Colorado Preference Point Focus Group

[sndmn11]

Not necessarily. With a random draw, your kids could potentially NEVER draw a quality tag. My 21 year old daughter got a great tag 5 years ago with points and is already preparing to draw another one in the next year or two. With a random draw I really doubt that she would have a better chance, or even "as good" a chance.

Especially for NR's......can you imagine if everything was random draw? Right now most NR's know what they can and can't draw so apply accordingly. But if points went away and it was random you'd now have exponentially more people putting in for the higher quality tags since "they have that chance"........however small it is.

I've played through this scenario in my head too wondering what everyone would apply for and what I would apply for. I have no clue.

 

[5MilesBack]

I've played through this scenario in my head too wondering what everyone would apply for and what I would apply for. I have no clue.

I'd still study the stats every year and play the odds.

 

[Finn16]

I've been following this post with great interest and would just like to say that I am impressed with the level of professionalism from those that have commented. I have seen other forums where people get down right mean, nasty and disrespectful when someone doesn't agree with them on a topic. There have definetly been some great points made and questions asked that make a person really bear down mentality and think this thing through.

 

[lak2004]

Not necessarily. With a random draw, your kids could potentially NEVER draw a quality tag. My 21 year old daughter got a great tag 5 years ago with points and is already preparing to draw another one in the next year or two. With a random draw I really doubt that she would have a better chance, or even "as good" a chance.

Especially for NR's......can you imagine if everything was random draw? Right now most NR's know what they can and can't draw so apply accordingly. But if points went away and it was random you'd now have exponentially more people putting in for the higher quality tags since "they have that chance"........however small it is.

Good point on the high end units getting pressure. So it would essentially be similar to points with low odds but a minor chance of drawing.

I wish the answer was simple but it is compounded by allocation, distribution and actual management.

I was asked to be on the focus group but it is a 150 mile drive each way to attend and a day off work. Not very convenient on CPWs part...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[oswald2581]

Good point on the high end units getting pressure. So it would essentially be similar to points with low odds but a minor chance of drawing.

I wish the answer was simple but it is compounded by allocation, distribution and actual management.

I was asked to be on the focus group but it is a 150 mile drive each way to attend and a day off work. Not very convenient on CPWs part...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I was invited to one in Denver. I was curious if they were going to make any of the groups virtual or have groups at the other offices around the state. Would probably get more participation across the state if they did. Doesn't make much sense to only get opinions of those who can attend around the Denver Metro area.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

On the point banking question above.

What happens in the scenario below?
- a unit has 50 tags and normally takes 3 points to draw (prior to point banking)
- the system then switches to point banking and 50 applicants with 7 points or more apply as do a pile of others with less points

Do all 50 applicants with 7 or more points get the tags and it becomes a 7 point unit that year?

I think point banking could really create a lot of point creep in the low to mid-tier units when guys with a bunch of points decide they are giving up on the top units and instead plan to use their points on lesser units multiple years. If you have been able to draw a unit every two years, that may no longer be the case as people with a bunch of points may start applying in your unit and get drawn 4 or 5 years in a row while you do not.

As a side note: the last time we had point banking they took one more point than was needed to draw. For example if it took 3 points to draw and you had 10 points, they took 4 and left you with 6.

Good points and example, thanks. So point banking was attempted once and abandoned? Then it's obviously not coming back. If it had existed from the beginning of the preference point system it seems like it would have worked. I just like the idea of being able to use my points as needed without losing any since I'm not the kind of person saving up for 20 years to hunt a once in a lifetime tag.

 

[TheGreek]

I was invited to one in Denver. I was curious if they were going to make any of the groups virtual or have groups at the other offices around the state. Would probably get more participation across the state if they did. Doesn't make much sense to only get opinions of those who can attend around the Denver Metro area.

I’m doing one via zoom.

 

[street]

@gunners when is this meeting going on?

 

[Gunnersdad49]

@gunners when is this meeting going on?

Thursday evening

 

[5MilesBack]

They asked me if I wanted to be involved with these focus groups and I said "sure". But they haven't contacted me since. Perhaps they didn't like my comment on their form. They asked "what gender do you identify as"? And I put a comment in "other" that said "it doesn't matter what I identify as.......only what I biologically am".

 

[LuvsFixedBlades]

Changing the OTC units to draw only to make people burn points is really the only route I see to slowing down the creep, and that still probably wont move the needle in the long run.

The fact is that creep will never be completely eliminated as long as there is sustained/increasing demand and a points system in place. It's simply a function of supply and demand.

And, call me an ass, but people who have a pile of points should get a crack at the better units first. Going to a NM style format mid-stream would be much less fair than keeping the point system status quo, IMO. Maybe throw a few more mid and top-tier tags into the hybrid draw pool for good measure and call it a day.

 

[Gunnersdad49]

Went to the meeting last night. 4 CPW staff (one field supervisor, the rest were office folks from planning division), and 6 group participants. Format was basically introductions, overview, then we were asked to toss out ideas to improve the draw process. We were told to keep in mind 4 points: Fairness, Opportunity, Simplicity, and Predictability.

Focus group had only men on it ( I asked later and was told that the CPW had hoped for more diverse representation, but they could only select participants from those that responded) I think the youngest was probably mid 30's, and the oldest was likely at least 70 years old. We were all residents. One participant works for an outfitter in CO. One guy plays the point game in 9 western states and is a max point holder for several species. He is sort of "that guy" that most of us gripe about out of jealousy of his points, but he brought forth several good ideas and perspectives.

The format was very open, with participants allowed to suggest a potential change, it was added to a list with brief discussion for clarification. Once we has 10 ideas or so, we voted for up to 3 ideas per participant. They calculated the results, and we further discussed the top 4 ideas.

They were, in no particular order:

Averaging points in group applications.
Using points if you get a leftover or secondary draw tag.
Increasing the Hybrid Draw, either number of units, or shifting entry requirements.
Moving to 100% random New Mexico type of system.

We were asked to address each of these with the following questions:
1. Who wins and who loses with these changes?
2. What are the unintended consequences?
3. How does it help address point creep and tag allocation problems?

 

[Gunnersdad49]

I did have what I thought was a genius idea about halfway through the meeting and wanted to see what the group thinks.

Why not do a reverse of the Hybrid Draw? Allocate a percentage of tags that only go to the highest point holders. That would help take some of the highest point holders out of the pool, increase fairness for those that have been trying the longest, and keep people invested.

 

[dreamingbig]

Went to the meeting last night. 4 CPW staff (one field supervisor, the rest were office folks from planning division), and 6 group participants. Format was basically introductions, overview, then we were asked to toss out ideas to improve the draw process. We were told to keep in mind 4 points: Fairness, Opportunity, Simplicity, and Predictability.

Focus group had only men on it ( I asked later and was told that the CPW had hoped for more diverse representation, but they could only select participants from those that responded) I think the youngest was probably mid 30's, and the oldest was likely at least 70 years old. We were all residents. One participant works for an outfitter in CO. One guy plays the point game in 9 western states and is a max point holder for several species. He is sort of "that guy" that most of us gripe about out of jealousy of his points, but he brought forth several good ideas and perspectives.

The format was very open, with participants allowed to suggest a potential change, it was added to a list with brief discussion for clarification. Once we has 10 ideas or so, we voted for up to 3 ideas per participant. They calculated the results, and we further discussed the top 4 ideas.

They were, in no particular order:

Averaging points in group applications.
Using points if you get a leftover or secondary draw tag.
Increasing the Hybrid Draw, either number of units, or shifting entry requirements.
Moving to 100% random New Mexico type of system.

We were asked to address each of these with the following questions:
1. Who wins and who loses with these changes?
2. What are the unintended consequences?
3. How does it help address point creep and tag allocation problems?

The first two (averaging and used for secondary/left over). Hybrid of 25% to max point holders and 75% random could keep the max point holders happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MuleyFever]

I did have what I thought was a genius idea about halfway through the meeting and wanted to see what the group thinks.

Why not do a reverse of the Hybrid Draw? Allocate a percentage of tags that only go to the highest point holders. That would help take some of the highest point holders out of the pool, increase fairness for those that have been trying the longest, and keep people invested.

So, like Utah?

 

[TheGreek]

I did a focus group this week via zoom. All the same topics as mentioned by @Gunnersdad49. It was a group of 6 of us, all non-residents and all but one from the midwest. The proposals we made were basically the exact same as mentioned above. Below are some notes I made and thoughts I had about the focus group.

• I asked if CPW thinks they have a PP problem or if point creep and the PP issues are just complained about by a certain group of hunters trying to obtain certain coveted tags? One of the moderators responded that the PP and point creep issue was the most complained about issue when the public input process began. She stated that CPW’s data shows that only 5-7% of deer, elk and pronghorn tags take more than 5 PP to draw. I understood her answer to mean, CPW doesn’t think there is a problem but hunters complain about it a lot.
• I made the point at the end that the 65/35 v 80/20 allocation needs to be updated based on current data, and not data from 2007-2009. One moderator stated CPW realizes that but that is set by the commission. She stated that updating those figures is what started this whole process about 2 years ago and when the Commission took comment on it, this whole thing started with people complaining about Point creep, PP, NR v R allocation and OTC overcrowding and the Commission wanted these issues explored prior to making changes. I understood her answer to mean that they, the CPW staff, realize and want to update the allocation stats, but in trying to get the Commission to do so, it opened up this other entire can of worms ( Point creep, PP, NR v R allocation and OTC overcrowding) that they are now taking public comment on
• The Moderator made it clear that any changes would take time (I understood it as years) to be implemented and that hunters should not worry about significant changes to the systems overnight or with no notice
• Everybody was very polite, discourse was good, thoughtful, CPW staff was awesome

 

[street]

Thanks for feedback

 

[5MilesBack]

Why not do a reverse of the Hybrid Draw? Allocate a percentage of tags that only go to the highest point holders. That would help take some of the highest point holders out of the pool, increase fairness for those that have been trying the longest, and keep people invested.

As it is now, they already do that. Let's say they have 10 tags........9 already go to the max point holders that apply, and one goes to the hybrid draw folks. So 90% to max point holders, and 10% to hybrid draw folks. That's just an example of one possible hunt code.

 

[Gunnersdad49]

As it is now, they already do that. Let's say they have 10 tags........9 already go to the max point holders that apply, and one goes to the hybrid draw folks. So 90% to max point holders, and 10% to hybrid draw folks. That's just an example of one possible hunt code.

Not with the weighted point animals. With weighted points, you need the minimum of 3 to enter, then you are assigned a random, computer generated number. That number is divided by your weighted points to move you up in the line. The challenge is that with the random number, you could have 15 points, but even after their benefit, you could be behind the low random number. The result is there are so many more low or entry level applicants than high point holders, the odds are that the few tags allocated to random lucky folks with fewer points.

 

[street]

Not with the weighted point animals. With weighted points, you need the minimum of 3 to enter, then you are assigned a random, computer generated number. That number is divided by your weighted points to move you up in the line. The challenge is that with the random number, you could have 15 points, but even after their benefit, you could be behind the low random number. The result is there are so many more low or entry level applicants than high point holders, the odds are that the few tags allocated to random lucky folks with fewer points.

For the most part, the weighted point system is still holding up. It could be tweaked a little bit to skew it slightly more in favor of higher wp applicants, but in general it is working just fine.