Reference post #69This thread isn't going to go anywhere. Lots of absolutism being bantered about to try and shame some who have different preferences into submission.
It's almost like we have a federalist distribution regarding game animal harvest amongst the states who've decided to do things quite differently from each other, giving a variety of spice sufficient to meet almost everyone's palettes. Almost.
Heck yeah!I think one mental barrier is that a lot of people equate points to animals and success. That's not so. There may be a correlation but it's not a strong one. I did a regression analysis on the limited elk hunts in a state a couple years ago and it basically said the lower point units are undervalued, the middle points units are appropriately valued, and the higher point units are overvalued. Therefore the best value is to keep burning points as quickly as you can and hunt more. If the unit you want is out of reach, pick a new unit and go hunt.
FWIW, in the states you listed, assuming you put in for multiple species, you can have a pretty bangup hunt pretty much every year in perpetuity.
My answer for your question is yes. In my opinion it is. The biggest reward and chance to be drawn is given to the people who have waited the longest and invested their time and money.The frustrating part is that those on here talking about "jumping the line" "whiney young-ins" "selfish I want it now millennials" are often the most ignorant to how the system is actually working in some states. I personally don't have issue with all point systems, especially those that cycle people through fast. All I would ask is that people do a bit of research and have a educated take before they jump to labeling members as "selfish millennials".
I would like to cite how California allocates their tags again to show how certain systems are broken and unfair. Currently in any unit that has a quota of 4 tags or more (which is most units), 75-80% of the tags for elk, antelope and sheep are available only to top point holders, while between 20-25% are randomly distributed.
For Sheep there are (1,689) top point holders with (27) total tags issued last year
For Elk there are (2,309) top point holders with (281) total tags issued last year
For Antelope there are (751) top point holders with (245) total tags issued last year
What the state effectively has now is a system where many top point holders will never draw out and while enjoying the benefit of drastically higher tag allocation for their entire lifetime. Top point holders are entered in the random 20-25% allocation draw along with the preference point 75-80% allocation draw.
All I'm asking people to consider is does it seem equitable to allocate 3-4x more tags for people that were lucky enough to have been able to apply the first year?
How the heck do you come to the conclusion that friends and myself that have been applying for AZ sheep tags our whole adult lives are elitist? To say we are elitist is silly, we just followed the rules that we have been given. None of us are rich, just regular people that have been dutifully applying since the day we could finally afford to do so. Those of us that haven’t drawn yet (most of us) have been applying since before AZ created the bonus system and still no tag. When the bonus point system was implemented it was a different day, different scenario than what we have now. In the beginning it was pretty effective but I don’t think anyone had the foresight to see what the demand has become. I also believe that most states that created a bonus system wouldn’t do it again if they had the choice. It’s an expensive ineffective boondoggle to run and now they are stuck with it with no easy way out. I’d chance a guess that if there was a do over they’d just leave it as a random with a non res cap like NM has done but maybe not now with the revenue they bring in with the app fees and point only fees they collect??? In the end no one is going to be happy, too many people that want in on the limited resources.So they will keep catering to small group of Elitist (max point) hunters. They are a guaranteed income.
Wyoming is one of of the few places that can do this, but it doesn't work everywhere. It "works" in Wyoming because relatively speaking our state population hasn't changed that much for a very long time. On top of that our turn over is high enough with the energy industry base that those that pour in for a boom are often on to the next one before they can learn to hunt a general area well. We also have approximately 50% public land, with the largest swaths in the western half of the state with good access. The competition that is here can usually get spread out.
Colorado cannot do a general hunt for mule deer, but can micro-manage regional populations to offer OTC options for some of their elk hunts. I would argue though that many of those hunts are really tough and open in areas where the elk have often moved to winter range for rifle opportunities in years past.
Bottom line is there are more people who want to hunt the West and elk in particular right now than we have opportunity. Because many who are not residents have been waiting for years to hunt, hoping for the perfect year it has really become a conundrum.
The points game in Colorado will likely be the tipping point for many for many to get out. 2020 plus the lack of upfront fees really made a lot of people question just what they were saving their points for, forget the cheese, I want out of the trap so to speak.
Disclaimer: Many people struggle with the concept of general hunts for mule deer in Wyoming with them taking in on the chin with the migrational herds.
Sometimes they arent meant to go anywhere. Sometimes they are meant to be discussions where we can all talk about something and we dont all have to agree at the end. You can state your side, I can state mine, we can try to convince each other that the other is right and we go about our lives with a better understanding of each other. Nothing more, nothing less.