License Distribution Problem Statements and Alternatives
I think it is referencing page 3 of this document.
"Second Alternative: Updating the 3-year average and potentially increasing the preference point threshold Updating the 3-year average used to determine high-demand hunt codes that are 80/20 instead of 65/35 from the current 2007-2009 average to a rolling 3-year average (updated annually with a one-year lag), ensures the draw is using the most current data and incorporates all existing hunt codes. The Commission could continue categorizing high demand hunt codes as those that use 6 or more preference points to draw or adjust up the preference point threshold to a higher level. CPW analyzed the financial impact of 6 points, 8 points and 10 points as a threshold.
C. Update the 3-year average used to determine high-demand hunt codes that are allocated 80% to residents and 20% to nonresidents to a rolling 3-year average (updated annually with a one-year lag) for all limited licenses for deer, elk, bear and pronghorn that required 6 or more resident preference points to draw. (Continue using the current soft cap approach.)
–OR–
D. Update the 3-year average used to determine high-demand hunt codes that are allocated 80% to residents and 20% to nonresidents to a rolling 3-year average (updated annually with a one-year lag) for all limited licenses for deer, elk, bear and pronghorn that required 8 or more resident preference points to draw. (Continue using the current soft cap approach.)
–OR–
E. Update the 3-year average used to determine high-demand hunt codes that are allocated 80% to residents and 20% to nonresidents to a rolling 3-year average (updated annually with a one-year lag) for all limited licenses for deer, elk, bear and pronghorn that required 10 or more resident preference points to draw. (Continue using the current soft cap approach.)"
