License Distribution/Preference Points Focus Group For Future Seasons

DirtyTough

Active Member
Messages
445
I would be more in favor of point averaging. That’s a one and done use of high point people. And allows grandpa to hunt with his grandkids. Surely there can be some abuses, so be sure you don’t allow those tags to be returned unless ALL tags in the group are returned. .
It does the same thing as banking. Instead of my 15 deer points paying for 1 tag. Those 15 deer points pay for 2/3/4/5 tags. Which increases creep. Same with my elk points and my dads.

Point banking will benefit me personally and I will take advantage of it. I guess I don't understand though. If this is a focus group to reduce point creep why would the group recommend doing the exact opposite? Reminds me of politicians. Bunch of real smart people in this focus group. Good job.
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,689
It does the same thing as banking. Instead of my 15 deer points paying for 1 tag. Those 15 deer points pay for 2/3/4/5 tags. Which increases creep. Same with my elk points and my dads.

Point banking will benefit me personally and I will take advantage of it. I guess I don't understand though. If this is a focus group to reduce point creep why would the group recommend doing the exact opposite? Reminds me of politicians. Bunch of real smart people in this focus group. Good job.
Your statement proves they are not the same thing. In point averaging, you have to use your entire 15 points for one tag which means you add to point creep for only 1 year. With point banking, you add to creep for 3,4, 5 years.

Not only that, but 1,2 or 3 more people on his ticket go to 0 that year as well. Just seems that averaging helps creep in the long run more than banking
 
Last edited:

DirtyTough

Active Member
Messages
445
Your statement proves they are not the same thing. In point averaging, you have to use your entire 15 points for one tag which means you add to point creep for only 1 year. With point banking, you add to creep for 3,4, 5 years.

Not only that, but 1,2 or 3 more people on his ticket go to 0 that year as well. Just seems that averaging helps creep in the long run more than banking
Whether one adds more creep than the other, if it adds creep it is doing the exact opposite of what the focus group was tasked with.

If my points allow me to draw 3 tags that others would normally draw, whether that is all in 1 year or in 3 years it's the exact same thing. It bumped 3 other guys, who in turn will gain more points.

At the end of the day if my 15 points can buy 1 total tag, or 2/3/4/5 tags, which way helps creep? It's a super basic answer.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,981
Point banking is a super bad idea! I can't believe they are even considering it! Point banking plus not "up-fronting" license fees were the 2 worse point leaping scenarios CPW ever came up with!

1) No point banking!
2) Pay license fees upfront
3) If Colo doesn't want to go to all limited for elk....require pref pts to be burned to hunt OTC bull elk. If you draw a bull elk tag in Colo you burn your points (even in OTC units). I know it's extreme but if I can guarantee quite a few hunters won't hunt OTC elk if they are required to burn pts! This alone will ease hunting pressure in OTC units.
 
Last edited:

Cohntr62

Active Member
Messages
333
Two things from me.

Add point averaging so friends, family, or new entry kids can hunt together even though they do not have the same amount of points. Wyoming would be the model for this.

Change to 50/50 with 50% of the tags allocated to the high point tag holder and 50% in a random draw. Utah would be the model for this. It is nice to have some hope to draw a tag each year while you get closer to the guarantee draw. Point creep still happens in the hard to draw units but at least you have a chance each year as you are going along for the ride.

No point system is perfect but it seems that Nevada is the closest and Colorado’s straight preference point system is the furthest away for perfect. I hate preference points.

Just my thoughts.
I love preference points. They are the epitome of fair and make drawing pretty predictable, allowing hunters to plan. Many workplaces require vacations to be scheduled by the beginning of the year.
 

Cohntr62

Active Member
Messages
333
Some ignorance right there... I most definitely should have more right to hunt my own state than you PA boys. Just as you should have more right to hunt your state when the resource becomes stretched thin and something has to give. Difference being you don't have hardly any resource that I or anyone else from the west that's even close to being worth the drive. I think even Jake and tx will admit that something needs to change. Not necessarily this year, but if the trends continue on nonresident hunters increasing, most definitely it's an underpriced resource. Add in the wolf issue and we are most definitely needing to be talking about a solution. I understand trying to protect your interests but there are a lot more people in this world than just you. Jakeh, I've listened to the bs on Facebook groups also. 250 posts from 50 people don't come close to representing any of my circle of friends.
Talk about the resource being stretched thin. We have about 700,000 resident deer hunters in a much smaller area and very long seasons. I agree not many western hunters would make the drive to hunt deer in this situation.
 

COHunter

Active Member
Messages
643
PA estimates their deer population at over a million deer. That's more than every big game animal population combined in Colorado! We just don't have the numbers to continue the free for all
 

Bigfoot 1

Very Active Member
Messages
1,171
I’ve heard a lot of people say Colorado should make pedal bikers buy tags like ohvs and sleds. Seems like a good idea. I ride a pedal bike and would be happy to pay for a sticker. Mostly to not hear about it anymore.

However

Can you imagine all the government employee d bags out on holidays with time and a half trying to bust people for not having stickers on their pedal bikes? Just packing trailheads and setting up stings in the woods like they do for sleds. I ain’t in to that.
Douche legs is worried about the government busting him for not having a sticker on his tricycle! 😆
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
218
First time I heard the argument that bikers and hikers need to pay their fair share I was all for it.

Until I heard the counter point that right now the only reason that we have any voice at all in places like Co is because of the dollars hunting and fishing bring in. If our wacko leadership could replace that money with hikers, bikers, and backpackers, we would have a good chance at losing any voice and getting more and more taken away. Especially in place like Co.
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
218
So, we continue to foot the bill to NOT get what we want? Solid :ROFLMAO:
Well in Co… unfortunately that seems like our current option. Unless by some miracle we vote in folks that are friendlier to outdoorsmen, unfortunately all the “new” Coloradans by and large have a certain way about them that reeks of California politics
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
5,556
Hey, I’m not saying that’s not the way things are. As it seems I get dumber every day, nothing (everything?) surprises me anymore.
 

elks96

Very Active Member
Messages
2,894
Hymm... Seems like The only real solution for point creep, eliminate the points all together and return to the only true fair system... A random draw.

All current point holders have squared bonus point system going forward. They have to apply every year or lose the points. No new points accumulated. Let this run until the points are purged and everyone else is back to random odds.
 

SanJuanSlayer

Active Member
Messages
309
Points are a source of funding. Therefore it is a bad idea to eliminate them.

Either keep the system the same and let those that are bad at math continue to chase the carrot or go to a squared bonus point system similar to Nevada's, but keep selling those points. How else are we going to fund the needed allocation changes?
 

elks96

Very Active Member
Messages
2,894
Points are a source of funding. Therefore it is a bad idea to eliminate them.

Either keep the system the same and let those that are bad at math continue to chase the carrot or go to a squared bonus point system similar to Nevada's, but keep selling those points. How else are we going to fund the needed allocation changes?
Haha. So I guess by your logic we should allow people to just purchase several points each species a year? Sorry but if you are only worried about revenue then you have already lost the battle.

You can make up that revenue several ways... Just increase the tag cost, make the qualifying license to apply higher, add in more processing fees etc. Sorry but revenue should be the very bottom of the bucket.

Oh and your comments about guys being bad at math, sorry to say but if you see a future where anyone in Colorado who wants to hunt big game will need several years just to hunt. It is coming soon...
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,689
I don’t see any reason to do away with points for any tag that takes less than 2-3 (4-5?) points

With a truly random system, Some unlucky resident might not draw a tag that has a 90% draw rate for multiple years.

I don’t see points as a big cash cow. Buying the qualifying license is the big money maker
 

elks96

Very Active Member
Messages
2,894
I don’t see any reason to do away with points for any tag that takes less than 2-3 (4-5?) points

With a truly random system, Some unlucky resident might not draw a tag that has a 90% draw rate for multiple years.

I don’t see points as a big cash cow. Buying the qualifying license is the big money maker
Because just a few years ago those rages taking 2-3 weee left overs. The tags taking 5-6 a few years should were took 1-2. This will only get worse and as Colorado grows population, it will accelerate.

It is coming and some day even the worst deer tags in the state will take a couple years to draw
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
5,556
Because just a few years ago those rages taking 2-3 weee left overs. The tags taking 5-6 a few years should were took 1-2. This will only get worse and as Colorado grows population, it will accelerate.

It is coming and some day even the worst deer tags in the state will take a couple years to draw
There should‘nt be any bad deer tags in this state.

A bad tag just means the unit is oversold, plain and simple.
 

elks96

Very Active Member
Messages
2,894
There should‘nt be any bad deer tags in this state.

A bad tag just means the unit is oversold, plain and simple.
Haha... Utopia vs reality... Sorry but no matter what every state and every system are going to have good and bad tags. But the fact remains, units that were once left overs are now taking 1 point to draw. Units that were once 1-2 points are now 4-5.

While management plays a role, it is simply a matter of supply and demand. Oh and since this was all about point creep and fixing it, what do you think happens to point creep if CPW goes in and decreases allocations on the bottom units? Wait more point creep....
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
5,556
Not if you adjust demand through pricing, like everything else in the functioning capitalist world.

Where is the outcry against government interference in free markets? :censored:
 

elks96

Very Active Member
Messages
2,894
Not if you adjust demand through pricing, like everything else in the functioning capitalist world.

Where is the outcry against government interference in free markets? :censored:
Haha. That sounds line a great idea. We should do it, oh wait that sounds a lot like the kings deer issue…
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
218
Yeah has to be a balance between being affordable, but it is a finite resource. With current population increase out west and increased increase interest western hunting. As unpopular as it sounds and as I’ve said before. Maybe you don’t get to hunt out of state every year. Maybe for out of staters it a once every few years thing. You want to hunt co every year, move out here and pay Co prices for everything and get tags every year. Same thing with wyo or Utah or any state you want to hunt every year.
 

Bigfoot 1

Very Active Member
Messages
1,171
Yeah has to be a balance between being affordable, but it is a finite resource. With current population increase out west and increased increase interest western hunting. As unpopular as it sounds and as I’ve said before. Maybe you don’t get to hunt out of state every year. Maybe for out of staters it a once every few years thing. You want to hunt co every year, move out here and pay Co prices for everything and get tags every year. Same thing with wyo or Utah or any state you want to hunt every year.
National Forest belongs to everybody. We are paying taxes on all National Forest land. Everybody should be able to hunt it under the rules established.
 

Joe2Kool

Very Active Member
Messages
1,913
Not sure how I missed this thread earlier. It sure has plenty of responses! I read the first page and most of the second.

First of all, thank you for posting on here and accepting feedback. Second, if the meeting has already been held, you might want a moderator to close the thread.
And third, lots of comments about various ways to increase license costs, NR's vs. R, etc. But the main thing is to keep the health of the deer/elk/antelope/etc herd stable or increasing.

Full disclosure, I'm a TN resident with points in WY, AZ, CO, IA, SD, NE and TN.

These comments have been suggested, but I'll reiterate them.

1) I suggest using the points averaging systems used in other states. I can take my 14 points and average them with my 0 point friend and we can hunt together on a 7 point tag. Yea, it might be a waste of 7 points, but I'm sure not gonna waste my 14 points on a zero point tag!

2) I suggest a system similar to Arizona where half the tags go to the high point holders, and half go in the regular draw. The high point holders have better odds in the second round, but it is possible to draw a OIL tag with zero points. I think I saw Montana had a similar system, but I'm not familiar with it. But, if the goal is to eliminate high points, that doesn't meet that need. Only makes it worse cause the tags are going to low point holders, and the high just got higher.

Thanks again.

Oh, one more, throw it out there that Joe2Kool should get his first choice tag every year! You never know. It just might stick! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :cool: :cool:
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
218
National Forest belongs to everybody. We are paying taxes on all National Forest land. Everybody should be able to hunt it under the rules established.
Big I agree with you, but when we stretch the resource to the breaking point we have to step forward and limit ourselves, maybe it becomes you only get one elk tag a year, regardless of state, same with with all other western species? But remember there was a time only about a 100 years ago where market hunting had all but destroyed our elk and deer. If it wasn’t for outdoorsmen stepping up and limiting ourselves we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. I’m sure at the time lots of guys thought it was BS to establish seasons and tags for something they used to be able to just go shoot but thank goodness for the forethought of those individuals who preserved the game that we now get to pursue today.
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
5,556
Haha. That sounds line a great idea. We should do it, oh wait that sounds a lot like the kings deer issue…
Raising the price is the ONLY effective and “fair” way to reduce demand for the product.

In the meantime we will continue to argue about what’s fair, not what works. Maybe we should just allocate licenses based on the kaleidoscope of aggrieved parties. I’m sure we’ll be first to offer sexual and racial preference quotas.

The kings deer. As expensive as hunting is getting, people should be glad they’re forced to buy processed food. It’s getting like the lottery - a tax on the stupid.

Hunting with a “bad tag” is like camping to me. I’d rather go fishing. But it’s all in how you define bad I guess. :)
 

Bigfoot 1

Very Active Member
Messages
1,171
How is raising prices “fair?”

We could raise prices high enough where only the super rich could afford hunting, would that be fair to you? You truly would have the kings deer then, as far as poaching goes anyways.
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
5,556
How is raising prices “fair?”

We could raise prices high enough where only the super rich could afford hunting, would that be fair to you? You truly would have the kings deer then, as far as poaching goes anyways.
It screws everyone equally while fixing the problem immediately.

Otherwise we will continue to argue over constituency groups.

Hunting stopped being an economical way for folks of modest means to put food on the table a long time ago.

To me it’s “unfair” to sell poor people deer tags where they have little or no chance of putting food on the table, but we we are way off tangent here.

I just offered the one certain way to fix point creep. The other ways are wishful thinking.
 

Bigfoot 1

Very Active Member
Messages
1,171
Poor people are some of the best hunters in the world. I know poor people who rely on a deer and or elk, birds and fish to augment their way of living with that food on the table. Price these people out of hunting and they are still going to put game animals on the table.

I believe the individual can decide if he wants to purchase a tag in an area where he has “little or no chance of putting food on the table.” I like those areas myself, I will take a hard deer hunt over no deer hunt any day of the year. I only need “one” deer.
 

LivingTheDream

Active Member
Messages
361
I really don't know too much about the resident licenses in Colorado, but aren't there anterless licenses for people that want to hunt for meat?

Wouldn't it make sense to raise licenses prices on NR, SGM and on areas that take more than 5 points? If a guy is buying points every year he isn't hunting for meat.
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
5,556
Bigfoot, I don’t disagree with any of that. But it doesn’t fix point creep.

I could probably go along with the status quo for the rest of my life, but telling ourselves it’ll stop getting worse isn’t working.
 

Bigfoot 1

Very Active Member
Messages
1,171
We worry that hunting is on the decline and at the same time we have those advocating to raise hunting prices. Interesting.
 

Bigfoot 1

Very Active Member
Messages
1,171
Bigfoot, I don’t disagree with any of that. But it doesn’t fix point creep.

I could probably go along with the status quo for the rest of my life, but telling ourselves it’ll stop getting worse isn’t working.
I hear ya. I just don’t like pricing people out of something they’ve done for generations.
 

elks96

Very Active Member
Messages
2,894
Raising the price is the ONLY effective and “fair” way to reduce demand for the product.

In the meantime we will continue to argue about what’s fair, not what works. Maybe we should just allocate licenses based on the kaleidoscope of aggrieved parties. I’m sure we’ll be first to offer sexual and racial preference quotas.

The kings deer. As expensive as hunting is getting, people should be glad they’re forced to buy processed food. It’s getting like the lottery - a tax on the stupid.

Hunting with a “bad tag” is like camping to me. I’d rather go fishing. But it’s all in how you define bad I guess. :)
HAHA. How is simply raising the prices fair??? Seriously that seems like the opposite of fair. Again a random draw where everyone has the same odds to draw as everyone else every year is the fair system.

If you raise the prices enough it turns into exactly the kings deer, which is the exact opposite of fair
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
5,556
HAHA. How is simply raising the prices fair??? Seriously that seems like the opposite of fair. Again a random draw where everyone has the same odds to draw as everyone else every year is the fair system.

If you raise the prices enough it turns into exactly the kings deer, which is the exact opposite of fair
It’s fair because it costs everyone equally.

The reasons why some people are better able to pay is another matter.

However, I do know some people who aren’t better able to pay because they arguably spent too much time goofing around in the woods. Ironic, no?;)
 
Last edited:

Colorado Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Rocky Mountain Ranches

Hunt some of the finest ranches in N.W. Colorado. Superb elk, mule deer, and antelope hunting.

Blue Mountain Outfitters

Unit 10 trophy deer and elk in Northwest Colorado. Guaranteed tags. Call Kent (801) 562-1802

Frazier Outfitting

Great Colorado elk hunting. Hunt the backcountry of unit 76. More than a hunt, it's an adventure!

CJ Outfitters

Hunt Colorado's premier trophy units, 2, 10 and 201 for trophy elk, deer and antelope.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear and cougar hunts in Colorado units 40 and 61.

Full Time Hunts

Specializing in matching sportsmen with reputable outfitters that fit their hunting and fishing needs.

Ivory & Antler Outfitters

Hunt trophy elk, mule deer, moose, antelope, bear, cougar and turkey on both private land and BLM.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer both DIY and guided hunts on large ranches all over Colorado for archery, muzzleloader and rifle hunts.

Hunters Domain

Colorado landowner tags for mule deer, elk and antelope. Tags for other states also available.

Top Bottom