New 5 year structure

[mntman]

Here is a link with the CPW mostly talking about the preference point creep situation.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol.../Nov/ITEM18-2015-2019BGSSPackage-Overview.pdf

Personally, I think if you buy a tag in colorado that allows you to shoot a bull/buck you lose your points. No matter if it is 1st, 2nd, 4th choice, leftover, OTC, voucher etc... Male tag equals loss of points. I guarantee there would be absolutely ZERO point creep from that day forward. BUT so many selfish people out there, they won't agree cause they put too much time into saving their points while still hunting bucks/bulls each year...


Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"


Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?

 

[DesertGhillie]

Thanks for posting!

I think the hybrid tags need to go. Those with more preference points should draw first. Fair and Simple.

Out of State hunters should be limited to 20% of ANY unit, unless a unit is undersubscribed.

It's clear the DOW cares more about their revenue then they do about the animals. So I would be willing to pay more per tag, if they cut the allotted tags given. Our deer population cannot catch up, and our elk population continues to have ?lower targets.? Give me a break!!! The DOW continues to cut population targets because they want to continue selling the same amount, if not more tags!

 

[Buckjunkie]

As hunters, we feel we have some "tribal like" right to hunt. Unfortunately the only way this "right" is enforced is at the voting booth. Game management beauracracies have become user refeees. That is to say that their primary goal is not to provide the greatest opportunity for hunters, its to provide the most balanced recreational opportinuties for all. They view us as "tools" in the management system. We pay dearly for this opportunity, but make no mistake, we are providing a service. Some want meat, some want trophies and others both.

The only way we get common sense out of state wildlife departments is when hunters are employed by these agencies. Budgets will always trump sound management practices. As hunters we need to incentivise good practices by lobbying legislatures. Points, no points, allocations to res vs. non res, its all minutae in the big picture. Keep the focus on requiring managers to manage for hunters and not snomobilers, hikers, farmers etc. and the problem solves itself.

 

[SDBugler]

I agree 100% mtman - if you receive a tag to shoot a buck/bull then your points should go to zero!!!! As far as I know, CO is the only state that allows this to happen and thus the problem they have with point kreep (I could be mistaken though).

 

[jims]

Oh boy...here goes again...opening another can of worms on a super controversial subject!

If you want my opinion on point creep the best thing the CDOW could do is get rid of landowner tags. Landowner tags are a significant chunk of the overall number of tags. Those that buy landowner tags don't use pref pts and bipass the system.

Second thing they could do is open up more limited draw elk units...thus scattering more applicants over more units that burn points. If everyone that bought OTC tags used pref pts obviously pt creep would be less. I can already hear guys crying about using pts on OTC tags and opening new units to limited tags only but there is only 1 way to slow pt creep and that is to offer additional tags that use pref pts!

 

[mntman]

>I agree 100% mtman - if
>you receive a tag to
>shoot a buck/bull then your
>points should go to zero!!!!
> As far as I
>know, CO is the only
>state that allows this to
>happen and thus the problem
>they have with point kreep
>(I could be mistaken though).
>

Utah, does the same thing. You can hunt spike only units or general units and still collect points for LE bull. Now Utah has two separate point systems for deer. 1 for LE and 1 for General???? don't ask How the F**k that works but that is what they got. Same thing for them though, point creep and people hunt every year while still drawing points...
Don't understand why they won't make that change. All of this point creep crap would end and EVERYONE would be able to draw a premium unit in CO at least once in their life.



Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"


Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?

 

[elks96]

I would vote for no preference at all for anyone except youth. No lo vouchers, no pp nothing. A straight random draw with potential wait periods when a quality tag is drawn. For those with points they have a weighted draw set up so that those of us with points keep preference until we draw then get evened out with everyone else.

Once those with points are cleaned out it will be all back to random draw and odds. No one is owed anything. No one deserves

We will not see any of this happen. We are loosing tags and opportunity not gaining. But oh we'll let's go play the game and those like me stuck with 16 elks points and 10 points will keep building points and killing good animals is easy units to draw.

 

[SDBugler]

After reading the article, I noticed that they talk about 2006 when they tried both the point banking and the $25 pay to play. They indicate that the point banking had no effect on reducing point creep so it was dropped. The $25 pay to play also had no effect, but guess what, they still charge the $25!!!

 

[mntman]

> The $25 pay
>to play also had no
>effect, but guess what, they
>still charge the $25!!!


Don't think I have ever heard of a gov't agency freely giving up money they already have permission to take from the people...


Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"


Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?

 

[Kayak_to_hunt]

I am not worried at all about point creep. I like the fact that a lot of folks get caught up chasing a great unit while I can hunt my 0-2 pt units ..

If the CPW wanted to fix point creep I agree that anytime you hunt a antlered animal that your points go to zero. Also it is time for elk to move to draw only all seasons, all methods of take. There would still be leftovers all over and you could still hunt cow elk every year while gaining points. While I am not opposed to the landowner tag program I think it is fair that you use your points if you use a landowner tag.

Honestly also there needs to be a few more units that are "trophy" quality units added in for elk and deer as well - if you want to control point creep. I would like to see a "trophy" quality unit added and spread out over the state or one added in the Gunison Basin, Flat Tops, Northern and Southern Front Range, Arkansas Basin, and Sangre De Cristo range. Just one unit here and there would go a long way. Because this would limit tags I think it would be fair to have the 80% - 20% res to non-res split of tags like many other western states.

Ok off the soapbox for now it will be interesting to see the next 5 year structure and thanks for the link.

 

[Waygoner]

Here's my solution to the problem. Put a cap on points at 15. If there are more hunters in the draw with 15 points than there are tags, the draw is random. If there are more tags than there are hunters with 15 points, they all draw and the remaining tags go to those with the most points, just like it works now.

If you currently have more than 15 points you keep them and you go to the top of the list. It would take a few years to flush out, but eventually it would level out. I would suggest you have 5 years to burn your points or they drop to 15.

Here's an example. Lets say GMU 61 has 10 1st rifle tags. There are 3 hunters in the draw with more than 15 points. They automatically draw. There are 20 hunters with 15 points in the draw. They randomly get chosen for the remaining 7 tags. After a few years the top point holders would all draw and the max points anyone held would be 15.

 

[COHunter]

I just hope they dont bring back point banking. Folks that saved points for years (me included) shouldnt be allowed to screw up the 0-2 point area's

 

[Cohntr62]

>I would vote for no preference
>at all for anyone except
>youth. No lo vouchers, no
>pp nothing. A straight random
>draw with potential wait periods
>when a quality tag is
>drawn. For those with points
>they have a weighted draw
>set up so that those
>of us with points keep
>preference until we draw then
>get evened out with everyone
>else.
>
>Once those with points are cleaned
>out it will be all
>back to random draw and
>odds. No one is owed
>anything. No one deserves
>
>We will not see any of
>this happen. We are loosing
>tags and opportunity not gaining.
>But oh we'll let's go
>play the game and those
>like me stuck with 16
>elks points and 10 points
>will keep building points and
>killing good animals is easy
>units to draw.


I don't agree with this at all. I'm a NR and this is a big trip for us. We come out every other year. It would be pretty tough to plan a trip for us when we don't know if we'll draw or not. At many workplaces, including mine, vacations have to be put in for at the end of the previous year. We currently hunt an area that 1 PP pretty much guarantees us a tag, but 0 means you have well less than a 50% chance. With a totally random draw and no PP advantage, we'd either have to end our Colorado trips or hunt elk only.

 

[DesertGhillie]

Agreed, I basically like the way it is now, with minor tweeking. You get what you've waited for. I can't stand weighted draws.

 

[brooktrout]

make all bull tags draw only end of problem
also give all residents otc cow tags with quota to allow you to hunt every year

 

[Buckjunkie]

@ trout - I think all residents should have to draw and non residents should be able to buy over the counter for deer and elk. Residents should only be able to draw leftover tags after the non residents buy their tags. More money for management

 

[Aaronjhanson]

>@ trout - I think all
>residents should have to draw
>and non residents should be
>able to buy over the
>counter for deer and elk.
> Residents should only be
>able to draw leftover tags
>after the non residents buy
>their tags. More money for
>management
Are you smoking pot???Everyone should have to draw.. NR should get no special treatment.

Come follow me on facebook
www.facebook.com/AaronJHansonCustomKnive

 

[Buckjunkie]

Its funny that you took me serious.

 

[Craig]

is 2015 or 2016 the first year of the new 5 year structure? Do the deer/elk seasons usually move back a week?

 

[LamBow]

Hi, Craig
2015 is the 1st yr of the new structure.
Last time the rifle seasons moved ahead a weak and I believe some of the seasons where extended. I thought it was good for deer but bad for 1st season rifle elk hunters.
I believe Colorado is good to the NR in allocations of Tags and hope they don't cut back on us. I like that they do have archery only tags for sheep and should have more for goats and moose too. Definitely improves draw odds. I wouldn't want to loose points on a 2nd choice tag because there's not that much opportunity there. I would be for loosing your pref points on Landowner tags if you weren't the landowner and his close family and you lived on or near the property the tag was assigned to.
Never really gave a sh@# about the hybrid draw. Should just keep every unit 35% max NR or maybe not.

 

[mntman]

I like that
>they do have archery only
>tags for sheep and should
>have more for goats
>and moose too.
Not for moose, the way the draw works for moose is that a set number of tags are handed out, no matter the weapon. If the first 20 people drawn have archery then yes they hunt archery but if they are rifle then they are all rifle tags...




I wouldn't want
>to loose points on a
>2nd choice tag because there's
>not that much opportunity there.

??? don't understand this statement. The biggest buck I shot was from a leftover unit. I consistently shoot big bucks from it too. CO has big bucks in every unit.


Don't understand why people think its ok to draw points while still hunting for buck/bull and then say they will never draw unit "X" due to point creep..




Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"


Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?

 

[Camper_A1]

The point creep will only get worse as they raised the percentage of landowner tags from 15% to 20% which means less opportunity for those of us trying to draw a tag. They ought to take a closer look at LO tags. I know of one landowner who has 200 arces yet gets 12 deer tags and 12 elk tags a year. Some land owners who are talked into the program and do everything possible to not let you hunt their ground. If you draw a tag you can't hunt their ground anyway.
Not trying to beat a dead horse just my opinion.

 

[LamBow]

I'm sorry MNTMAN
Yes you should loose you points on a 2nd choice tag! and on otc 2nd and 3rd season. I shouldn't and won't.

 

[brutus54]

>The point creep will only get
>worse as they raised the
>percentage of landowner tags from
>15% to 20% which means
>less opportunity for those of
>us trying to draw a
>tag. They ought to take
>a closer look at LO
>tags. I know of one
>landowner who has 200 arces
>yet gets 12 deer tags
>and 12 elk tags a
>year. Some land owners who
>are talked into the program
>and do everything possible to
>not let you hunt their
>ground. If you draw a
>tag you can't hunt their
>ground anyway.
>Not trying to beat a dead
>horse just my opinion.

If the Landowner you talk about gets that many tags a year with only 200 acres he's getting them from the leftover draw at $40 a Voucher. 200 Acres get's you only one Application per species. And if their is that many left over after the draw it must not be a high demand unit!! Or maybe he has more Acreage than you know about?

 

[mntman]

>I'm sorry MNTMAN
> Yes you should loose you
>points on a 2nd choice
>tag! and on otc 2nd
>and 3rd season. I shouldn't
>and won't.

LOL.
I am going to remember this post when the DOW changes it to all buck/bull tags take your points. if you are still around here in 2 years when you use your "precious" points to draw a unit that was previously 2nd choice or lower, it will be funny to bring back up... LOL

Go unwind your panties, they are getting all tied up and cutting off the oxygen supply...



Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"


Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?

 

[LamBow]

MtnMan

4 someone who cares so much about points creep but is shoot n good bucks on 2nd choice tags all the time doesn't really make sense. WTF should you care then? BTW my best buck came from a 2nd choice tag in CO. After hunting 21 yrs in co. as a NR I've spent my $$$ there. If they want to change the rules there so I cant hunt I don't care! I can spend my cash a billion places. I don't really care? How about that.

 

[DesertGhillie]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-13 AT 09:23AM (MST)[p]The preference point system is not going away. No way they go to a Wyoming type weighted draw either. Should any tag for a specific species take away pp's for that species, YES! Point creep solved.

 

[SoleSearcher36]

Personally I don't see point creep as a big deal............nobody is forcing your hand to keep applying for a "premium" unit year after year. After all there is premium hunting available in many "lesser" units if someone is willing to put the time & work into learning and hunting them. Every single person can cash in their points at any given time of their choosing and go hunt so who exactly are the selfish ones?

 

[DnkyPunch]

Point creep sucks, but make the best of it and use your points or do some 2nd choice hunts. I've had a couple 2nd choice hunts over the last 10 years. None were spectacular but i had fun hunting and was happy to have a tag in my pocket.
Maybe eliminating the points only would help or the keeping points with a 2nd choice hunt would clear out faster, but the state is in the business of tag sales whether we like it or not.

 

[MAT]

I won't hunt any OTC for archery elk anymore. The # of hunters was up 20% more than the last time I went a few years ago, and it keeps going up. The quality of the hunt is really bad now because they sell too many tags, I saw more hunters than elk after packing in 4 miles this year! Never again, I'll wait for a limited draw as it's not worth it as a NR.

CO needs to limit total numbers of archery hunters to maintain any semblance of a quality hunt, like they now do for the 1st rifle season. That might take care of point creep too.

 

[whitwell_56]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-05-13 AT 06:24PM (MST)[p]

I think that you should use your points for any buck/bull tag you get, no matter if it is a 1st choice, 2nd choice, leftover, OTC or Landowner tag.

I don't know how much it will help to remove the point only option from the application. It should help clear out some of the highest point holders though.

Also, don't let people turn their tags back in and keep their points.

 

[tracker12]

>Here's my solution to the problem.
> Put a cap on
>points at 15. If
>there are more hunters in
>the draw with 15 points
>than there are tags, the
>draw is random. If there
>are more tags than there
>are hunters with 15 points,
>they all draw and the
>remaining tags go to those
>with the most points, just
>like it works now.
>
>If you currently have more than
>15 points you keep them
>and you go to the
>top of the list.
>It would take a few
>years to flush out, but
>eventually it would level out.
> I would suggest you
>have 5 years to burn
>your points or they drop
>to 15.
>
>Here's an example. Lets say
>GMU 61 has 10 1st
>rifle tags. There are
>3 hunters in the draw
>with more than 15 points.
> They automatically draw.
>There are 20 hunters with
>15 points in the draw.
> They randomly get chosen
>for the remaining 7 tags.
>After a few years the
>top point holders would all
>draw and the max points
>anyone held would be 15.
>


This is very similar to what UT does and I like it. It at least gives you a chance after so many years.

 

[BeanMan]

My Opinion: If you buy a Pimp tag you should lose your points for that species.

 

[lost]

>Oh boy...here goes again...opening another can
>of worms on a super
>controversial subject!
>
>If you want my opinion on
>point creep the best thing
>the CDOW could do is
>get rid of landowner tags.
> Landowner tags are a
>significant chunk of the overall
>number of tags. Those
>that buy landowner tags don't
>use pref pts and bipass
>the system.
>
>Second thing they could do is
>open up more limited draw
>elk units...thus scattering more applicants
>over more units that burn
>points. If everyone that
>bought OTC tags used pref
>pts obviously pt creep would
>be less. I can
>already hear guys crying about
>using pts on OTC tags
>and opening new units to
>limited tags only but there
>is only 1 way to
>slow pt creep and that
>is to offer additional tags
>that use pref pts!

How big of a "chunk" do land owners get

 

[1FastGambler]

>I would vote for no preference
>at all for anyone except
>youth. No lo vouchers, no
>pp nothing. A straight random
>draw with potential wait periods
>when a quality tag is
>drawn. For those with points
>they have a weighted draw
>set up so that those
>of us with points keep
>preference until we draw then
>get evened out with everyone
>else.
>
>Once those with points are cleaned
>out it will be all
>back to random draw and
>odds. No one is owed
>anything. No one deserves
>
>We will not see any of
>this happen. We are loosing
>tags and opportunity not gaining.
>But oh we'll let's go
>play the game and those
>like me stuck with 16
>elks points and 10 points
>will keep building points and
>killing good animals is easy
>units to draw.

___________________________________________

Interesting...

You want for CO nearly exactly what NM currently has. True random draw.

I really like your point about a wait period for those who draw a quality tag because it improves the odds for everyone to draw the coveted hunts.

Sounds exactly like what I proposed for NM not too long ago...

Search for "Best possible solution" in the NM forum if you'd like to read it.

It's too bad more people don't see it like you and I do... I think that would be the absolute best way to allocate tags.