Point Banking in Colorado - Pay Extra?

[Dirtscoots]

Thank you for putting the express pass analogy out there. I’m uneducated please explain. Are we talking pay more get extra points is this idea?

 

[Ucsdryder]

Thank you for putting the express pass analogy out there. I’m uneducated please explain. Are we talking pay more get extra points is this idea?

As I understand it, point banking allows you to use the minimum number of points it takes to draw. You have 10 points, put in for 2 point unit, you still have 8 points.

 

[Dirtscoots]

Dear lord. A bandaid to a broken point system that sure seems like it will be ten times worse within a couple years. Thank you for explaining

 

[Sand Wrench]

How do you figure!!? Those of us with 20+ points paid for them. I didn’t save anything I bought them, planning to use them when I chose to.

Sure, and that's great. But you bought into a system that allowed you to buy points for 1 hunt. Changing the rules to allow you to spread them out over multiple hunts harms opportunity for everybody. Colorado hunting shouldn't be managed for the benefit of the good old boys who bought into the system 20+ years ago. Use your points any way you want to, but don't lobby to change the system because you're stuck in no mans land between the mid tier hunts and the glory tags. Good luck this season!

 

[Mighty Mouse]

My dad has 32 points for elk lost out on his tag last year to a guy with 7 points and another with 15. When he started saving points he needed 15. The system is broken

I'm not sure if you're saying that your dad entered last year's draw with 32 points or that he now has 32 points (after being unsuccessful at 31 points last year), but either way your claim of him losing out to a lower pointholder doesn't jive with the 2022 draw report.

1 resident/3 non-residents applied in 2022 with 32 pts (see page 1 of report); all of them applied for preference points (pg 942). So your dad must have had 31 points last year...

5 R/20 NR applied with 31 pts. Of those, 4 R/10 NR applied for preference pts. The remaining 1 R drew a unit 201 archery tag (pg 188). The remaining 10 NR all applied for a unit 201 early rifle tag. Of those 10 NR applicants, 3 drew and 7 did not (pg 186). So I assume your dad was 1 of those 7 unsuccessful NR applicants. That's unfortunate, but he didn't lose out to a lower pointholder. All the NR tags were awarded straight down the line by point total just as they should be in a strict preference point system; your dad was simply on the bubble and didn't get drawn. The successful applicants with fewer points than your dad were all residents; how they got their tags had no effect on your dad because the 20% NR cap (4 tags) had already been reached at the 31 pt level.

pg 1 (total applicants):

pg 942 (preference point applicants):

pg 186:

pg 188:

 

[IrkedCitizen]

I would rather have Preference point averaging in groups over preference point banking. There are a lot of people in "No man's land" who would gladly share their points with their children/family/friends. The CPW would just need to get rid of the surrender period/preference point reinstated option. So people wouldn't take advantage of the system. Or if they did reinstate points it would be the point average of the group versus your pre-draw points.

You can only get averaged points back during the surrender period. After the surrender period you can only get a refund of license fee. And #3 of the current refund policy but again reinstatement of points would be averaged points.

***This pertains to groups only. If you applied individually you have access to all of your points as current regulations dictate. Does not include Moose, Bighorn, Mountain Goat.***


Say I have 10pp and my son has 4pp our group total would be 14pp which averages 7pp each. Chances are I would be hunting that 7pp unit anyway and wasting 3pp. Essentially I would be able boost my son 3pp and we both could go enjoy the hunt together. Then both of us are back to 0pp and 14pp are out of the draw pool.

Something like that...

 

[Jethro]

Great idea for the state to make more $$$. Terrible idea for point creep.

 

[TheCougar]

Everyone else to Colorado: “I bet you can’t make your draw system worse.”
Colorado: “Hold my beer”.

 

[TheCougar]

Whenever I think I hear/read the stupidest idea yet, someone says “hold my beer”.

Instead of point banking, how about, you have 3 years to use your points, after that they transition and identify as a bonus point, which equates to an extra name in the hat. If you put in for a unit and have 20 bonus points, your name goes in 21 times. No more bonus points will be given out and when the last guy finally draws…or dies…its a straight random draw, 80/20 across the board.

Correction… @Ucsdryder beat me to the punch. Hold my beer, indeed.

 

[Clarkdale17]

I'd love to see CPW get rid of preference points and go straight random draw. Probably never happen though

 

[Dos Perros]

These systems need to generate inefficiencies to overcome the imbalance between people applying/points being accumulated, and hunts available. The alternative to inefficiencies is point creep, which is sort of an inefficiency in and of itself. It's like inflation. Any 'solution' that keeps points in people's pockets should be looked at with suspicion. Folks need to get out there and hunt. If a hunt you've been saving for all your life is always a point or two ahead, best to get wise and burn those points on another hunt--you're not catching it. States should also try to have a good mix of low middle and high point options. Seems like the several I watch lack much middle ground, and people talk of getting stuck in no man's land. Pick a few top tier units and release more tags. Pick a few low tier units and restrict tags. Anything the states do will cause whipsaw effects on the 'market' for tags that make take a few years to stabilize.

 

[taskswap]

I like the idea of point banking but only in a world where preference points stay a thing. I agree with Clarkdale and others that the system in general is pretty broken and it's all bandaids-on-broken-legs at this point.

I think the biggest problem with CO points is that it's such a spider-web of requirements and goals. It's used to reward hunters who invest in the state long-term, drive artificial scarcity in premium areas, bring in more revenue, etc. etc. How do you fine-tune a system that so many things are tied to?

If I was dreaming, I'd prefer a simpler system but one that still rewards folks that are invested in hunting CO specifically. What if there were points, but you could only ever get ONE? All draws would be lottery, but you'd earn a point like today if you miss drawing your first choice. You'd have a checkbox to "spend" it in any future draw year you wanted, and it would be up to you when you did that - you could skip a year but you would only ever have that one point. Using it would triple your chances for your first choice. Like buying 3 lottery tickets that year instead of 1.

 

[WCB]

All states should implement
#1 can not miss even 1 year of applying or you lose your points.
#2 Once you apply for a specific unit your are stuck applying for that unit (maybe implement this after 5pts?)
#3 You must apply for the draw (no buying points without actually applying for draw)
#4 If you draw no refunds. All your points are gone. or if they do allow a refund points are still gone.

 

[ElDiablito]

 

[BRTreedogs]

I think its cute how scared ya'll are if averaging.
You know how many death bed grandma's I've heard of in Oregon with a bunch of points to average?
ZERO

For one everyone in the family would want to average with her so that would be a big fight in its own.
Then just make the point cost enough that no one would want to do it.

I can tell you point averaging would get me out of Colorado sooner.

 

[Jethro]

I think its cute how scared ya'll are if averaging.
You know how many death bed grandma's I've heard of in Oregon with a bunch of points to average?
ZERO

For one everyone in the family would want to average with her so that would be a big fight in its own.
Then just make the point cost enough that no one would want to do it.

I can tell you point averaging would get me out of Colorado sooner.

We're talking about banking, not averaging.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Every year I apply in Colorado I shake my head.

 

[BRTreedogs]

We're talking about banking, not averaging.

There was a couple post about averaging.
Banking is dumb AF what is there to talk about?
It couldn't get a dumber.

Averaging is a must better alternative imo

 

[Jethro]

There was a couple post about averaging.
Banking is dumb AF what is there to talk about?
It couldn't get a dumber.

Averaging is a must better alternative imo

Agree. I like averaging too.

 

[Andrewlonghi]

I don't know alot about the points game/system,but I think to draw a unit that takes 25+ points is ridiculous. The while system should be redone changed or something. 3 to 5 points max for any unit/species. Something better should be done and put into play then what's going on now.