Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53
  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    81
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 48 Times in 22 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Change Elk to draw only all methods of take. Anytime you draw a tag, buy a leftover, or hunt a cow/doe your points go to 0 and poof point creep solved. Too many hunters want their cake and eat it too. Just look what draw only did for deer and it would do the same for elk. LO vouchers need to use points - for guys like me who have friends that give me a tag for free every year - well I should not gain a point as well.

    Point banking is a terrible idea with little merit. It did not work the first time and will not work the 2nd time. The outfitters are pushing this tested and failed idea more than anyone at this point. Any idea the CPW chooses should do 2 things - the most good for the most hunters and should not negatively impact other hunters. Point banking in reality negatively effects most hunters while doing little good in the "real" world to reduce point creep.

    Funny for to me that with the amount of points builders out there that still hunt every year - anyone thought that the highest end Elk tag would be a reality in the current system - if you did not start with max points... It never was and never will be. Colorado is about opportunity the CPW will tell you that.. If you are looking for a 400" bull in Colorado well then you are looking in the wrong state no matter if you have 500 points right now.. It is not the place of CPW to manage for opportunity then change the entire system caus some hunters cant figure out how to apply for Elk in states like Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, and Nevada where you can actually find a big bull.

    DOW told the truth the entire way and high point gather type did not look at the stats. In reality the high points gathers want to be "bailed out" for their decision to CHOOSE to gain points on the backs of hunters who CHOOSE to hunt. Low points holder never will effect the top end gathers negatively but if point banking comes back the high point gathers will with out a doubt negatively effect the low point hunters.

    I dont think it is the place of the CPW to bail out hunters who made their choices. I see too many hunters dont want to work and just want a 350" bull or 200" buck dropped whole in the back of their truck. If you have over 3 points for either elk or deer and cant find the size of animal I listed above - the points system is flat out not the problem..

    It will be interesting to see what they do.
    Last edited by ColoradoV; 03-11-2014 at 08:06 AM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to ColoradoV For This Useful Post:


  3. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The high plains of Colorado
    Posts
    582
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 58 Times in 52 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    I think preference point banking would work if you implemented it for 5 years. One year was not enough. It was not enough to get people to take a gamble. You would still be able to chase the higher end units if you wanted and you could chase 3 good hunts in 5 years if that is what you wanted to do. The outfitters endorse this preference point banking so more hunters would draw halfway decent tags and hopefully hire them for that "big hunt", although if tag numbers don't change, I don't see how they would get that much more work out of it. I am glad I burned my 21 points last year !!!!!!!!!!!

  4. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dolores, Colorado
    Posts
    2,349
    Thanks
    102
    Thanked 329 Times in 256 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    On the states website there is a section for input for the next 5 year plan. It also has some stat of the points situation. I looked them over and there was some very eye popping numbers there. There are a couple of elk hunter that have over 25 points, I think one was 28! Can't understand why that even is allowed to happen as there are no units that even require that many to draw. I am going to print the stats out so I have them to look at later.
    Colorado Cowboy
    Cowboy Action Shooter; Endowment Life Member-NRA
    The Original Rocket Scientist-Retired
    "My Father always considered a walk in the mountains as the equivalent of church going."
    Aldous Huxley

  5. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Grand Lake, Colorado
    Posts
    114
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 19 Times in 16 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BKC View Post
    I think preference point banking would work if you implemented it for 5 years. One year was not enough. It was not enough to get people to take a gamble. You would still be able to chase the higher end units if you wanted and you could chase 3 good hunts in 5 years if that is what you wanted to do. The outfitters endorse this preference point banking so more hunters would draw halfway decent tags and hopefully hire them for that "big hunt", although if tag numbers don't change, I don't see how they would get that much more work out of it. I am glad I burned my 21 points last year !!!!!!!!!!!
    l


    I just don't see how point banking could possibly reduce point creep. Colorado basically has 3 top tier units (2,10,201) with a combined total of 136 tags for all seasons which currently take an avg. of 19 res. pts. and +\- 21 for NR. There are currently 850 residents and 1,759 NR's with 18 or more points for a total of 2,609. So 2,609/136 = 19 years for just these point holders to draw out and that isn't taking into consideration the 80/20 split. Then there are about 5 mid tier units (1,40,61,76,851) with a combined quota of 1,324 for all seasons with an average of 11 pts For residents And 17.8 pts for NR. There are currently 4,711 residents and 7,877 NR holding between 11 and 17 points essentially qualifying them to draw the mid tier units if that is all they applied for. So 7,884 + 4,711 = 12,595/1,324 = 9.51 years. So if the people with 18 or more points decided to bank points they could accumulate enough points to be in contention for the mid tier units long before the current point holders could draw out. Point banking would dramatically increase the mid tier units while having little impact on the top 3 units. The problem is that there just aren't enough top tier units or limited units for that matter, to have any impact on point creep. I'm in favor of squaring your preference so everybody has a chance.

  6. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The high plains of Colorado
    Posts
    582
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 58 Times in 52 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    Isnt the weighted point system we have on Sheep, Goat, and Moose basically the same as a squared point system? The longer you are in the better chance you have to draw because your name is in more or your points grow at a faster rate than someone a year or two behind. I drew out my sheep and goat tags before the weighted point system started, and I'm glad I did. I have drawn all my big hunts when and where I have wanted to except Moose. Moose is the only tag I cannot draw and it is the only animal that I put in with weighted points, which I have the maximum. Coincidence? I do not like weighted points and don't think I would like squared points. I am burning my 14 points on a bear hunt this year because I believe the point system is going to be changed big time. I am about two years from a very good high country buck tag but I have a feeling I am going to get the rugged yanked out from under me on this tag.

  7. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kingwood, TX
    Posts
    1,479
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 163 Times in 125 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    They could always create more quality units and quit managing for opportunity if they want points dumped.

  8. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Grand Lake, Colorado
    Posts
    114
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 19 Times in 16 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by packmule View Post
    They could always create more quality units and quit managing for opportunity if they want points dumped.
    They could but you would be amazed at how much small town economics plays a part in how the local game herds are managed. If areas that currently host +/- 6,000 hunters were to become limited areas that only allowed 500 hunters the local economies would suffer tremendously. There have been numerous proposals to increase the number of limited areas but all have failed due to the outfitters and chamber of commerce raising hell.

  9. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dolores, Colorado
    Posts
    2,349
    Thanks
    102
    Thanked 329 Times in 256 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Granby guy View Post
    They could but you would be amazed at how much small town economics plays a part in how the local game herds are managed. If areas that currently host +/- 6,000 hunters were to become limited areas that only allowed 500 hunters the local economies would suffer tremendously. There have been numerous proposals to increase the number of limited areas but all have failed due to the outfitters and chamber of commerce raising hell.
    Yep...especially the outfitters and the big landowners.
    Colorado Cowboy
    Cowboy Action Shooter; Endowment Life Member-NRA
    The Original Rocket Scientist-Retired
    "My Father always considered a walk in the mountains as the equivalent of church going."
    Aldous Huxley

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Colorado Cowboy For This Useful Post:


  11. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    colfax, wa
    Posts
    4,676
    Thanks
    1,042
    Thanked 537 Times in 470 Posts
    Congratulations
    5
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    All that is true enough but if the areas are over hunted to much for to long and the hunting gets to bad all those hunters are going to stop coming anyways. Like alot of areas in Idaho that have been hit hard by wolves. There are plenty of tags but not many hunters or animals to hunt anymore.

  12. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Grand Lake, Colorado
    Posts
    114
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 19 Times in 16 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    MM,
    I understand but we have had unlimited bull tags for years but still manage to maintain a 20/100 bull ratio. But I agree that if the opportunity disappears so will the hunters.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. What is Colorado's First Season like?
    By BrettKoenecke in forum Colorado
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 03:01 PM
  2. Colorado's Loss, Wyoming's Gain??
    By birdhunter in forum Wyoming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-08-2013, 09:17 AM
  3. Job Ideas?
    By hubba20 in forum General Hunting
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-07-2012, 10:22 PM
  4. Point Structure and Youth Licenses
    By MOHunter in forum Wyoming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-09-2011, 04:59 PM
  5. colorado's best elk unit
    By campwithacook.com in forum General Hunting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-10-2011, 02:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •