LAST EDITED ON Sep-12-17 AT 05:07 PM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Sep-12-17 AT 05:00 PM (MST)
Used to be Steepndeep on another forum. Haven't posted in forever but this is my favorite gripe so here goes.
Totally agree that the point system is broken, badly. Sort of surprised no one has sued the state just yet, there may be some good reasons where they take a lot of money with no reasonable outcome for success on top of some really shady partnerships with really questionable organizations.
Back to the points thing, here are the ways I believe they could dramatically impact the current system for the better, while still respecting the existing process. I think throwing it on its ear is another lawsuit simply because skipping straight to an all draw system would really be ignoring a lot of money and irreplaceable time already given with some promise of an outcome maybe not for one, but at least for those who would draw which means everyone would have a right in that suit.
Two things, maybe three that would really help:
1. Pay it up front
2. Combine Points - applicant preference
3. Change the 50/50 pools to more like 80/20
1. Pay up front- As stated in previous posts, this is not the meat or traditional party hunt of our grandparents' youth. This just isn't that anymore and do you own a gun? More than one? A 4 wheeler or a mountain bike? Pay a cable bill each month? Am I organized enough to pay upfront for all of my tags now? No. Does every hunter pay for a tag if they got one? A sheep, would you scrape together the money if you drew a sheep today? YES, anyone would. Google: "Don't buy stuff you can't afford SNL" for an awesome Saturday Night Live take on it.
Why this is critical- because so many people put in for people who only sort of care. Aunt millie, nephew Cade, boss Wilbur...no kidding, a boss. Who is that kind of suckup? Someone related to me a story about their friend who took their novice hunter boss on the Paunsagant...really? Know another guy who hunted his grandpa's tag for him...he got sick and just asked his grandson to hunt it for him please...or the girlfriend who hunts exactly never, but now that she pulled a Moose do you think she is going out - hell yes she is with boyfriend actual hunter Coop by her side. Why, why do we allow this? It is the modern version of party hunting. Keep in mind they have forced us in to hunting tags and that means then that the above examples are tag party hunting.
Forcing Cooper to pay for his own tags will be a stretch, no longer will he put in for aunt Millie, his soon to be ex girlfriend and certainly not his boss. (sorry Coop, names are fictitious so leave him alone - unless it is him) I can only dream right now of the affects of this type of shift- would 30% fewer applicants be too much to hope for? What if it were 50!!! It would be significant I can promise you that.
It is also totally worthy of legislation on the state holding the money, if that's what it takes. I feel like again I have to repeat this is NOT blocking people because of money as they would pay for it if they drew it. In fact, though I might benefit, it is silly that the state calls on a declined card. Why? When super bowl tickets go on sale do you get to reserve them and then wait a day to find the card you can max out? No. Google that SNL clip, buy what you can afford, put in for what you can afford, no more, no less. HUGE HUGE BENEFITS to everyone who is serious about this. It might totally be an organization tax, but who do we want running around the crowded Wasatch with a gun anyway? The organized careful ones. The others can fall back to poaching (probably another definitely unintended consequence of to much pressure on opportunity)
2. Combine points. This is my favorite, both favorites so far, but this one is a great idea as it cuts down the point creep while giving folks what they really want - let there be a market and let it decide.
Make it an option to combine points for a given year in any way you want towards your one or two species. Like...let's say you have 13 Mule deer points, 17 mountain goat and what you really wanted was an elk because you happened to draw some stupid dinner tag in another state and you got your goat. Sure you want another goat, who doesn't, but you are still at the doctor now and again trying to fix whatever you busted pursuing the goat and you kind of have it out of your system.
So what you do is you pool your points (they retain a marker for where they are from and go back to the original species if you don't draw)for an elk - the one thing you really want is that elk you have been seeing the past year or two in your field.
The result if you draw - you get the elk you wanted. 30 points have been burned. You are back to 0, but it was by choice.
The benefit for us: 30 points were burned. He would have drawn eventually or even immediately on either the goat or the mule deer, now we have met his need (assuming he drew with 30, maybe he won't) and 30 points are gone. Guess what else? He only put in for one draw pool, not 2. What does that mean? One less sucker in line for the Henry tag that year. Multiply that by thousands my friends.
Guess what else? In that scenario, left alone on the old system, eventually you would not likely let those points lapse and would kill both a goat and a mule deer. Tastes and desires and needs change a little bit in 20 years - am I right? Maybe you want to switch but can't, but guess what? If we allow some choice in that switch the net result is fewer animals on the ground per those hunters by choice. I can stomach letting you take an elk when the result is burned points, and now there are both an antelope and a deer in play for someone else. EVERYBODY WINS
And what if people do not, are against, and will not pool their points? Well, they may stay up there in their points and hopefully as we burn points they start to creep up to the top. OR maybe they get their something and change their mind. Either way this is allowing people to actually do something to affect their fate that also might seriously lower the pool of points. We can't increase opportunity, we CAN reduce the points between us and that opportunity. This is appealing to that human desire to have stuff now, the credit cards that we max out - this is like creating a credit card except when used it is gone.
Guess what else this would/could do? Let's say if folks put in this way when they combine and apply they only get one point for the species they applied for if they don't get it. What does that mean for them? They risked it on the species they wanted and they didn't draw and now they get one point. That's their choice, completely, but guess who benefits? The rest of us. One more potential point shaved out of the system. Times that again by some number in the thousands. Fantastic.
3. Change pool ratios/drop the max. I'm not sure about what would be best here, but assuming we stick with point 2 - which we should - then change both ratio and the ceiling. The ceiling will come down, but it is through the other points changes listed above, so drop the ceiling. Then also make it better to have points. Why is it 50/50 on the pools? why are we ok with someone waiting 18 years and some random fool 0? That is the dumbest thing ever. If it makes some kind of sense at least balance out the lucky fools with the waiting fools by changing the pool to a much higher ration, I woul dbe fine with 95 to 5 actually going to a higher pool amount.
How might this help? Well, it might discourage some to not even apply. So? what does that matter? It doesn't. If fewer people apply the points fall and eventually, maybe it is reasonable. One of the flaws of my reasoning is that DWR gets less money in application fees if we aren't applying for as much. Wouldn't we make up some of that same money (albeit not much) by not having as many fools get a tag at year 1 2 or 3? That's another problem that the DWR would have to solve, but it really has nothing to do with this argument. The point system itself should not be justification for salaries or whatever. The ratios should definitely be changed.
Lastly- take tag back from those crooked sportsmans groups, or put RMEF in charge or someone with some scruples. Embarrassing for the whole state and if you want to gripe about rich man vs. poor man it is to be done in that context, not the pay upfront.
Pay up front - reduces points in the pool by a lot
Combine points option - voluntarily reduces points by a lot
Change ratios - by allowing combiners and choosing with a bias towards higher points it helps a lot
Whew. That felt good for me anyway. See you in another 5 years when nothing will have changed except that it will be worse then.