I'm not proposing getting rid of the limited entry system. What I'm saying is that for federal land states should not be able to limit the percentage of tags given to non residents. For instance, if a state determines that only 10 tags should be drawn for a quality unit, I have no problem with that. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be able to cap how many of those 10 tags go to non residents. States that cap the percentage of tags that can be drawn by non residents is the issue to which I'm referring. Limiting the total number of tags can be a sound management practice, but allocating that set total based on state of residence is not right. Again on state owned or leased land, that's their decision to make, but on federal land I don't think it should be.
Preference Point Systems- have we gone too far?
- Thread starter Guy
- Start date
By this statement you want to take away the ability of a state to manage it's own land, that is absurd to say the least. With this kind of logic there would be unlimited tags on National forests and millions of acres of BLM land.
dead river
Member
Guy- Thanks for posting a well thought out perspective on this subject. I dont believe that you can objectively look at the systems in place and say that they are not detrimental to the sport, our way of life as outdoorsman, and future generations of the sport. If someone is OK with the fact that we are discouraging hunters, that is just a sad and selfish perspective.....a defeatest mindset, setting us all up for the much larger crowd that opposes our way of life to take us down, sell off federal lands, shut down hunting, etc. If our sport is to survive, we must promote it. I can greatly apprciatee that the folks that have many points would not want to lose that chance that they have built. Surely, there are ways to resolve those challenges in a manner that limits a continuation of the problem. Your last paragraph broaches some of that problem in reasonable manner and it is solutions like that we need to seek for us all to have a hunting future.
Max points makes a lot of sensel also, and i dont mean 22 points. It would seem that if you passed laws that initiated a relatively low max point (maybe 8 or 10) and grandfathered in those with existing points with a freeze on building furthur, then the hunter with 22 points is bound to be treated fairly, having high PP in the draw for a few years untill they all draw out and no one is left with more than the newly implemented max. combine that with conepts like you promote in the end of your post and it seems we could be fair to the existing point holders while staying the ongoing buildup one heck of a problem for future hunters.
There has to be a way to stop the continuation of the problem.
I
Max points makes a lot of sensel also, and i dont mean 22 points. It would seem that if you passed laws that initiated a relatively low max point (maybe 8 or 10) and grandfathered in those with existing points with a freeze on building furthur, then the hunter with 22 points is bound to be treated fairly, having high PP in the draw for a few years untill they all draw out and no one is left with more than the newly implemented max. combine that with conepts like you promote in the end of your post and it seems we could be fair to the existing point holders while staying the ongoing buildup one heck of a problem for future hunters.
There has to be a way to stop the continuation of the problem.
I
bdan68
Active Member
Musket Man
Veteran member
Im not against LO tags. I think if you own property you should have a preference for hunting and even more so if you live there. That said I think LO tags should be valid ONLY on the property you own and you should not be allowed to sell them. All systems like CO's do is enable ppl with lots of money to hunt premium units whenever they want to. They should not be able to buy a tag for the same public land it would take me over a decade to draw. If LO tags could not be sold and they were only valid on property you owned there would be alot less demand for LO tags.
Preference Points systems only work if there is more supply then demand. When there is more demand then supply you see the point creep we have been seeing the last few years and now tags that took 3-5 points a few years ago are out of sight. There are alot of tags that only the max point holders will ever have a chance at drawing. Bonus points are a decent system because atleast everyone has some chance to draw. The more I learn about points systems the more I think a straight up random draw with no points is the best system. Atleast everyone has the same chance to draw in it.
Guy has a good idea with the 60/40 split but the trouble is I think the more tags you take out of the PP part of it the more point creep there will be.
Here is my proposal. If you dont draw you get 1 BP. the next year you would get 2 entrys in the draw (1 for your app and 1 BP). If you didnt draw the next year you would get 3 entrys ( app +2 BP). If you didnt draw that year you would get 4 entrys the next year (app +3 BP) but your BP would go back to 0 that year weather you drew or not and you would start over the next year. It would eleminate point creep and give someone that didnt draw a better chance the next year.
Preference Points systems only work if there is more supply then demand. When there is more demand then supply you see the point creep we have been seeing the last few years and now tags that took 3-5 points a few years ago are out of sight. There are alot of tags that only the max point holders will ever have a chance at drawing. Bonus points are a decent system because atleast everyone has some chance to draw. The more I learn about points systems the more I think a straight up random draw with no points is the best system. Atleast everyone has the same chance to draw in it.
Guy has a good idea with the 60/40 split but the trouble is I think the more tags you take out of the PP part of it the more point creep there will be.
Here is my proposal. If you dont draw you get 1 BP. the next year you would get 2 entrys in the draw (1 for your app and 1 BP). If you didnt draw the next year you would get 3 entrys ( app +2 BP). If you didnt draw that year you would get 4 entrys the next year (app +3 BP) but your BP would go back to 0 that year weather you drew or not and you would start over the next year. It would eleminate point creep and give someone that didnt draw a better chance the next year.
WapitiBob
Veteran member
That doesn't work. NM tried it and in a rural state like WY, NR would quickly draw the lions share of the tags. And that isn't going to fly.
No point system, bonus, preference, or bubble gum, will work over time when the demand exceeds the supply.
A straight random draw seems fair to those that draw but to those that have been sitting on the sidelines for 10 years without even a scrub unit tag, it doesn't seem too "fair". It becomes a social problem when a few lucky guys draw multiple times.
Last edited:
Musket Man
Veteran member
How is a random draw and an auction comparable in any way? Auctions are not won by luck they are won by money. I dont have money, I need luck!
laxwyo
Very Active Member
This is what we need. UH, the unit you're hoping to get has one particular land owner all the way over by baggs but he kills huge Bulls on the western side of the unit. Do landowners deserve a type 1 tag?? If animals are on their property so much and they deserve a tag, wouldn't a cow tag suffice ? Maybe type 1 for their property and a cow tag off their property. Sick of seeing people with LO tags killing huge bulls on public land? What is the point of that? I do agree that someone should be able to hunt their property regardless of its limited quota or not
Weighted system is best. You get an extra entry for every point you have for a lottery draw and certain units would have at least a year waiting period after drawing. People who haven't drawn have best odds but everyone still has a snowballs chance. I do see some downside to party hunting. Would they average it?
Guy, curious if we couldn't do something politically as a whole at least for Wyoming.
Last edited:
QuazyQuinton
Active Member
Great beginning post, Guy, and interesting discussion from everyone. I'm always amazed at the antagonism toward point systems that comes from this and other forums. It makes me glad that every state has a slightly different system so there's something to please everyone.
As a lifelong Oregon resident, I remember the pre-preference point days, but I've really only applied to the current preference point system. I've built points at times, and I've been up to the 5-8 point range for deer and antelope a couple of times and am currently up to 13 for elk. The real benefit of Oregon's system for me, though, is the ability to plan for hunts. I have three kids just coming into their first hunting years. Between the Mentored Youth Hunts, First Time Hunts, and youth hunts, I need to be able to plan my hunts so that everybody gets to hunt every year, but we don't have too many hunts in a given year. A straight random draw would be a mess for us.
Point systems get criticized for point creep a lot. The thing is, the point creep is primarily a problem for the top tier hunts. (If it's a problem for all hunts, then it's not point creep. It's supply vs. demand.) Here in Oregon, you mostly see it in the top 6 or 8 deer and elk hunts and a bunch of the antelope hunts. There are many "lesser" hunts that don't see much point creep at all. I can choose from dozens of hunts where I can be confident that I can draw with 1 or 2 or 4 points. Obviously this is the Eastman's forum where we all want blue-chip hunts every year, but we contribute to the problem when we go "blue chip or bust."
I try to consider these drawings from an economic perspective. What does a hunt cost in terms of dollars, but also what does it cost in terms of years? We can question if it's worth the money, but maybe the bigger question is whether it's worth the time. I would like to see the MRS data include a cost/value analysis that would consider this factor. Am I better off hunting elk in the Wenaha unit once, or should I hunt the Snake River unit three times? I'm sure we would complain and argue about the accuracy of the analysis, but it would be one of the more useful pieces of data, in my opinion. The best hunt in the world is not the best hunt in the world if I will never draw the tag or will have to sacrifice too many years of other hunting opportunities.
I currently have 13 elk points in Oregon. I'm about 2 points behind Mt. Emily and 4 or 5 behind Walla Walla and Wenaha. I'm comfortable waiting a little longer for one of those hunts one time, but I will never do it again. They are simply not worth it. I'll find someplace decent that I can hunt more often. Better value, and the lemmings can continue to argue about point creep.
QQ
As a lifelong Oregon resident, I remember the pre-preference point days, but I've really only applied to the current preference point system. I've built points at times, and I've been up to the 5-8 point range for deer and antelope a couple of times and am currently up to 13 for elk. The real benefit of Oregon's system for me, though, is the ability to plan for hunts. I have three kids just coming into their first hunting years. Between the Mentored Youth Hunts, First Time Hunts, and youth hunts, I need to be able to plan my hunts so that everybody gets to hunt every year, but we don't have too many hunts in a given year. A straight random draw would be a mess for us.
Point systems get criticized for point creep a lot. The thing is, the point creep is primarily a problem for the top tier hunts. (If it's a problem for all hunts, then it's not point creep. It's supply vs. demand.) Here in Oregon, you mostly see it in the top 6 or 8 deer and elk hunts and a bunch of the antelope hunts. There are many "lesser" hunts that don't see much point creep at all. I can choose from dozens of hunts where I can be confident that I can draw with 1 or 2 or 4 points. Obviously this is the Eastman's forum where we all want blue-chip hunts every year, but we contribute to the problem when we go "blue chip or bust."
I try to consider these drawings from an economic perspective. What does a hunt cost in terms of dollars, but also what does it cost in terms of years? We can question if it's worth the money, but maybe the bigger question is whether it's worth the time. I would like to see the MRS data include a cost/value analysis that would consider this factor. Am I better off hunting elk in the Wenaha unit once, or should I hunt the Snake River unit three times? I'm sure we would complain and argue about the accuracy of the analysis, but it would be one of the more useful pieces of data, in my opinion. The best hunt in the world is not the best hunt in the world if I will never draw the tag or will have to sacrifice too many years of other hunting opportunities.
I currently have 13 elk points in Oregon. I'm about 2 points behind Mt. Emily and 4 or 5 behind Walla Walla and Wenaha. I'm comfortable waiting a little longer for one of those hunts one time, but I will never do it again. They are simply not worth it. I'll find someplace decent that I can hunt more often. Better value, and the lemmings can continue to argue about point creep.
Roamer
Member
I just drew my elk tag last yr after a 21 yr wait. The yr before I drew a goat tag with 15 points. If someone would have wanted to do away with points a couple of years ago pissed off wouldnt even come close to how I would have felt.
But on the other hand if I were just starting to build pp I would feel like it was a waste of time ,so something has to change.
I think Guys final paragarph is as good of a concept as any.
But on the other hand if I were just starting to build pp I would feel like it was a waste of time ,so something has to change.
I think Guys final paragarph is as good of a concept as any.
buckbull
Veteran member
- Jun 20, 2011
- 2,167
- 1,354
Unfortunately states have backed themselves into a corner. They should have had the foresight to account for these issues. Making any changes to PP system now is disingenuous to those who have taken part in the process. I have been collecting PP in Wyoming for several years. The premise is that I will accumulate enough PP over time to get a tag. Thats what I signed up for and thats what I expect. Changing the rules midstream is the un-fairest move that could be made. While playing the points game is certainly frustrating, its just what needs done if you want to hunt LE units.
I like the idea of a random draw, but only if there is some kind of measures in place to keep the "lucky" from winning a disproportionate number of tags. Ie. sit out the a year or two after winnning, etc...
I like the idea of a random draw, but only if there is some kind of measures in place to keep the "lucky" from winning a disproportionate number of tags. Ie. sit out the a year or two after winnning, etc...
Hilltop
Veteran member
The preference point system has served me very well in the past. The main reason I have liked it is that I was able to actually plan a hunt knowing I would draw when I wanted to go. However, now that my points are gone I don't have much incentive to start over as the ceiling looks unattainable. This is especially true for my sons who were too young to even get in the game when it started. If WGF set a cap on PP, or did what Guy mentions, we would jump right back in the game as we would realistically have a chance to draw eventually.
Open to anyone, some folks just have more luck. No way to please everyone bc the vast majority of folks feel they deserve to hunt where they want when they want regardless of which end of the social spectrum they fall.
As far as introducing kids, their needs should take priority. Whether it's a lot of small game hunting, OTC, putting off personal apps to ensure there's a financial cushion to make sure they get a tag somewhere, etc.
Colorado Cowboy
Super Moderator
These are all great posts, thanks to Guy for generating the conversation.
I am probably different than most of you that have posted. I am a "true" senior citizen, now 73 years old. I have hunted big game since I was old enough to get a tag (12 years old) and taken my share of animals. I have max NR points in Wy for deer and 15 for antelope here in Co. I have used points in everything else, so they are considerably less. I realize my quality hunting days are numbered because of my age, but would still like to have an opportunity to have a tag in a good/great unit.
I am really opposed to the way most states give out their landowner tags. As others have said, they should be valid for their property only and limited to immediate family members and their sale prohibited. They own the land, not the animals. Landowners also get lots of help (manpower & money) from a lot of the states when the game animals become a "problem" to the landowner.
As far as special vs regular NR tags like Wy has, it is just about more money. At least here in co we don't have to deal with that.
The one thing that I have seen for years is the really big price differential between Res & NR cost to hunt (and fish too). I know almost all the state G & F depts. are strapped for money and need to raise all they can. I am more than will to pay more as a resident for my licenses and tags. As a senior citizen, I get my fishing license for free. Great, but I am willing to pay for it. In every state the residents vastly outnumber the NRs, but the NRs really pay a lot more proportionately than the residents. The residents scream like hell when the fees go up at all.
The whole point idea was started as a way to generate more money. Scrap the whole system and put a fee system in place that will give the states enough money to do their job.
I am probably different than most of you that have posted. I am a "true" senior citizen, now 73 years old. I have hunted big game since I was old enough to get a tag (12 years old) and taken my share of animals. I have max NR points in Wy for deer and 15 for antelope here in Co. I have used points in everything else, so they are considerably less. I realize my quality hunting days are numbered because of my age, but would still like to have an opportunity to have a tag in a good/great unit.
I am really opposed to the way most states give out their landowner tags. As others have said, they should be valid for their property only and limited to immediate family members and their sale prohibited. They own the land, not the animals. Landowners also get lots of help (manpower & money) from a lot of the states when the game animals become a "problem" to the landowner.
As far as special vs regular NR tags like Wy has, it is just about more money. At least here in co we don't have to deal with that.
The one thing that I have seen for years is the really big price differential between Res & NR cost to hunt (and fish too). I know almost all the state G & F depts. are strapped for money and need to raise all they can. I am more than will to pay more as a resident for my licenses and tags. As a senior citizen, I get my fishing license for free. Great, but I am willing to pay for it. In every state the residents vastly outnumber the NRs, but the NRs really pay a lot more proportionately than the residents. The residents scream like hell when the fees go up at all.
The whole point idea was started as a way to generate more money. Scrap the whole system and put a fee system in place that will give the states enough money to do their job.
The way I see the points game going is any new hunters wanting to draw a dream hunt will eventually have to wait until they're dang near senior citizens to draw. I'm in my early 30's and some people have been collecting points for darn near as many years as I've been alive. With point creep, it's only going to get worse and devalue western big game hunting. If there was a way to phase out these systems so the current point holders could get something out of their investment and slowly return it to a random draw that would still fund G&F departments, that would be the way to go IMO.
Fink
Veteran member
Even with a random draw, and no points, the money could be made up by charging application fees, or non refundable license fees to apply. Or, increase the tag prices for those that do draw.
Regarding landowner tags.. Your tag should be good for your property only, and should not be transferrable. In Missouri, our landowner tags are good for private property only, are non transferrable, and are only for household members. The number of tags given is based upon acreage owned.
Regarding landowner tags.. Your tag should be good for your property only, and should not be transferrable. In Missouri, our landowner tags are good for private property only, are non transferrable, and are only for household members. The number of tags given is based upon acreage owned.
Colorado Cowboy
Super Moderator
Our LO tags are transferable are bound to the property and no other state issued tags may be used on the property. We're not dealing with migratory herd mgmt. Have to cater to the LOs with a good portion of winter range being private. 8' fences to prove a point would hurt the draw worse than a few tags.