Preference Point Systems- have we gone too far?

[Guy]

Hey guys,

Working on a bit of a political piece for the E-news later this spring. I have been talking to a lot of guys and studying a lot of the preference point systems out there this past few weeks. I'm beginning to wonder if we have taken these systems too far? Every system seems to be failing or near failing to deliver the results they were designed for or the results they once did. I know with Wyoming deer for instance, the system was designed almost ten years ago, and it was based on the tag quotas and application demands at that time. Over the last ten years the tag quotas have dropped through the floor and the application demand has increased due to states like ID and MT dropping the ball with their management putting more people into the WY pool. Well, the system is no longer working like it should. Add to that, the fact that in some deer areas Wyoming is giving almost all of the NR tag allotment out to landowners, and you have a disaster on your hands. For instance, when you get your MRS you will see that Area 87 for instance, can be a very good deer hunt but after a decrease in quota by nearly 80% over the past ten years, and a substantial NR landowner tag allotment there were ZERO tags left for NR applicants by the time it was all over and done with last year. That is pretty pathetic, that an area in the core of Carbon County would have a 25 tag quota and not one single NR tag available. The system is breaking down. In my opinion, Wyoming splits their NR tag quotas into too many pieces. Now there is a bill in the WY legislature that will reverse the split so that the "Sprecial" more expensive allotment will be 60% and the "regular" more economical tag allotment will be only 40% instead of the other way around. That could be your NR tag cost increase next year. I doubt the G&F Dept will fight that bill very hard, as it essentially gives them a major price increase in return.

At this point, I really think a better system could be developed not just in Wyoming, but most of the Western states. I would like to see the whole "Special" vs. "Regular" tag deal dropped. Its really silly and is just a play for cash. The state needs to be forced into sound wildlife management and not cash generating gimmicks that favor the wealthier among us. The NR Wilderness rule should be thrown out, in my opinion and the land owner tag system needs revamped or scrapped altogether. A start would be if you are a NR landowner, tough now LO tags, and if you don't enroll your land in the Walk In Area program-no LO tags. But those two could be separate articles.

I do like the split tag system like Wyoming has, but I think it could be simplified quite a bit. I think a 60/40 split of the tags would be very simple for NR hunters where the 60% split would be a PP system like NV has where they would add 1 point and square the result. Then the 40% would go to the highest point holders much like the CO system. I think this would give everyone as far a shot as possible without demoralizing the newbies and young hunters entering the system. (1) You could still draw on your first year, (2) your odds would increase every year you didn't draw, (3) and you could relatively predict when you might actually draw the tag.

Let me know what you think of this idea, before I let loose on a full blown write up. I value your opinions and feedback.

Thanks for reading this lengthy bloviation.

G-

 

[Elkoholic307]

The best point system is no point system.

 

[mnhoundman]

The best point system is no point system.

I agree! I like Guy's last paragraph, that sounds more fair.

 

[libidilatimmy]

The LO tag issue will be a hard one to dance around with so many landowners in the legislature, but, as an example, Deer area 128 has no LO tags issued at all for a reason unknown to me. So they do limit LO tags to some degree and I think they should have the wherewithal to apply the same strategy in other areas. One idea would be to put a threshold on the number of available tags where if quotas drop below that number, no special LO tags and they must apply with the general public. I like the idea of a mixed system like you propose. That could be a more fair way to approach it.

 

[Elkoholic307]

I agree! I like Guy's last paragraph, that sounds more fair.

Agreed. If I had to have a point system, I would definitely choose bonus points where they are squared.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

Agreed. If I had to have a point system, I would definitely choose bonus points where they are squared.

You might change your mind if you were like me with 22 points in Nevada for deer, and yet there is not a tag in the state I can apply for and know I will draw.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

The LO tag issue will be a hard one to dance around with so many landowners in the legislature, but, as an example, Deer area 128 has no LO tags issued at all for a reason unknown to me. So they do limit LO tags to some degree and I think they should have the wherewithal to apply the same strategy in other areas. One idea would be to put a threshold on the number of available tags where if quotas drop below that number, no special LO tags and they must apply with the general public. I like the idea of a mixed system like you propose. That could be a more fair way to approach it.

I think Oregon has a pretty straightforward approach to this. The landowner has to hunt their own property, only half of the tags can be transferred to non-family members, and the number of tags are issued based on the size of the property.

 

[JPSeveland]

I am orignaly from colorado and have never had a general tag like wyoming minus 2nd or 3rd rifle over the counter or and over the counter archery tag. This will be my first year as a resident of wyoming i totally agree they should drop the NR special tag. I know lots of residents here in wyoming that are on both sides of the fence when it comes to lotto play and going to a points system some what like colorado or nevada. For the resident of wyoming it can be difficult to plan out your hunts when you plan on hunting other states not ever knowing weather you will be drawing a tag or not. For example i know a few people that hunt area 7 for elk and have got that tag 4-5 years in a row and i know a buddy of mine thats been putting in for it for 8 years. Is that fair is it not idk maybe just bad luck. I feel there is alot of questions that need to be asked. Is it logical to go to a points system will that help draw results for the residents or hinder some of those great tags that may be 20-30% draw results and know take 7-10 years to draw. I love the way that wyoming does there tag system i feel this is the best western state to be a resident of for hunting big game I truely belive this state wants you to fill your tags. But i think the system needs a transformation they can keep what there doing but change a few things. I know i am rambling on and on but i hope this helps. There is pros and cons to this conversation and will make residents mad and some happy we will see.

 

[Tim McCoy]

Seems to me the "best" system serves all and placates none. Points in and of themselves are not good or bad, it is all in how they are applied. States need revenue to manage game. So long as costs go to fund game, I'll play to a degree. My bias, Guy, is not that we have gone too far, but we have not gone far enough. Let's use some of the best of our known options, there may be a better idea out there, but I am not that creative so I'll play with what I know.

Were I King for a day, my ideal system would have 4 parts. Preference, Bonus, Random and Youth. I would take a hard look at OR, NM, AZ and others who have separate youth hunts, let's use some tags to recruit youth as a separate allotment.

Next, we want some to be able to plan on drawing (PP's), some to know their participation help odds (BP's), and never completely shut off anyone else's chances (random), remember I am King for a day... So I'd allocate 1/3 to each pool and square BP's. In units where demand is approx 5x tags, and there are fewer tags, say under 50-100, it would be closer to 1/4, 1/4, 1/2 random. To keep things from being even more confusing, points would be just that points, each series of the draw would determine how they were used. Preference, bonus, random, in that order. So one can play the points game, most serious hunters will, or not, and still have a shot. States have revenue, and we are all playing but not totally happy.

My head hurts now...

 

[Fink]

How anyone can support a bonus/preference point system, and knowingly screw over every other hunter that wasn't lucky enough to be born before that system got started is beyond me. It's pure selfishness, and nothing else.

Wyoming residents have it as good as it gets. 100% fair draw odds, regardless of when you got in the game, for the limited tags, and high quality over the counter tags for when you don't draw.

Any one that wants to screw that up is nuts.

It's disappointing to me, to know that I'll never even have a CHANCE to draw the AZ strip, or the nw corner of CO. But, at least my odds of drawing a Gila elk tag are just as good as everyone else.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

It's disappointing to me, to know that I'll never even have a CHANCE to draw the AZ strip, or the nw corner of CO. But, at least my odds of drawing a Gila elk tag are just as good as everyone else.

Fink, that will change in 2016 in Arizona. Beginning next year, half of the NR tags will be issued in the 20% pass and half in the random draw.

The flip side is I am in the max point pool, played all the games AZ threw out before me, have sent them license fees for 20 years, flew down for their hunter safety course and now with thousands invested in a Strip tag my odds will go from likely drawing a strip tag in 13 years to sometime in the next 25 years. At least I should draw before I turn 75

My general feeling is preference points are great for hunts with 10% odds or better, simply because it lets you plan and spreads those tags around. My feeling is that "once in a lifetime" type tags should have never adopted point systems.

Some ideas:

Wait periods: One of the most effective ways to limit guys drawing over and over and keep everyone in the game. At least have a wait period that is applied to "first choice" on your applications, yet you could still draw a second choice.

Lifetime licenses: You get one shot to hunt sheep, goat moose or bison (male tags).

Point caps: You can only earn so many points for a given hunt, say 15, 20, or 25. Keep things from going into the stratosphere.

For Wyoming residents: You have it as good as it gets when it comes to drawing quality tags. Even the "general" tags are darn good.

 

[25contender]

I will be honest with you I played the point system for a long time and hated it. I am not lucky enough to live in a western state but elk hunting has always been a passion of mine since the mid 80s. After ten years of doing the points game I gave up on it and decided to hunt general tag areas. It was the best thing I ever did and have enjoyed every minute of it. There are other ways to manage these le areas and to me the points system is not one of them. To me it is simply a revenue stream for aniy state that has a points system.

 

[Don K]

Point creep kills straight preference point systems if your not in on the ground floor. Colorado is a great example of this as guys chase units they will never get too.

I haven't been applying in AZ but will start now that they are changing the system to allow people a chance at drawing a tag the first time out.

The special/regular tag deal in Wyoming is going through legislation right now to a 60 special 40 regular. This will start pricing the normal DIY out with a elk tag costing over a grand. But since the Outfitters are the ones pushing it through they will win as their clients can afford the special tag price.

 

[Tim McCoy]

How anyone can support a bonus/preference point system, and knowingly screw over every other hunter that wasn't lucky enough to be born before that system got started is beyond me. It's pure selfishness, and nothing else.

Fink, the genie is out of the bottle. Nearly every western hunting agency has figured out a point system drives revenue, they live on revenue. I don't advocate "screwing" others and am not prone to selfishness, and I know you were just speaking in general terms, but how can we unwind the tape? Like Umpqua, I hold lots of points, and like many others of modest means, I have scraped and saved to play by the stated rules, not out of anything else than a sincere desire to hunt a particular species in a specific place. What do you suggest would be fair and not lead to thousands of us point players to stop playing and states experiencing the inevitable
revenue drop?

No easy answers...

 

[Dukejb]

I know this won't be popular with resident hunters, but I don't think that states should be able to cap non resident tags on federal land hunts. At least they shouldn't be able to cap them at ridiculously low numbers (10%). As an American citizen and tax payer, federal land belongs to me just as much as anyone else regardless of where I live, and I should have the same chance as anyone to draw those tags. I know that the game wardens are state employees, but my higher priced non-resident hunting licenses pay my share of their costs. If states want to cap access on state land or land leased by the state, that's their prerogative. Tags for National forests, wilderness areas and the game that lives in them should not be affected by state of residence though.

 

[packmule]

I prefer a true preference point system with transferable landowner vouchers.

 

[sheephunter]

I know this won't be popular with resident hunters, but I don't think that states should be able to cap non resident tags on federal land hunts. At least they shouldn't be able to cap them at ridiculously low numbers (10%). As an American citizen and tax payer, federal land belongs to me just as much as anyone else regardless of where I live, and I should have the same chance as anyone to draw those tags. I know that the game wardens are state employees, but my higher priced non-resident hunting licenses pay my share of their costs. If states want to cap access on state land or land leased by the state, that's their prerogative. Tags for National forests, wilderness areas and the game that lives in them should not be affected by state of residence though.

Respectfully, you are wrong. Every state with any kind of draw has some quality hunting units (call 'em what you want: quality unit, trophy unit, limited entry unit, etc.). If tag quotas are eliminated because the bulk of the unit is NF, all of a sudden the unit gets overrun with hunters and it turns into an "opportunity" type unit. If you really dig deep (at least here in CO) you will find that there was never any intention of making any unit a "trophy unit"; the intention was to make it a "quality unit"; quality meaning if you draw a tag there you can hunt with minimal interference from other hunters. The fact that most of these units have the genetics floating around to produce trophy quality animals was a secondary consequence.
What you are proposing would turn into a free-for-all.
Look, I play the tag game too. I've drawn some good tags here in CO. Some have eluded me. I've tried to get cute on the draw and ended up without a deer tag at all one year (and I live here-that sucked!!). I apply in AZ every year where I will have about $2K invested in an elk tag before I ever set foot in the state). I've got a bunch of $$ tied up in WY points too.
Every state is different, we are all NR's in 49 states, and I think the only sure way to NOT get PO'ed about how a state works their points is to make the decision not to play. I think most of us here would agree that's not a good option either.

 

[Fink]

Fink, that will change in 2016 in Arizona. Beginning next year, half of the NR tags will be issued in the 20% pass and half in the random draw.

The flip side is I am in the max point pool, played all the games AZ threw out before me, have sent them license fees for 20 years, flew down for their hunter safety course and now with thousands invested in a Strip tag my odds will go from likely drawing a strip tag in 13 years to sometime in the next 25 years. At least I should draw before I turn 75

Cheating someone out of their hard earned points after years (decades) is just as bad as locking people out of tags when they weren't lucky enough to get in on the ground floor. And, I certainly wasn't advocating taking that away. I just think it's a bit ridiculous to see states like Idaho, New Mexico, and Wyoming for residents looking for ways to implement a point system, even after they see it fail across the board.
Missouri will be hunting elk within the next 5 years most likely. If they implement a point system, I'll get to get in on the ground floor, and will probably have at least 40 years to apply. One would think that would give me a pretty decent shot at hunting elk in my home state in my life time. But, I can't bear to think that some kid that is only 9 or 10 when they start the system will never have a shot to draw, because he'll be a few points behind max.

And you're right Tim, revenue plays a huge factor in this, there's a lot of money to make up without those points. I've got no idea what the answer is, but I know it's not preference points or bonus points, and I know the answer isn't to pull the rug out on someone's 20+ year investment.

 

[Elkoholic307]

You might change your mind if you were like me with 22 points in Nevada for deer, and yet there is not a tag in the state I can apply for and know I will draw.

That's if I absolutely had to. Random draw still trumps all.

 

[alaska2go]

It may be federal land but the state owns the animals & manages them also for hunting. In Alaska there is no point system either you draw or don't period. Some tags have a 2 or 3% chance for a resident to draw. And the poor out of staters have to have a guide to draw those tags. So if your wallet is fat you have a better chance of drawing some of those tags that us residents don't. It is a money grab and I spend hundreds of dollars every year buying points in the lower 48 but what is a guy going to do ??? Play the game or sit on the bench ??