CO Pref Point Banking

J

jwdeeming

Guest
You may remember Colorado tried preference point banking a few years back - for only one year. Then it was yanked. We can get this changed and now is the time. The DOW is soliciting information on the next 5 year season structure and I have it on good authority that with enough favorable public input, point banking could be reimplemented for the next 5 years. Please contact them and let them know if you would like to see that done. Send them email at:
[email protected]

More info on my blog at:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=423804459
 
Email sent,
Thanks for the link and the heads up

"In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences"
Robert Green Ingersoll
 
HEY JIM......THANKS FOR THE HEADS UP....I JUST E-MAILED THEM TODAY. I ALSO ENJOY YOUR TIMELY HUNTING ADVICE.....YD.
 
I wish they'd have kept it BUT I burned my 7 PPs and my 13 PPs respectively the last 2 years so I'm kinda dis-interested cause I'm gonna start huntin 2 point units for both species. I don't see point banking helping. Instead, if enough people start using their mega points for 2 point units, It'll hurt me.

Kinda selfish on my part but I'm sure the people looking forward to point banking are doing it for selfish reasons. It's dog eat dog out here.
 
I don't know about you guys but I am 100% against pt banking! Proportionately there are very few guys with the highest pref pts available and pt banking only makes the easier draw tags tougher to draw for the majority of hunters. Many units that only took 1 or 2 pts prior to pt banking now take 3 or 4 pts to draw. The toughest units continue to creep and the easier draw units are now that much tougher to draw!

I would advise everyone to do everything possible to prevent pt banking from returning!
 
Any ideas on how we can counter "points creep" in the tough-to-draw areas? Some ideas besides banking would be to set aside a few tags for random draw, to slightly increase tags in higher end units, and to create more limited quota units, or a combination of those things. While I am leery that points banking would have the effect the DOW thinks it will have, I'm also searching for ways that would make our higher end units more attainable for people that haven't been applying for 15-20 years. I like the ideas of creating more limited units, but at this point it seems that points banking has gained a lot of steam. If we had significantly more areas where hunting pressure was light and the bucks/bulls could get a little age,then we wouldn't have the problem of everyone applying for the same few areas every year. When it comes to points banking, I don't think it would be wise to allow it indefinitly, but for a few years it might allow more guys to unload some points, while honoring their choice to hang on to them.
 
HiMtnHter, Now you are on to something exciting that will work for everyone! Creating more limited elk units is something the CDOW is going to have to address in the near future!

It is pretty evident that creating more limited units will disperse applications and prevent pt creep...especially in the low pref pt spectrum units where the majority of guys apply!

Creating more limited units will also offer a quality hunting experience and the prospect of harvesting older age class bulls! Limiting hunter numbers will also help one of the CDOW's biggest headaches of game being pressured from public to private land.

Unfortunately there is very little that can currently be done that will change pt creep in high demand units. There are roughly only 5 high demand elk units in the entire state with an incredible number of applicants. The upper tier guys are likely not going to pt bank even if the system is re-instated!

With pt banking there WILL be a purge of guys with 5 to 10 pts that will pt bank that ordinarily either applied for super tough units or just applied for pref pts. This purge will make the lower tier of 0 to 4 pref pt units that much tougher to draw...I can guarantee it!

Creating more limited elk units will solve a large spectrum of problems that Colo is currently facing!
 
I can definitely see why points banking would have a negitive effect for a lot of people that hunt those low point units. I have been saving my points like a lot of people and I hunt an area that can be drawn on a second choice, so when it comes to elk I have not been affected by the last round of points banking. The real obstacle is convincing the the CWC, DOW, and all the outfitters and hunters that more limited elk units are needed. The problem seems to be that some of these groups don't have the same agenda that some of us hunters have, espcially the CWC and outfitters. You are right, points banking is probably not going to solve much. Those guys with loads of points are not going to participate in the banking. I know I will not.
 
If anyone has drawn a limited deer tag in Colo and been shocked at the number of unlimited elk hunters hunting the same area it can be a real eye opener!

Colo deer is a great example of what elk could be like in Colo if switched over to limited units. There are only a handfull of Colo deer units that require more than 8 pts to draw (compared to 15+ pts for the best elk units!).

As soon as the CDOW switched over to all limited deer units there was a big change in quality bucks available...and great deer tags remain fairly easy to draw! The majority of deer tags take 0 to 4 pref pts to draw and some great deer tags can actually be drawn 2nd choice!

I would be shocked if the CDOW isn't faced with going to all draw elk units/tags in the near future and it will only improve the quality of experience and critters available.
 
I can understand that the points needed in some areas might go up but wouldn't that be short term. Maybe five years. Then I think you would see a gap appear between the high point units, and the one or two point units would return to where they were originally.

You would need five years to even have a clue to what would happen. I would have taken advantage of the past banking program but like most of you have my hunts planned years out and couldn't change plans. So I'm still clogging up the system with to much invested to get out, but not enough points for a top unit, but to many to waste on a lesser unit.

In wildlife mananagement even a five year plan is relatively short term thinking. Bring it back for five years and I think you would clean out the middle point holders, the one and two point units will return to their current point numbers, and anyone wanting to wait the decades for a top end tag will have a more reasonable chance because guys like me will be gone.
 
I see where point banking would be a problem for lower point draws in the short term, but after 2 to 3 years, wouldn't that go away? If you now have 10 points, and started putting in for a unit that takes 3 points, after 3 years you would have 0 points. So I can see it being a problem in the short term, but not so much in the long term? It would add more to the ranks of the lower points, but I am not sure how much impact that would have because I am unsure of how many would do it. You would have to know how many actually participated to figure out that one. It that adds 10,000+ to the ranks of the lower tier units, it certainly would be a big issue. If we are talking hundreds, it wouldn't have much impact.

However, it definately would help out the near max point guys!

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
I guess I better explain in a little more detail. As it currently stands there is an OVERWHELMING number of applicants that are just applying for pref pts or applying for high demand units that they have no chance of drawing. With pt banking this brings a purge of applicants that will draw tags rather than just apply for pref pts each year.

If a guy has 10 pts and draws a unit that only takes 3 pts he will draw the 3 pt tag and will have the chance to draw 3 more of these same tags with his remaining pts if pt banking continues for several years. He is displacing 3 other guys from drawing tags that will ultimately drive up the number of pts it originally took to draw these same tags.

Once the hunter has burned his 10 pts he likely will continue applying for units that take fewer pts to draw until he possibly dies of old age! The purge of pt bankers will drive up the pts it takes to draw units each year and I can guarantee the number of pts will continue to creep in the years to come and will never drop!

Obviously there is a cap and after years of pt banking most everyone that plans on banking will be done...but at the cost of driving up the low and medium pref pt units. Pt banking is insane if you like to hunt units that currently take 0 to 4 pts! I can almost guarantee it will take 2 to 4 additional years to draw these same tags and it will remain that way...those units will never drop back down because there will be more applicants vying for tags rather than just applying for a pref pt each year or waiting to draw high pref pt units! I sure hope you guys see the light!

No to Pt Banking!
 
> I sure hope you guys see the light!
>
>No to Pt Banking!

jims,

Help me see the light. What statistics do you have access to that back up the claim an "OVERWHELMING" number of applicants are applying for points only? I'd also be interested in how you make the connection in your first post to point banking (which only occurred for one year, in 2006) being responsible for the increase from 1-2 point units now taking 2-4?

And you must have seen a survey or something? How do you know the intent of a statistically significant group of high point hunters who would decide to "purge" and run the table on lower point units for several consecutive years if point banking were implemented?

It might be worth remembering a couple things that I think mitigate the concerns being expressed here.

1. Group applications draw with the priority of the person in the group with the least number of points. If Uncle Joe, sitting on 20 points, throws in with his 2 point nephews on a 2 point unit one season, they will draw that tag. But the following year they will not draw because even with Joe's 18 points, the rest of the group now has zero. Point banking would have no impact on that scenario.

2. Someone who is racking up points by applying for an extremely high point unit as first choice does not impact lower point units with their second choice. No matter how many preference points you have, they are not used at all for 2nd choice draws. Point banking would not give any advantage to 2nd choice draws.

For all of the people I've talked to about this, the most common scenario would be someone working toward a once in a lifetime hunt could take a year off and hunt with some friends without breaking the bank. The only way point banking would have a big negative impact is if massive numbers of people with lots of points collectively gave up on dream hunts and applied for lower point units - and only did so with others in the same position.

Respectfully,
Jim Deeming
 
Here are some numbers to add to the conversation.

In 2008, there were 194,600 elk applications. Of those, 63,768 people (32.7%) applied for a PP as their first choice.

In 2008, there were 162,036 deer applications. Of those, 45,528 people (28.1%) applied for a PP as their first choice.

The following list shows how many people were at each PP level in the 2008 draw:

Elk

Resident Pref Totals:
0 points 62,451
1 point 16,911
2 points 7,102
3 points 4,300
4 points 3,072
5 points 2,241
6 points 1,806
7 points 1,436
8 points 1,305
9 points 1,102
10 points 938
11 points 811
12 points 676
13 points 619
14 points 380
15 points 262
16 points 165
17 points 111
18 points 43
19 points 11
20 points 5
21 points 4
22 points 2

Non Resident Pref Totals:
0 points 39,224
1 point 13,146
2 points 9,141
3 points 5,822
4 points 3,374
5 points 2,558
6 points 2,239
7 points 2,258
8 points 2,154
9 points 1,969
10 points 1,644
11 points 1,503
12 points 1,114
13 points 819
14 points 647
15 points 532
16 points 416
17 points 212
18 points 50
19 points 22
20 points 2
21 points 0
22 points 1

Deer

Resident Pref Totals:
0 points 54,845
1 point 18,377
2 points 9,137
3 points 4,763
4 points 2,791
5 points 1,812
6 points 1,373
7 points 933
8 points 720
9 points 533
10 points 440
11 points 400
12 points 287
13 points 209
14 points 110
15 points 48
16 points 26
17 points 5
18 points 3
19 points 2

Non Resident Pref Totals:
0 points 29,559
1 point 11,307
2 points 7,388
3 points 4,625
4 points 2,867
5 points 1,980
6 points 1,678
7 points 1,514
8 points 1,175
9 points 929
10 points 748
11 points 546
12 points 414
13 points 270
14 points 117
15 points 69
16 points 28
17 points 5
18 points 2
19 points 0
20 points 1
 
"If a guy has 10 pts and draws a unit that only takes 3 pts he will draw the 3 pt tag and will have the chance to draw 3 more of these same tags with his remaining pts if pt banking continues for several years.

Actually he will only draw that tag twice (3 + 1 = 4 points each time) and then be left with 2 points, still ahead of the 0-1 people, but not able to draw that tag the 3rd time for another year.

I would definately be for keeping the ponts + 1 rule.

But I see your point. If you like to go deer hunting basically every year and have been hunting those units that take 0-1 point, point banking has no chance of helping you, only hurting you.

If you are like me, and only go hunting for deer every 4 to 5 years, it would probably help. This year, I burned 4 points on a unit that was an 80% draw with 0 points.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-09 AT 06:06AM (MST)[p]If CO would have continued to use the baking system by now those number would be down. I agree that some units are going to go up like #61 did. But that eventually that number will go down as the top tier guys burn there points. I have 17 NR PP points. I have waited a long time for a premium tag. I for one have no intererst in a area that takes 2 PP and I bet most feel the same way.I may however move to an area that may take 10-15. I have wanted to hunt and archery area that takes 1 point. I am stuck as it is now. You can not judge banking off of one year.
 
I can judge banking off one year!

It will hurt the majority of hunters as they will not draw licenses they in the past have drawn annually, thereby further discouraging participation. While I personally could benefit, since I have 11 points, I believe it really should remain a system that encourages participation. Personally, I'd like participation to grow, not shrink.

Its to easy for the majority to just quit hunting when you don't draw a license in your own backyard. Quit making it about yourself, big bucks spent, and shooting trophy animals and you'll see the light. Lets create more hunters, not more golfers. I can't figure out how point banking creates more hunters when you just add layers of complexity.
 
I agree that with time pt banking may help odds for the highest tier of applicants that have the highest pts available. Unfortunately pt banking would be at the expense of the obvious majority of hunters that enjoy hunting more often rather than building pts!

As stated above, currently ~1/3 of applicants just apply for pref pts. That is an astounding number of applicants that currently are not applying for units/tags! I don't have the figures but can guarantee that a fairly substantial number of the roughly 63,000 elk and 45,000 deer applicants that applied for pref pts in 2008 would apply for units if pt banking would be re-introduced! It would be interesting to see the flux of applicants that changed the 1 year pt banking took place. If someone knows where to look up those numbers I'd love to look at them!

There are only a small fraction of total applicants that have high end pref pts in the deer and elk draw. I do have numbers for this listed above! 95% of resident elk applicants had less than 9 pref pts in 2008 and only 5% had greater than 8 pref pts. For deer, 98% of applicants had less than 9 pref pts and only 2% with greater than 8 pref pts.

If you would like to narrow this down 83% of res elk and 85% of res deer applicants have less than 2 or less pref pts.

What does this say? Pt banking would only help a very small percentage of hunters that currently have high pref pts. Pt banking would purge the number of applicants into the low spectrum of the pref pt pool and cause point creep for the majority of applicants in the lower tier of pref pts available!

I can understand how it is quite frustrating for the "minority" of guys that have "built" high pref pts in hopes of drawing exceptional tags but pt banking would only help a few at the expense of the majority of others that enjoy hunting more frequently!
 
Best suggestion I heard was creating more quality units BUT instead of very top end units like 2/10/201, shoot for 5-6 year old bull harvest. More tags per elk then the NW corner. Utah manages some areas for 5-6 year old bulls and some for 7-8 year old bulls.

Unit 62 would be a great area to limit tags. They already have lots of elk, inassesible areas, huge unit and with OTC archery, 2nd and 3rd season tags, there are still big bulls. Limiting tags and managing for mature, not top end bulls there would still be plenty of tags. PLUS it would be easier to police 61. How many buy OTC archery, park on the 62 side of the Divide road and sneak into 61 to hunt?? Game warden told me it's too common.

Tht would either put more people in other OTC units or reduce revenue with i don't think CDOW will do.

just my opinion
 
CalifES, The small Western Colo towns have raged about the impact limiting elk tags will have on their economy. Right now may be a good time to do this while the oil/gas industry is booming!

I would think the CDOW would have to do something similar to what they did with deer by limiting all units at once for elk. There are still a bunch of Colo deer tags that can be picked up w/0 pts or even 2nd choice and it has managed to keep pref pt creep a lot lower than it has for elk.

If you look at the deer and elk stats listed above and compare the same pref pt category between elk and deer applicants (for example 8 deer pref pts vs 8 elk pref pts) there are a lot more elk applicants than deer applicants with high pref pts....meaning it takes a lot more pts to draw elk tags than deer tags in Colorado!

Having the entire state of Colorado a draw for deer has distributed applicants over a much larger number of units/tags and has prevented point creep more than anything else that has been proposed for elk! Better quality critters and less hunting pressure is another plus to going all limited for elk! Some day it is bound to happen....I just hope it happens soon!
 
I hate the idea of Point banking! I feel that if you draw your 1st choice you LOSE your points. It is the hunters choice to save or spend their points, don't put loopholes and exceptions into the points system too.

Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
 
>Having the entire state of Colorado
>a draw for deer has
>distributed applicants over a much
>larger number of units/tags and
>has prevented point creep more
>than anything else that has
>been proposed for elk!
>Better quality critters and less
>hunting pressure is another plus
>to going all limited for
>elk! Some day it
>is bound to happen....I just
>hope it happens soon!

jims,

I'm not sure it's apples-to-apples comparing deer and elk management the last few decades for this reason - elk herds in nearly all parts of the state have been at or above objective populations for many years now. In many areas, problematically above objectives. The same has not been true for deer.

It doesn't really make sense to limit tags in a unit that is under-hunted (overpopulated). Winterkill notwithstanding, hunting is the only knob the DOW can tweak to manage herd populations.

Having said that, you may get your wish anyway. I attended the DOW's Denver public input meeting last night. One of the charts they displayed shows that - through agressive allocation of licenses (read OTC and additional cow tags) elk populations are starting to approach objective levels.

So, if that trend continues, it's reasonable to think that there will soon be at least a lot more draw-only units, if not state wide. They've had people suggest 100% draw for elk and with the numbers where they are, it is beginning to get consideration.

To keep with the original topic of this thread, point banking was also discussed at the meeting last night. Both sides of the issue were evenly represented. I'll confess to being surprised at the magnitude of the impact banking had on a couple of units illustrated by the moderator. However, they were unique situations and, as I stated earlier in this thread, that impact would be temporary, not sustained over time.

In any case, right now the DOW is only input and did not tip their hand which way they might be leaning.

For what it's worth, I was very discouraged to see the lack of public participation. Uniformed DOW staff actually outnumbered public participants.

As I have nearly always found to be the case, the DOW folks were courteous, genuinely interested in our opinions, and cheerfully striving to do an impossible task - pleasing all of US. We can quibble over point banking, season dates, etc. But Colorado is hands down the leading destination for elk hunters - and the biggest reason for that is the people of the DOW.

Jim
 
Granted Colorado is great, some of that is habitat though. I wasn't advocating draw elk statewide, only to restrict tags in a few more units with emphasis on quality over quantity. Really you now have 1, 2, 10, 61, 76 and 201. A few others where there are big bulls because of private land management. How bout 5-6 more units that have quality bulls from restricted tags?? They don't even have to manage for the extreme.

I only used 62 as an example. And I didn't think about the local economies, my bad.
 
JWDeeming, Great points and thanks for the update! Obviously it is cow numbers that influence managing herd numbers more than bulls? I think you are talking a whole different scerio when talking about managing herd numbers? With Colos present system of hunting elk hard from August through mid November with unlimited bull tags it is amazing there are many elk that remain on public land. Relieving hunting pressure may actually increase harvest of cows if cows are more apt to remain longer on public land?

I live in unit 20 and was amazed when the CDOW actually deleted one of the late rifle seasons. I recommended this to them last year when they were asking for recommendations. In 20 elk were getting hammered from August through January....and no wonder elk numbers have been out of control inside RMNP and private land near Estes! There is fantastic elk habitat outside of RMNP on forest service land but hunting pressure has been so intense (even though it is a limited bull elk unit) for so many months the elk have learned the boundaries!

I still advocate going all limited for bull elk rather than adding just a few limited units because it will only shrink the number of OTC units and cause that much more pressure on the OTC units that remain!
 
I don't know of any OTC unit that is underhunted as far a bulls are concerned. If all units were draw, then they could control both bull and cow hunts and get the population wherever they want it. As Jims stated, overhunting may be responsible for running the elk onto private land and actually lowering the harvest.

I also agree that making only some draw units is going to create a whole new set of problems including overcrowding in the remaining units. The DOW knows that eventually all will have to be by drawing, they need to consider bitting the bullet now and swithcing them all.

Unfortunately, they won't do that at this point unless someone comes up with a plan to replace the lost revenue. IMO they are already increasing nonresident fees every year and I think that is about as far as they can take them. Residents would have to be willing to convince them to raise resident fees, possibly even double them? Run the numbers and show them how to remain basically revenue neutral while going to a draw and they might consider it. Unfortunately, I am not sure you could get enough residents to go along with it to get it passed.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>I don't know of any OTC
>unit that is underhunted as
>far a bulls are concerned.

Actually, that was another slide presented at the meeting that I found interesting. It seems their target bull-to-cow ratios are also just about spot on with objectives.

Again, I find it interesting that they have had this kind of success with elk and yet with deer they seem to be in experimental mode. Remember when deer had antler point restrictions? It worked for elk but not for deer. I don't remember why the difference, if they ever knew. And look at the CWD problem. For a few years they aggressively reduced populations in hot areas, only to find out that population density did not have the effect on infection rates they thought. Now there is a move to drastically boost populations to be able to absorb the CWD attrition that can't seem to be fixed anyway.

As far as habitat being a factor in Colorado's elk success, that would be true but it actually adds to the hardest part of the job for the DOW. From May to November, Colorado could probably support double or triple the amount of elk there are now. The single biggest limiting factor is winter range, a majority of which is private ranch and farmland, or otherwise developed and private property.

jims - I also live in unit 20 - where you at, neighbor? I'm west of Berthoud about 3 miles south of Carter Lake behind the first hogback.
 
txhunter -you also mentioned lost revenue. Speaking of that, I saw an article that came out I think around December that said last year saw a downturn in licenses sold that numbered in the thousands - the revenue hit was about $3.4 million if I remember right. I suppose last year's fuel prices would be a major culprit there. And who can guess what the result of this current mess will be?
 
JDW, I live near Marianna Butte in Loveland. It's pretty nice to have bighorn, elk, and deer a stones throw from the house isn't it!

Txhunter you are right on in regard to loss of revenue and that is probably why the CDOW hasn't already changed to all draw elk. The CDOW has quite a few options available. Some of the revenue loss could be overcome if the CDOW charged higher tag fees in high demand-quality units. I can guarantee residents and nonres would be more than willing to pay higher tag fees if offered more limited units that offer a better quality hunt and older age class bulls...although they would likely whine at first!

There are a number of strategies where the CDOW could make a lot more $ then they presently do. Wyoming has regular and special price tags, NM has high demand priced tags. UT, NV, ID, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, AZ and other states require applicants to buy a license before applying for tags. Some states such as Wyo charge an arm and a leg for a preference point.

I know I would be willing to pay twice what I currently pay as a Colo resident if there were 1/2 the number of hunters!

Colo is currently the state the multitude of hunters turn to when they don't draw tags elsewhere....how many other states offere OTC elk tags? I'm a little spooked taking my son into an OTC Colo elk unit during rifle season with all the yahoos in the hills. I haven't hunted elk in a OTC unit for about 15 years! I get no satisfaction out of hunting raghorn bulls in crowded conditions!
 

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