% for bull only. That means no matter what is done, most will never draw because they won't live long enough. Any change of the type mentioned that is made now, will only be a temporary benefit, helping current long-timers. As time passes and the current massive crowd in the low and mid point pools become the old timers, the cost to them is that the hole got dug much deeper.
They could go to a Utah model if they wanted. Say moose unit x has 5 bull tags. Three could go to top point applicants and two could be drawn how they do it now. That way some of the top point guys are getting flushed out yet everyone with 3+0 still has a chance.
Orion you don't understand math or stats. I would support something that increase odds somewhat for the higher point holders but over all it is not a terrible way of doing it. I don't necessarily think tags should go to the highest point holders. If that happened no one that did not start applying at 12 or live to be a 100 plus would ever have any chance. For what it is worth I am one of the guys with 20 plus years of trying.
No great way to distribute such a limited resource to such a high demand and keep people happy.
I will say my armchair biologist observation is that we could have had a lot more tags available in some areas.
After waiting decades and now with more wolves on the way, I don't plan on drawing ever.
John please explain where in my explanation of the draw themath or stats is wrong. Look up at the draw stats and show me where the 3+2 pool is not drawing more tags than the 3+20 pool. You must be one of those delusional applicants that think your weighted points are giving you an advantage.
Glunt you could draw a cow tag if you just wanted to hunt moose in Colorado before the wolves eat them all
I just switched to trying for a cow tag. Those may even get to be long shots.
Orion - I and another's have tried to help you with your math skills before. Unfortunately that is a skill I don't think you will ever get. I am sure though there are other things you are awesome at!
But to dumb it down as simple as possible it is kind of like this. One guy gets to flip a quarter and if it lands on heads he wins a prize. Then you have a group of 50 and each gets to roll a dice once and if it lands on 6 that person that rolls it gets a prize. Out of the 51 people the odds are much better for the guy with a quarter with 50% chance than any one of the group of 50. But when you have 50 people and while each only have a 16.67%, odds are better than at least one of the 50 will get a 6 than the one guy with a 50% chance.
Weighted points work, but if you want to improve on the system increase the base number of necessary points before weighted kick in.
So if you have 3 + 20, convert the minimum base from 3 to 7 or 10 as an example. So at say a 10 year minimum your 3 + 20 becomes 10 + 13 weighted points and let it work as it does today. That doesn’t significantly alter the system introducing unintended displacement, but also says if you are serious about moose make the diligent waiting period 10 years rather than 3. You could still draw at 10 + 0, but at least you’ve been applying 10 years and those in longer still get the benefit of weighted points.
Easy modification and improved results.
People at the bottom of the pool are a way bigger group than the top point holders.
I don't expect a government agency to make a change benefitting the small group at the expense of the big group unless that small group is classified as "under served".
Low point success is simply a factor of the odds in sheer numbers. 1000 people with 3+1 have a greater chance at some ending up with a low number than 10 with 3+20.
I am one of the latter and didnt draw a cow tag (finally gave up on a bull tag this year). My longtime hunting partner drew a cow tag with 3+1.
The huge number hitting the 3 point threshold next year and after will bring the curve down even lower.
Weighted Points have minimal impact for top end holders if they only issue a couple of tags. With only a couple of tags issued the weighted point system still rewards the applicant with the lowest random number.
RamHunter - your idea was briefly touched on at one the focus groups I was in this summer. It appears it will not be acted upon.
John do you think more or less of low point holders will be drawing tags? Explain how having a huge amount of weighted points helps with that? Could you please explain how having a ton of weighted points has any effect on your random number assignment. I'm sorry you cant figure out that the guy with 3+0 and the guy with 3+21 have the exact same odds of getting an initial low random number. Good luck collecting all those valuable weighted moose points I bet a number of those 3,000 guys coming in the draw this next year at 3+0 draw your tag.
Orion I am not going down the road of explain stats to you again but if you want to meet up some time with a stack of cash. We can download a random number generating app. You get what ever number you get. Then I get my random number and divided it by 21. After that lowest number wins. Let's do it 10 times for a $1000 each time. You in?
I'll come watch.... The problem with you example is there needs to be 50+ other people getting random numbers too. Lowest # gets the $1000.00. I agree I'd rather have my random number divided by 21 but I doubt you would win more than 2 or 3 times. Sandbrew
I would love to see the outcome of 50 applicants, with one of them having 21 weighted points. I am guessing the 21 point holder wouldn't even win more than once in 10 tries. Actually I probably don't want to know the stats and should start donating my $50 application fee to some Wyoming Governor's tag raffle where my odds will be a set 1/250 or 1/300 chance. Because and only because I can afford the $50 preference point fee, I will continually be suckered in at hoping it helps my odds and I draw the bull moose tag in the next 10-15 years before I turn 70.
The moose draw system has changed many times over the years. It started out with a simple draw system, all applicant names were thrown in a hat, whoever was drawn had a license. Then the system went to a preference point system, then it went to a weighted preference point system, then it had increase in license fees, then a $3.00 fee for a preference point, where thousands jumped on the band wagon and entered the draw system, now a $50 preference point fee. Right now the math does not really tell a true story on why the system isn't working correctly for high preference point holders, statics does tell some facts what has happened in the changing system, To better understand who is drawing all the tags a person should review the 2022 post draw results. The system was designed so higher preference point holders should have better odds of drawing a permit and this is not happening. My opinion
Thill....in that hypothetical draw, assuming the other 49 people have zero WP, the guy with 21 WP would win, on average, 30% of the time. That's the "on average", or "mean result" from an infinite number of iterations. Of course, in single runs of this hypothetical draw, there'd be a wide spray of results.
RD I agree, and we'd all (as long-timers) probably like to go back to the good ol' days of better draw odds. If I'm being realistic, I don't see any changes coming to make that happen.
Sooo...your saying there is chance. The funny thing is I continue to put in for a tag every year.
John do you think your odds are getting better or worse with all the new applicants? By their sheer numbers they have the best "odds" of getting the low random number and they will continue to draw a large percentage of the overall tags. Let me know how that dividing factor of yours is working out and how your out drawing the low point holders.
John I would play that game but make it like the draw and give me 3000 random number versus yours with your 21 dividing factor. Would you still like your odds?
The amount of tags the huge pool of new applicants at the bottom consume means weighted points are worth less every year. Still the best, and only, thing that improves odds but less of an advantage than when they were free.
The longer than three year waiting period is not unprecedented. For the NW elk units you can apply for the random draw after 5 years. You also have a five year weight on sheep and goat after success. Because of the limited supply and high demand,the three weight seems light to me.
Plus the CPW could generate more revenue as you would have to buy more points than today to get in the game.
I'm on board for your 10+0 minimum....sheep, moose, goat.
Year Applicants Cow tags Bull
2016 20214 195 148
2017 25,723 249 173
2018 40,953 278 200
2019 40,984 226 314
2020 45,404 268 215
2021 52,878 294 251
2022 53,806 X 8$ ad min fee = $424,000
Sticksender - Thanks for running the numbers. I am surprised it was that high, but again we assume the other 49 had none.
Ram and goat tags should be once in a lifetime kill or not
Orion - I agree and I have killed a ram.
All moose should be OIL - in fact, thats going to be my new soapbox to the CPW
Still don't understand why it isn't like a raffle tickets. For every weighted point, you get a raffle ticket in the bucket. Easy to write a program to do that and draw so no one could cheat the system. Would be so much easier than the crazy math that they do now.
The current pref pt system for moose is garbage. Paying the license fee up front would also curb the huge increase in applicants each year.
I agree all moose (if successful harvest) should be OIL. And I have already harvested a bull and two cow moose, with 4th tag in hand now. I will play the rules we have and keep drawing cow moose till they change the rule, which they should.
I agreed with RDhunts comments. The current draw system is flawed. Change it so those with the most entries/points have a better chance.
Make it one application per family per year and raise the license cost to 1200,00 residents. the real moose hunter knows that is a value. Especially for the quality of moose we have. Other than that, it's hopeless with the system now.
Why $12,000? Why stop there? Why not triple that, the "real" moose hunters will still pay. Make it OIL and $3,600 a tag. Up the annual app fee to a grand also. The "real" moose hunters will still pay.
48,000... guess i'm not that moose hunter, or I'd be in the Yukon.
Copied from recent CBA Facebook page : Local bow hunter states : "Colorado is the only state that I know of that uses the ridiculously flawed weighted points system to allocate moose, sheep, and goat licenses. Other states use "bonus" points where you get more "tickets" in the lottery, and many states like NV and MT square those bonus points, significantly increasing the draw odds for high point holders. The mathematical mumbo jumbo of the "weighted points" system that some idiot came up with doesn't work. Basically they issue a random number to all applicants, then divide by the weighted points. The lowest resulting numbers get the licenses. You don't get more entries in the drawing, it's all math and luck of the draw. Here's what happens in reality......there were 518 moose licenses allocated to residents in 2022. 271 applicants (including me) had maximum points of 21+3. This group only drew 8 licenses. The group with 10 and below weighted points (lower half of points) drew 373 licenses, or 72% of all moose licenses allocated. The group with more than 10 weighted points drew 145, or 28% of allocated licenses. Further, if you look at the very bottom, those with ZERO weighted points drew 34 licenses, those with ONE weighted point drew 72, and those with TWO drew 46. That's 152 licenses, or 29% of the total. Clearly this system is a total failure. Weighted points were supposedly going to help those with more points draw licenses and ostensibly increase their odds of drawing. The result is that instead of having a 98.6% chance of NOT drawing with 0-2 weighted points, top point holders have a 97% chance of NOT drawing. It's a total scam."
I will add this, Once the pay later system was put in place three years ago, the number of applicants has doubled to over 53,000. Of the 518 license available, nearly 75% of the applicants apply for a bull tag which number around 250 tags. Odds of ever drawing, even with max points and weight points, are very very slim to done, as the writer above has demonstrated.
NOTE: the author of the face book page stated he was one of the 271 applicants who have max PP and weight PP. ie, 21 +3. Out of 53,000 applicants I am sure there were more than 271 that had max points. I did not check the stats. Paul
Careful posting stuff like that. People like JohnMC will claim your not good at math and that weighted points are beneficial.
if that is true, it's hard to believe whoever thought up the weighted point system, like our Politicians, didn't look forward to the consequences of the policy. Something needs to be done to help the the older applicants with max points before it's too late for them to even hunt.
Bowyer, I don't believe that's a concern of that organization. Fairness and equity is a goal, but then we have us old men who have been propping up the system and DOW/CPW finances to unsustainable levels for the past 50 years. Now we're dropping out but it doesn't matter in the short term. Every license, voucher, and more, will sell.
I had max points when I drew my bull tag in 2015 at 69 yrs young but I still could pack it on my back, I think all the older archers deserve the same chance, it was worth the wait. Scouting out the moose spots since 1980 was half the fun! I love moose!
So I did some math this morning and bear with me this is going to be long. The following numbers are if every person in each year got their name in drawing once for every weighted point. There would be 123,329 names in drawing.
Weighted points x number in pool
1 - 6585 2 - 4260 3- 5484 4- 6324 5 - 6585 6 - 6582 7 - 6468 8 - 6432 9- 6048 10 - 6850 11 - 5429 12 - 5520 13 - 6565 14 - 6062 15 - 5955 16 - 5535 17 - 5916 18 - 6576 19- 5852 20 - 4020 21 - 5691
So there would be a total of 123, 329 names to be drawn. The ones with one weighted pointed would have 5181 in 123,329 chances of having someone in that pool draw one tag. Those with 21 weighted points would have 5691 in 123,329 chances of being drawing for one tag. So, while someone being drawn in any point class is similar. The chance of YOU being drawn in your point class is much better the more points you have because there becomes less and less people in your point class to draw. In fact with this system at least statically speaking more tags would go to lower point groups.
So, if you this system instead of the current it would not change things a lot but at first glance in might slightly improve odds for higher group. However, the overall stats giving include cow tags. I doubt as many in higher pools are trying to draw a cow tag, so this makes the lower point holders look more successful than they are if you look at bull only I would imagine.
I think a better system would be to stay with weighted points but to add more weight to it. This could be done by using a shorter number to start with. For example, if your random number currently 9 digits go to 7 or 8. Another possibility is the number of random numbers is the same as number of people that applied.
Bottom line is LOTS of people wants a few tags. Is it fair those trying the longest get the most tags. To me yes. But the flip side do you want to tell a young person they won't ever get a moose tag unless they outlive the vast majority of people??
Another option is instead of debating how to slice the pie. What can we do to have a bigger pie? Could the area with moose and the number moose in CO increase? That would add opportunity for more people to hunt them. Is this feasible? I don't know.
John, when I attended a meeting specifically to discuss moose tag allotment, the biologist told us they have no idea of how many moose there are, because they don't do moose counts. So the number of tags given is basically a "seat of the pants" estimate based upon observations by WCOs and others in the field throughout the year, minus any illegal or incidental kills.
That said, they did add bull and cow tags in many units this year.
"Could the area with moose and the number moose in CO increase? That would add opportunity for more wolves to hunt them."
FIFY
Statewide, the moose population is estimated to be near, 3,000 and yes they have expanded during the past 20 years. The primary food for wolves will be elk and mule deer ( add in cattle, and sheep, a few horses, dogs) but there is no doubt a moose or two, or three , or four,Plus, will be killed by wolves and that will affect calf recruitment and the number of breeding cow moose. Will that be enough to stop or slow down Colorado's moose population growth. I would expect some moose will never have an encounter with wolves but in some areas, more moose will be targeted once the wolves get the hang of it. While wolf impacts on all ungulates will happen, to what extent and in what areas that will happen, is only a guess at this time and from antidotal evidence from the three states north of Colorado. Time will surely tell the story and that time will be down the road, 5,10,15 years from now, once the wolf population gains a foot hold.
Just a thought, what if you stuck with the system but said an applicant had to be 60 or older to draw, that would be equitable because it still would honor the high point applicant and still allow someone with less points to draw as long as they were in the point game and over 59. Let's face it most will never draw anyway with this system.
New study sheds light on relationship between wolves and moose population
As the population of wolves in the area goes up, the number of moose goes down CBC News · Posted: Feb 25, 2018 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: February 25, 2018
A study behind the relationship between wolves and moose showed that as the population of wolves in the area went up, the number of moose declined. (David Mech/Researcher) The mystery behind Minnesota and northwestern Ontario's diminishing moose population has been an ongoing discussion for the last two decades.
In January a research scientist with the U.S. Geologic Survey, David Mech, published a paper online in the Wildlife Society Bulletin on his study examining the interaction and relationship between wolves and moose calves.
As the population of wolves in the area goes up Mech said he noticed that the number of moose goes down.
"We looked at the relationship between wolf numbers ... in a given year ... and the number of moose that year and the following year [to] try and see if there was some relationship between those numbers," Mech told CBC Thunder Bay's outdoor columnist Gord Ellis.
Based on those numbers, Mech said he was able to discover "some evidence that wolves are having [an] influence on the moose population."
Older moose more vulnerable than moose calves
By radio collaring wolves every summer, Mech said he and his team of scientists were able to count and track the animals from the air, while the moose are counted by the Minnesota DNR each winter.
He said while the wolves take both the older and younger moose, he noticed that the majority of the older moose that were killed by wolves had something debilitating them, thus making them more vulnerable as prey.
"With the older moose ... either they're real old when the wolves take them or there's something else debilitating them —some parasite or some malnutrition — like a predisposing condition that allows the wolves to kill them," Mech explained.
Research biologist David Mech said he noticed that most adult moose that were killed by wolves were old or otherwise debilitated. (David Mech / Researcher) He said because of the lack of experience and size, moose calves are also pretty vulnerable to wolves regardless of health.
"We have not yet, nor has anyone, been able to examine enough of those wolf-killed-moose-calves to determine for sure that they were all real healthy ... that's information we still don't have and would like to get," Mech added.
He said the up and down relationship between the moose and wolf population is a natural occurrence.
There is really no definite human cause to these moose declines that we've been able to see," Mech said, "and if you look at what's happened on Isle Royal on Lake Superior ... it's pretty clear that these kinds of interactions are pretty natural."
ABSTRACT: Since the 1984 Swedish Moose Symposium our knowledge of moose (Alces alces)predator relationships has substantially improved. Wolves (Canis lupus), brown or grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), black bears (U americanus), and recently, cougars (Puma concolor) have been identified as major predators of moose. During the past 2 decades, a number of studies have identified the role of predation as either limiting or regulating moose population growth. However, confusion over misuse-use of terminology has hindered our understanding of these relationships. Regulating factors are composed solely of density-dependent factors which keep populations in equilibrium or cause them to return to equilibrium. Whether a wolf functional response (i.e., per capita kill rate) is, in fact, related to moose density has come under scrutiny. There may be no biological justification for using a functional response in modeling exercises as wolf kill rates appear rather constant over a wide range of moose densities. Wolf numerical and functional responses are curvilinear relative to moose density and may be prey species specific. Knowledge of bear predation is inadequate to accurately model moose population trends. Whether predation regulates or limits moose population growth may be academic if reductions in predator numbers allow managers to increase moose populations and harvest yields. Managers currently have the biological tools to effectively manage moose-predator relationships.
Paul's Note: While mt lions and bears populations can be regulated through legal hunting here in Colorado, thus keeping these predators in check as the article above suggests, the question might be asked, "once the wolf population reaches a certain density here in Colorado, will wolf populations, in the future, be checked with legal public hunting as are currently for mt lions and bears?
I spent a lot of time in a river drainage in NW WY in the early 2000s. It was an amazing moose spot until the wolves arrived.
Unfortunately a lot of high point applicants, like JohnMC are delusional and think there odds are getting better each year with another weighted point, but they are getting worse. Like I said another 3,000 applicants hit the pool next year. And yeah John they are drawing bull tags look at the stats.
Dr. Valerius Geist believes wolves preferred moose calves over all others. He predicted that Shiras moose would become extinct everywhere Canadian wolves were dumped and not heavily controlled.
I hunted moose in Alberta, Ontario, Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado. In all areas the wolf made the population go down as the wolf population increased. I started moose hunting in 1973 so I do have a little experience. I have read all the best college level books on moose and there is no doubt about the wolves affect, Heck Yellowstone moose are hard to come by now because of the wolf up there. The north American model of big game conservation has proved itself over the last century. Now we have people playing with the success that can't even learn from that history. Just what Mr. Geist said.
A couple years ago I run the numbers on Bighorn sheep draw % by bonus points. I took the total number of tags drawn divided by the number of apps at each bonus point level. Bottom line, the people at max BP drew with a 6.5% success rate. There was a steady drop in success % the whole way down to 3+0 that was 0.5% success.
I just run the moose numbers but only the max and minimum point levels. Max point hunters drew with 2.95% success rate while the 3+0 folks drew with a 0.9% rate. Overall success rates for drawing moose are lower, even though there are a couple hundred more tags there are 3 times as many apps for moose than sheep. I have no doubt if I checked every level of BP's I'd find the same results I did in the sheep draw.
End result is that bonus points do make a difference. Is it enough of a difference for the high point holders? My opinion is no, it should be a greater advantage than the present system. Bonus points do improve your chance to draw but it isn't a great advantage.
Your logic is flawed when the low point holders are drawing over 90% percent of the tags
There’s got a be reason that the CPW let’s you opt out of buying a PP……
Maybe they don’t make much of a difference as some think ;)
MOOSE POPULATION IN YELLOWSTONE Moose have one of the highest reproduction rates of all the large, northern mammals. Despite this, the moose population in Yellowstone has decreased from approximately 1,000 in the 1970s to 200 in 2018. Most attribute this decline to the 1988 fire that destroyed the moose food source and caused many to die of starvation the following winter.
lol, moose or wolves Paul????
If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. You can limit hunters, but you can't limit wolves, they kill for fun year around. Wolves love moose especially in deep snow.
They forgot to get the bison up to a few hundred thousand in the state before deciding to put wolves back. Moose, elk, deer, pronghorn, cattle, sheep, small game, whatever. Wolves definitely will be eating 12 months a year.
What does everyone think of this change to the Moose draw system? The system now stands as every applicant can harvest one Bull Moose in a life time and harvest an unlimited number of cows. A simple change to the system would be applicants can only harvest one cow Moose. This means applicants could harvest one Bull Moose and One Cow Moose in a lifetime. This could be a simple change to the system and probably will not have to be approved by the Wildlife Commissioners.
With the understanding this is a moose thread, and my plots are for RMBS, I still think they are relevant to the discussion. The weighted point system works as intended when it was put in place. Unfortunately the decision in 2018 (buy a point for a nominal fee) and then in 2019 (buy a point for $50) severely disrupted the tag marketplace. Today, RMBS high point holders have a likelihood of drawing around 6%, while low point holders (~3+0) are drawing at likelihoods of <1%. As stated above, the large number of applicants with low point totals are now dominating the draw and acquiring tags that in the past were available to others with higher point totals, removing potential tags from the draw pool for applicants with higher point totals. A general decline in tags awarded to high point holders is seen after 2021 as there are just fewer tags to be awarded after the 3+0 crowd earns them. 2021 was the first year applicants in the new marketplace hit the street with 3+0 and a large spike in tags awarded to that group was seen. This continued in 2022, with the 3+0 applicant moving to 3+1 and a new crop of 3+0 applicants being eligible for a tag. A sharp drop-off in tags awarded to high point holders was also seen in 2022 when compared to years 2015-2017.
Interesting graphs 2x. I'd be interested to see a third graph showing % success by total points
A couple more plots for RMBS. First chart shows the percentage of tags allocated to sheep applicants based on point totals for years 2020-2022. The second chart shows the rate at which individual applicants with different point totals have in the draw. I took each point applicant pool and divided by 100 for each group. I then divided the number of tags awarded per 100 applicants in each group. This was done in an attempt to even out the different sizes of applicant pools across the point total bins. It generally shows that higher point applicants individually have a better rate of drawing than individual lower point applicants. Collectively, though there are far more 3+0 than 3+18 applicants and someone out of the large 3+0 group will generally get a tag over the small group of 3+18, even though the 3+18 have a slightly better chance in the draw. For example, if there were 100 folks trying for a tag and 95 had 1 entry in the hat and 1 person had 5 entries in the hat, individually 95 folks have a 1% chance of drawing and 1 person has a 5% chance of drawing. Collectively, though it is likely someone from the group of 95 will draw as the sheer number of these people far outweigh the single 5-entry applicant. Hopefully my public math is right on this.
Thanks for posting that 2xlung its exactly what i've been saying and some people still can't realize its only going to get worse
Your math is right, your method is not applicable. You don't get an 'entry in the hat', or 'several entries in the hat', you get a random number and divide that by PP+1. Considerably different animal.
I'd rather have my name in the hat for the number of PP's squared.
I understand the way the Big 3 draw works - your new randomized application number is actually divided by WP+1, not PP+1. The reason for my example is to explain that the large number of applicants now at 3+0 and 3+1 are receiving a proportionate amount of the tags relative to their population size. The likelihood of any individual drawing in these groups is low, but the large amount of applicants means that group will draw a lot of the tags - which is evident in the 2021 and 2022 draw results. 3+0 and 3+1 received 20% of the sheep tags in 2022. Because of their sheer numbers, these new entrants will continue to garner a larger portion of the overall tags available, making the weighted points less significant under the current system. In a few years, I wouldn't be surprised to see 40% of the tags going to folks with 3+0,1,2,3 points. That really sucks for a person sitting out there with 3+18. CPW changed the system in 2018 and then again in 2019 without fully realizing the implications to the draw in my opinion. I think they should make an adjustment to balance the draw better since the weighted points will lose value over time without a change to the draw and ultimately disincentive applicants to purchase weighted points - a hit to the CPW revenue stream. Changing to a minimum 7+0 or 10+0, increasing the point fee, returning to paying for the tag up front (and get a refund if unsuccessful), or providing a non-linear weighting to weighted points are some examples of changes that could help the current situation. I'm fortunate - I drew both my sheep and goat in 2019. I'm still waiting on my moose and given the current state, I'm not overly confident I'll ever draw one in CO.
I think the CPW knew full well the implications of the changes to applications.
This system is so frustrating, just get in the pool and donate your money to some other cause. My son cashed out his 12 weighted points last year and got a cow tag. His new plan is to just get back in the pool and stop buying points and I can't blame him at all.
Why the change to pay later? It was my understand that, the fees to process credit cards, to pay up front, cost the CPW 2 Plus million dollars per year to do so. Not actually sure of the total dollars but close. Will double check and report. Paul
Still has to have cost less then when they mailed all of us checks back
Adding a credit card processing fee of 4% quickly solves that problem. Credit card processing fees are also categorized as a cost of doing business. Build the cost into the price.
Proposal 2018, from CPW to CPW Commission follows: "While some hunters favor transitioning back to a pay-before-you-draw approach, many hunters prefer the new system. Going back to a pay-before-you-draw approach could disenfranchise new customers who participated for the first time in the 2018 drawing. Requiring customers to pay upfront is costly to families or those hunters with lower incomes. Continual change also adds to regulatory complexity and can cause customer confusion. Additionally, higher license fees and potentially higher preference point fees will also have an impact on overall application rates. Based on all of these factors, CPW staff recommends retaining the pay-after-you-draw system and charging application fees of $7 for residents and $9 for non-residents. "
What is interesting in reading these reports it that there is no mention of the "disenfranchising " of hunters who have been in the system for years in the "pay before" system. No mention of possible outcomes, like doubling the number of applicants as we have seen.
Double? They more then doubled the number of applicants. Bottom line is CPW screwed high weighted point applicants by opening the floodgates.
Paul this would be probably get more publicity and negative press if people actually understood the scope of how bad they got screwed by CPW's move. Also as can be seen on this thread and many others too many applicants don't know how the draw works or they are putting too much faith in their weighted points thinking they are more like bonus or preference points which causes them to not realize the implications of thousands of applicants jumping in the pool.
A lot of guys I have talked to who have been in the game a long time think their odds have been getting better every year.
I still run into people all the time who mistakenly think their 3+5 equals 8 "chances" in the drawing.
Yeah the number they use is weighted points plus one. This is to account for those who reach 3pp with zero weighted, since you can't divide by zero.
The system works as designed; to maximize CPW income. Why would they change it if we keep playing along?
Ziek, to my point exactly, we need to stop playing along with CPW, that is why I went to the CPW staff and have opened a discussion with them, talking to them on possible solution to give higher preference point holders a little more advantage in the system. With more applicants coming on board every year the odds are decreasing for the higher preference point holders to draw a tag.(my opinion)
Rick, I will bring up yours and other's ideas at this Saturday's State Wide CPW Regional Caucus meeting.. Trying to keep this issue on the table. Paul Navarre, NE Region Caucus delegate
Paul,
One issue is getting a tag...
There is another big issue with the season structure. A bull moose tag is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity and it should be treated as such. The current season structure has bowhunters competing with muzzle rifle hunters on day one. Any possibility to move the archery start date forward?
Two weeks would be awesome, but even a week without having to compete with the gun shooters would be so much better than the current totally screwed up season structure.
Ideally, there would be two weeks of archery only to start. Then archery and muzzle loader for two weeks. Then, the season should open up to any weapon for October, November and even December.
I agree with Travis about the start date. It should coincide with the start of archery season - if not before.
Like most all states open moose at September 21 to November 15 or so all methods until the once in a lifetime tag is filled. If you really think an archer needs a special season let it be the first week however as a traditional archer I don't think it's necessary. There are not that many moose hunters in the woods.
Archery hunters should have two weeks ahead of ML, and modern rifle should be after that. If you treat a moose tag as a OLT, you should have a couple pretty well pegged by opening day by scouting ahead of time. I see no reason to have month long separate seasons for any method of take if they're separated by weapon choice starting with the most restrictive weapon.
As to managing tag drawing, I see no good answer. Giving old guys, or high point holders, (basically the same thing) too much priority, just insures only old guys will hunt moose.
In general though, our bonus point system for any species should be changed to something simpler that gives more of an advantage to high point holders. It could be as simple as putting applicants' names in the hat as many times as they have points, and a straight PP system should be retired.
Again. All moose tags - bull or cow should be Once in a Lifetime