Point systems

[roadrunner]

Hope was probably the wrong word to use. I enjoy irony and even dark irony probably too much.
Chasing a unit and building points your entire adult life and then being too old or dying before you get to use those points it’s a bit of dark irony I could enjoy, even if it happened to me.

Had I known then what I know now, I would be one of those top tier point guys today for everything in UT gaurenteeing a primo tag every year for the next 8 years.

 

[wapitibob]

I like points, wish every state had them.
I've drawn top end hunts in AZ, UT, OR, and WY, and can draw hunts on points in every one of them again.

ps; if you think "entitled" isn't a thing you haven't been on very many threads about points. My favorite is still the guy whining because his kid wouldn't ever draw a Sheep tag in the unit he lived in.

Second favorite; a guy bought his never hunted before bro in law a sheep app and the guy drew. Two pages if hate because he "didn't deserve the tag" as a first time applicant.

 

[voltage]

That guy with 31 is on the sidelines. He does not represent present demand for tags. If he applied, he would undoubtedly take a hunt away from someone with less points.

Correct. That is an example of not actually applying, but just buying points. States with newer point systems and more max point holders, have plenty of point buyers and not point users.

 

[CorbLand]

I'm not as familiar with Utah's system. Assuming you can only gain 1 point per year in Utah, you'd have to be at least 100 years old to have accumulated 100 points. I think it's unlikely that any unit in any state will ever be dominated by 100-year-old elk hunters. In the case of Colorado's premier tags, I expect that the current 1 point per year creep rate will eventually slow down and required point totals will stabilize as the average age of high point holders increases and those holders begin cashing in their points (i.e., the point creep status quo will not stay the same indefinitely).


I'm not denying that point creep exists or that many tags are out of reach for many guys. I am denying that these aspects of a point-based draw system are "unfair."

Quick numbers but for the San Juan elk there were roughly 3000 resident applicants for 60 tags across all hunts. 30 of those tags go to the highest point holder and the other 30 are in the random. In order to have point creep magically stop with the current system you would have to have less than 120 people apply for the tag. Which, lets be honest that wont happen. Saying that it will be at 100 in 74 years may be a stretch but that is basing everything on status quo. The rifle hunt is the worst with the lowest point holder drawing at 25 points but only 8 out of the 13 with 25 points drew. 26 was max in Utah for 2020.

To break out this and follow the trend. There was 10 tags that went to top point holders for Rifle SJ Elk.
26 points. 2 applicants and 2 drew
25 points 13 applicants and 8 drew
24 points 20 applicants and 0 drew

So if everything holds equal 2021
26 points 5 applicants and 5 draw
25 points 20 applicants and 5 draw
24 points 35 applicants and 0 draw

Again everything equal for 2022
26 points 15 applicants and 10 draw
25 points 35 applicants and 0 draw

You can keep following the trend but basically in 2024, there will be more max point holders than tags and creep will speed up at that point.

Its not hard to see that 100 points, while not likely is still possible but I do think that 50 points is very likely by the time I die and I am 29. The trend is tags decreasing as well.

I agree, point systems arent unfair but I still think they are stupid and would rather take my chances in a complete random.

 

[Dos Perros]

Correct. That is an example of not actually applying, but just buying points. States with newer point systems and more max point holders, have plenty of point buyers and not point users.

I was trying to point out that mandating applying would absolutely contribute to accelerated point creep, screwing all those below the max point pool.

Understanding this is an awful thing to say (and I certainly don't mean it to be): for point creep to stabilize, either a bunch of the max point holders need to die, or just get so old that their success rates go down and more tags can be issued, or a combo of both. That would actually be pretty sad to wait your whole life and not get a crack at what you've been waiting for.

 

[CorbLand]

That guy with 31 is on the sidelines. He does not represent present demand for tags. If he applied, he would undoubtedly take a hunt away from someone with less points.

I have always wondered if someone has figured out how to manipulate a system to keep buying a point for some dead relative just so people are sitting there scratching their heads trying to figure why someone has so many points and never draws.

 

[voltage]

I was trying to point out that mandating applying would absolutely contribute to accelerated point creep, screwing all those below the max point pool.

Understanding this is an awful thing to say (and I certainly don't mean it to be): for point creep to stabilize, either a bunch of the max point holders need to die, or just get so old that their success rates go down and more tags can be issued, or a combo of both. That would actually be pretty sad to wait your whole life and not get a crack at what you've been waiting for.

My biggest fear is dying with unused points. If it does happen, I give anyone on Rokslide permission to use my identity to get a tag (just don't vote for Biden with my identity).

 

[wapitibob]

The number of people buying points and not applying for a hunt in WY is about twice the number actually applying for a hunt. Those people don't show up on the odds reports. When some of them finally apply it's one reason why your 100% odds suddenly went to zero.

 

[CorbLand]

The number of people buying points and not applying for a hunt in WY is about twice the number actually applying for a hunt. Those people don't show up on the odds reports. When some of them finally apply it's one reason why your 100% odds suddenly went to zero.

This happened to a unit here by me. Word got out about a big five point bull and people started jumping to that unit. One dude burned 14 points on a unit that took about 8 for rifle. It saw a jump of three points to draw in two years.

 

[LostArra]

The number of people buying points and not applying for a hunt in WY is about twice the number actually applying for a hunt. Those people don't show up on the odds reports. When some of them finally apply it's one reason why your 100% odds suddenly went to zero.

Why doesn't G&F publish the number of point holders at each level?

 

[RCB]

I know this is not what OP was asking, but overall I think point-like systems are a good thing. It allows one to plan, at least partially. I can make a multi-year drawing strategy across multiple states that I can probably achieve with reasonably good accuracy. The more random draw tags there are, the harder it is to plan, IMO.

That being said, I haven't been hunting long enough to worry about those 10+ point tags.

 

[wapitibob]

Why doesn't G&F publish the number of point holders at each level?

They publish "total" at each point level but it takes a public info request and custom report to get the numbers who bought a point and did =not apply= for a hunt.

 

[BuzzH]

The other big dead elephant in the room is that nearly all the states have gone from people having to front the tag fees when they apply, to only charging tag fees if you draw.

If States made it mandatory to front the tag fees, and you had to apply and front the money to gain a point...there wouldn't be nearly the point creep or those with points all over the West.

Its become too easy and too cheap just to buy points and that has accelerated point creep substantially.

Also, allowing point averaging has increased creep as well.

There are lots of small things that could be done to address it. The real answer is to apply smartly and use the systems to your advantage.

 

[CorbLand]

Why doesn't G&F publish the number of point holders at each level?

Most do but they cant be factored into draw odds because you have no idea what unit they will apply for. Utah has a list of how many applicants just bought points each year but they could put in next year or in 10 years. Its a variable that cant be accounted for in draw odds for individual units.

 

[CorbLand]

The other big dead elephant in the room is that nearly all the states have gone from people having to front the tag fees when they apply, to only charging tag fees if you draw.

If States made it mandatory to front the tag fees, and you had to apply and front the money to gain a point...there wouldn't be nearly the point creep or those with points all over the West.

Its become too easy and too cheap just to buy points and that has accelerated point creep substantially.

But then you have business that pop up and front the costs for you and just charge you a small fee. You only pay if you draw and if you don't it costs you a couple bucks more to apply but not outlay your own cash.

Point systems pretty much just say...here is a reward for coming in second place and if you collect enough second place trophies, you can cash them in and get a first place trophy.

 

[BuzzH]

But then you have business that pop up and front the costs for you and just charge you a small fee. You only pay if you draw and if you don't it costs you a couple bucks more to apply but not outlay your own cash.

True, but still, most of the outfits charge by the application...say $50-$75 per species plus the application fees.

That adds up pretty fast, and most people flat aren't going to pay 2-400 per state to have an application service apply for them.

Plus, you run the risk of them jacking something up and drawing a tag you never wanted...seen it.

 

[CorbLand]

True, but still, most of the outfits charge by the application...say $50-$75 per species plus the application fees.

That adds up pretty fast, and most people flat aren't going to pay 2-400 per state to have an application service apply for them.

Plus, you run the risk of them jacking something up and drawing a tag you never wanted...seen it.

Wasnt it Cabelas TAGS that missed the Arizona application deadline for all their clients?

I would disagree that most people arent willing to pay the 2-400 per state. Epic Outdoors seems to be doing just fine. Most maybe not but there are still plenty that are.

 

[wayoh22]

The other big dead elephant in the room is that nearly all the states have gone from people having to front the tag fees when they apply, to only charging tag fees if you draw.

If States made it mandatory to front the tag fees, and you had to apply and front the money to gain a point...there wouldn't be nearly the point creep or those with points all over the West.

Its become too easy and too cheap just to buy points and that has accelerated point creep substantially.

Also, allowing point averaging has increased creep as well.

There are lots of small things that could be done to address it. The real answer is to apply smartly and use the systems to your advantage.

I agree that if states made it mandatory to front the tag fees there wouldn't be high point holders. I'll play devil's advocate here but if states did make that mandatory don't you think that would somehow shut off/affect the "availability"/ "ability" (using these terms very loosely here) of those that don't have the finances?

Again, there are always OTC opportunities but if draw tags just become outright unaffordable to apply for every year for the average joe then does it make it some elitist thing?

I'll even counter my own devils advocate argument and say that it's not the states problem to worry about an individuals financial situation.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

In order to have point creep magically stop

There's nothing magical about my conjecture that point creep (defined as an increase in the number of points required for guaranteed draw of a particular tag) will eventually slow down then stop; it's the logical consequence of human mortality. States with point-based systems are experiencing point creep because the systems haven't been in place long enough for point totals to reach stable levels commensurate with average lifespans. I don't know when that stability will be reached or at what point totals, but I'll confidently predict that we'll never see a 100 point minimum tag. I stated earlier in this thread that 50 points seems like a reasonable estimated maximum for "best-of-the-best" tags. Those who extrapolate from current point creep rates and predict that in 70 years they'll need 100 points to draw are ignoring the fact that point creep is determined by the actions of a marginal number of high point holders, all of whom get older every year and presumably want to use their points before they die or grow too old to hunt.

 

[CorbLand]

I agree that if states made it mandatory to front the tag fees there wouldn't be high point holders. I'll play devil's advocate here but if states did make that mandatory don't you think that would somehow shut off/affect the "availability"/ "ability" (using these terms very loosely here) of those that don't have the finances?

Again, there are always OTC opportunities but if draw tags just become outright unaffordable to apply for every year for the average joe then does it make it some elitist thing?

I'll even counter my own devils advocate argument and say that it's not the states problem to worry about an individuals financial situation.

I am going to catch flak for this

I personally think that its a states duty to provide their residents with afford hunting opportunities and reasonable odds of obtaining tags. I use affordable and reasonable in the terms of the average joes ability. I recognize that prices need to increase over time and support that but I do not think that a government should operate like a business and follow a supply/demand curve to set pricing. I recognize this causes scarcity and all the problems we are seeing today.

OTC options are not always available. There are very few states that have OTC options for deer. Most states have decent options for elk but even at that, most aren't great. With the demand they are seeing, they are basically a draw hunt just trying to get one purchased. It luck of the draw not getting kicked out of the computer system.

I come at this from Utah and base my opinions on what I see in Utah. Some states are better but I am a resident of Utah. States owe non residents nothing.

I had this argument with a buddy over the OTC unlimited elk tags Utah wanted to do. I support it because it provides an opportunity for people to hunt every year. Success rates are garbage, lots of people but for 50 bucks, I can have a tag. He was against them because the amount of elk that will be killed. I love this kid to death but him and his wife make a very good income for his age. 6 digits in Northern Utah gets you a lot. He is a couple years older than me and was able to take advantage of the housing prices. Now, no where am I complaining that I dont make what he does or that I don't have the financial freedom he has. I made the choice to go into the career I have and knew what it meant as far as pay. What frustrates me is that he told me that "anyone can afford to hunt out of state if they make it a priority" which I agree with but what I disagree with is the state I am resident of making it impossible to have the option to hunt often and affordably for their average citizen. It frustrates me when everyone looks at their own situation and says everyone is just like me and can do exactly what I can do. It is simply not true.