Point Banking in Colorado - Pay Extra?

[NRA4LIFE]

There is no way I would advocate bonus verse preference. Washington is the perfect example. When a branch antlered bull elk or mule deer rut tag is near unachievable for all but the lucky, that is not fair.

 

[realunlucky]

There is no way I would advocate bonus verse preference. Washington is the perfect example. When a branch antlered bull elk or mule deer rut tag is near unachievable for all but the lucky, that is not fair.

I disagree. Bonus points are the "fairest" alternative giving greatest advantage to those that wait the longest yet still provide opportunity to those starting thier hunting journey later for whatever reason.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[WCB]

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.

I'm on the fence on averaging. You would most likely see point creep in the lower point units. I don't think you have to give anyone a chance to think things over and/or allow people to sell points. Simply make it a law and push it out 1 year. So let's say it is approved right now the 2023 season stays the same and the 2024 season the rules are now implemented.

Sorry you have 25pts and missed applying for the 2024 season...you now have ZERO points too bad so sad. I also, agree with a guy shouldn't be able to hunt an OTC tag or draw any "A" tag period and keep points.

As far as point banking...dumbest idea ever. #1 for me is I always like to here guys say "I applied for the wrong unit and lost 20 pts on a 2 pt unit"....makes me happy

 

[BRTreedogs]

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.

It would still take multiple years to get through the tags, which in effect would do nothing.

 

[Netherman]

It would still take multiple years to get through the tags, which in effect would do nothing.

Not sure what you mean by that^^.

It wouldn't change the supply and demand equation. It would just change who has a chance at a glory tag. With the current system someone who just started applying would have a 0% chance at drawing a top unit. In a cap based system after 15 years of applying they would have the same statistical chance as someone who had been applying at the same unit for 15+infinity years.

A system like this would not be sustainable as increasing application and decreasing game populations will result in creep so bad that the ceiling becomes the point of entry for a now random system. (i.e. you would have to collect 15 points to be eligible for any tag) The reason I like it is that I see it as a bridge from the current PP system to a true random.

Also mandating applications rather than "get your point" and OTC hunt would be a huge help in reducing creep and potentially make the above system sustainable for a long period of time.

 

[Bluumoon]

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

As a resident, this is a terrible idea. Great idea for non residents.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Not sure what you mean by that^^.

It wouldn't change the supply and demand equation. It would just change who has a chance at a glory tag. With the current system someone who just started applying would have a 0% chance at drawing a top unit. In a cap based system after 15 years of applying they would have the same statistical chance as someone who had been applying at the same unit for 15+infinity years.

A system like this would not be sustainable as increasing application and decreasing game populations will result in creep so bad that the ceiling becomes the point of entry for a now random system. (i.e. you would have to collect 15 points to be eligible for any tag) The reason I like it is that I see it as a bridge from the current PP system to a true random.

Also mandating applications rather than "get your point" and OTC hunt would be a huge help in reducing creep and potentially make the above system sustainable for a long period of time.

Rather the say 200 people at max and taking 4 yrs to get thru them, you would just be adding to max.
So if you say its capped at 15. The first year you would have the 200 then the next year all the people at 14 would be at 15.
Let's say there is 200 people at each point level. And only 50 tags a year.
Eventually you would have 2250 people at 15 and so on.
The amount of people at 15 would continue to climb

 

[cnelk]

I disagree. Bonus points are the "fairest" alternative giving greatest advantage to those that wait the longest yet still provide opportunity to those starting thier hunting journey later for whatever reason.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Ask a lot the Colorado moose hunters how they like the bonus point system.

Some have been putting in for over 2 decades and then guys draw with 3+2

 

[ladogg411]

Ask a lot the Colorado moose hunters how they like the bonus point system.

Some have been putting in for over 2 decades and then guys draw with 3+2

That would happen even more often in a pure random draw.

True preference just isn’t tenable.

Weighted MSG model (Colorado) is the best model out there IMO.

 

[Steve O]

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...

Yep. This is me. I’d LOVE to be able to share points with my son.

 

[realunlucky]

Ask a lot the Colorado moose hunters how they like the bonus point system.

Some have been putting in for over 2 decades and then guys draw with 3+2

In a pyramid scheme the bottom always has to support the top. Of course if you don't join early enough it'll will collapse before you get anywhere near the top.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[HuntCrazy]

the hole not being able to share points is still BS to me.... I have two sons that I would like to point share with sometime in the future....

 

[tdoublev]

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.

That’s good data. I’m not sure why so many would hold out in that case. I also had the thought today - say you waited decades to draw one of these coveted tags. I am guessing most people would then hire a guide to maximize chances of an amazing hunt after waiting so long. But if you’re going to get a guide, you could also spend similar money to get a pretty amazing hunt on private in an easier to draw unit. So what are people really holding out for?

 

[RELIANT]

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..

How about any male or either sex tag even second choice or OTC burns one point. So you pick either hunt that year or gain a point...you cant do both. For elk CO issues about 142,000 OTC licenses and there are about 150,000+ people in the PP system seems like it would keep the points from creeping to me.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

the hole not being able to share points is still BS to me.... I have two sons that I would like to point share with sometime in the future....

People would really abuse this unfortunately. There would be hunters having non hunting friends and family putting in for points for the intent of later transferring them. Or there would just be a black market for buying points. Having a benificary for someone that dies with points might be nice but would be unfair to other point holders when others suddenly jump ahead of them due to a windfall of points from a relative's death.

 

[Hnthrdr]

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.

That is similar to a bonus point, basically more names in the hat, but still a lotto type. They are all tough and none are “fair” NM is a good example there are non res who have draw 2-3 tags in 10 years while some residents who haven’t draw or drawn 1once. I think the system is busted but status quo is probably better than banking at this point

 

[BRTreedogs]

Bonus points seem like the only half way reasonable compromise to me.

That way you get something for your investment.
But everyone has a chance.

 

[IrkedCitizen]

Until someone with 1pp draws an early season 201 bull elk tag.

 

[Ownthewest]

Until someone with 1pp draws an early season 201 bull elk tag.

So true… what I think is so dumb is the sky will fall when little nonresident Johnny draws those type of tags, but CPW is bringing wolves in that’s going to cripple tag numbers. The that’s what everyone should be worried about instead of point banking.

 

[ladogg411]

Until someone with 1pp draws an early season 201 bull elk tag.

That happens in every other western state not named Colorado. And we live. And we prefer it.

And all of those states have solvent systems.