Point Banking in Colorado - Pay Extra?

[Mighty Mouse]

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 does Colorado's point system drive artificial scarcity?

Assuming tag quotas are based on population objectives, the number of available tags is what it is regardless of the type of draw system used to award the tags. CPW is only going to issue 10 archery tags for unit 201 (for example) whether they use a preference point, bonus point, hybrid point, or random draw system to award those tags. And those 10 tags are going to be very scarce regardless of the draw methodology.

Scarcity is a consequence of demand exceeding supply (i.e., the number of willing hunters exceeds the sustainable supply of elk), not of any particular draw system. Preference points are just a way of managing natural tag scarcity in a (relatively) orderly/predictable manner compared to bonus point or points-less systems, which are more random/less predictable (at the individual applicant level).

 

[MallardSX2]

I know a guy who hunted 201 and shot a cow with his bow on the first or the second day of his 14 day hunt.
Thats the definition of dumb.....Followed closely by point banking and point averaging.....

If they want to reduce point creep, they need to either not allow people to build a point if they buy an OTC license or they need to start taking points for ANY type-A license no matter when it is drawn.

If they required you to put in for an OTC license during the draw....now we are onto something..

 

[canyonhunter47]

What’s the point (heh)… aren’t the wolves supposed to eat everything with 4 legs in Colorado within a few years anyways?

 

[Netherman]

If I were king of the west I would allow point averaging, institute a point ceiling (a maximum of 10-15 points), and make all tags require application (no OTC tags). That way you are incentivized to apply/use your points, get in a lottery for the OIL tags, and/or wait for the leftover list to get a tag without using points (should have a heavy resident preference).

For those currently above the max you'd freeze their points and allow them top priority until their points are used/reset. Having a ceiling allows the CPW/DNR/F&G to continue collecting point money, allows preference to those that have been "in the game" longer, and allows a new applicant an opportunity to get equal odds for those OIL type hunts.

 

[Ownthewest]

How do people accumulate 20 + points? They apply for points and then hunt tags that don’t burn points (second choice, OTC, or turn back tags). Those options make CO special but have contributed to this mess.
Every choice should burn points (like AZ). Left over tags should burn points (like it does in NV).
Want to protect the guys with high points? I think it’d be cool if second choice took 50% points, 3rd choice took 33% points, etc.

Every CO resident that I know builds 15-20 points+ but hunts every year using the above loopholes.

 

[BRTreedogs]

If I were king of the west I would allow point averaging, institute a point ceiling (a maximum of 10-15 points), and make all tags require application (no OTC tags). That way you are incentivized to apply/use your points, get in a lottery for the OIL tags, and/or wait for the leftover list to get a tag without using points (should have a heavy resident preference).

For those currently above the max you'd freeze their points and allow them top priority until their points are used/reset. Having a ceiling allows the CPW/DNR/F&G to continue collecting point money, allows preference to those that have been "in the game" longer, and allows a new applicant an opportunity to get equal odds for those OIL type hunts.

So how do you set a point cap?
There are more people applying for tags then there are tags.
So the only way to lower the cap is to increase tags.

You can't just say x unit now takes 15.

Because there would be multiple times applicant's there there would be tags.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

If curbing point creep is the goal, Colorado needs to make it harder to acquire/maintain points, not easier:

• No point banking
• No point averaging
• Eliminate point restoration on returned tags
• Make A list leftover tags burn points
• If they also want to help mitigate OTC crowding, make A list OTC tags burn points

 

[MuleyFever]

I wonder how it would play out if the price of a point was 10x the point number, or some multiplier. Your 2nd point would be $20, your 10th would be $100 or something.

 

[tdoublev]

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.

I do like this idea and Montana has a similar system in place, but it is very difficult to go straight to that. You would have to implement something in between to allow point holders to make decisions over a couple years before it goes into effect. And realistically, those next couple of years would experience extreme point creep before normalizing. I'd guess at best it wouldn't normalize for 7-8 years.

Averaging seems like a good idea to me, especially in light of spreading the wealth and potentially introducing new hunters or really just sharing with those close to these individuals (or even allowing a high point holder to 'sell' their points). Point banking seems like it would decrease the overall point creep, but I'm not sure it would really increase the likelihood for anyone drawing the top tier hunts and really hurt the guys at the bottom half.

 

[Jethro]

If they also want to help mitigate OTC crowding, make A list OTC tags burn points

That's not one you hear everyday. I may like that idea.

 

[Overdrive]

I don't like the pay a surcharge to skip to the front of the line format. It's probably all rumor anyways, but it only hurts the less fortunate people.

I read a lot of the posts about fixing the PP's mess and what most of you are actually asking for is a completely random draw, in a round about way. Careful what you wish for!!

 

[BRTreedogs]

That's not one you hear everyday. I may like that idea.

It would only work till everyone zeroed there points.
Then they would have nothing to loose.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

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.

What point amount(s) constitute "no man's land"? I often hear complaints about "no man's land," but I'm not seeing a literal absence of available tags between the plentiful, low point opportunity hunts on one end and the distant Shangri-la of glory tags on the other end. It appears that anyone stuck in "no man's land" is there by his own choosing.

Below is data from last year's draw showing how many hunt codes were drawn out at mid-to-high point levels. I excluded 4 points or fewer for residents and 3 points or fewer for non-residents to avoid compressing the graphs and because there is plenty of opportunity at those point levels (20+ hunt codes drawn out).



There are a few dispersed gaps, but at any point level, there's at least one hunt code within 1-2 points that you would be guaranteed to draw. Obviously your options become more limited at higher point levels, but I'm not seeing a complete "no man's land" where you can't get a tag for close to your current point total.

 

[BRTreedogs]

What point amount(s) constitute "no man's land"? I often hear complaints about "no man's land," but I'm not seeing a literal absence of available tags between the plentiful, low point opportunity hunts on one end and the distant Shangri-la of glory tags on the other end. It appears that anyone stuck in "no man's land" is there by his own choosing.

Below is data from last year's draw showing how many hunt codes were drawn out at mid-to-high point levels. I excluded 4 points or fewer for residents and 3 points or fewer for non-residents to avoid compressing the graphs and because there is plenty of opportunity at those point levels (20+ hunt codes drawn out).
View attachment 542457
View attachment 542458

There are a few dispersed gaps, but at any point level, there's at least one hunt code within 1-2 points that you would be guaranteed to draw. Obviously your options become more limited at higher point levels, but I'm not seeing a complete "no man's land" where you can't get a tag for close to your current point total.

What they mean is the want a better unti then low end and don't want to "waste" points on it.

But they will never catch the top end.

Thats why they want point banking. So they are not wasting points.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

What they mean is the want a better unti then low end and don't want to "waste" points on it.

But they will never catch the top end.

Thats why they want point banking. So they are not wasting points.

I agree that that's likely their train of thought. I'm of the opinion that if you've spent years chasing a glory tag that keeps getting further away and you've decided to throw in the towel, just choose a tag a couple points below where you're currently sitting (assuming you believe that's the next best option) and go hunt. Don't lobby to change the rules because you got bit by increasing demand/point creep; we're all dealing with that regardless of point level. To guys on the glory tag treadmill, I say you've made your bed, now lie in it.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

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.

Oklahoma averages points on group applications, and I know of several guys here who buy points every year for their non-hunting family/friends. To what extent that would occur in Colorado and how much of an impact it would have is anyone's guess. Averaging would very likely lead to a short term point creep spike in Colorado's low-to-mid tier tags. In the long term, averaging may not have much overall effect unless buying points for non-hunters became widespread.

 

[wildwilderness]

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.

Impossible with some units only having a couple tags with hundreds of hunters wanting to hunt there.

 

[wildwilderness]

I agree changing preference points to bonus points will be the only answer long term.

With the draw there are a few options with Bonus Points- completely Random like NM, ID, a 20% bonus pass like AZ or a 50% pass like Utah.

You can then discuss waiting periods after drawing or OIL.

Also using points for any drawn tag like 2nd, 3rd choices and leftover draw.

Would give everyone a chance and still some incentive to get a bonus point, especially if there was a bonus point pass for tags

 

[Netherman]

So how do you set a point cap?
There are more people applying for tags then there are tags.
So the only way to lower the cap is to increase tags.

You can't just say x unit now takes 15.

Because there would be multiple times applicant's there there would be tags.

It would function the same as those who currently have max points. If there are more applications than tags those with the max points (cap) would be entered into a random draw.

I think it would be a good stepping stone to full random (where we'll likely end up). At some point if applicants continue to out pace herd growth you'd get to a point where no one would have a chance unless they had max points. When that starts occurring the solution would be to either lower the cap or go full random.

 

[wapitibob]

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

Exactly