Your thoughts on Point Averaging

[fallguy]

The Point Banking thread has had some good info flowing through it and point averaging was mentioned in one post. Those familiar with WY, are aware that they use this method. For example, if a group of 4 has party members with 2, 4, 4 and 6 points, their group total is 16 points with an average of 4 points. They even extend the average out multiple decimal points so a group of 4 with 17 total points would have 4.25 points and trump anyone with 4 points.

Let's hear some thoughts on this subject. I'll start it off. It seems to me that a lot of guys would start having their non-hunting family members put in for points and then use them to jack up the average. Due to the cost of the NR licenses, when drawn, this would most likely be done more by CO residents than NR. But then again, the NR non-hunter could then turn their license back in for a refund - at least with the current set up. WY does not allow this.

I am sure that some people with a lot of points would use up their points and allow a family member or good friend with less points to jump in with them. This may have a slight affect on the draw odds for the low to mid point units. It also seems like it would encourage an even higher number of new applicants buying points and make it harder to draw the low point units because of the non-hunting "framily plan" applicants.

Geez, I am tempted to delete this post before I even post it but won't for the sake of getting valuable input. Just like point banking, point averaging is much more complicated than what may first come to mind - let's hear your thoughts.

 

[Zim]

I actually like point banking better than averaging. Averaging is ripe for abuse. Horsetrading your way up ladder. You see it all the time on here. Go look at Oregon forum.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club

 

[elks96]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-14 AT 12:15PM (MST)[p]I love averaging because I am taking full advantage. I have 1 under max in wy, my mom who will probably not hunt has 2 under max for lopes and deer, my wife is staggered, my dad as well. I buy the points. Then when I cash in I will average out with my mom first to go on my next hunt, then with my dad, then my wife, all the time I should be able to apply with an average 3 to 4 points every year for a different species....

That sounds like a great system to prevent point creep.... I hate it, and think it would only increase creep a bunch as people who never intend to hunt would be building points...

 

[nripepi]

I love Wyoming's averaging and have used it a number of times with friends and family and I have not abused it with Grandma. That is the only real issue I see is if it could possibly be abused and how to combat that abuse. Wyoming combats it with not being allowed to turn a tag in for any reason and Utah, who allows averaging, combats it with if Grandma turns her tag in, then you have to turn in your tag as well.

Colorado would have to choose either the Utah or Wyoming option or the system would be ripe for abuse.

The only real way to decrease Grandma from gaining points is to increase the cost of points so it would not be worth it to apply for Grandma. I don't think this is a huge deal for non-residents as there is a lot of money to front over a period of time, but it could be a big deal for residents. Will Grandma live long enough for you to benefit?

 

[Outdoors]

I support averaging as long as no one can turn the tag back in. UT would let grandma turn her tag back in post-draw and get her 20 points back to use year after year to get her two offspring tags year after year in units needing 7 points to draw.

Realistically, the impact is on pronghorn, deer and elk draws rather than sheep, goat, moose and bison. Not many 7 point units for sheep, etc.

 

[txhunter58]

I agree, I see some good things about point averaging, but only if all parties lose all their points if drawn with no possibility of getting them back even if they can't hunt. Will make people think twice about doing it with anyone.

txhunter58

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

 

[Paradox]

It's hard to imagine someones been putting grandma in for the last 20 years just in case they started averaging!

I was thinking it might be a better way to get some of the high point sitters off the fence.
Many NR hunters are stuck in no-man's land with not enough to draw the top units and too many to waste on a 1 or 2 point unit.
Now, if they could draw a middling unit with their kid or buddy by averaging points I'd say that would be a plus all around.

I agree with the no turn in rule for that though or make it all or nothing for party apps. That would eliminate using uncle Joe's 12 points every year, that would surely be abuse of the system.

Ed


If you ain't the lead dog,
the view never changes

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-14 AT 06:01AM (MST)[p]Another way to eliminate "grandma" is: "a group is a group". In other words, if you apply as a group, you can only turn them back in as a group. So if grandma turns hers back in, all the tags in the group have to be turned back in.

txhunter58

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

 

[nripepi]

That is what Utah does now after after they saw that Grandma (or Grandma's son) was abusing the system.

I think if everyone in the group had the same number of points, it would be okay to let one of them turn their tag back in or if the person with the least amount of points wanted to turn their tag back in, then that would be okay as well. There was no advantage gained by anyone in that scenario.

I tried to do this in Utah the first year they instituted the Grandma can't turn her tag back in rule and they told me it was too complicated.