Colorado Preference Point Focus Group

[tdhanses]

Idk so you're supposed to never hunt, only build points and then magically know how to hunt when you get the tag finally?

I be much more for a have to put in for the draw kinda thing then you get otc or a point.
And a if you don't put in for a draw for 2-3 years loose them kinda thing.

So must actually apply for a tag and not draw to get a point or an otc.

Think it is you make a choice, hunt lower quality areas annually or even every other year or hold out for a better hunt.

But that you don’t get to do both.

Believe your suggestion is the current process and it isn’t working.

 

[CoStick]

I bet otc will go away in your lifetime.

I will be 50 next month, if CO changes it in my lifetime that would be great, but highly unlikely.

 

[tdhanses]

If you change it that drastically then the other states will to, and it will just reduce hunting to nothing.

Other states already have drastically changed it compared to CO.

 

[tdhanses]

So your saying there will always be enough tags available in the 1st round i will always draw a tag?
How would someone ever get to a premium unit and know how to hunt also?

You're chose is hunt crap units every year and never get a good tag or wait for a good tag and not know how to hunt.
You can say go to another state but thats drying up fast.
Oregon barely has otc archery tags left for residents.
I bet without a few years we will be corner to corner draw.

Truthfully there has to be a sacrafice and these easy draw units might even increase in quality.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Think it is you make a choice, hunt lower quality areas annually or even every other year or hold out for a better hunt.

But that you don’t get to do both.

Believe your suggestion is the current process and it isn’t working.

No what I'm saying is no point banking unless you actually apply for the hunt.
I suppose that might not work in Colorado I forgot you have no random pool.
In Oregon 25% go to random so you actually could draw the tag on any year.

 

[tdhanses]

No what I'm saying is no point banking unless you actually apply for the hunt.
I suppose that might not work in Colorado I forgot you have no random pool.
In Oregon 25% go to random so you actually could draw the tag on any year.

The problem with CO is it’s a fall back or last minute state, many buy points then crowd otc areas. Reduce this opportunity and increase opportunities for those that really want to hunt.

Random pool is only select units and you have to have a min of 5pts.

What also would of been nice is to make the Big 4 random like it is for desert bighorn and remove the points/weighted system.

 

[Northpark]

Just get rid of OTC tags period. You get a tag in the primary or secondary draw you burn all your points regardless of if it’s first or second or third or fourth choice. If you pick up a leftover you burn your points. Basically you get a tag you burn your points. One tag per year unless it’s a private land tag to help with population reduction then you can have a second tag.

This would spread the pressure out I think.

 

[realunlucky]

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

Resident point is the real issue they are trying to address. Take a gander at how many points residents are holding.

Problem is they give out points to easy and still let people hunt until they address that they are fighting internal bleeding with a band aid.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

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.

Utah and Arizona are both looking at options to combat point creep. Adopting a system proven to work poorly is just kicking the can down the road.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

Here my list-
Change to bonus points, it's still allowing those that waited the longest the best odds at drawing a tag but everyone gets a chance. Avoid squaring that really is just a preference point system with another name.

Limit number of application choices- I like 2, that way you can apply for a hunt you want and a hunt you'd settle for.

Want a point apply for a hunt. Simply you can not let people continue to buy points it floods the system.

Id prefer an alternate list of next in line but cpw hates that idea. So if you take a turn back tag lose all your points for that species. No bullshit of using a couple here and a couple elsewhere next year. Your either all in or all out. Keeps tracking easier for the state.

I'll keep thinking on it and edit them in later.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick1]

Like

Utah and Arizona are both looking at options to combat point creep. Adopting a system proven to work poorly is just kicking the can down the road.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

”like” UT and AZ. Not exactly the same.

 

[NickyD]

I’d like to see all bull/buck tags use your points including OTC and leftover tags. Doe/cow tags don’t burn points.

More realistically I’d be happy with draw only or OTC w/ caps and you have to select a DAU.

 

[dreamingbig]

Once you draw you have to wait 3 years before you start building points again.

 

[lak2004]

There are some good ideas in here. I'm a CO resident and I think OTC needs to go totally. The nonresident allocation needs to drop. Implent a system similar to NM but without the BS outfitter preference. Give folks 3-5 years to use the pts they have banked and either total lottery or some sort of hybrid system.

Absolutely a mandatory reporting system to be eligible for next year's tag. Split the archery season and move the muzzleloader season (sacrifice a few days of each archery to make it happen).

I like the idea of averaging current points, it's dumb they don't already do it.

No solution will please everyone, but sacrifices need to be made. The way it is now is a crap system with decreasing quality and opportunity.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Gunnersdad49]

The only argument I’ve heard against averaging points in a group is “someone’s going to put in their grandma for 20 years, etc”

Is anyone on here opposed to averaging group points?

 

[realunlucky]

The only argument I’ve heard against averaging points in a group is “someone’s going to put in their grandma for 20 years, etc”

Is anyone on here opposed to averaging group points?

If grandma has to apply to hunt every year to get a point the odds go way down of that happening go way down. The more convenient points are to get the more people will have them.

Grandma doesn't have 20 points at this point because nobody built points to share in the current system as it's not an option.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Seems like I'm in the minority, but I don't have any major gripes about Colorado's preference point system. I like the ability to plan when/where I'll be able to hunt years in advance with some degree of confidence.

For the record, I'm a non-resident elk hunter with no ambition to pursue trophy tags...I just want to be in the mountains hunting something (preferably during September). I've hunted elk in the same unit 10 times over the past 20 years...8 times with a draw archery tag and 2 times with an OTC rifle tag. That archery tag has grown progressively tougher to draw, but its point creep has been comparatively mild (>50% with 0 points when I started to now 50% with 1 point). My current plan is to continue bowhunting this unit as often as I can and venture out to OTC archery units in the years I don't draw.

Minor changes I would suggest for Colorado's system:

• Auction off leftover tags using preference points to denominate the bids (instead of the current first-come-first-served frenzy with no effect on points). Then offer anything left after the auction up for sale on a FCFS basis with no effect on points.
• Further disincentivize returning drawn tags. Eliminate the point restoration option (perhaps with very limited exceptions for truly extreme circumstances).

 

[npm352]

Utah and Arizona are both looking at options to combat point creep. Adopting a system proven to work poorly is just kicking the can down the road.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

UT should go back to letting NR pick one OIL and one D/E/A to apply for and build points for.

 

[npm352]

My two cents:

Bonus squared for everything....or straight bonus. (It shouldn't take me 15 minutes to explain how the S/G/M draw system works to a newbie.)

OIL draw (not kill) for S/G/M (like UT). Supply is too small to allow anything else.

Points don't expire but you can only put in for and build more points for one animal each draw.

Preference isn't working, but you can't just completely pull the rug out and go all random and delete points.

If you turn a tag back in that you drew you lose your points for that species.

Colorado (and all states with mountain goats) should make sex specific tags for males and females. No tag should be either sex. If you cannot identify, then don't put in. There would be a lot more goat tags if fewer nannies we're killed in some areas. In Idaho they will cut units giving like 4 tags to 1 tag because a couple nannies get whacked. Everyone loses out.

 

[sndmn11]

Seems like I'm in the minority, but I don't have any major gripes about Colorado's preference point system. I like the ability to plan when/where I'll be able to hunt years in advance with some degree of confidence.

Minor changes I would suggest for Colorado's system:

• Auction off leftover tags using preference points to denominate the bids (instead of the current first-come-first-served frenzy with no effect on points). Then offer anything left after the auction up for sale on a FCFS basis with no effect on points.
• Further disincentivize returning drawn tags. Eliminate the point restoration option (perhaps with very limited exceptions for truly extreme circumstances).

I agree with what I left here.

I think the reissue system is bad and is taken advantage of, that's why I had post #2or #3 in here focused on it.