We need to start lobbying for point system reform

[svivian]

Lol a year later we now need reform.... just clickbait titles to get people riled up on here.

Is the western hunting bubble bursting? (Or at least shrinking?)

I feel like the last five years has been the perfect storm for point creep/tag allocation. We had people like Rinella/Newberg/Rogan popularizing western hunting, as well as a huge baby boomer population that had been buying points in multiple points for decades, a booming economy and lots of...

rokslide.com

 

[ckleeves]

That’s the problem, there are way too many points in the system.

If you go to “apply or lose your points” more people will apply, but I’d bet half the people on that list won’t and guess what? Next year they are back at zero. It’s the only way I can imagine getting some points out of the system that’s fair.

I’ve got Deer, Elk and Antelope points in CO, WY and MT. I buy points every year. There is no way I’m applying to every state for all 3 species if something like this got implemented. I couldn’t hunt more than two tags anyway.

In 2018 there were 23k nonresident elk applicants in WY with 7250 tags available. I don’t know how much those numbers have changed, and I believe there are now slightly more nonresident tags available with the new regions, but that averages out to drawing a tag every 3-4 years, more often for GEN and obviously less frequently for LE tags.

The problem with the current system is people or essentially “saving their place in line” by buying points for year after year for that “someday” hunt, and then apply for general tags with 8+ points or whatever. That screws over the guys who prefer to hunt every few years.

If I guy wants to wait 10-15 years for a premium LE that’s fine, but there has to be a way to force them to draw the tag or get out of the way when they finally have the points they need.

What you want would make things worse. Let’s take Wy and CO as examples. If you force people to apply all they have to do is find a tag that’s impossible or .5% odds and apply for it. In Co hybrid draw odds are already horrible for residents, so let’s force more people into those draws to further drive odds down?

Look at the draw recap in CO on people holding more points than the NW corner early rifle tags take. Now force those people to apply and you just made the guys who were one year behind it 6 years behind it. The people sitting on the sidelines aren’t hurting anything.

Same with WY. You might lose a few people there out of the draw just because it’s easier to remember to buy a point for a few months then it is to apply in Jan but your also going to tank random odds worse then they already are. If you think the .36% odds in the random are bad now for a great WY LE elk tag let’s make them worse.

As far as people not applying for fear of drawing too many good tags in a year? That’s laughable. Guys shotgun the entire west every year for multiple species in multiple states and don’t end up a with a single tag multiple years in a row. There isn’t a single western state I apply “point only” in. I’ll take .1% odds and a point over 0% odds and a point. If I somehow end up with two .1% odds tags in a year then I’m gonna be on cloud nine!

If for some reason this did happen don’t worry, everybody and their dog will get at least 15 emails explaining the changes and what you need to do to keep/build points and Uncle Randy will probably do a YouTube vid on what codes to apply for that are basically point only now.

 

[WCB]

What you want would make things worse. Let’s take Wy and CO as examples. If you force people to apply all they have to do is find a tag that’s impossible or .5% odds and apply for it. In Co hybrid draw odds are already horrible for residents, so let’s force more people into those draws to further drive odds down?

Look at the draw recap in CO on people holding more points than the NW corner early rifle tags take. Now force those people to apply and you just made the guys who were one year behind it 6 years behind it. The people sitting on the sidelines aren’t hurting anything.

Same with WY. You might lose a few people there out of the draw just because it’s easier to remember to buy a point for a few months then it is to apply in Jan but your also going to tank random odds worse then they already are. If you think the .36% odds in the random are bad now for a great WY LE elk tag let’s make them worse.

As far as people not applying for fear of drawing too many good tags in a year? That’s laughable. Guys shotgun the entire west every year for multiple species in multiple states and don’t end up a with a single tag multiple years in a row. There isn’t a single western state I apply “point only” in. I’ll take .1% odds and a point over 0% odds and a point. If I somehow end up with two .1% odds tags in a year then I’m gonna be on cloud nine!

If for some reason this did happen don’t worry, everybody and their dog will get at least 15 emails explaining the changes and what you need to do to keep/build points and Uncle Randy will probably do a YouTube vid on what codes to apply for that are basically point only now.

OK...then make people lock in their units. No applying for a .5% unit just to build points. Once you apply for that unit or tag that is now your only option unless the units change or season closes in that unit etc.

 

[TVW]

OK...then make people lock in their units. No applying for a .5% unit just to build points. Once you apply for that unit or tag that is now your only option unless the units change or season closes in that unit etc.

I don't like this idea at all for multiple reasons.

 

[ckleeves]

These threads are always good. While I agree changes could be made some of you guys want to make the most convoluted and confusing draw systems in history.

 

[wytx]

We are discussing point creep. In his case, i doubt he is buying points to hunt cows or meat. I was referring to not bull elk hunting ever again. If you dont have points for LE in the states i mentioned, and are over 40 , you wont likely get to hunt a bull elk in your future.

You can hunt for bulls on a General tag in Wyoming for what was it this year 5+ PPs? Hardly ever in their lifetime. And yes plenty of bulls get taken from general areas every year.
I also pointed out make PPs go away if you draw bull tag of any kind in any draw. That addresses point creep.

Cows are way to get tp hunt elk every year if that is what you think you should be able to do.

This Wyoming resident hasn't applied for another state licenses in years, I do go hunt family land in Texas for hogs almost every year- no license required.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

For those saying point systems "don't work", in what sense are they failing? A large (and growing) number of points required to draw doesn't mean the system is failing; it's simply a manifestation of falling supply and/or rising demand. The same supply-demand dynamic also manifests itself in a points-free (pure random) system as continually declining draw odds. There are improvements that could be made around the margins within point-based systems (e.g., make it harder to preserve points by eliminating pain-free tag returns and by making leftover tags consume points), but these systems are not inherently flawed and eliminating them wouldn't suddenly put a tag in every pocket and elk meat in every freezer.

When demand exceeds supply, some rationing scheme must be enacted. When rationing any scarce commodity, some folks will win and some will lose. The rationing could be random, weighted random (bonus points), take-a-number and wait your turn (preference points), first-come-first-served free-for-all frenzy (e.g., Colorado leftover day), or some combination of those options. To illustrate the differences, below are calculated draw odds for a hypothetical tag with 100 applicants and a tag quota of 10. The model assumes a "mature" system (has been in operation for 15+ years) with the same number of applicants and tags available each year. I realize that applicant numbers and tag quotas aren't static in reality, but this simplified model at least gives an idea of how various methods compare. Continually increasing applicants/decreasing tag quotas would shift the random and bonus point curves downward and would increase the gaps between spikes in the preference point "curve."


I prefer the (relative) predictability of a straight preference point system (à la Colorado deer/elk). Others may prefer to endure the lower (than pure random) draw odds in the short term in exchange for higher odds in the long term offered by a bonus point system. And still others may prefer the (near) constant low draw odds of a purely random system. I can see arguments for and against any of these systems, but with all of them, 90% of applicants (in this model) will be disappointed each year.

 

[Archer86]

area 7, 5 point one side, converse county
100-2 took >2, and is 4 point one side
117-3 was 0 points but spike or antlerless

This kind of stuff really needs to stop being posted on here.

very easy to just say there where multiple tags for bulls that took low level of points with out going into detail. It's a good way to mess up a hunt a guy can get more often while everyone else complains and doesn't do there reasearch

 

[Hnthrdr]

We have a better shot at opening up more land to hunt and trying to grow our herds than we do at reforming point creep… only solution is when it takes 5+ years for guys to draw a tag people will just stop… don’t worry though there will be influencers who hunt every year and will make a neat video for us peasants to watch… I liken it to the insane phenomenon where now kids watch people play video games instead of having wrestling matches for the controller so you could actually play

 

[CorbLand]

For those saying point systems "don't work", in what sense are they failing? A large (and growing) number of points required to draw doesn't mean the system is failing; it's simply a manifestation of falling supply and/or rising demand. The same supply-demand dynamic also manifests itself in a points-free (pure random) system as continually declining draw odds. There are improvements that could be made around the margins within point-based systems (e.g., make it harder to preserve points by eliminating pain-free tag returns and by making leftover tags consume points), but these systems are not inherently flawed and eliminating them wouldn't suddenly put a tag in every pocket and elk meat in every freezer.

When demand exceeds supply, some rationing scheme must be enacted. When rationing any scarce commodity, some folks will win and some will lose. The rationing could be random, weighted random (bonus points), take-a-number and wait your turn (preference points), first-come-first-served free-for-all frenzy (e.g., Colorado leftover day), or some combination of those options. To illustrate the differences, below are calculated draw odds for a hypothetical tag with 100 applicants and a tag quota of 10. The model assumes a "mature" system (has been in operation for 15+ years) with the same number of applicants and tags available each year. I realize that applicant numbers and tag quotas aren't static in reality, but this simplified model at least gives an idea of how various methods compare. Continually increasing applicants/decreasing tag quotas would shift the random and bonus point curves downward and would increase the gaps between spikes in the preference point "curve."
View attachment 717680

I prefer the (relative) predictability of a straight preference point system (à la Colorado deer/elk). Others may prefer to endure the lower (than pure random) draw odds in the short term in exchange for higher odds in the long term offered by a bonus point system. And still others may prefer the (near) constant low draw odds of a purely random system. I can see arguments for and against any of these systems, but with all of them, 90% of applicants (in this model) will be disappointed each year.

For me and why I dont like points.

I recognize that the true "problem" is supply and demand and that taking points away will not magically provide me with a tag every year.

Here is why I dont like point systems.

1. Its an extra step in a process that in the end doesnt solve a problem. It was touted as you will eventually draw with points, yet people still have ~30 points and havent drawn. Tell me how that is any better than a pure random draw? The bottom is filling faster than the top can discharge and basically you end up in a random draw with a group at the top, its just random with extra steps.

2. Points become an expectation. When a hunt takes 20 points to draw, some and I would venture to say many, think that those 20 points should all but guarantee them something (a specific size, 100% success, etc). As point creep pushes the number of points it takes, peoples expectations push with it. When reality doesnt meet expectations, people get mad and push for things (generally further cuts).

3. Points give people an entitlement. They think because they started applying 30 years ago, and they have all these points, we cant change things. As things change and we need to change, people wont allow it because they have XX points and when they started this is how it was.


2. Example. There was a unit in Utah that produced some good bulls, nothing massive but solid 300 to 320s with a handful of 350s over the years. Point creep got it and it was taking 12-14 points to draw ALW. A group of people got mad that it was taking that many points to only kill 300-320 bulls. They went to the division/board and pushed to cut tags, to increase the age class because the current 12-14 points was not worth the bulls. Tags got cut, age class was increased and it now takes 20 plus points to draw for ALW. (there was a few other reason for people wanting this but the majority was they wanted bigger bulls for the points it took)

People have it in there head that XX points should get me XX bull. Expectations are not adjusting with current reality.

3. Example. Utah needs to get the rifle hunt for elk out of the rut. I have spoken with a lot of people that have lots of points and the generally theme of the response when you say that is "well, when I started getting points, it was that way so once I get my tag they can change it."

I have also spoken with people that think because they have a lot of points, that success rates need to be 100%. "If it takes 20 plus years to draw, the hunt better have 100% success rates." Thats not uncommon to hear.


My opinion is that they dont solve anything and the cons that come along with them are far worse than any of the benefits. Points are just participation trophies.

 

[KHNC]

You can hunt for bulls on a General tag in Wyoming for what was it this year 5+ PPs? Hardly ever in their lifetime. And yes plenty of bulls get taken from general areas every year.
I also pointed out make PPs go away if you draw bull tag of any kind in any draw. That addresses point creep.

Cows are way to get tp hunt elk every year if that is what you think you should be able to do.

This Wyoming resident hasn't applied for another state licenses in years, I do go hunt family land in Texas for hogs almost every year- no license required.

You seriously think anyone will be able to draw a GEN tag with 5 points in the future?? Makes absolutely no difference how many points it took this year. For example, I drew a GEN tag this year with 5 points. Last time i drew was in 2018 with 2 points. You care to apply your logic and tell me how many years it will take for me to draw again? You really think i can draw again in 6 years with 5 points? Man, if so, thats gonna be the BOMB!! Im so stoked!

 

[WCB]

I don't like this idea at all for multiple reasons.

Ok...doesn't matter. Never said I liked it either. But sometimes that is the #1 thing that holds solutions back...It will prevent point collecting and point dumping/jumping to other units based on herd changes.

 

[5MilesBack]

Here is why I dont like point systems.

1. Its an extra step in a process that in the end doesnt solve a problem. It was touted as you will eventually draw with points, yet people still have ~30 points and havent drawn. Tell me how that is any better than a pure random draw?

If they haven't drawn a tag in 30 years, that's by choice.......not by how the system works. If you take "stupid" out of the equation, the system works. If guys are going to be stupid, then no......it will never work for THEM. But that's the penalty for being stupid.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

For me and why I dont like points.

I recognize that the true "problem" is supply and demand and that taking points away will not magically provide me with a tag every year.

Here is why I dont like point systems.

1. Its an extra step in a process that in the end doesnt solve a problem. It was touted as you will eventually draw with points, yet people still have ~30 points and havent drawn. Tell me how that is any better than a pure random draw? The bottom is filling faster than the top can discharge and basically you end up in a random draw with a group at the top, its just random with extra steps.

2. Points become an expectation. When a hunt takes 20 points to draw, some and I would venture to say many, think that those 20 points should all but guarantee them something (a specific size, 100% success, etc). As point creep pushes the number of points it takes, peoples expectations push with it. When reality doesnt meet expectations, people get mad and push for things (generally further cuts).

3. Points give people an entitlement. They think because they started applying 30 years ago, and they have all these points, we cant change things. As things change and we need to change, people wont allow it because they have XX points and when they started this is how it was.


2. Example. There was a unit in Utah that produced some good bulls, nothing massive but solid 300 to 320s with a handful of 350s over the years. Point creep got it and it was taking 12-14 points to draw ALW. A group of people got mad that it was taking that many points to only kill 300-320 bulls. They went to the division/board and pushed to cut tags, to increase the age class because the current 12-14 points was not worth the bulls. Tags got cut, age class was increased and it now takes 20 plus points to draw for ALW. (there was a few other reason for people wanting this but the majority was they wanted bigger bulls for the points it took)

People have it in there head that XX points should get me XX bull. Expectations are not adjusting with current reality.

3. Example. Utah needs to get the rifle hunt for elk out of the rut. I have spoken with a lot of people that have lots of points and the generally theme of the response when you say that is "well, when I started getting points, it was that way so once I get my tag they can change it."

I have also spoken with people that think because they have a lot of points, that success rates need to be 100%. "If it takes 20 plus years to draw, the hunt better have 100% success rates." Thats not uncommon to hear.


My opinion is that they dont solve anything and the cons that come along with them are far worse than any of the benefits. Points are just participation trophies.

Those are fair criticisms. I concede that pointholders tend to develop a sense of entitlement in proportion to their point level and that can be problematic if they're allowed to influence regulations to better align with their perceived expectations.

One argument to be made for preference points over random draw is the wider disparity of outcomes that a random system allows. In the the model I posted previously, within any given 10 year timeframe under a purely random system, 26 guys would draw that tag twice or more while 35 would draw it zero times. Under a preference point system, every one of the 100 applicants would draw that tag exactly once in 10 years. Again, this is a simplified static model, but the general point that a random system allows a wider disparity of outcomes than a preference point system holds true despite the model's shortcomings. A bonus point system would fall somewhere in between in terms of outcome disparity.

In a random draw system, I would be in favor of a sit-out provision after drawing a tag. The waiting period before you could resume applying should be proportional to the scarcity of the tag you drew, and ultra scarce tags should be once-in-a-lifetime. Also—though this doesn't affect me personally because I'm an opportunity hunter with little desire to chase premium tags—I've come to agree with the argument I've heard some folks make that a strict preference point system is too rigid for ultra scarce tags and ends up setting a de facto hunter age requirement of 60+. Expanding on Colorado's hybrid scheme and using a bonus point system with a minimum threshold to enter the draw seems like a better way to award ultra scarce tags than strict preference points.

 

[Jethro]

In the last 9 years I have applied to WY 7 times. This year, drew my 5th bull tag.

 

[Deadfall]

 

[ckleeves]

OK...then make people lock in their units. No applying for a .5% unit just to build points. Once you apply for that unit or tag that is now your only option unless the units change or season closes in that unit etc.

So you’re stuck no matter if the easy to draw unit you pick just happens to be the one everybody else does so now you’re committed for 10 years for a garbage tag? Or CWD prevalence goes thru the roof, or they double tags or cut tag numbers in half, or a massive fire goes thru, or there is bad drought, or massive winterkill, or any of the other dozens of things that can happen to a unit?

This seems like one of the worst ideas yet. You could apply for a mid-tier unit with no idea how many people are ahead of you for that same tag and wait the rest of your life and never draw and not be able to drop down to the unit next door that takes less points.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

1. Its an extra step in a process that in the end doesnt solve a problem. It was touted as you will eventually draw with points, yet people still have ~30 points and havent drawn. Tell me how that is any better than a pure random draw? The bottom is filling faster than the top can discharge and basically you end up in a random draw with a group at the top, its just random with extra steps.

If a guy hasn't drawn by the time he reaches 30 points in a bonus point system, his cumulative odds wouldn't be/have been any better in a pure random system.

If he hasn't drawn with 30 points in a preference point system, he's chasing a once-in-a-lifetime quality tag and he's in that situation by choice. He should have seen the point creep developing over the years and changed his aim if he so desired. A tag of that quality would have very low odds if it were converted to a random draw, and he may or may not have fared better. That said, I can get on board with the idea that a strict preference point system is too rigid for ultra scarce tags and more randomness should probably be incorporated in awarding such tags.

 

[CorbLand]

Those are fair criticisms. I concede that pointholders tend to develop a sense of entitlement in proportion to their point level and that can be problematic if they're allowed to influence regulations to better align with their perceived expectations.

One argument to be made for preference points over random draw is the wider disparity of outcomes that a random system allows. In the the model I posted previously, within any given 10 year timeframe under a purely random system, 26 guys would draw that tag twice or more while 35 would draw it zero times. Under a preference point system, every one of the 100 applicants would draw that tag exactly once in 10 years. Again, this is a simplified static model, but the general point that a random system allows a wider disparity of outcomes than a preference point system holds true despite the model's shortcomings. A bonus point system would fall somewhere in between in terms of outcome disparity.

In a random draw system, I would be in favor of a sit-out provision after drawing a tag. The waiting period before you could resume applying should be proportional to the scarcity of the tag you drew, and ultra scarce tags should be once-in-a-lifetime. Also—though this doesn't affect me personally because I'm an opportunity hunter with little desire to chase premium tags—I've come to agree with the argument I've heard some folks make that a strict preference point system is too rigid for ultra scarce tags and ends up setting a de facto hunter age requirement of 60+. Expanding on Colorado's hybrid scheme and using a bonus point system with a minimum threshold to enter the draw seems like a better way to award ultra scarce tags than strict preference points.

I guess I run on the life is not fair. There are things you can do every day to make a better future for yourself and it never happens. Why do we think that hunting is any different? I hiked 13.5 miles once, spent an entire day looking for a deer. A guy in the camp down the road shot one from the road. Some people get lucky and draw multiple tags, some dont. Life is tough.

There can be all sorts of rules within systems but we would need about 10 more threads to get to the bottom of all of those.

If a guy hasn't drawn by the time he reaches 30 points in a bonus point system, his cumulative odds wouldn't be/have been any better in a pure random system.

If he hasn't drawn with 30 points in a preference point system, he's chasing a once-in-a-lifetime quality tag and he's in that situation by choice. He should have seen the point creep developing over the years and changed his aim if he so desired. A tag of that quality would have very low odds if it were converted to a random draw, and he may or may not have fared better. That said, I can get on board with the idea that a strict preference point system is too rigid for ultra scarce tags and more randomness should probably be incorporated in awarding such tags.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the guys that have a lot of points but one thing that needs to be remembered is that point creep isn't/hasn't always been a constant, predicable thing. Some of the issues we are seeing have really exploded in the last five to seven years.

That's kind of my point with point systems. Your odds aren't necessarily better with them so why have them and bring on all the BS that comes with them? Even if your odds are better, are they better enough to deal with that BS? For me, that is a no.

People jumping around blows up the one thing that most people like about point systems, a form of predictability.




I will say that of all the point systems there are, a bonus point system makes the most sense to me but if your asking me, pure random is the way to go.

Even in a pure bonus point system, everything I posted still holds true. States went to those and down the line, they still didnt work so now they square the points. Whats next squaring the square?

 

[wapitibob]

My odds are better with points in a hybrid PP system like OR and WY, and even better in a hybrid bonus system like UT and AZ.