Colorado Preference Point Focus Group

[Gunnersdad49]

I've been invited to join a CPW focus group in a few weeks.

"Your focus group will discuss the topic of preference points. The purpose of these focus groups is to hear from resident and nonresident big game hunters about challenges and potential solutions they see with CPW’s license distribution approach and to help inform future big game season structure processes. This is one part of a multi-step process and your feedback is critical to improving the system."

I would prefer to come with solutions instead of just complaints.

In an effort to better represent all hunters (at least all well known Roksliders), I'm looking for any thoughts that I should present outside of my own little bubble. Feel free to drop some ideas here for me to bring up.

 

[sndmn11]

My unrefined idea:
1) You can apply for X number of hunt codes per species just as you currently have four choices. X because I could see it being something like 10-20.
2) What you apply for in April with your X choices are the only LIMITED licenses you are eligible to purchase at any point.
3) Drawing in the Primary April drawing as your first choice takes your points.
4) Drawing in the Primary April drawing as your second to X choice, or in the Secondary June draw DO NOT use points. (#3 and #4 are the same as current)
5) For leftover and re-issues, a person is only eligible to purchase what they applied for as any of their X choices in #2. Leftover and re-issues use either all of the person's points OR the number that it was drawn out at in the primary draw; whichever is less. EX. Bob has ten elk points and has in step 2 applied as his first choice for a 20 point license, and his second choice a 5 point license. He drew neither for obvious reasons. In August he has the opportunity to purchase either license. Since he has ten, the 20 point license would use all his points, the 5 point license would use 5. For clarity, there are also licenses available that he did not apply for in step 2, but he cannot buy them due to not being eligible since he did not apply for them in step 2.

My purpose for this idea is that you regularly see the people with the chance to play leftover day and internet game end up with decent to great tags, with no loss of points. I think having step 2 would require folks to commit to their limited hunts and reduce demand on leftover day(s). Making leftover/reissue licenses eligible to use points would potentially have some sort of impact on point creep. It would also make people think a little harder on what they choose in #2.

 

[BRTreedogs]

They need to atleast point average, come on who would that hurt? My wife got into hunting and she's behind.
So I'm supposed to wait till she has enough points and I have more then enough.
When we should be able to just average and burn them.

 

[Gunnersdad49]

They need to atleast point average, come on who would that hurt? My wife got into hunting and she's behind.
So I'm supposed to wait till she has enough points and I have more then enough.
When we should be able to just average and burn them.

This is one of the things I really believe would help. It will get beginners in sooner instead of just creating more point collectors, and it will keep some guys like yourself from maxing out points while waiting.

 

[Gunnersdad49]

My unrefined idea:
1) You can apply for X number of hunt codes per species just as you currently have four choices. X because I could see it being something like 10-20.
2) What you apply for in April with your X choices are the only LIMITED licenses you are eligible to purchase at any point.
3) Drawing in the Primary April drawing as your first choice takes your points.
4) Drawing in the Primary April drawing as your second to X choice, or in the Secondary June draw DO NOT use points. (#3 and #4 are the same as current)
5) For leftover and re-issues, a person is only eligible to purchase what they applied for as any of their X choices in #2. Leftover and re-issues use either all of the person's points OR the number that it was drawn out at in the primary draw; whichever is less. EX. Bob has ten elk points and has in step 2 applied as his first choice for a 20 point license, and his second choice a 5 point license. He drew neither for obvious reasons. In August he has the opportunity to purchase either license. Since he has ten, the 20 point license would use all his points, the 5 point license would use 5. For clarity, there are also licenses available that he did not apply for in step 2, but he cannot buy them due to not being eligible since he did not apply for them in step 2.

My purpose for this idea is that you regularly see the people with the chance to play leftover day and internet game end up with decent to great tags, with no loss of points. I think having step 2 would require folks to commit to their limited hunts and reduce demand on leftover day(s). Making leftover/reissue licenses eligible to use points would potentially have some sort of impact on point creep. It would also make people think a little harder on what they choose in #2.

Interesting. Would you think that leftovers picked up should burn the points it would have taken to draw them? I know it sucks to lose the points, but if you get the tag in the primary draw, you would have lost them...

 

[Gunnersdad49]

I'm also interested in the possibility of reducing the time from the application to the publishing of the draw results. That would give people a better opportunity to plan their fall. It would also bump up the time to pay for the tag or release it back into the leftover draw.

 

[sndmn11]

Interesting. Would you think that leftovers picked up should burn the points it would have taken to draw them? I know it sucks to lose the points, but if you get the tag in the primary draw, you would have lost them...

Yeah, covered in step 5.

 

[Gunnersdad49]

Yeah, covered in step 5.

You are correct. I read past that for some reason.

 

[BRTreedogs]

This is one of the things I really believe would help. It will get beginners in sooner instead of just creating more point collectors, and it will keep some guys like yourself from maxing out points while waiting.

I'm saying there are alot of people caught in point creep that know they may never catch it and would burn them with a kid etc on a lesser unit.
But not worth doing unless you can take someone with you.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Non residents should not be able to hunt a species and accumulate a point for that species in the same year. Ideally, this would be partnered across all states with limited access hunts for that species.

Saying this as a non-resident who is hunting otc, building points, and realizing that point creep will exterminate hunting opportunities.

 

[sndmn11]

Non residents should not be able to hunt a species and accumulate a point for that species in the same year. Ideally, this would be partnered across all states with limited access hunts for that species.

Saying this as a non-resident who is hunting otc, building points, and realizing that point creep will exterminate hunting opportunities.

I like it! It would have zero impact on residents, but it would slow creep in theory for non-residents.

 

[street]

Publishing the tag allocations before the draw deadline could help point creep.

Point averaging seems like a no-brainer to me : this is one way to incentivize people to burn points.

 

[LongWayAround]

I would like to see limited quota season choice by DAU.

Maybe something like 100 either sex tags.

I think that would really help reduce the point pool and not appreciably increase pressure. I know that I personally would have used my points a few times over on something like that.

It's also somewhat in-line with states that allow general season tags to be used in any open season.

 

[sndmn11]

I would like to see limited quota season choice by DAU.

Maybe something like 100 either sex tags.

I think that would really help reduce the point pool and not appreciably increase pressure. I know that I personally would have used my points a few times over on something like that.

Shoot, I'd like to see OTC licenses be DAU specific.

I think a lot, and know a few, folks who essentially hop around the state being ultra aggressive in the archery season and when they run a herd off they just go to a different part of the state.

 

[LongWayAround]

Shoot, I'd like to see OTC licenses be DAU specific.

I think a lot, and know a few, folks who essentially hop around the state being ultra aggressive in the archery season and when they run a herd off they just go to a different part of the state.

*OTC with a quota by DAU*

We all know their statistics are a guess at best.

Cap it (at least for nonresident) and add mandatory reporting.

 

[sndmn11]

*OTC with a quota by DAU*

We all know their statistics are a guess at best.

Cap it (at least for nonresident) and add mandatory reporting.

I don't even care about a cap, I just want to see someone not be able to harass their way through the state.

 

[street]

@Gunnersdad49 Is this preference points only or the weighted points too?

 

[Huntin_GI]

I've been participating in a few of the most recent round tables and the ideas that keep coming to the top of the pile.

1. Resident OTC w/ either Nonres OTC with Caps per DAU or fully limited Nonres
2. Reducing Nonres limited entry to 10-15% max. (Under prescribed units wouldn't look like what you're see in the southern Colorado units that currently exceed 50%nonres allocations). This could include an outfitter pool (think NM)
3. Transition away from a PP structure toward Bonus Point structure as point creep is insurmountable.
4. Resident rolling tags in OTC units. (Hunter buys OTC Archery Tag, goes unfilled, proceed to go on 2nd/3rd rifle OTC hunts)
5. Mandatory Reporting

 

[ShakeDown]

We need a percentage of tags allocated to a random draw. Think WY or AZ.

The hybrid draw is a step, but not inclusive enough imo.

All tags issued by draw only.

Mandatory reporting.

 

[Maverick1]

I've been invited to join a CPW focus group in a few weeks.

"Your focus group will discuss the topic of preference points. The purpose of these focus groups is to hear from resident and nonresident big game hunters about challenges and potential solutions they see with CPW’s license distribution approach and to help inform future big game season structure processes. This is one part of a multi-step process and your feedback is critical to improving the system."

I would prefer to come with solutions instead of just complaints.

In an effort to better represent all hunters (at least all well known Roksliders), I'm looking for any thoughts that I should present outside of my own little bubble. Feel free to drop some ideas here for me to bring up.

Focus on solutions and not problems:

First thing that comes to mind is a drawing like AZ or UT.
+ Provides an advantage to the highest point holders (rewards those that have been building points for a long time) and also
+ provides a chance to the lower point holders.
+ indirectly offsets point creep as some/most will have a chance to draw a tag. (While the required number of points could still increase for any given unit, lower point holders would s”at least be given a chance)
+ Also keeps the state “whole” as income stream rolls in when people buy points.