Curiosity...What do you think of your state's draw system????

[CorbLand]

If that 18 year old were to start accumulating points now in pursuit of that 22 point tag, he likely will eventually have a legitimate chance at drawing the tag. The other guys chasing that tag will eventually either A) draw the tag and lose their points, B) give up on that particular tag and use their points elsewhere, or C) never use their points because they die or grow too old to hunt. That 22 point tag might creep up to a (wild guess) 50 point tag by the time the hypothetical youngster reaches the point level required to draw, but the number of points needed can't continue increasing forever. Assuming that current point creep rates will continue infinitely ignores the fact that somebody has to draw the tags every year and everybody eventually dies.

Your situation also ignores the fact that the trend shows the quantity of tags decreasing over time thus point creep will not continue at 1 point per year. The possibility of drawing a tag is there but the probability is low.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

If you want to keep a preference point system, don't allow people to turn back tags and you cant just buy points. This would force people to apply and hunt if they draw. Most states are finding out how common it has been for people to turn back tags and are finding ways to mitigate this, so hopefully that helps. Utah found out that a guy had drawn a limited entry deer tag for ~5 years in a row and turned it back the day before the hunt all of those years. Because it was so late, they couldn't reissue the tag, so that was 5 people that could have made it through the system that didn't.

I have no problem with straight up buying points, but I do agree with imposing greater restrictions on returning tags. Colorado allows you to return a drawn tag up to 30 days before the season begins for either a refund of the tag cost or restoration of preference points. Returned tags are then sold first come, first served on leftover day. I understand that unforeseeable circumstances sometimes arise and that missing a long awaited hunt due to an injury, death in the family, etc. would be a hard pill to swallow, but I also think awarding some number of hard-to-draw tags every year to guys able to be on their computers at 9am on leftover day ready to pounce before the system crashes runs counter to the purpose of a preference point system. I'd be in favor of eliminating the preference point restoration option (with possible exceptions for extreme circumstances) when returning a drawn tag.

My number one issue with point systems, specifically preference points is that people get their points and then feel like they are owed something. As people get more and more points, they expect a tag and that tag better meet their expectations. We saw this in Utah a couple years ago with a certain buffalo hunt. They also did it with an elk unit as well. People complained that it was taking 15 points to draw an elk tag and they were only killing 320" bulls and that if it takes that long to draw a tag, you should get a better bull. So the solution? Cut tags to raise the age class and now it takes even longer to draw a tag.

Preference point holders are owed something: preference over lower point holders. But nothing else...not a certain quality of hunt or an animal of a certain size. I agree with your sentiment that the complaints/expectations of high point holders shouldn't drive tag quota decisions.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Your situation also ignores the fact that the trend shows the quantity of tags decreasing over time thus point creep will not continue at 1 point per year. The possibility of drawing a tag is there but the probability is low.

Decreasing tag quantities and increasing applicant numbers both drive point creep. And creep rates can (for a time) exceed 1 point per year. But we're never going to see a 100 point minimum tag, not in a preference point system with a maximum accumulation rate of 1 point per year. A 100 point tag would mean every tag holder is (in the case of Colorado where you can begin building points at age 12) at least 112 years old. So we know that point creep currently exists but that point totals will eventually reach a limit (somewhere under 100 we can safely assume), therefore point creep must eventually stop. I could believe that some ultra premier tags might top out around 50 points, and anyone willing to wait that long for a single tag deserves it IMO.

 

[CorbLand]

Decreasing tag quantities and increasing applicant numbers both drive point creep. And creep rates can (for a time) exceed 1 point per year. But we're never going to see a 100 point minimum tag, not in a preference point system with a maximum accumulation rate of 1 point per year. A 100 point tag would mean every tag holder is (in the case of Colorado where you can begin building points at age 12) at least 112 years old. So we know that point creep currently exists but that point totals will eventually reach a limit (somewhere under 100 we can safely assume), therefore point creep must eventually stop. I could believe that some ultra premier tags might top out around 50 points, and anyone willing to wait that long for a single tag deserves it IMO.

I agree that point creep will eventually level out but it will eventually get to the point of whether or not you can live long enough to get a tag. At that point its going to be a crap shoot on getting a tag and you might as well just have a random draw.

 

[dukeball33]

Decreasing tag quantities and increasing applicant numbers both drive point creep. And creep rates can (for a time) exceed 1 point per year. But we're never going to see a 100 point minimum tag, not in a preference point system with a maximum accumulation rate of 1 point per year. A 100 point tag would mean every tag holder is (in the case of Colorado where you can begin building points at age 12) at least 112 years old. So we know that point creep currently exists but that point totals will eventually reach a limit (somewhere under 100 we can safely assume), therefore point creep must eventually stop. I could believe that some ultra premier tags might top out around 50 points, and anyone willing to wait that long for a single tag deserves it IMO.

If laws don't change where you can will points to family upon death... MT had such a bill this year that was shot down (I believe).

 

[mproberts]

I will never understand the rationale of a pure preference point system for high demand low quantity tags. The grocery line example cited earlier was spot on, preference only works when everyone is guaranteed a tag. Nothing in life is guaranteed including life itself, so I hate the idea of trying to make tags guaranteed. I don't mind bonus point systems as much, but I still strongly prefer a random draw every year. Like can you imagine if state lotteries were run on a preference or bonus system?

Point systems states also need to do away with any scenario where you could draw a tag while not burning points. (CO returned tags, MT released tags) Like it seems crazy to me that you could get a combo tag in MT that was released from a hunter who was only going after limited draw units and not be forced to burn your points. Like in what world is that fair when you had people who legitimately didn't draw the tag that year.

I also support strict once in a lifetime species tags for sheep, goats, moose, bison, etc. If the demand is lottery odds high there should never be a scenario where you are allowed to win a tag for a public resource twice.

Lastly, I'm sure this isn't a popular opinion but I absolutely hate the fact that states allow parents to stack points for children. It just creates an unfair system of haves and have nots, unfairly punishing children that didn't grow up in that environment or with a family that had those means.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

If laws don't change where you can will points to family upon death... MT had such a bill this year that was shot down (I believe).

Good point.

If preference points could be willed/inherited, point creep truly could become unlimited. Hopefully points remain specific to each individual person.

 

[bigsky2]

I'm from Montana but apply in many states. I like how our system gives everyone a chance to draw, but your odds theoretically get better the longer you apply because of the squared bonus points. If I could change one thing about Montana's system, I would require that you have to pay the tag fees up front.

My next favorite system is a completely random system like New Mexico and Idaho. Colorado's true preference point system is my least favorite.

 

[Marble]

I'm from Montana but apply in many states. I like how our system gives everyone a chance to draw, but your odds theoretically get better the longer you apply because of the squared bonus points. If I could change one thing about Montana's system, I would require that you have to pay the tag fees up front.

My next favorite system is a completely random system like New Mexico and Idaho. Colorado's true preference point system is my least favorite.

I also like the idea of paying up front. CO had an exponential rise in tags a few years ago when they changed how they do it. Probably not fair for those who don't have the ability to float that money for a few months, but pre-planning can fix that.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Mtnboy]

Idaho here. I like our system.

if I could make one change, I’d make all the draws like our Trophy Species where you have to pick just one species to put in for. This would greatly help the draw odds and we have ample OTC opportunities that nobody NEEDS to be able to draw a tag for 3 species.

I know more than a few examples of folks drawing great Deer and Elk tags in the same year and one tag always ends up barely being hunted cause so much time goes to the other one.