Want to make a deal for antelope

schoolhousegrizz · Mar 29, 2017

I am aware that this post will make some people mad. Here is the deal. I have five Antelope Points. The area I want to draw takes five in the special draw and 7 in the regular draw. If there is anyone out there that has nine plus points and might be interested in sharing with me, I will buy a couple of your points from you and we can put in together and save each other some money. I am not looking to hunt with someone, but I would not rule that out. Let me know, PM's are welcome. If no one is interested I will just go special draw, thanks!

DW · Mar 29, 2017

They shouldn't hate the playa......

faultcurrent · Mar 29, 2017

I love it! Add some variables to the point system!

schoolhousegrizz · Mar 29, 2017

Haha, thanks guys

TOPGUN · Mar 29, 2017

The difference in the regular and special tag is $240. If you bought 2PPs from someone for $60 at the going rate of $30 per PP, that would mean you're saving only $180 and they are probably going to hunt a lesser unit with 7PPs than their original 9PPs they now have would put them in. Good luck with that. I know some residents don't like the NR point averaging the way it's set up, but IMHO we NRs didn't ask for this PP scheme and we might as well take advantage of the averaging as long as it stays legal. That will probably be the case until Wyoming institutes PPs for residents and I have no idea if that will ever fly and if it does if they will change ours to the person with the lowest points. I really could care less because I'm out of the PP games completely!

schoolhousegrizz · Mar 29, 2017

Thanks Captain Obvious;-) I'm just playing with you, I was aware of the entire situation, thanks though.

junior · Mar 29, 2017

You probably need to sweetn the pot a little more? Say an 80" goat? Lmao...

Seriously, I like averaging with the family and friends, but...

I just think out of sight, out of mind. Keep it low key. This kind of post is what will eventually get averaging shot down by residents! Guarantee it will be copied and pasted for G&f to see!

schoolhousegrizz · Mar 29, 2017

Couldn't see a PM faultcurrent?

jm77 · Mar 29, 2017

>Couldn't see a PM faultcurrent?

Ha ha ha!

schoolhousegrizz · Mar 29, 2017

SDBugler · Mar 30, 2017

Points sharing is NOT a bad issue. It obviously hurts the guy with lots of points but what people don't realize is that it actually helps those with fewer points as it actually keeps more tags in the system for those that don't do the point sharing.

Below is an example I posted in a previous discussion about point sharing. It is a generic example for a region G deer tag but other mid level hunts (4, 5 or 6 point units) would be similar:

I think there is a false conception that point sharing takes tags away from others who are waiting in line.

Let's look at Region G that last year took 5 points to draw and assume an average point creep of about .5 point per year to get to that point level.

If hunter A has 10 points and teams up with hunter B with zero points to apply. That scenario takes two total tags out of the unit over an 11 year period (10 years of point accumulation and drawing on 11th year).

Now let's assume that same hunter A had always applied for region G from the beginning. Let's be conservative and assume he didn't draw the first year when everyone started at zero points.
Year 1 he doesn't draw and there are no points
Year 2 he draws with 1 point and it takes 0.5 points.
Year 3 he has 0 and it takes 1 point to draw
Year 4 he has 1 and it takes 1.5 to draw
Year 5 he has 2 and it takes 2 so he draws his second tag.
Year 6 he has 0 points and it takes 2.5 to draw.
Year 7 he has 1 and it takes 3 to draw.
Year 8 he has 2 and it takes 3.5 to draw.
Year 9 he has 3 and it takes 4 to draw.
Year 10 he has 4 and it takes 4.5 to draw
Year 11 he has 5 and it takes 5 to draw so he draws his third tag

So in the point sharing scenario hunter A actually takes fewer tags out of the draw pool over the same period of time!

People forget that point creep actually hurts the guys who share points and keeps more tags available in the long run.

TOPGUN · Mar 30, 2017

That's sort of the way that I also look at it SDB! A few people in the lower pools may lose out getting a tag one year due to that PP sharing, but IMHO it probably works out where not many are hurt by it because two more people are out of the pools that may have been in there for a few more years trying for tags. I also haven't heard any NRs griping about the way the system was set up, but rather mostly residents that don't like that setup if and when they would get a PP system too.

dz · Mar 30, 2017

The Elephant in the room is the guy buying points for non hunting people and just eating that tag. It happens a lot more then anyone on here would like to admit. Especially here in Oregon where you don't have to pick up or pay for the tag. And it surprises people when the stats show that 10-30% of the hunters didn't hunt.

DZ

jm77 · Mar 30, 2017

>The Elephant in the room is
>the guy buying points for
>non hunting people and just
>eating that tag. It
>happens a lot more then
>anyone on here would like
>to admit. Especially here
>in Oregon where you don't
>have to pick up or
>pay for the tag.
>And it surprises people when
>the stats show that 10-30%
>of the hunters didn't hunt.
>
>
>DZ

Agreed, This is the main reason averaging wouldn't work for residents, given a much cheaper PP fee. However, don't think points will happen for residents anytime soon.

nripepi · Mar 31, 2017

I don't think is totally correct.

That is a very specific example with a very specific point creep.

The problem is that what if Hunter B is also Hunter A who already took 3 tags out of the system!

In that scenario, they will take 5 tags over 11 years!

I think the exact opposite about point averaging as it is very similar to Colorado's point banking for a year.

I think that it allows those with the most points a better chance to draw the more coveted tags and it raises the amount of points needed to draw the easier to draw tags. If you were not allowed to average points, many that are averaging would do one of the following:

1. They would hunt the lower point value hunt where they were going to average (Region G), but use 5 extra points to do so.
2. They would hold out for a harder to draw once in a lifetime type hunt (late rut hunt).

In either scenario 1 or 2, the amount of points needed to draw G would decrease. That is the problem with Point Averaging in my opinion.

I love point averaging though! It allows me and my family to hunt together easier. I have used it a couple of times, mostly 6 and 4 point type hunts where we went in at 5, not the 10 - 0 option being discussed. The reason that Wyoming's system works pretty well with point averaging is that they do not allow tags to be turned back in for a refund. If they did, then Grandma would be applying for a lot of points.

SDBugler · Mar 31, 2017

RE: I don't think is totally correct.

nripepi
That is my point. Hunter A and hunter B combined take 5 tags out of the pool (assuming hunter B has been applying every year) over that period of time. Now compare that to two hunters who applied for that unit every year and they each would have drawn 3 tags or taken six tags out of the pool over the same period. That is one less tag out of the system with point sharing vs if they had each always hunted the unit.

My point is that because of point creep, the value of acquiring points goes down over time.

Point averaging hurts the demand mid tier units but pulls people out of the top tier units. Without point sharing, most guys with high points will likely not "waste" points on mid/low tier units.

nripepi · Mar 31, 2017

RE: I don't think is totally correct.

I thought you were comparing 2 vs. 5 tags, not 5 vs. 6. I agree that point averaging does not take tags away per se, but I think it is part of the reason (not sure what % of the reason) for that 0.5 point increase per year. That increase then limits how many tags regular Joe applying every year will get. What once took 2 years to draw now takes 5!

It definitely helps the top end hunts as well as the low end ones, I am just not sure how significant it is.

Tknez · Apr 1, 2017

I cant figure out why anyone would think this kind of thing would Pi@# off the residents.... Why should it matter to any of us how the allotted tags go to. Who it should pis@ of is the other non residents that people like Founder always gets to hunt Reg. G! Not saying I wouldn't be doing the same thing if I were in his shoes, he is just playing within the rule that have been set. Now selling of Wyoming's deer, that is what does tick off the residents!

HiMtnHntr · Apr 2, 2017

RE: I don't think is totally correct.

Simple supply and demand causes point creep. Take all point averaging away and it'll still increase every year in most areas.

nripepi · Apr 4, 2017

RE: I don't think is totally correct.

100% agreed that supply and demand causes point creep, but the question is how much affect does point averaging have on point creep for Region G type tags. It has to have some as someone with 10 and someone with 0 go in as 5. It might only move the odds in G from needing 4.9 points to draw to 5, but it has to move them some. It is moving the 10 point unit draw odds down a bit as well as moving the 0 point units down as well, while moving the midrange tag units up a bit.

It is likely not significant, so probably not a big deal. The issue I see is if that person with 10 points would hunt G without splitting their points with someone with 0? If so, then that adds 1 tag back into the pool for those not averaging.

As I stated, I like the idea of it and I use it to hunt with family members. I just see how it may seem unfair to that group of 4 hunters who all have 4 points who want to hunt G together and won't draw as they watch someone with zero draw G for the 5th straight year by buying points from someone with 6,7,8,9,10 points over the years. That person might have taken your tag!