CPW Preference Point Banking Survey

[One Shot]

I have 10 points for each species and did not get an email about the survey. I wonder if it was sent to people with 15 plus points or something? I don't want the point banking. I think the point creep will get higher if they get rid of OTC, because people will have to start using points they didnt need to previously, so the point creep seems like it would get worse without OTC tags.

[whitewalrus]

9pts for mule and elk, no survey, wonder if it is +10 or +15pts.

I expect an end to the OTC hunts if the CPW is interested in management and not just tag fees. Foot traffic and pressure is pretty absurd in the few units I have hunted the last couple years during archery.

I have over 20 for elk and didn?t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[def90]

Survey or not you can email them and express your opinion.

[Little Dutch]

Interesting. I didn't get the email, but thanks for the heads up on what may be coming down the pipe.

[theGinsue]

Curious many of you have more points than I do but didn't receive the email/survey request. I do tend to regularly (practically yearly) get "randomly selected" by CPW to participate in an annual "Harvest Survey".

I have 18 elk points. I'd been saving up the points (and buying OTC bull elk permit) to use on Trinchera Ranch where harvesting a bull usually meant a once-in-a-lifetime trophy bull. In order to draw out there you had to have 17-22 pts. 2020 was the last year Trinchera participated in the program so now I have to figure out where I want to use the points. Very disappointed by the turn of events.

I appreciate everyones input on the point banking option. I think I'll participate in this survey (I usually avoid ALL surveys) and plan to go against this option.

As encorehunter mentioned, several years ago (around 10?) they tried this for 1 year. One of my hunting partners actually got to take advantage of the "we'll only take as many points as needed for you to draw a permit" that year. None of my other hunting partners, nor I, had enough points or applied for a permit to use points that year. I recall that there was a huge uproar over DOW (I believe this was prior to it being CPW) doing this so the next year it was back to "all or nothing". Whatever CPW decides to do they need to stick with it or it will unfairly effect a lot of hunters.




ETA: Just completed the survey. I should have taken screen shots of each page of the survey as when I finished I was unable to go back to any of the pages.

The point banking system they are considering would subtract a penalty of 2 points per species for each successful award. For instance, if 5 points are required to draw a permit you would be charged 7 points to get the permit but any of your remaining points would stay intact.

Naw, I'll just continue to accrue until I find the area I want to apply for.

Oh, and for those who complained about people just applying for a permit and even one who said you should be charged for the permit up front: In those days if you didn't draw a permit or only applied for the point, they charged you the full permit fee, then returned all but $3 3-4 months later (after the draw). I can't see why that was necessary if you were only applying for a point except they got to draw interest off of your money for those few months. Nowadays, if you only apply for a point they charge you $7. If you apply for a permit but don't draw you still pay them $7 for the "chance" and get a point as a consolation prize.

It used to be that Wildlife was in the black but Parks was in the red. As predicted when they merged, prices have gone up and Parks is dragging all of CPW into the red while sucking away the positive revenue generated from the Wildlife side of the house leaving it in worse condition than it could/should be. To make up for their losses, and to help out the Parks side, they continue to talk about increasing fees on hunters and fishermen (persons). The whole thing is souring me to participating in the game at all.

[encorehunter]

One of the ranches, Twin Peaks ranch pulled out this year. This is sad to me, as that was the last elk tag I drew, a cow elk in 98. The bulls on the ranch were amazing. Tercio ranch is another local ranch, but they did away with one of their bull tags. This looses 3 top bull tags, as they all took 26-27 point each. It looks like it may take a while longer to draw a tag.

[def90]

Curious many of you have more points than I do but didn't receive the email/survey request. I do tend to regularly (practically yearly) get "randomly selected" by CPW to participate in an annual "Harvest Survey".

I have 18 elk points. I'd been saving up the points (and buying OTC bull elk permit) to use on Trinchera Ranch where harvesting a bull usually meant a once-in-a-lifetime trophy bull. In order to draw out there you had to have 17-22 pts. 2020 was the last year Trinchera participated in the program so now I have to figure out where I want to use the points. Very disappointed by the turn of events.

I appreciate everyones input on the point banking option. I think I'll participate in this survey (I usually avoid ALL surveys) and plan to go against this option.

As encorehunter mentioned, several years ago (around 10?) they tried this for 1 year. One of my hunting partners actually got to take advantage of the "we'll only take as many points as needed for you to draw a permit" that year. None of my other hunting partners, nor I, had enough points or applied for a permit to use points that year. I recall that there was a huge uproar over DOW (I believe this was prior to it being CPW) doing this so the next year it was back to "all or nothing". Whatever CPW decides to do they need to stick with it or it will unfairly effect a lot of hunters.




ETA: Just completed the survey. I should have taken screen shots of each page of the survey as when I finished I was unable to go back to any of the pages.

The point banking system they are considering would subtract a penalty of 2 points per species for each successful award. For instance, if 5 points are required to draw a permit you would be charged 7 points to get the permit but any of your remaining points would stay intact.

Naw, I'll just continue to accrue until I find the area I want to apply for.

Oh, and for those who complained about people just applying for a permit and even one who said you should be charged for the permit up front: In those days if you didn't draw a permit or only applied for the point, they charged you the full permit fee, then returned all but $3 3-4 months later (after the draw). I can't see why that was necessary if you were only applying for a point except they got to draw interest off of your money for those few months. Nowadays, if you only apply for a point they charge you $7. If you apply for a permit but don't draw you still pay them $7 for the "chance" and get a point as a consolation prize.

It used to be that Wildlife was in the black but Parks was in the red. As predicted when they merged, prices have gone up and Parks is dragging all of CPW into the red while sucking away the positive revenue generated from the Wildlife side of the house leaving it in worse condition than it could/should be. To make up for their losses, and to help out the Parks side, they continue to talk about increasing fees on hunters and fishermen (persons). The whole thing is souring me to participating in the game at all.

You would benefit greatly from a points banking system so hats off to you if you replied that you were not in favor.

The issue of not charging up front is that you get a much larger pool applying for those tags because there is no upfront investment. This can be seen via the number of tags that are returned and entered in to the secondary draw. Maybe a better system would be that returned tags go to the next person in line that appied for that tag vs the tag just going back in to the pool. I know I've missed out on tags only to see them show up in the secondary draw.

CPW vs Parks.. I've done the research, they maintain their own separate budgets and accounts and only share on the admin side as in back office staff in the way of sharing a building, HR and bean counters. CPW has to keep their license fee income and expenditures separated by law, if they do not they would not qualify for federal pittman robertson funds.

[Hummer]

A little late to the discussion but have read in. Today, I applied for buck deer, cow elk, cow moose, and buck pronghorn. Later, I'll pick up bull elk and concurrent bear tags.

I have 10 elk points because I hunt an OTC unit where I haven't needed points to get both cow and bull tags. The problem is, where can I use those 10 elk points in an area practical for me to hunt? Nowhere, so far as I can find. So, I keep applying first choice for a unit that needs 25+ points to draw. I'll be 86+ before I'll draw that unit, unless all the other codgers die off first to lower the draw point.

But what CPW has done recently is institute a new angle where a small percentage (10%?) of applicants with fewer points can draw tags for the high PP units. My guess is that this percentage will increase for the prime units. There's hope in that for those with fewer points.


Now, if I happen to draw my first choice bull elk tag, and the cow moose tag, and the probable buck pronghorn tag, what then? All three seasons coincide, so which tags get turned back in? I can get refunds but lose the points, or I can keep the points but have to forfeit the license fees. Answer: I'd give up both cow moose and buck pronghorn tags because I'll have a decent chance of drawing them again in a year or so. Expensive, but that's the rules. Trophy bull elk trumps cow moose, even if I can shoot the moose in my own yard.

[TRnCO]

With the apparent winter kill in some parts of the mountains this winter and the soon to be released hungry jaws of many wolves, the issue of point creep is only going to get worse. After all, winter kill and wolves equals fewer big game which equals fewer big game tags to go around.
Saw a story on the news just the other day with the CDOW saying that they are going to be cutting tags as much as 40% for the N.W. corner of the state and I'm guessing that they may also do the same for the S.W. corner being how there's deep snow down that way too, so I assume winter kill may affect the deer and elk down that way as well.

[Little Dutch]

A little late to the discussion but have read in. Today, I applied for buck deer, cow elk, cow moose, and buck pronghorn. Later, I'll pick up bull elk and concurrent bear tags.

I have 10 elk points because I hunt an OTC unit where I haven't needed points to get both cow and bull tags. The problem is, where can I use those 10 elk points in an area practical for me to hunt? Nowhere, so far as I can find. So, I keep applying first choice for a unit that needs 25+ points to draw. I'll be 86+ before I'll draw that unit, unless all the other codgers die off first to lower the draw point.

But what CPW has done recently is institute a new angle where a small percentage (10%?) of applicants with fewer points can draw tags for the high PP units. My guess is that this percentage will increase for the prime units. There's hope in that for those with fewer points.


Now, if I happen to draw my first choice bull elk tag, and the cow moose tag, and the probable buck pronghorn tag, what then? All three seasons coincide, so which tags get turned back in? I can get refunds but lose the points, or I can keep the points but have to forfeit the license fees. Answer: I'd give up both cow moose and buck pronghorn tags because I'll have a decent chance of drawing them again in a year or so. Expensive, but that's the rules. Trophy bull elk trumps cow moose, even if I can shoot the moose in my own yard.

I agree with your assessment on which to take. But Are you saying cow moose doesn’t have a 3 point minimum to be entered into the lottery?