Could CO point banking come back?

Did anybody get this email?



Hello Bill,>> I don't know about you, but I barely glance> at the news from the DOW when they talk> about meetings and soliciting input for the> next 5 year big game season structure.>> But right now, there's a window of opportunity> to get something changed that I think you'll> really like.>> In a minute, I'm going to ask you to take very> specific action, but first - a little background.>> Preference points.>> Here's the fast version ->> You apply for a license, you don't draw, you> get a preference point. Next year, your preference> point moves you one position up in the list ahead> of those who have none. Points accumulate until> you have however many you need to get to the> front of the line for your tag.>> Now there are lots of draw units in Colorado> that you can pull a tag for every year, or> every other year with only one preference point.>> There are some however, that can take> 4, 8, even a dozen or more points. Some are> truly once-in-a-lifetime tags.>> Now, if you want to draw one of those tags,> you're pretty much stuck doing over-the-counter> tags for several years, or zero-point second choice> tags while you rack up preference points.>> If you have 6 points though, and hook up> with some buddies who hunt a 1 point draw> unit, you will burn all 6 of your points when> you throw in with their group.>> Some of you may remember though that> in 2006, the DOW did something special.> They only docked your point count for the> number of points NEEDED to draw the tag.>> If you had 6 points, drew a 1 point tag, you> still had 5 left over following the draw. It was> a fantastic idea and long overdue. It was> called "banking" points.>> It was also only a pilot program - a one year test.> The next year, we were back to the old routine.> A lot of you hollered at me, and I in turn hollered> at the DOW - but the bottom line was,> it was a one time deal.>> I just found out today that there's an opportunity> for this to change, and I talked to somebody in the> DOW who's in a position to know. (I also found> out what the deal was with the pilot - if you're> interested I'll put that in the P.S. below) This is> news because, at the end of the pilot, every> indication was that it "didn't work" and would> never happen again.>> Basically, with enough public interest and support,> preference point banking could be implemented> for the next 5 year season structure, 2010 to 2014.>> And that's where you come in. You can either:>> 1. send an email to: [email protected]> or>> 2. fill out and send in the form at:> http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/SeasonStructure/>> Tell them you would like to see the preference point> banking system implemented. They will know what> you mean. It can be short and simple. (and> courteous, of course!)>> We have until April 15 to get these in but please> take 5 minutes and do it right now.>> I would also appreciate it if, after you've done so, you> would drop me a note as well. This opportunity has> not been well publicized but if every DIYhunting.com> reader sends them a note, believe me we'll get their> attention!>> Thanks for your help!>> Jim Deeming>>>> P.S. A couple years ago when I called the DOW to> find out why the trial run of preference point banking> was discontinued, I got some truly bizarre answers.> It was clear I wasn't talking to the right folks.>> What I learned today was this:>> Although banking made a lot of us happy who wanted> to be able to have more hunting options without> wiping out a longer term goal-hunt, that actually was> not the primary intent. Banking was tested as a> way to possibly deal with a different issue, called> "point creep".>> There are some hunts where the number of points> required to draw is astronomical. Just this last> year my pastor gave up over 20 preference points> on a bull tag (and a fine one it was, too!). You can> kind of imagine that the longer the preference point> system is in place, and the more people start> racking them up, the number of points needed to> draw certain tags will continue to rise - or creep up.>> The idea was, by allowing some of the heavyweights> to burn a couple points off the top end of the stack> without wiping them out, it would stop the creeping> up of the minimum points needed each year.>> Well, it didn't have that effect. So the pilot was> deemed a failure and cancelled.>> What the DOW apparently didn't see coming was> all of us folks with middling amounts of points> hollering that they took away some candy> we really liked.>> So now if, due to our input, this is put in place, it> will be for the next 5 years, not just another pilot.>> Again, please take a minute to email them at:> [email protected]> and tell them to please bring back point banking.>> Then write me at:> [email protected]> to let me know you did.>> And if all this talk of preference points has you> just stewing to plan your 2009 hunt, be sure to> get the best hunt planner there is by downloading>> http://www.diyhunting.com


Jeff
 
I sent an email a while back and mentioned that "points banking" is one way to possibly counter "points creep" while giving hunters increased opportunities. I also mentioned that the preference points system could be improved another way by setting aside a certain percentage of the quotas for random draw, as Wyoming does for instance. Even with points banking, those higher-end units like the NW corner will continue to take a lot of years to draw. If they dropped more than one point over the 5 years with points banking, I'd be surprised. It would be interesting to see what would happen, though, and I am for "points banking".
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-09 AT 08:19AM (MST)[p]I really dislike Point Banking. I hunt units which take between 0-3 points. So I never have more than 3 points. Last time they point banked it cost us a hunt.

It seems the best way to take points out of the system is to simply make people spend them. All point banking does is allow people with high points to continue displacing those with less. If someone is chasing hard to draw units then that is their loss. Don't punish the rest of us by changing the rules that only benefits those with high points.

-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
 
I actually would like to see a cap on points - let's say 15. Tags would still be assigned based on who has the most points, but once there are more applicants w/max points than tags available, the draw is random. 20 hunters with 15 pp apply for 10 tags, all have an equal opportunity of drawing. It would take a few years to get the points to level off at 15, but I think this could work.
 
Waygoner-- I agree with that line of thinking. It requires putting in some type of time in line, but does not benefit only those who were eligible to apply at that moment in time when the point system starts.

-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
 
FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION THIS RIGHT NOW......THERE IS A BIG PUSH GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN THE DOW TO BRING IT BACK. I KNOW SEVERAL HUNTERS THAT HAVE VOICED THE OPINION.....YD.
 
South Dakota has a modified version for some of their high demand hunts. It is a pretty fair system that allows everyone a chance but gives those with the most points the best chance to draw. A portion of the tags go to those with the most points, a portion goes to those with some points and a portion goes to those with few to no points.

Here is an example of one of the last years elk draws:

15 years+ preference 11 tags 1002 applicants
10 years+ preference 12 tags 2775 applicants
0 years+ preference 12 tags 10973 applicants

In this scenario I had 20 preference points. I was included in the first drawing for those with 15 years+ and had my name in the hat 21 times. I did not draw in the highest point pool so I was then entered into the second pool with again with 21 chances. I again failed to draw and was entered into the last pool again with 21 chances. As expected I didn't draw in that pool drawing either.
 
The current point system is a total failure, rewarding only those few who got in at the beginning. Before anyone starts screaming at me that I must be at the bottom, I will tell you that I will draw my "once in a lifetime" tag in the next few years. However, my son, a native of Colorada (and yes, I despise this nativist rational) will never draw the unit that I am waiting on. He will Never, repeat, Never, draw that tag with the current system. Some simple statistics will enlighten even the most ardent supporter of the current system. When my son is eligible to apply for a tag/pref points, he will be roughly 23 points behind everybody that has been banking the points. In the prime units, the point creep will exceed human life expectancy and my son will die having had exactly ZERO chance of ever hunting the same unit that I will get to.
Someone mentioned Wyoming's preference point system and used it as a positive system. The Wyoming system is just as flawed and demand will always exceed available tags. Protectionism needs to be eradicated from all of these preference point programs.
I believe that a person who has been applying for 15-20 years should have an enhanced chance of drawing a tag, but not an absolute right to the tag. As such, I think (and I have researched the odds of drawing in every western state) that every state move to a preference point system like Nevada's. The person who is diligent about applying for a number of years does have a vastly increased chance of obtaining a tag over the first year applicant, but every person who has applied has a chance, however remote, of drawing a tag. Also, states have to get rid of the option of purchasing only the preference point. This only compounds the problem by allowing people who got in on the ground floor in every state to game the system to such an extent that they can predict with a fairly high degree of certainty, what tags they will draw and when, thereby allowing them to literally schedule their hunts for the next 20-30 years (That is what I have done and I can tell you what tags I will draw and when in most states). The other thing that the current systems do is greatly exemplify the disparity between the wealthy that can afford to throw money at buying points in 12 states for all the various species. Even the wealthy can't afford to throw other hunters out of the tradition/sport because that will lead us to losing our sport entirely. The other way to go is strictly random drawings like Oregon and New Mexico's sheep drawings. Personally, I really like random drawings from a strictly fair point of view, but there is a legitimate arguement to be made for someone who has been diligent in applying for a long time to have some sort of advantage over the first year applicant.
As sportsmen and women, we need to get beyond the selfish motives of the preference point system, or we will kill it and the hunting culture for future generations.
Just my two cents and my opinion. PLEASE SUPPORT ONE OR MORE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION oRGANIZATIONS; OUR HUNTING FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT.
Good Luck in this year's drawings,
WyMo
 
I have enough points to draw quality tags in several states but agree with you.Our youth won't have a chance in some states & Nevada DOES have the fairest system of all the states!
David
 
I love it the way it is. I can live with points banking.

Bonus points are great in theory, until you start hearing about people drawing twice before you've drawn once. Then the idea for waiting periods come up--so much for opportunity.

PP is the fairest, most reasonable, and it's already in place. Wait your turn and quit whining--
 
PP is fine for hunts that turn over in a reasonable period (like 10 years or less), guess if you choose a deer or elk hunt in a really tough to draw area, that's your call. But they are totally unfair for really tough to draw stuff (sheep, goat, moose, etc..), effectively locking out those not at the top for most of their life.
 
It don't matter one way or the other,if you have 15 points you can draw a 5pt hunt 3 years in a row and then you are back waiting. We all will still be playing the game with new rules or old ones, because we are who we are so we have to play to go hunting.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-21-09 AT 09:25AM (MST)[p]I think Wyoming's system is a little better because of the 25% they set aside for random draw. While in many areas your chances are slim to draw with no points, it can happen. I have seen odds of about 1% beaten by a first year applicant. Wymoose, can you enlighten us on the specifics of Nevada's system? Regarding Colorado, it seems like the NW corner elk hunts get the most press because of the amount of points they take to draw and the fact that those not in the game early enough will never have a chance. The CO system needs to be changed so that eventually everyone will have a chance to draw without sacrificing the quality of the hunt. In the end, there is a better way to make the current system more equitable. It'll probably take a combination of revamping the PP system, along with possibly increasing slightly the quotas in some units and make more OTC units limited for increased quality such that more people would be willing to dump points on those units.
 
I can agree with not using PP's for sheep, goat, and moose--there is no way that everyone who wants to hunt those species will be able to. I would even support a One-Harvest-Per-Lifetime restriction on all of the above species.

The only thing negative I can say about points banking is that it can take a 0-1 point unit to a 2-4 points unit and make it hard to predict when you will draw if you're on the lower end of the points scale.
 
I am against points banking. I hunt units that take 2-3 points to draw, and I don't want to see them go to 3-5 points to draw. Like previosly mentioned, it would also make it more difficult to predict when you could draw a particular unit. Not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game.
 
I also don't like pt banking. As mentioned above it only makes the 0-3 pref pt units that much tougher to draw. The deer and elk units I apply for used to only take 0-1 pref pt and since pt banking they suddently jumped up to 2 to 4 pts to draw!

The number of guys applying for 7+ pref pts is only a small fraction of the total number of applicants. If they want to continue to apply for pref pts or tough draw units...so be it! Pt banking perged the number of guys that previously applied just for pref pts. There were a lot of guys that suddenly found a way out of applying for tough draw units and pt banked!

Vote "NO for Point Banking!"
 
Alternative #2 Reinstate preference point banking for deer,elk etc.similar to 2006 implementation but with no expiration.

Alternative #3 Hybrid primary draw for 1st choice deer,elk etc.hunts that take a minimum of 5 points in a previous 3 yr. average. For example a portion of the limited quota would be allocated using a random draw and the remaining portion allocated using the current preference point system.

Alternative #4 Weighted draw for hunts for deer,elk etc. that take a minimum of 5 preference points in a previous 3 year average. For example for those hunts included in a weighted draw preference point levels greater than 5 would be converted to weighted preference points for the first choice draw.
 
Additionally, we need to create more areas that people want to spend their points on, especially for elk. If all elk units had a quota and a few more became managed for quality, then we'd get much better hunter distribution, instead of everyone vying for the same few tags. I do like the idea of creating a random draw as a way to create opportunity and purge points.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom