Colorado Pref Points Posted

Keep in mind the odds should be at least 5% worse than last year with the new amount of landowner tags being given out.
 
Thanks Oakie, that's good news in a perverse way. At least it's not until 15. I hope to burn my points this year and get out of the game.
 
I am not sure if these are actually right. That or Huntersrailhead is wrong.

CDOW shows 67 3rd non-resident as 12 points min., but HT shows 50% of those with 11 drew.

CDOW shows 66 3rd as 12 points, but HT shows 0% of those with 12 drew, you needed 13 to have any chance.

Anyone have an opinion on this?
 
Which ones last year numbers?

They both say 2013, which is the most recent draw. I think the CDOW is wrong in this case. If you look at their Hunt Recap and Hunt Summaries, the numbers calculated by Hunterstrailhead are the same for each of the units I mentioned.

Anyone else see any units that look wrong to you from the CDOW? I wonder how the CDOW does this, do they just have someone look at the data like I just did? If so, that person made a mistake here.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-14 AT 02:41PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-14 AT 02:40?PM (MST)

Keep in mind they are posting the minimum number of points it took to draw a given tag for the previous years hunts. If all applicants with 7 points drew "x" tag and one applicant drew with 6 points they will list it as 6 points. Or there are cases where 9 out of 10 applicants with 6 points drew "X" tag so in that scenario you would have a 90% chance of drawing with 6 points assuming no point creep. Throw point creep into the fray, and there are no guarantees. Should give most hunters a pretty good idea, but don't over look the variables.
 
I think I understand, I just think it is wrong for the 2 units I looked at.

CDOW shows 67 3rd non-resident for deer as 12 points min to draw., but 50% drew that tag with 11. Shouldn't it say 11 points min?

CDOW shows 66 3rd as 12 points min, but 0% of those with 12 drew. 75% with 13 drew, shouldn't the number they list be 13?
 
I have never found the "pref point min" to be that accurate.

I get the same as you if I look at raw numbers on those two units.

There is a way that they could be right on the second example (unit 66). The raw numbers does not tell you if they filled out their application correctly. If they didn't, their application would be thrown out, but still show up on the raw data.

It also doesn't tell you if someone turned their tag back in. If so, that would allow someone with lower points to draw from their waiting list.

That doesn't explain your example with unit 67 though

There are other obvious mistakes. Code: DF020O4R show it takes two points for residents to draw and Zero points for nonresidents! There is no way that could happen. Nonresidents do not have a quota of 35% but a cap. So every resident with more than zero points would have to draw a tag before the first NR with zero could draw.

Bottom line is that you can use that list to narrow units down, but you have to look at raw data or hunterstrailhead to get the real skinny.



txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>I think I understand, I just
>think it is wrong for
>the 2 units I looked
>at.
>
>CDOW shows 67 3rd non-resident for
>deer as 12 points min
>to draw., but 50% drew
>that tag with 11.
>Shouldn't it say 11 points
>min?
>
>CDOW shows 66 3rd as 12
>points min, but 0% of
>those with 12 drew. 75%
>with 13 drew, shouldn't the
>number they list be 13?
>


The way I understand it is 100% drew with 12 last year in 67 third season. The reason that hunters trail head thinks that 50% drew is because the number of tags given to non residents should have been 10.5. So if they rounded up there would be 11 tags which would mean that 1 of the 2 people who put in with 11 points would have drawn. The way I understand it is they didn't round up and only gave out 10 non res tags.
 
That makes total sense on 67 and that is confirmed looking at the Draw Summary report from the CDOW that shows 10 tags given to non-residents for 67. I stand corrected on 67 (hunters trailhead should have 10 tags listed not 11). 66, I have no idea what is going on, unless maybe a handful of persons pulled their application after they applied or turned their tags back in or a party of 4 messed up their application?
 

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