Regarding the point banking sticky, CPW staff has spent a lot of time showing why that won't work and I am hoping the group doesn't waste much time kicking that dead horse. In the past Marie Haskett has had a hard time accepting the facts on this and I hope she's finally ready to give up on it and move on.
CO CPW Draw Process Working Group
- Thread starter TheGreek
- Start date
perma
Well-known member
I'm interested in why this seems to be a popular opinion on MSG. I feel like I'm the anomaly here and would prefer a chance even at the 0 point level.
Is everyone's general consensus to leave it as is to give the hunter a few years to think about their decision to go on those hunt? Genuinely curious.
Edit; as I wrote that, I think I can understand why people may prefer it based on how this specific draw works....
seeth07
Well-known member
I personally like the requirement of a few years to get your name into the hat because it requires the applicant to think at least slightly ahead about receiving the tag rather than just going "ahh its a $100 raffle ticket so why not". Idaho is that pure raffle ticket but you again have to really think about it because you only get to pick one - not all three. Both states are once in a lifetime as well further creating that "you better think about it" approach in applying.
I could pick apart a few things I don't like about both of those states but just comparing it to how the rest of the states operate, they are 1 and 2 in my mind and would rather just see some serious thought put into elk/deer/lope rather than MSG from this working group.
i'm kinda indifferent on the need to get 3 points before being considered. having a chance at 0 would be cool too i guess.
I just don't think anything needs to change. we have a system that provides an actual chance of drawing early in the game and provides higher point holders significantly higher statistical odds of drawing.
many high point holders are getting upset and feel they're being cheated despite the clear mathematics that show how much higher their odds are than the lower point holders. they just need to deal with the fact that dying with MSG points is a reality in life that EVERYONE needs to accept as a possibility. squaring points is just more scheming that puts things closer to being permanently out of reach of anyone that's not already old and being crushed under the weight of their points while still guaranteeing most of these folks will die with those points. they'll never be satisfied either, so we need to put a lock on it as soon as possible and crush every attempt to pick that lock.
i want it in statute: the MSG weighted draw process as of 2023 SHALL remain unchanged in perpetuity so as to, in part, prevent old schemers from endlessly scheming their way to the top of their incestuous pile of scheming.
D
Deleted member 52098
Guest
Signed in blood to make it really binding
I watched some of the meeting, focusing on the last few agenda items. I like two discussion points that got little attention. Adding a random element to the hardest to get DEA tags. This will help spread out applicants and give you a slim chance at a glory tag you will likely never have the points to draw, if that is your goal/dream. I also like the intention of getting more points used versus the number of tags issued. Point systems are only sustainable when there is consistent and high turnover in the point pool. Colorado issues plenty of tags but takes a minimal amount of points out of the system for a fraction of them. Addressing these points will keep the system fairer for the coming generation of hunters.
perma
Well-known member
I think that's why I prefer Idaho's system, because I can jump in and out whenever I want. I like that $100 raffle, and I also think it should be the hunter's decision to think about what they're doing before applying. On that same hand, I can understand how someone like me can get in over their head. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
I do like the higher odds part of it, more points, better odds. It adds some marginal method of predictability which is important for those who apply in multiple states. I think the points tower needs to be heavier on top personally, but that contradicts my PoV because I want a chance at 0 points. More importantly, I'd like my dad to have a chance at 0 points, which is where he was 2 years ago. Totally his fault for not collecting points and I don't have too much sympathy in that regard, but still, would be nice to say you have a chance at ground zero.
Seems as though, just like everything else, no one will be 100% happy with the system in place, we just need to find peace with it. I'm still in no matter what.
This already exists as the hybrid draw. The hybrid draw could be expanded, and I would support that.
But from my understanding nonresidents effectively don’t have a chance at those tags because of the allocation rules. They would be drawing dead because of the cap. Am I wrong?
Maybe award the random tags before the preference point tags, given the number of high point nonresidents.
Nonresidents do draw hybrid tags. I'm fine with everything being subject to the R/NR allocation rules.
yes this is generally true, except for pronghorn.
i just say go full wyoming style and throw 20% of every limited license into a random quota following the set R/NR allocation. this high demand nonsense is kinda nonsense. it's just added complexity to the scheme at hand.
Example? (that is not pronghorn)
Pelican
Well-known member
@Oak @Sandbrew
Any chance you two can convince CPW to add another table to the draw stats for each MSG that breaks out draw odds by sex instead of lumping ram and ewe tags into the same summary table. It seems to me a lot of the bitching about the current system is due to the misconception that low point holders are drawing at the same rate as high point holders but this is really due to lots of low point holders drawing female tags.
Any chance you two can convince CPW to add another table to the draw stats for each MSG that breaks out draw odds by sex instead of lumping ram and ewe tags into the same summary table. It seems to me a lot of the bitching about the current system is due to the misconception that low point holders are drawing at the same rate as high point holders but this is really due to lots of low point holders drawing female tags.
grasshopper
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 151
In looking at the splat board, I'm not sure what problem is going to be solved. Hybrid draw doesn't help creep. Point banking doesn't help creep.
Deer and antelope don't even have creep.
Matt Eckert stated in the past something like 90 plus percent of all hunt codes can be drawn at zero points. Take out the female tags, not sure what that turns into.
I just hope the committee starts to find concensus on a problem that needs solved. 88,000 draw applicants have zero points.
Deer and antelope don't even have creep.
Matt Eckert stated in the past something like 90 plus percent of all hunt codes can be drawn at zero points. Take out the female tags, not sure what that turns into.
I just hope the committee starts to find concensus on a problem that needs solved. 88,000 draw applicants have zero points.
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,628
I agree with Gary that there should be no #3. You need to be on one side of the topic or the other if there is going to be a vote.
Oak:
Do you think there's any chance CPW will change the Secondary Draw and weekly Re-Issue Process for 2024? Something needs done and I believe most people really don't want to wait until the Draw Process Working Group changes come through in 2025. Even a temporary change for 2024 would be way better than the current systems. Then in 2025 go with what the Draw Process Working Group decides on.
Do you think there's any chance CPW will change the Secondary Draw and weekly Re-Issue Process for 2024? Something needs done and I believe most people really don't want to wait until the Draw Process Working Group changes come through in 2025. Even a temporary change for 2024 would be way better than the current systems. Then in 2025 go with what the Draw Process Working Group decides on.
Everyone keeps saying it is not working… Why is it not working right now? Just curious what makes it “not work.”
Is it that you didn’t get a tag you wanted or what?
seeth07
Well-known member
well the re-issue process is exposable to automation creating an unfair advantage. So that part for sure needs to be tweaked.
