Amid all the rancorous debate involving landowner vouchers in the current round of public dialogue, other important decisions concerning Colorado big game hunting sometimes slip through the cracks.
Hunter preference point reform, for example.
For years, sportsmen and game managers have shared a growing concern over the continuing creep of points accumulated as a reward to those who are unsuccessful in obtaining specified licenses. The notion is a good one: Those who don’t get a license for the desired hunt unit will have a better chance next year, or the next.
The problem begins when large numbers of hunters hoard points toward a special hunt. This creates accumulations of such magnitude that, coupled with the current 15 percent set aside for landowner vouchers, virtually excludes anyone who doesn’t already have a passel of points from the most coveted units.
Preference isn’t a problem statewide. Colorado hunters currently can draw a tag in 85 percent of deer units and 80 percent of elk units without a single point. But this condition isn’t likely to last under a growing trend by which 46,000 individuals in 2004 acquired a preference point with no intention to hunt.
The fact that approximately 40,000 of these were nonresidents points up this widespread concern over cherry- picking prime hunts to the detriment of Colorado residents who support wildlife management by purchasing a license every year.
So what to do?
The License Allocation Working Group produced certain proposals for Colorado Wildlife Commission consideration, each deserving of public examination.
Discontinue giving points to those who commit errors in application.
Don’t return preference points to hunters who draw licenses and then don’t hunt, except in medical emergencies.
Put a cap of 10 on point accumulation, then use a weighted system similar to the one currently employed for sheep and goats. This would add a random element to the draw.
Charge a fee, say $40, to obtain a point with no intention to hunt.
Strip away preference points held by hunters who use landowner vouchers for a male or either-sex license.
This latter issue gained support among sportsman representatives on the working group.
“Some of us felt that those who were using landowner vouchers were playing both games, getting a prime hunt and building up preference points,” said Kent Ingram, a vice president of the Colorado Wildlife Federation. “These are fat cats who can afford to buy their way around the system.”
Naturally, this proposal got no support from that heavily weighted portion of the working group that represents various commercial aspects of hunting. Not only do these ranchers and outfitters continue to push for a percentage of landowner preference licenses, they oppose anything that might discourage a portion of their wealthy client base.
Surprisingly, the notion of “banking” gained little support among the group. Under this concept, point holders would use their capital much like money in the bank, spending however many they might need to obtain a draw license, keeping the rest for later.
Judging by phone calls and e-mails, most hunters love the idea. But Ingram notes obvious flaws in the format.
“It’s not that we’re opposed to it, but we thought it wouldn’t be fair to use points multiple times for certain hunts,” he said, citing an example whereby someone with 10 points could jump ahead of the crowd in a key unit several years in a row.
“Maybe we could allow one-time banking, or set it up so you couldn’t spend points in consecutive years. It all depends upon the format.”
Much like landowner vouchers, all these issues turn on the basic principles of fairness. Trouble is, no decision, no matter how well intentioned, ever can be fair for all.
Listen to Charlie Meyers at 9 a.m. each Saturday on “The Fan Outdoors,” radio KKFN 950 AM. He can be reached at 303-820-1609 or cmeyers@denverpost.com.
