The only way to fix creep!!!

[elks96]

Get rid of points.... No more special treatment, no more preference, etc. stop issuing points next year. Start with a random draw again, and for those sitting on points, use a weighted draw until they are all purged from the system....

The. Go back to random draws using odds and call it good... I am even at the upper end of points and would prefer this system!!!

 

[foulshot]

I'll wait for the but,but,but...posts to start.


I'm not in the points game, thankfully. While the thought of shooting a monster buck/bull would thrill me, I'm happy filling a tag every year and putting meat in the fridge.

 

[YukonDall]

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN !!!! WITH THE NEW POINT RATE HIKE THERE IS FAR TOO MUCH $$$$$$ TO BE LOST. MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER THE YEARS AT STAKE.............................YD.

 

[Cohntr62]

My reply is going to be similar to what I said in another thread about changing the system. I hate your idea. Don't you guys have to schedule vacations way ahead of time or plan trips? I want luck to be minimized and the draw results as predictable as possible. We are NRs and hunt Co. every other year and send for a PP in the off-year. The unit we apply for can be drawn with 0 points, but it is far from 100%. With the 1 point we get, it pretty much guarantees us draw success. We pay a trespass fee to hunt a ranch and need to get our group together, make reservations and schedule vacations. If I don't know if I'll draw until late May or June, it will be too late to schedule vacation as others will have already taken it. If I schedule and don't draw, I'm wasting it. I don't want to depend on blind luck. I want a system that is fair, consistent, and predictable.

 

[fallguy]

I too like knowing with some degree of certainty that I will draw. Not having a point system would also make it very hard for outfitters to book hunters prior to the draw and then a total cluster after the draw. Same goes for motels and campgrounds regarding hunters not being able to make advanced reservations.

 

[brooks264]

Stop investing into it, DryNuts. You're the problem? Period!!!

 

[forkedhorn]

I am sure that many will not like this solution, but make it if you hunt, you lose your points. You can either wait out a trophy unit (gain points) or hunt every year(lose points), not both. Any hunt that you do causes your points to zero(vouchers, 2nd-4th choices, draw tags, otc, etc.). Make people decide if they want the opportunity to hunt every year or the opportunity at a limited unit.

 

[mulecreek]

>I too like knowing with some
>degree of certainty that I
>will draw. Not having a
>point system would also make
>it very hard for outfitters
>to book hunters prior to
>the draw and then a
>total cluster after the draw.
>Same goes for motels and
>campgrounds regarding hunters not being
>able to make advanced reservations.
>

Outfitters and motels some how manage to get by in New Mexico and they did it just fine in CO before PP's so I don't buy that argument. I totally get the idea of needing some degree of certainty for scheduling your time off. However, I agree with elks on this one. I would rather see a totally random drawing.

 

[Coloradoboy]

I really like Wyoming and New Mexico's systems of Random draws. I know good portion of Wyoming residents who have drawn top end units multiple years in a row if not every few years, where as NR play the points game and have to wait 5 to 10 plus years for those tags. Im personally all for going to random draws. It certainly gives every one (including youth hunters) at chance at the high caliber tags that will other wise have slim to no chance of drawing. However it obviously screws those who have many years invested in preference points. Double edged sword really... Those with little to no points are for it, and those with a bunch banked are against it. I just down right hate the Point Creep... At 22 years old I've already had to come to the realization that I most likely will never see a 2, 10, or 201 elk tag or a third or 4th season deer tag in places like 21, 44, 61 etc... And those 12 year old kids that have just started applying this spring are going to be 50 some years old by the time they could pull a tag the way the creep is going. Colorado's PP game has caused me to burn majority of the points I banked a few years back and begin applying for LE tags in other states because I realistically and mathematically have better odds of obtaining those tags.

Coloradoboy

 

[2_Point]

They should just cap the number of points you can have. Cap it at 10. It works to wait in line for a few years, but after that the line is so long that those at the back will never see the front. Cap points at 10 and I'll bet you solve the bulk of the problems. Then they could still make people apply to maintain their standing with the same app fees in place.

 

[nontypical]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-14 AT 02:44PM (MST)[p]I also know many Wyoming residents that draw prime tags in Wyoming multiple times. I also know 20 times that many people that RARELY( if ever) draw those same tags. That is exactly why point systems were put in place to begin with. 10% draw odds means 90% WON'T DRAW. Here in Wyoming, it sure seems like a good portion of the 10% that draw are the same guys that draw all the time.

While I don't necessarily think a point system is the answer, I do feel that something needs to be done to more fairly distribute tags more evenly to more hunters.

 

[Downrange]

Every western st adopt Nevada draw system. Creep gone.

 

[ICMDEER]

This will be my 39th year of trying to draw licenses in Wyoming as a resident. I put in for multiple species every year. In all that time, I have only drawn one license that was under 50% success. I have not drawn a license that's 80% in over 10 years. Took 32 years to draw a sheep. Last time I got a Red Desert antelope license was 1991. With points, all those guys wearing red shirts (and their families) who draw every other year would have to wait their turn and I might get a license once in a while. I would never have drawn a sheep or moose without points. We need some way so Wyoming residents can also draw in a fair way. I know random is supposed to be fair, but it is not.

 

[provoflyfisher]

>Every western st adopt Nevada draw
>system. Creep gone.


Bingo!

The only way to keep point creep in check is to follow Nevada's lead. If you hunt you lose your points end of story.

 

[mntman]

>>Every western st adopt Nevada draw
>>system. Creep gone.
>
>
>Bingo!
>
>The only way to keep point
>creep in check is to
>follow Nevada's lead. If you
>hunt you lose your points
>end of story.

Nevada doesn't have any where near the population of elk/deer that CO has either. Imagine how easy it would be to draw good tags in CO if the rule was tag received = points gone....




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?

 

[earlyriser]

Wow, 32 years for a tag. That just seems outright wrong to me. There are pros and cons to both random and pp systems. To wait that long to hunt or to even have a chance is so disheartening and discouraging to those entering the pp game. Why bother? I've come to accept the fact that I will never hunt a moose, sheep or goat in the lower 48. I suppose I am more of a random draw guy. At least I have a shot every year, however minimal my odds are.

 

[Cohntr62]

>They should just cap the number
>of points you can have.
> Cap it at 10.
> It works to wait
>in line for a few
>years, but after that the
>line is so long that
>those at the back will
>never see the front.
>Cap points at 10 and
>I'll bet you solve the
>bulk of the problems. Then
>they could still make people
>apply to maintain their standing
>with the same app fees
>in place.
I could live with this suggestion. It might even make it easier to draw units requiring less than 10 points. Another thing I've harped on in the past is that I think the tag allotment is too low in some of the premium units. When they only give out a handful of tags over a large area, they are wasting the resource. Maybe, I'm just not a dyed-in-the-wool trophy hunter, but I think these units could withstand more animals harvested and still be quality hunts. This would help with the point creep issue, also.

 

[sticksender]

NV style system would be ok by me, except it has a major flaw for use in CO. The number of leftover tags would immediately skyrocket, as people would be smart enough to simply wait and get their tags as leftovers. If you think CDW would require points be used for the leftover draw like NV does, think again. They're not going to risk any change that prevents selling tens of thousands of low-demand deer & elk tags. That's far too much money to leave on the table.

 

[mntman]

>NV style system would be ok
>by me, except it has
>a major flaw for use
>in CO. The number of
>leftover tags would immediately skyrocket,
>as people would be smart
>enough to simply wait and
>get their tags as leftovers.
>If you think CDW would
>require points be used for
>the leftover draw like NV
>does, think again. They're not
>going to risk any change
>that prevents selling tens of
>thousands of low-demand deer &
>elk tags. That's far too
>much money to leave on
>the table.

No, cause if you buy a tag, even left-over you lose your points. Problem solved. If a tag ends shows up in the mail box with your name printed on it- points gone.



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?

 

[piper]

If you hunt bull elk or buck deer in Colorado, you should lose your points, that would help with quality in the general units for a while, and its an easy way to slow creep.

Random draws suck in my opinion, like Coloradoboy says, some people draw tough to get units every year, so of course that means many more people never get to draw because they are unlucky.

 

[HiMtnHntr]

The "lose your points if you hunt" policy would be one of the few fair ways to expunge point . . . The OP's suggestion, while it is what he feels would be best, is simply not going to happen due to all the guys with points it would short-change.

I like Wyoming's NR system since it incorporates an element of random draw . . . but there is still creep since tags are in short supply vs. demand. It's only going to get worse and much worse this year since many tag cuts will be approved. Hunters are going to get an eye-opener this year. . .

 

[sticksender]

The comment of "Problem Solved" is only true if CDW made this change. Of course it is extremely unlikely that they would, for the reasons I stated above.

No doubt that for a plan to be acceptable to CDW, it must allow them to sell out tens of thousands of low-demand hunts like OTC elk, Cow Elk, under-subscribed E/S elk, under-subscribed deer, and etc. This is required for both revenue purposes and for DAU herd management purposes. And at the same time they'll want to continue generating revenue from selling chances (points) for "blue-chip" hunts.

Here's another way to do that.

The highest demand elk/deer hunts are so severely limited they are in the class of Sheep or Goat or Moose tags. So they should be treated as such. Each person's PP's for elk/deer would be capped at say, 5 points (or some other low number). All points accumulated thereafter would be weighted points. This way you could still draw the lower- to mid-tier hunts with preference points, as long as it took 5 or less PP. But after reaching your 5-point cap, all your points would be weighted. Then every single applicant has some chance to draw the high-demand hunt they applied for.

I believe this would also siphon some people off the 1-5 point type hunts, since they'd now see they have a realistic chance at a high-demand hunt. Thus making the lower-tier hunts a little easier to draw with preference, and thus rein-in point creep in the lower-tier hunts. While everyone who applies now has a chance to draw the highest-demand hunts, the higher point holders still get the best draw odds.

A stink might be raised by the high point pool guys over such a plan. To compensate, CDW could give a 3-year grace period before implementation. Do it in one fell swoop and be done with it, and point creep vanishes forever. This is similar to the way CDW conducts the sheep/goat/moose draws, and I've rarely heard complaints about that system. Most people accept that it is about the fairest system possible for extreme-demand hunts. This proposal would treat the highest-demand elk & deer hunts exactly the same way.

 

[droptine47]

Just bump the number of tags in the hybrid drawing. These are once in a lifetime tags and should not be drawn every other year like many would like. Doing away with points would be like cutting in line at the meal table. If you want to hunt these trophy units wait in line. If you don't like the wait, don't apply for a unit that takes 20 years to draw. The system allows you to "wait your turn" and still be able to hunt a lesser unit just about every year.

 

[300wtby]

100% with you on your idea. I've said for years that they should do away with Pts. and go back to random draws. I can remember in the early 90's applying for Wy Region G and the odds were maybe 10% but at least you had a chance.

All those with Pts should be given 3 to 5 years to use them or loose them. Then do away with pts period.

300wtby

 

[hunterfisher]

As a Colorado resident I am in favor of adopting a more equitable resident/nonresident tag split: Somewhere around 85% resident and 15% nonresident. This will lower tag creep immediately and increase opportunity. Another idea I have heard mentioned before is to allow residents to apply in the nonresident pool as well as in the resident pool. CPW will achieve the same revenue, because of residents paying the higher nonres license fees. I like to Hunt in WYO, UT and NM also and I really feel like I should have no say in their affairs, after all I don't pay taxes there, and certainly don't share ownership their wildlife. When applying out of state and I am happy to draw whenever and whatever I can.

 

[smitho]

I kinda like the point system personally. I do think it could be tweaked but its a good system. Random draws suck! I've seen guys draw 2-3 times in new mexico while another friend whose been applying longer has yet to draw. At least now if you chose to play the "points game" you are building toward something better. If you get tired of waiting youcan cash out your ppoints anytime.

 

[piper]

I think sticksender should bring his idea up to the wildlife division, its the most realistic and could make a difference.

Colorados point system for elk has the worst point creep of any species in any state I know of, something should be done.

As an example, I drew unit 61 early rifle elk with two preference points, two different times, I have been applying ever since that last hunt and now have 15 points I believe, yet I am probably 3 or 4 points behind ever drawing again, its crazy, and I have never seen anything like it before.

 

[Cohntr62]

>I kinda like the point system
>personally. I do think it
>could be tweaked but its
>a good system. Random draws
>suck! I've seen guys draw
>2-3 times in new mexico
>while another friend whose been
>applying longer has yet to
>draw. At least now if
>you chose to play the
>"points game" you are building
>toward something better. If you
>get tired of waiting youcan
>cash out your ppoints anytime.
>
I agree, random draw sucks. There's no fairness, all luck. I'm a NR, not interested in the premium units, hunt Co. every other year and depend on the PP I get in the off-year to guarantee me a tag for the years I hunt. Go to random draw and now, there is no planning, nothing but a big IF. We NRs, for whom the trip is a big deal and requires a bit of planning and vacation scheduling, would find life a bit more difficult if you did away with the PP system. In fact, for some, the uncertainty just wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Aaronjhanson]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-14 AT 01:52PM (MST)[p]All for random draw as well. keep the OTC the way it is..
if you don't draw you get a weighted point. meaning you get 2 chances to draw next year, if you don't draw that year either you get another point and you will have 3 chances to draw the 3rd year. there should be a cap on have many years you do not draw..









Come follow me on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/AJH.Knives

 

[tx_packmule]

This may get points dumped......Split draw tags - half random, half PP with no alterations to the point system. Ppl choosing to use PP cannot apply for random draw while they hold PP, people lucky enough to draw in the random draw cannot enter into the random draw for a period of time (in years) equal to the lowest PP total required to draw that same tag.

 

[txhunter58]

Leave low preference point units alone, most people are fine with them.

For high demand units, use bonus points but square them to get the number of chances in the pot. 2 points gets 4 chances, 3 points gets 9 chances, etc. So you still have a shot with 0 points, but the people who put in the longest will have an increasing chance.

A waiting period doesn't really help creep that much because there are so few that draw, but I like that idea when you use bonus points. No sense in a lucky guy getting drawn two years in a row when I have been putting in for 15 years without drawing.

The problem is not point creep, but the lack of tags. When 99+ of people putting in don't get a tag, the system isn't fair to them!



txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[Kayak_to_hunt]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-14 AT 07:59AM (MST)[p]If you want to get rid of points quickly Colorado should adopt point brokering !

Cpw can set up a site that allows hunters to sell, trade, or give their points to anyone they choose. Charge $10 per point to transfer them.

Do away with all gov and other tags then watch deer 44 4th season take Denny 80 to 100 points to draw. 201 1st season bull hopefully would take 100+ to draw. Someone who buys vouchers could either buy a voucher or the number of points needed to draw the unit they wanted.

Add in that anytime you hunt any animal you loose your points and guys who want to buy the points needed to hunt a high demand unit could. Bring up the points needed to 40+ on any good unit and the points would drop out fast or in 5 years point creep would be gone.

 

[mntman]

>LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-14
>AT 07:59?AM (MST)
>
>If you want to get rid
>of points quickly Colorado should
>adopt point brokering !
>
>Cpw can set up a site
>that allows hunters to sell,
>trade, or give their points
>to anyone they choose.
>Charge $10 per point to
>transfer them.
>
>Do away with all gov and
>other tags then watch deer
>44 4th season take Denny
>80 to 100 points to
>draw. 201 1st season
>bull hopefully would take 100+
>to draw. Someone who
>buys vouchers could either buy
>a voucher or the number
>of points needed to draw
>the unit they wanted.
>
>Add in that anytime you hunt
>any animal you loose your
>points and guys who want
>to buy the points needed
>to hunt a high demand
>unit could. Bring up
>the points needed to 40+
>on any good unit and
>the points would drop out
>fast or in 5 years
>point creep would be gone.
>

Thats definitely thinking outside of the box.




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?

 

[buckhorn]

txhunter

kayak

Your last posts are the best on this topic so far. Im with you 100%

 

[smitho]

I've been thinking about what kind of things could be done to remedy this problem. A few thoughts I've had. Get rid of the PP only hunt code, it may not make a huge difference but it looks like there are a few hundred people that could draw darn near any tag they applied for. This would help them to s%#+ or get off the pot. Second, draw alternates for hunts that take more than X amount of points to avoid wasted lics. When people turn their tags back in. 3, make it a little tougher to turn tags back in. 4, anytime you hunt a bull/buck you should not gain a point even if its a 2nd choice, leftover, landowner.5 give a few more tags for the great hunts(even periodically) and a few less for the 0-3 pt units(to make them better). Any thoughts?

 

[mntman]

so many different ideas, I feel some are good, some aren't and some are complicated.

Again, tag=points gone. ZERO POINT CREEP.
Everything remains the same except if a hunter gets a buck/bull tag via ANY means they lose points. Problem solved. No additional complicated draw process, DOW don't have to spend money on creating a new system, nothing.
OTC stays the same, just lose your points if you get a tag that says antlered or either sex.


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]

>so many different ideas, I feel
>some are good, some aren't
>and some are complicated.
>
>Again, tag=points gone. ZERO POINT CREEP.
>
>Everything remains the same except if
>a hunter gets a buck/bull
>tag via ANY means they
>lose points. Problem solved. No
>additional complicated draw process, DOW
>don't have to spend money
>on creating a new system,
>nothing.
>OTC stays the same, just lose
>your points if you get
>a tag that says antlered
>or either sex.
>
>
>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?

+1

Yep Mntman still has the best opinion even after all the discussion about change. That is if my point brokering idea does not pan out ..

 

[Adventurewriter]

Don't know all the details but Arizona seems to have a decent system...you always get some slim chance even the first year you apply...then your odds getting better and better until you are bound to draw

 

[DnkyPunch]

Go to the NV style points system and if you draw, you lose your points. End the points only options. I understand there are revenue implications so make up for it with a slight increase to both residents and non-residents.

I also get it that some tags will go under subscribed and have left overs. Sell them OTC as leftovers and if you really want to go crazy, deduct a point for a leftover tag or something like that.

It seems dumb that I can draw 5 deer tags in 10 years and still have 10 bonus points.

 

[txhunter58]

At $40 a pop for points only option, I doubt they will end that anytime soon...

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[SanJuan]

The any tag = points lost idea sounds good until you realize that no one sitting on double digit points is going to burn them on a cow hunt.

The result would be unsold tags and continued point creep. IMO

The mountains, not the hills.

 

[mntman]

>The any tag = points lost
>idea sounds good until you
>realize that no one sitting
>on double digit points is
>going to burn them on
>a cow hunt.
>
>The result would be unsold tags
>and continued point creep. IMO
>
>
>The mountains, not the hills.

buck, bull or either sex tags equal points loss, unless you draw a cow/doe tag as a first choice. That part would stay the same.



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?

 

[HiMtnHntr]

The reality is that they will probably keep it the same or adopt point banking . . .

 

[sticksender]

Quote: "....equal point loss, unless you draw a cow/doe tag as a first choice. That part would stay the same."

Stay the same? In the current system, drawing a cow elk or doe deer tag as first choice burns all your points.

 

[mntman]

>Quote: "....equal point loss, unless you
>draw a cow/doe tag as
>a first choice. That part
>would stay the same."
>
>Stay the same? In the current
>system, drawing a cow elk
>or doe deer tag as
>first choice burns all your
>points.

yes, what I was trying to say was if you draw a cow/doe tag as a 2n, 3rd or 4th you wouldn't lose points it would stay the same as now, only lose points for cow/doe as a 1st choice.



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?

 

[SanJuan]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-14 AT 10:23AM (MST)[p]Not very many people with double digit points (especially non residents) are going to burn them on ANY less desirable hunts.

I am within 5 years of drawing 61 archery either sex as a resident. If the any bull/buck tag = loss of points rule were put in place I wouldn't change my application strategy one bit, but I would stop buying OTC bull tags.

The any bull/buck tag = loss of points rule wouldn't help with point creep on the upper tier units until the backlog of high point holders is burnt up, which would take a very long time.

The mountains, not the hills.

 

[mntman]

>LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-14
>AT 10:23?AM (MST)
>
>Not very many people with double
>digit points (especially non residents)
>are going to burn them
>on ANY less desirable hunts.
>
>
>I am within 5 years of
>drawing 61 archery either sex
>as a resident. If
>the any bull/buck tag =
>loss of points rule were
>put in place I wouldn't
>change my application strategy one
>bit, but I would stop
>buying OTC bull tags.
>
>The any bull/buck tag = loss
>of points rule wouldn't help
>with point creep on the
>upper tier units until the
>backlog of high point holders
>is burnt up, which would
>take a very long time.
>
>
>The mountains, not the hills.

You're correct, some would continue to wait BUT most would bail and continue to hunt every year. Point creep will still go up for about 5 years but then will "crash" and there will never be point creep again, plus a premium buck or bull tag could be drawn within a reasonable amount of years (4-10) vs 25, 40 or 70 years as it currently is now.



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?

 

[DreaminOf200]

Mntman has the best solution...you hunt for antlers, you lose your points. I don't know how anyone can say that isn't fair. I don't know how the money would work out, but I don't think it would be a significant difference.

Take me for example (a non-resident). Right now, I am giving the state $40 every year for a point because I can't draw the hunt I have been trying to draw for the last 7 years (which only took 3 when I started applying for it). If there was no point creep (which I think Mntman's solution would go a long way in fixing), then I would have purchased two tags in that same time period. So over 7 years, I have given the state $280 for points. If I drew 2 tags in that time, I would have given the state $930 for points and two tags. Now, do that across the board for applicants in a similar situation as mine, and all of a sudden, the state is making more money.

I think this solution would eventually result in a lot more people buying OTC tags and drawing low PP hunts, which would in turn lower the number of PP for high demand/quality hunts. I don't think leftover tags would be an issue either. The easier it is for people to draw a hunt, the less leftover tags there are to try and sell after the fact.

 

[tx_packmule]

>Take me for example (a non-resident).
> Right now, I am
>giving the state $40 every
>year for a point because
>I can't draw the hunt
>I have been trying to
>draw for the last 7
>years (which only took 3
>when I started applying for
>it). If there was
>no point creep (which I
>think Mntman's solution would go
>a long way in fixing),
>then I would have purchased
>two tags in that same
>time period. So over
>7 years, I have given
>the state $280 for points.
> If I drew 2
>tags in that time, I
>would have given the state
>$930 for points and two
>tags. Now, do that
>across the board for applicants
>in a similar situation as
>mine, and all of a
>sudden, the state is making
>more money.


Scenario doesn't play out with LE tags experiencing point creep. Those will get purchased regardless, while collecting the $40 from the hunters chasing. Now telling people they can't hold onto points and hunt OTC could cut into revenue.

Also telling landowners if their property draws a tag, and they (or someone in their family) decides to hunt the tag they'll also lose their personal points will likely have them lobbying for more tags.

 

[DreaminOf200]

Packmule, I understand what you're saying...that if there are 15 applicants but only 10 tags, then those 10 will be sold and the state will still collect $40 from the other 5. This pattern would continue as long as there is demand, which doesn't seem to be an issue. You are absolutely correct.

But does it not make sense that if point creep is stalled or even reversed, that more licenses, not PP fees will be sold? I mean if it takes at least one point to draw, does that not mean that all of the LE tags for that hunt will be sold regardless? Or maybe it's already been a long week and I'm tired, so my brain's not functioning correctly.

It seems like the real question regarding revenue is how many people are point banking but still hunting a 2nd choice or OTC tag? I guess I think about myself and the crew I hunt with. Hell we don't even put a 2nd choice down on our applications, and don't buy OTC tags either. So in my mind, it seems like the state is losing money because of point creep on hunters like me, but I very well may be the minority.

 

[tx_packmule]

Same number of licenses will be bought in LE units whether it requires 1pt or 20. (Tag+20yrs of pts) will trump (tag+1pt).

Based on increasing demand and decreasing tags, point creep isn't going to stall or reverse regardless of what happens. The manner in which people have to wait can, but the only thing to solve the problem would be a ton of people quit caring to hunt Colorado. If that were to happen, the residents will have to eat that loss and hunting and fishing would get a lot more expensive for them.

 

[fallguy]

LAST EDITED ON May-08-14 AT 07:48AM (MST)[p]This has been a great post with a lot of thought provoking ideas. Unfortunately unless these ideas were presented to CPW prior to the March 31 public input deadline, they will not be considered for possible implementation. Below is an email response I received from CPW a few weeks ago.

This Big Game Season Structure review process is centered on receiving extensive input from sportsmen. The public comment period closed at the end of March 2014, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) received over 1,000 public comments. Our staff held 16 public meetings around the state, reached out to 7,000 licensed hunters through a public opinion survey, held two telephone town hall meetings that reached out to 50,000 licensed hunters, and facilitated three focus groups to explore potential changes to the preference point system.

The internal CPW team working on Big Game Season Structure for 2015-2019 is now reviewing all the public input received to inform the development of proposed alternatives for the Parks and Wildlife Commission. No decisions have been made in regard to the Big Game Season Structure at this time. Proposed alternatives will first be presented to the Parks and Wildlife Commission at their public meeting on June 4th and 5th in Alamosa Colorado. The Commission will make a final decision on these alternatives at their public meeting on September 11th and 12th, 2014. The best way for you and other public to engage in setting the Big Game Season Structure for 2015-2019 at this time is to participate in the Commission process by attending a commission meeting, considering the proposed alternatives, and submitting a comment to the Commission.

In regard to preference point banking specifically, CPW has received a high number of comments in favor of changing the current preference point system and in support of reinstating "banking" of preference points. As stated above, no decisions have been made to reinstate banking at this time. However, given the high volume of public input in favor of this program, it is probable that one of the proposed alternatives presented to the Commission will include banking.

 

[mntman]

fallguy, you are right about needing to forward the opinions up to the people that matter. I have been for a while. Last year was in a lengthy email chain with one of the leading guys in this process and eventually he basically told me to STFU because he didn't think my idea was good.
He proceeded to look up my CID number and said you have 9 points and apply for unit 2 every year and still draw elk tag bull tags as second choice. Why do you want it to change he then asks. Well if I want to have a chance I am "forced" to play this game are we not. I told him I will never have a realistic chance at drawing unit 2 for elk in my lifetime.
At this point I knew he was a F'en idiot or either simply blatantly lieing to me so I would believe his side (collecting points) because he said according to his calculations I will draw unit 2 elk in 10 years (from last year with me having 9 points) LOL, what a piece of crap he is, that is when I lost it and told him what I thought....

I wish I would have kept those emails.

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]

Agreed that this discussion is meaningless. I know a couple of guys on the CPW commission and they just laugh at threads on any of these forums. Or these threads are a JOKE you should take them as such as the CPW does...

Truth is they pry have or have already made their decision so we are all wasting our time. But these discussions are fun.

Under banking I still dont see mntman drawing that unit 2 tag in the next 15 years. All I see is a huge point leap in the 2-5 point draw units of 3 points or more points and folks with 0-2 points now will have the same chance at drawing any tag as mntn man have of gettin that unit 2 in the next 5 years.

I for one am happy that the CPW did what they did with LO vouchers as it is a academic argument for me as I will be hunting and building points but that is how the game is set up..