Considering the current economic climate, it stands to reason that any discussion of banking might lead to considerable controversy. The fact that our subject concerns the way Colorado hunters obtain the most desirable licenses for deer and elk, instead of the nation’s monetary system, makes it no less volatile.
First, a few words of explanation. As an element of fairness, our state uses a preference-point method to compensate those who have been unlucky in previous license draws. Miss out this year, you get a point toward next.
Trouble arises when certain hunters choose not to spend these points as they go along, but hoard them toward accumulating sufficient leverage in premier game management units that provide a chance at a trophy animal. Thus we have a logjam of points at the top. In some cases, it takes 19 points to draw a prime elk tag, 15 for deer.
“If you just started collecting points in, say, the past five years, it’s mathematically impossible to draw one of those quality licenses,” said Rick Kahn, state big game manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. “It’s like traffic in New York City. You can’t get there from here.”
Under current rules, spending preference points is an all-or-nothing proposition. If someone who over the years has collected 10 points wishes to join family or friends in a unit where just two are required, he loses the whole bundle.
Banking refers to an alternative system that works just like a personal bank account. You spend only the necessary amount and save the rest for another day. Proponents argue this is the way to encourage hunters to use up some of those accumulated points, thus alleviating the jam.
The Colorado Wildlife Commission approved a banking arrangement for the 2005 season, then declined to renew it. Most observers believe a far more extended test is required to determine whether this achieves a desirable result. Many also think the commission is poised to give the concept another go, at least in modified fashion.
Banking came up for considerable discussion at last Thursday’s meeting. Don’t be surprised to see some action, up or down, before the September deadline to finalize the next five-year season structure for big game. While banking seems desirable from the standpoint of fairness — paying only for what one only actually wants or needs — certain negatives also must be considered. The worst is a fear that a cascade of points down from the upper tier will disrupt what has been an orderly process down below.
“Less than 5 percent of the limited licenses require more than two points to draw,” said Mary Lloyd, big game data analyst. “Ninety-five percent of the system is working well at these lower levels for both deer and elk.”
The worry, said big game coordinator Bruce Watkins, is that all these smooth-functioning units with low-point requirements will lose their predictability.
“There’s a risk that we could inflate those units and create uncertainty,” he said.
A hunter in a traditional two-point unit might face the prospect of being bumped after making an application, thus upsetting his own plans for a group hunt. Thus one man’s meat becomes another’s empty freezer.
Some type of hybrid system has been suggested, one that strives to leave the low-point units relatively unchanged while tweaking those at the top.
We’ll hear a lot of discussion at upcoming meetings. Once the commission gets that worked out, the national financial mess should be a snap.
Charlie Meyers: 303-954-1609 or cmeyers@denverpost.com
