Point systems

wayoh22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
364
Location
CT
If my posts are coming off rude, that is not my intent, at all.

I agree that we all have to play the cards we are dealt and I apply for and purchase points to the extent that I can afford. But until I am dead and in the ground, I will always disagree with point systems and advocate against them.

If you are dead set on having a points system. The best, in my opinion, is a bonus point system. Basically, a random draw but your name is in the hat for as many times as you have applied but not drawn. Everyone has an equal possibility of drawing but those that have applied longer have a higher probability of their name being pulled.
No one here has come off rude at all, sorry if I was misleading with my previous post
 

BuzzH

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
1,144
Location
Wyoming
Adding rules that preclude the poorest Americans from taking part in a resource they themselves own is such a vile concept I can't believe I see it openly posted and supported here.
Yeah, except that fact that NR's don't "own" wildlife in a state they don't reside in.

I get what you're saying, point taken, but lets be honest. Even if we did price NR licenses so even the "poorest Americans" can play...they still have to travel, still have to pay for fuel, groceries, rifles, ammo, the list goes on and on. I think even if the States GAVE away tags, there's a pretty high percentage of "poorest Americans" that still wouldn't have the cabbage to use a free tag.

IMO, I think where you don't want to preclude even the poorest Americans is in the state where they are a Resident. All states make it pretty affordable for all Residents.

Hunting as a NR is a luxury, always has been, and always will be. Luxury items come with a higher price tag.

Not everyone can hit the ball out Fenway, not everyone can afford expensive sports cars, and not everyone an afford to hunt out of state as a NR. Life....it happens.
 

AZ_Hunter_2000

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
764
Not at all. Im just saying that at some (reasonable) point in their lives they should be able to have an equitable chance to draw a tag.
Currently with point creep an 18 year old kid could (possibly) start buying points and never catch up (in some units) since there are an awful lot of kids whose parents start buying them points as early as possible. Even worse for someone who starts buying points in their 20s or 30s.
Life is not fair. All of us have opportunity. Whether or not someone decides to take advantage of that opportunity is decided solely by the individual in the mirror.

A person should not blame another person who made a conscious decision to pursue points so that at some point in his/her life, they will likely be able to do a premium hunt or ten. The person doing the blaming made a conscious decision to not pursue points. If they don't like it, then they can only blame themselves.

If a family has available money, then there's nothing wrong with setting things up so that their children and grandchildren have a better life. It could be points for hunting, college, car, down payment for a house, and/or a head start on retirement savings.

I made a choice to start hunting in my early 40s. I get that I'm mostly screwed when it comes to points. I am not whining about things being unfair. Why? As being a functional adult I am aware that my choice to start hunting so late in life will negatively impact my ability to do some hunts. Thankfully many of my other life choices do allow me to do other hunts that many others will not be able to afford.
 

Dos Perros

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
2,222
Location
Lenexa, KS
Yeah, except that fact that NR's don't "own" wildlife in a state they don't reside in.

I get what you're saying, point taken, but lets be honest. Even if we did price NR licenses so even the "poorest Americans" can play...they still have to travel, still have to pay for fuel, groceries, rifles, ammo, the list goes on and on. I think even if the States GAVE away tags, there's a pretty high percentage of "poorest Americans" that still wouldn't have the cabbage to use a free tag.

IMO, I think where you don't want to preclude even the poorest Americans is in the state where they are a Resident. All states make it pretty affordable for all Residents.

Hunting as a NR is a luxury, always has been, and always will be. Luxury items come with a higher price tag.

Not everyone can hit the ball out Fenway, not everyone can afford expensive sports cars, and not everyone an afford to hunt out of state as a NR. Life....it happens.

I think the details of the premise of my point are irrelevant. Acknowledging the literal letter of the law that NR’s don’t own other state’s wildlife, they certainly own federal lands that provide habitat and enable quite a few to even exist.

Even in a resident’s case, forcing someone to fork over lots of cash if they apply for many tags across many species, some with minuscule draw odds (sheep, goat, moose) is immoral. I understand why some things may be the way they are. But it’s still immoral.

And those if you that would seek to exclude others using economics as a weapon are low character people, IMO.
 

5MilesBack

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
11,475
Location
Colorado Springs
As far as "my posts are the definition of entitlement or handout" you should probably rephrase that if you want to be accurate though that doesn't appear to be the case.
I've never suggested that anyone be given anything they didn't work for or earn. I suggested that applicants be given the chance to catch up via a cap on max points. Not that they automatically jump to first place in the points race.
I think you need to reevaluate what entitlement and handout means. Everything you've been posting is "what about all those less fortunate to have been born now instead of 20 years ago, so they have no points, and there needs to be a way for them to have an EQUAL chance at being able to draw one specific unit of their choice". THAT is the definition of entitlement and handout. Think of it this way.......you want to "hobble" those that have already been running and competing for years by stopping them from getting any more points, just so others can catch up and have an equal chance of winning the race. Does that sound familiar with some other things that are happening in society and government today? That's like joining a marathon that's been going for some time and expecting the race coordinators to tie all the leaders legs together until you can catch up to them. That's not even a race worth winning or running at that point because either way it was a handout to some.

You want them to have an equal chance at whatever unit they "want", when there are literally hundreds of other units available to them to hunt. This isn't a perspective thing.......this is a logic thing. If you really want what you say you want........then NM is your answer. "But I want a unit outside of NM.........." SMH
 
Last edited:

5MilesBack

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
11,475
Location
Colorado Springs
Even in a resident’s case, forcing someone to fork over lots of cash if they apply for many tags across many species, some with minuscule draw odds (sheep, goat, moose) is immoral. I understand why some things may be the way they are. But it’s still immoral.
So, making people pay up front to apply for a bunch of privilege tags is immoral.......but then what would it be if one of those people actually drew all those tags that they can't afford to pay for?

It's amazing how some people demand equality and to be treated the same as everyone else.......except when it's a personally perceived detriment to them. Then they want special treatment, otherwise it's immoral. This isn't difficult stuff here, but it does elevate most of our societal problems to the surface.
 

Rich M

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
1,762
Location
Orlando
Adding rules that preclude the poorest Americans from taking part in a resource they themselves own is such a vile concept I can't believe I see it openly posted and supported here.

Rules requiring people to front the money for tags for the purpose of excluding the poor from applying.

I think the details of the premise of my point are irrelevant. Acknowledging the literal letter of the law that NR’s don’t own other state’s wildlife, they certainly own federal lands that provide habitat and enable quite a few to even exist.

Even in a resident’s case, forcing someone to fork over lots of cash if they apply for many tags across many species, some with minuscule draw odds (sheep, goat, moose) is immoral. I understand why some things may be the way they are. But it’s still immoral.

And those if you that would seek to exclude others using economics as a weapon are low character people, IMO.

Vile, immoral, economic weapons...

I'm trying to decide if you are young, entitled, & deluded; a troll; a socialist; or if you are just can't do all the things you impulsively want in the various states and such.

I had a class in college and the lady teacher tried so hard to make us all believe that everything in society was to keep the poor and minority folks down. I didn't believe it then and don't believe it now.

We get folks from Nigeria, India, Central America, Russia, etc. moving here and becoming millionaires in 5-10-15-20 years. There is nothing wrong with the system, it is how people use the system. Those looking for a teat to suckle usually whine and scream and are never happy. Those wanting to work and make it happen roll up their sleeves and make it happen. Society doesn't keep the man down, the man does that all on his own.
 

Trial153

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
6,953
Location
NY
Make no mistake about there are hunters among us that would love to have every tag sold/auctioned, or allocated based on the "free market" meaning, I got more so I deserve to be able to buy more....
What's that have to do with point systems? Very simply that same segment above in many cases cheer and steer for policy that cost more and fosters more exclusivity for the own ends.


The issue isnt dispite what likes of 5mile, along with his usual condescending attitude, that people believe there needs to be equality in outcome.
What there needs to be is equality in opportunity.
Right now even though two individuals pay the same amount they arent afforded the same opportunity because we built systems that were dependent on TIME of entry. If you got in on the ground floor or close too it then you will have an opportunity, and if by chance you didnt,( reason is irrelevant. Age, income ect ) you will not have the same opportunity dispite paying the same amount for it.
Yes NR hunting is luxury that not eveyone can part take in, and most likely it's always been so. That said it probably doesn't help our cause to raise the barriers to entry at every turn and nothing hurts hunting more than disenfanicement of hunters.
 

5MilesBack

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
11,475
Location
Colorado Springs
Make no mistake about it.........Marxism is going to destroy our nation........if we allow it to. It's unreal how many seem to flock to that kind of thinking. The only thing logical about that thinking is "if the end goal is the demise of what America was". Stating facts is not condescending on the delivering end. I could stop hunting this year, and that wouldn't change the facts or the logic of this argument. I could even be one of the poorest folks around, and that doesn't change anything either.

As it is currently........EVERYONE has the same opportunity (equality) to apply for and use preference points, as long as they are of legal hunting age.
 
Last edited:

Customweld

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
415
Location
Idaho
Stay strong and advocate to keep it that way. I have talked to many Idaho residents that think a point system is the way to go. Also, buy your damn lifetime license.
Believe me, it gets harder every year. As soon as the draw results are out, points come back to the forefront.
 

slick

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
1,433
Location
Siskiyou Siskime
Even in a resident’s case, forcing someone to fork over lots of cash if they apply for many tags across many species, some with minuscule draw odds (sheep, goat, moose) is immoral. I understand why some things may be the way they are. But it’s still immoral.

What is a lot of cash? For example the states where I’ve been a resident it has cost me the following (roughly- and if I’ve applied for everything which I don’t always)

OR- $102 (6 species)
MT- $123 (6 species - points only)
ND- $161 (5 species w/ upfront fees)
SD- $855 (5 species w/ upfront fees)

But that doesn’t take into account OTC tags (every state listed above does for residents), reduced price cow/doe/ewe tags, or turkey cause I don’t consider a bird big game.

It’s actually pretty damn affordable if you choose to play the system to your advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

street

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
413
Location
CO
I understand the argument against a point system. But if you look at two equally desirable MD hunts, one in CO(pure PP system) and one in NM(100% random draw):

  • CO hunt requires 22PP to draw 100%. So 23 years of point build - creep has been stable on that hunt over recent years.
  • NM hunt, if you put in for that hunt 23 straight years, you would have 80% probability of drawing it.

I personally like the variety of draw systems between states.

I'm late to the PP game, but I don't feel like there isn't ample opportunity to get really good tags for the rest of my life, in multiple states. Maybe WY has the recipe to balance the rigidity of the pure preference point system.
 

wapitibob

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
3,375
Location
Bend Oregon
I'm waiting for someone to point out the blatant "pay to play" nature of the Wyoming Regular price vs Special price draws. Wide open and there for everyone to see; you pay more money you have better odds.
Not only is it not discussed when "pay to play" is a brought up, many seem to embrace the concept.
 

mlgc20

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
710
Location
DFW, TX
I'm waiting for someone to point out the blatant "pay to play" nature of the Wyoming Regular price vs Special price draws. Wide open and there for everyone to see; you pay more money you have better odds.
Not only is it not discussed when "pay to play" is a brought up, many seem to embrace the concept.
I would be in the "embrace the concept" camp. But unlike most, I think the states in general, need to raise prices. Especially for preference points. I wouldn't mind if the states I buy preference points in (Wyoming and Colorado) doubled the cost for preference points. Not because I want to give the state more money. But, it might help improve overall odds and help with point creep.
 

Rich M

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
1,762
Location
Orlando
What's that have to do with point systems? Very simply that same segment above in many cases cheer and steer for policy that cost more and fosters more exclusivity for the own ends.

What there needs to be is equality in opportunity.
The opportunity is essentially the same - You/me/we can buy exactly 1 point. Just like everyone else. That we aren't aware of it or that you are 50+ yrs old doesn't calculate in the equation. You had opportunity to buy the point.
Right now even though two individuals pay the same amount they aren't afforded the same opportunity because we built systems that were dependent on TIME of entry.
Everything in our society is times based on your time of entry. Go and get in front of someone at the grocery checkout line and see what happens. The opportunity is the same - exactly the same. Just you didn't get in line first.

Add the population increase and 10,000 guys applying for 3 tags to hunt X. That is something that is done for fun - you apply but don't ever expect to ever get the tag. If you do, then you are very happy. If you don't, you never expected it anyway. I'd never intentionally collect points for that.

Yes NR hunting is luxury that not everyone can part take in, and most likely it's always been so. That said it probably doesn't help our cause to raise the barriers to entry at every turn and nothing hurts hunting more than disenfanicement of hunters.
NR hunting has always been a luxury. Resident hunting is what most people do. Rich people travel to far off and exotic places to hunt for stuff.

What changed NR DIY hunting in the US is You Tube. "Johnny Newbug Goes Hunting" gets watched a million times and 200,000 of those guys decide they are gonna do it just like Johnny - look how easy it is. So, they all apply and suddenly the tags that get displaced are now worth more points, cause there is more demand.

The barriers are the number of guys trying to do the same thing - it isn't the cost or the points or the system.
 
OP
F

Fordguy

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
94
Wow... I never expected anyone to lose their water tight seal when I started this thread.
To 5 miles back- you're defending a system (I'm not sure calling people names is defending anything- it certainly wouldn't have worked on the debate team) that doesn't give anyone the chance to catch up at a certain point. Not once did I suggest that anyone go straight to max points. Nor did I suggest that they didn't have to buy points to get to the point of drawing a tag- just like everyone else. I've never suggested that we give anything to anyone other than a chance to earn enough points to have the potential to draw a tag. Im not talking about giving away tags like the participation trophies that seem to be popular today. Among other things, we're all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We're all entitled to have an opinion too. There's simply no need to get so butthurt that ... Well... I'd better stop here before I say something amusing but inappropriate.
I realize that some people are happy with the points systems in whatever state they happen to hunt in. That's cool. Some people aren't. Thats cool too. Part of the fun is hearing everyone's opinion and being open to new solutions and ideas.

I haven't read most of the posts from today since I had to work so forgive me if I've missed anything ground-breaking. I'll try to catch up.
 

5MilesBack

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
11,475
Location
Colorado Springs
To 5 miles back- you're defending a system (I'm not sure calling people names is defending anything- it certainly wouldn't have worked on the debate team)
"Calling people names"???? I reread every one of my posts and there was no name calling.

I'm not defending a system at all.........I'm just debating the logic that every single person in the world should have equal access (eventual or otherwise) to a few tags that others have waited patiently for the opportunity to draw...........for decades in some cases.

You keep repeating what you've said, but we've all understood what you've been saying from the start.........but it's still an entitlement mentality. Did you read my marathon example? That's exactly what you've been promoting. And does that make sense to you? No, the trophy isn't just handed to them, they still have to run to catch up to the leaders.........but you've advocated that the leaders should be hobbled until everyone else catches up to them so that they can then have the same chance as the leaders. That's just downright un-American, and on par with giving everyone a trophy. That's what I'm debating against and certainly not defending.

But you'll be happy to know at least with CO, CPW has already done a little of what you're advocating for. Some of the most prized units in the state have "hybrid draw" tags that they've made available to those folks with as few as 5 points. So the hybrid tags are a lottery draw for everyone with at least 5 points, but not quite enough to draw at the top.
 
Last edited:
OP
F

Fordguy

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
94
My apologies- the entire post wasn't directed to you and I failed to differentiate what was and was not. The name calling was in reference to another post that I can't find at the moment. Maybe it was edited or removed.

The current points system is like running a marathon, except that half of the runners get a 25k head start. Curently its a Marathon with an uncertain finish line, and leaders with such a head start that few people catch up. New runners are starting back at the beginning every year even less people catch up as time goes by. Im not sure that "hobbled" is the best analogy.
I'm really not sure what you would have to be concerned about if any of the changes I mentioned did take place. Either you have a bunch of points, and the people starting to build points now would take 10 or 15 or 20 years to catch up (to whatever max points were capped at) or you don't have many points and you would be you would at least be in the draw for whatever your chosen high point unit is in this lifetime. If you're somewhere in the middle- you're that much closer to the draw.
At some point you just have to agree to disagree.
As far as unAmerican- if the point system followed the American example we would be able to buy, sell, or trade our points. Scalping would be rampant and people would be making money on the system. Actually it might not be a bad idea. Then again- it could be terrible.
 
Top