Colorado Preference Point Focus Group

[sndmn11]

Wyoming averages points for party applications....

Cool? I live in Colorado.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Averaging points on group applications opens up more avenues for gaming the system and would likely worsen point creep in the long run. In the short run, averaging might clear out some high pointholders who decide it's better to use their points helping out low-point friends/family rather than continuing to chase a trophy tag, but in the long run, averaging would likely add more total points to the system because it would create an incentive to buy points for non-hunters. Demand far exceeds supply for many tags, and I think there would be a lot of hunters willing to spend extra buying points for their spouses, parents, grandparents, imaginary friends, etc. to help themselves draw more tags.

Averaging group applications would also complicate point restoration on returned tags. The easy answer there would be to just eliminate point restoration altogether.

 

[NickyD]

Averaging points on group applications opens up more avenues for gaming the system and would likely worsen point creep in the long run. In the short run, averaging might clear out some high pointholders who decide it's better to use their points helping out low-point friends/family rather than continuing to chase a trophy tag, but in the long run, averaging would likely add more total points to the system because it would create an incentive to buy points for non-hunters. Demand far exceeds supply for many tags, and I think there would be a lot of hunters willing to spend extra buying points for their spouses, parents, grandparents, imaginary friends, etc. to help themselves draw more tags.

Averaging group applications would also complicate point restoration on returned tags. The easy answer there would be to just eliminate point restoration altogether.

Or just require everyone in the group to return the tag for point restoration

 

[sndmn11]

Or just require everyone in the group to return the tag for point restoration

Or not allow group averaging.
Go to Wyoming for that stuff.

 

[MallardSX2]

1. If you get ANY tag you loose your points and it shouldn't matter how you acquire the tag (primary or leftover).

2. If you get an OTC tag you are not allowed to get a point that year.(honestly, I wouldnt care if they made you burn your points to hunt OTC either. That is fine with me as well).

These two things alone would fix the Preference point problem around quickly....

Force people to burn their points if they want to hunt.

I do NOT support the point averaging. It is being abused big time in Wyoming. No thanks and I hope they dont go down that road.

 

[sndmn11]

1. If you get ANY tag you loose your points and it shouldn't matter how you acquire the tag (primary or leftover).

2. If you get an OTC tag you are not allowed to get a point that year.(honestly, I wouldnt care if they made you burn your points to hunt OTC either. That is fine with me as well).

These two things alone would fix the Preference point problem around quickly....

Force people to burn their points if they want to hunt.

I do NOT support the point averaging. It is being abused big time in Wyoming. No thanks and I hope they dont go down that road.

I think the problem with #1 is you wouldn't be able to manage the animals because folks won't spend points on poor tags that are needed to keep numbers down such as the many tags for the flat tops herd.

I could see your #1 working if they didn't use points for B/C tags and switched a lot of A tags to B.

I've applied one time out of state and that was for doe phorn in WY. I liked that it was random with no points, I could get behind that for does/cows in CO with separate draw and points for bucks bulls. I do think there are some buck/bull tags that should be B still.

 

[Chanimal]

Averaging points on group applications opens up more avenues for gaming the system and would likely worsen point creep in the long run. In the short run, averaging might clear out some high pointholders who decide it's better to use their points helping out low-point friends/family rather than continuing to chase a trophy tag, but in the long run, averaging would likely add more total points to the system because it would create an incentive to buy points for non-hunters. Demand far exceeds supply for many tags, and I think there would be a lot of hunters willing to spend extra buying points for their spouses, parents, grandparents, imaginary friends, etc. to help themselves draw more tags.

Averaging group applications would also complicate point restoration on returned tags. The easy answer there would be to just eliminate point restoration altogether.

I am definitely looking at this thru rose colored glasses, and in the minority. I think averaging points should be an option on the table. I am hearing a lot of 'would' create accounts for friends/family and pay for more opportunity to draw. Colorado is in the minority of western states that do not point average, the states that don't average points, don't even have a point system. I'm surprised everyone isn't taking advantage of that with all of their family members already in Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, Utah. There is also some sort of random component in some of those states, so you have a chance.

I've applied one time out of state and that was for doe phorn in WY. I liked that it was random with no points, I could get behind that for does/cows in CO with separate draw and points for bucks bulls. I do think there are some buck/bull tags that should be B still.

I would appreciate some random component to all our draws. I like the separate antlerless draw, it does feel ridiculous to burn points on antlerless tags. But also I know folks that stay at 0-1 points and put in for the same cow tag every year, these folks would now be in the point pool and have a chance at their cow tag in the separate draw. Who knows...

 

[MallardSX2]

I think the problem with #1 is you wouldn't be able to manage the animals because folks won't spend points on poor tags that are needed to keep numbers down such as the many tags for the flat tops herd.

^^^^ If the tags are that poor that they dont want to burn their points then maybe those animals shouldn't be harvested in the first place? Perhaps it would make those areas better? I guess it depends on what your definition of poor it. (low % of public land ect ect) Give it 2 years and those "poor areas" might be GREAT areas. I dont know. What I do know is that something has to be done to curb the creep. People need to be FORCED to burn their points. I guess its how that is implemented that is the big question. Perhaps only points should be burned on male and Either Sex tags only? Thats a work around for the issue and something I would be in favor of. This would allow them to regulate herd numbers through female harvests easily.

I for sure get where you are coming from.

***1. If you get ANY Male or Either Sex tag you loose your points and it shouldn't matter how you acquire the tag (primary or leftover).****

Better? lol

 

[cnelk]

I dont think the CPW really cares about Pref Points.

After working in a government job for 25 years, I saw so many smoke and mirrors just to appease the public. This is no different.

The CPW will have these focus groups, review the data and in the end they will stay with 'status quo'.

Change my mind.

 

[TheGreek]

I dont think the CPW really cares about Pref Points.

After working in a government job for 25 years, I saw so many smoke and mirrors just to appease the public. This is no different.

The CPW will have these focus groups, review the data and in the end they will stay with 'status quo'.

Change my mind.

I'm gonna be in one of these focus groups and kind of have the same thoughts. My question is does CPW care about point creep and if they do, why?

Part of me wonders if point creep isn't just something that some of us hunters and certain hunting media are obsessed with/worry about/talk about incessantly. Does point creep currently negatively affect anything on a macro level for CPW? Will point creep negatively affect anything on a macro level for CPW in the near or distant future?

More and more people are applying in CO, many tags are becoming harder to draw, certainly coveted tags are heavily "creeping", but there are still boat loads of less sought after tags that go for 0-1 point, and tons of tags in the secondary draw and leftovers.

Will/does CPW just view the point creep issue as something that only negatively affects a small portion of hunter and tags and not want to rock the boat because of that?

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/LicenseDistributionFAQsOct2021.pdf

Taken from this link "Ninety to ninety-five percent of Colorado’s GMUs require no preference points — or just a single preference point — in order to draw a limited license in those units."

 

[sndmn11]

^^^^ If the tags are that poor that they dont want to burn their points then maybe those animals shouldn't be harvested in the first place? Perhaps it would make those areas better? I guess it depends on what your definition of poor it. (low % of public land ect ect) Give it 2 years and those "poor areas" might be GREAT areas. I dont know. What I do know is that something has to be done to curb the creep. People need to be FORCED to burn their points. I guess its how that is implemented that is the big question. Perhaps only points should be burned on male and Either Sex tags only? Thats a work around for the issue and something I would be in favor of. This would allow them to regulate herd numbers through female harvests easily.

I for sure get where you are coming from.

***1. If you get ANY Male or Either Sex tag you loose your points and it shouldn't matter how you acquire the tag (primary or leftover).****

Better? lol

The ones I'm referencing are places where there is a surplus of animals but the hunting is hard leading to low success rates. The only way to overcome that is to have a lot of people trying. Flat tops cow tags, front range doe tags, bear tags, etc. I can't remember a year where all flat tops herd tags sold, there are usually hundreds that don't get purchased every year.

There are also male species in some areas that are overpopulated and currently listed as B/C tags, so a blanket of all male use points is not a good idea.

 

[5MilesBack]

Part of me wonders if point creep isn't just something that some of us hunters and certain hunting media are obsessed with/worry about/talk about incessantly.

Yep. I remember when my favorite unit was a low point draw for archery and LO vouchers were $400. And that wasn't that long ago. Now vouchers are $5k and it takes several years between drawing it. I'm pretty much done chasing it.......it is what it is, and I continue to play the PP game for whatever tags I can get. I still get tags and I still hunt elk when I do. But I also really enjoy helping others enjoy their hunts in better draw units when they draw them. I'll sacrifice my season for that every year at this point. I still get to chase elk either way.

 

[The_Jim]

I agree with @cnelk there likely will not be an overhaul of the system, its going to have to be small changes. I think they could probably fix a lot of the crowding by Leaving OTC for residents and just making everything a draw unit for non-residents. That would help regulate crowding, and you would likely still be able to hunt every year if that is what you wanted.

Edited here to add that I am a non resident that loves to hunt Colorado. I personally would prefer to hunt less and have a better experience.

 

[MallardSX2]

I agree with @cnelk there likely will not be an overhaul of the system, its going to have to be small changes. I think they could probably fix a lot of the crowding by Leaving OTC for residents and just making everything a draw unit for non-residents. That would help regulate crowding, and you would likely still be able to hunt every year if that is what you wanted.

I would be ok with this. Just 100% make the NR's burn their points to get the tag. They are the group I'm in and I would be fine with that decision.

 

[sndmn11]

I'd be down for OTC remaining for residents, but all those units go to draw only WITHOUT REFUNDS for non-residents. This would satisfy the crowd who wants more ratio of limited licenses to go to non-residents...

 

[realunlucky]

Damn no wonder nothing good happens in Colorado.

I do find it interesting that it's a "FOCUS" group on "POINTS" and residents want to discuss everything but points. Obviously it's a non issue judging from this pool of commentary.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

Damn no wonder nothing good happens in Colorado.

I do find it interesting that it's a "FOCUS" group on "POINTS" and residents want to discuss everything but points. Obviously it's a non issue judging from this pool of commentary.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Probably because non-residents are the ones complaining about points. (reference the half dozen threads that one guy started to rally the whitetail hunters)

 

[TheGreek]

Damn no wonder nothing good happens in Colorado.

I do find it interesting that it's a "FOCUS" group on "POINTS" and residents want to discuss everything but points. Obviously it's a non issue judging from this pool of commentary.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I read this document to mean that there would be focus groups on four separate topics related to CO big game license distribution.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/LicenseDistributionFAQsOct2021.pdf

1) Resident/non resident elk and deer license allocations

2) Preference Points

3) weighted points

4)OTC elk licenses

 

[realunlucky]

Probably because non-residents are the ones complaining about points. (reference the half dozen threads that one guy started to rally the whitetail hunters)

COLORADO was one of the first states to establish a point system so obviously the first to have the weaknesses of such a system revealed. Simply it limits opportunity for those that choose to participate later on.
In a pyramid scheme the top is rewarded with the investments of those that come along later. After nearly 30 years the bottom is tried of supporting the top. The bottom tier has many times the voices of even just a few tiers above it. The middle is starting to realize that no matter how long they wait they'll never reap the benefits of the top. Those multitude of voices carry a massive influence in the political arena of which the department of parks and wildlife answers to. It's not an issue that's going away any time soon.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

I read this document to mean that there would be focus groups on four separate topics related to CO big game license distribution.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/LicenseDistributionFAQsOct2021.pdf

1) Resident/non resident elk and deer license allocations

2) Preference Points

3) weighted points

4)OTC elk licenses

Ahh that makes much more sense. Thanks

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk