Point Creep Wrap Up - A Real Life Understanding

Finally, let's take a close look at how all of these variables come together and manifest themselves each year. At the right are the drawing odds for the resident limited entry elk Central Mountains, Manti early any weapon hunt (my favorite unit to pick on) for 2015. The first thing I like to identify is the lowest point group in which at least one applicant drew a bonus tag. In this example is it 14 bonus points, and 67 bonus tags were awarded to applicants with 14 or more bonus points. There were eight 14 point applicants who drew in the 14 point pool and the remaining 52 applicants were entered into the random drawing. The second thing I like to identify is how many applicants with 14 points also drew random tags, in this example that number is 2. That tells me that in total ten 14 point applicants drew a tag leaving 50 applicants who were unsuccessful and received their 15th bonus point.
So if the Utah big game drawing occurred in a vacuum, we would expect there to be 50 applicants with 15 points, 91 applicants with 14 points, 95 applicants with 13 points, 85 applicants with 13 points, and so forth for the Central Mountains, Manti early any weapon elk hunt for 2016.
But below, you will see the 2015 drawing results side-by-side with the 2016 drawing results. The first thing that you’ll notice is that even though all the applicants from 2015 with 15 points or more drew tags, there are a number of applicants (20 to be exact) who could not have applied for this unit in 2015 but did so in 2016. Additionally, after 2015 there were 50 unsuccessful applicants with 14 points who gained a 15th point, yet in 2016 we see 57 total applicants with 15 points. So not only did we gain 20 applicants above the bonus point level from last year, we also gained 7 additional applicants in the 15 bonus point pool. So where did these applicants come from? Where were they the year before?
The honest answer to that question is… we don’t know. We can’t determine exactly “where” these applicants came from, it’s impossible at this point to determine whether these applicants were Point Buyers who finally decided to cash in their point stash, Unit Jumpers who came over from higher tier units, or if they were Inactive Applicants who had not applied years prior and decided to apply in 2016. But suffice it to say that there were 27 applicants in 2016 who contributed to point creep in this unit in 2016.
There was a fourth variable though of tag allocation, and we can see in this example (green box) that the number of tags remained unchanged between 2015 and 2016 so tag allocation was not an impactful variable in 2016.



Now let's take a look at the 2016 data compared to the 2017 data below. Notice that tag allocation becomes an impactful variable because tags numbers were reduced from 134 in 2016 to 125 in 2017.
In 2016, there were 48 successful applicants in the 15 bonus point pool and 9 applicants who were unsuccessful and received their 16th bonus point. From the 2017 drawing report we can identify 40 applicants who did not apply for this unit in 2016… again whether they cashed in purchased points, jumped from another unit, or jumped back into the drawing after some time away we cannot tell… however, all four point creep variables were evident in the 2017 application cycle for the resident Central Mountains, Manti early any weapon elk hunt.

So what does this mean for the 2018 application cycle for this Manti hunt? In the 15 bonus point pool from 2017 there were 59 unsuccessful applicants who theoretically we would assume will apply again in 2018 with 16 bonus points. I would expect to see a good number of applicants with 17 points or more… I’d say somewhere between 25 and 40. I’m going to be optimistic and assume a stable number of tags being offered at 125. I’d assume that all applicants with 17 points or more will be successful, and that leaves enough tags for 1/3 to ½ of the 16 bonus point pool to draw the bonus tags. So the number of bonus points needed to draw a Central Mountains, Manti early rifle elk tag (resident) has crept up from 14 in 2015 to my assumption of 16 in 2018.

Point Creep Variable #4 - "Inactive Applicants"

The final variable that I would say has, or could have, considerable impact on point creep are what I call “Inactive Applicants.” The number of applicants who applied for a tag before, have accumulated a point or more, and did not apply last year is pretty eye opening.
The DWR issues a separate report, after the drawing results are released that shows the total number of individuals who hold 1 bonus point or more. This report is called the Preference Point Summary by Residency and Species… or something similar and can be found on the DWRs Big Game webpage.

The image at right shows the total number of Utah residents with bull elk bonus points from the 2016 Preference Point Summary by Residency and Species set up against the number of Active Applicants (Actual Applicants + Point Buyers) from 2017. What I’m trying to do here is to impress upon you the number of people who have applied previously for limited entry bull elk but for some reason do not apply again.
The 2016 report shows that 44,037 individuals had 1 elk bonus point entering the 2017 application cycle. So looking straight across, of those 44,037 potential applicants in the 1 bonus point pool only 7635 were active applicants again in 2017. A mere 17% of the total potential applicant pool applied a second time! This seems to be pretty consistent that less than 20% of all first time applicants apply a second time. Interestingly though as you proceed down the table the percentage increases and by the time you hit the top third of the bonus point pools the percentages of re-applicants is 90% or more with the top bonus point pools being nearly 100%.
I think there is a sense of investment here. The more points you accumulate the more dedicated you are to the activity of hunting and/or the more obligated you feel to continue applying.
Overall, the bottom row of the image indicates that a mere 38% of the total number of applicants from 2016 applied again in 2017.
You might be wondering how this applies to point creep so I’ll give you an example. In 2002 and 2003, I was a young single college student. I wasn’t particularly interested in hunting at that point in my life but my grandfather talked me into applying for a bull elk tag with him and my uncle. I did so, unsuccessfully both years. Then in 2009, on a whim I purchased a muzzleloader and began hunting again. I have applied since for a limited entry bull elk tag. So for 5 years, I was one of those “inactive” applicants.
Another example… my uncle has only sporadically applied for a bull elk tag. He currently has 9 points to his name but has only applied twice since 2005, both times because I convinced him to do so. If he were to decide to resume applying for bull elk in earnest he could jump in and take a lower to mid-tier muzzleloader tag or a good archery tag.
It only takes a grandson/granddaughter, son/daughter, niece/nephew, friend, neighbor, or co-worker to express interest and all of a sudden a dormant applicant awakens.

PREVIOUS: Point Creep Variable #3 - "The Unit Jumper"
NEXT: Point Creep - A Real Life Understanding

Point Creep Variable #3 - "The Unit Jumper"

The third variable that I would consider is what I call “The Unit Jumper.” There are a number of factors that contribute to the unit jumping phenomenon…
I read of considerable frustration as I visit various western hunting forums with the western point systems and I read of a growing number of hunters who are looking to burn their points sooner for lower tier tags rather than continue to build points and hold out for an upper echelon tag. As these applicants shift their focus from top tier to lower tier units they contribute to point creep.
For example, let’s say that I’ve been applying for the Beaver, West early any weapon hunt unsuccessfully for many years and in 2018 I’ll be entering the drawing with 18 points. Looking at my spreadsheet, based on the 2017 applicant pool with 18 points I would to need to apply for 25 to 30 more years before I know I’d be guaranteed a tag!!! (Unless of course I’m one of the lucky guys that draws a random tag.) I come to the realization that I’d rather burn my 18 points now, hunt sooner rather than later… I’m not getting any younger, my family situation is good this year, I will have sufficient vacation or leave time from work this year… I want to draw THIS YEAR. Turning back to my spreadsheet I see a unit that I’m very familiar with because I enjoy spending time there doing other outdoor activities outside of hunting season like hiking and fishing. I also see that it only took 15 points to draw a bonus tag there in 2018, my 18 points would definitely put me at the top of the heap. So in 2018 I decide instead to apply for the Plateau, Fishlake/Thousand Lake early any weapon tag. Bringing my 18 points over to the Fishlake unit from the Beaver unit does have on impact on the Fishlake applicants with fewer than 18 points.
Applicants can also “jump” units and have a similar effect on point creep by applying for the same unit but by selecting a different weapon type. Let’s assume that I’ve been applying for the Wasatch Mountains early any weapon hunt and I’ll enter the 2018 application with 11 points. From my spreadsheet, I would estimate that it would take 4 to 6 years for me to draw one of the guaranteed bonus tags… and like in the above example I’m done waiting. I really like the Wasatch unit though, I know the area well, I know I could scout it often due to its proximity to my home, and I’ve helped other guys with hunts there in the past so I’d like to still hunt the Wasatch unit. From my spreadsheet I see that with 11 points I should draw the 2018 muzzleloader tag… I’ve got a muzzleloader, I haven’t shot it in a while and it’d be fun to dig it out of the back of the safe, wipe the dust off, and put a new scope on it (since powered scopes are now legal). So I decide to switch from any weapon to muzzleloader with my application for 2018. Bringing my 11 points over from the early any weapon to the muzzleloader also has an impact on the muzzleloader applicants with fewer than 11 points.
Another reason guys unit jump is commonly referred to as “hot spotting.” Every year different magazines and publications put out lists of the top units across the west. As applicants read these publications they decide to jump from unit to unit based upon these recommendations. Application services like Cabela’s TAGS also contributes to this as they bombard specific units with applications on a yearly basis.

(All the examples I’ve listed here are purely hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate the point.)

It is a good thing though that we have the freedom and ability to change our selections on a year to year basis. Our priorities change, our situations change, and our expectations change and we have the opportunity to modify our selections on an annual basis.

PREVIOUS: Point Creep Variable #2 - "The Point Buyer"
NEXT: Point Creep Variable #4 - "The Absent Applicant"

Point Creep Variable #2 - "The Point Buyer"

NOTE: All the data presented below is for Utah resident limited entry bull elk applicants. The individual limited entry and once-in-a-lifetime species analysis pages will be updated to include all the resident and non-resident data prior to the Utah application period opening on January 25, 2018.

The second variable of point creep is who I call “The Point Buyer”… the applicant who instead of applying for a tag in a specific unit purchases a bonus point for the year. There are a number of reasons why an applicant may choose for a single year, or even multiple years, to simply purchase the bonus point rather then apply for a tag. I have done this before myself due to a known family commitment during the time of my desired hunt. I chose to purchase the point instead of risking the chance of actually drawing the tag and suffering the consequences (I am still convinced that had I actually applied that year I would have been blessed/cursed with the SUCCESSFUL email). I also do this on an annual basis with LE buck deer points for my father, we are hoping that in the not far off future to have a special deer hunt for him before he gets too old and due to work, church, and other responsibilities such a hunting trip is not currently practical. The reasons are numerous and often personal in relation to health, church, work, and/or family.

But these individuals are often overlooked in the overall scope of our research and preparation. In an honest moment… for many years my research leading up to the application period entailed only looking at the drawing results for the unit I was going to apply for from the previous year. Not once did I ever consider this group of individuals and the impact that they could have on my immediate success in drawing a tag.

The catalyst for this entire series was a podcast by a hunting “celebrity” who stated that he had the most bonus points for a specific LE species here in Utah. I was excited to hear his confidence looking towards the 2018 application, I do enjoy seeing my home state of Utah on his shows because I think he produces a quality on screen product. But then I decided to cross-reference the drawing results report with the bonus point purchase summary. I discovered that since he was unsuccessful in 2017 that he would appear to be the highest point holder going into the 2018 application cycle… but there were 6 individuals with the same number of bonus points who purchased their bonus point in 2017. That right there is a game changer!!! I hope that he’s smart enough to include the Bonus Point Purchase Summary in his research and realize that if any of those other 6 guys decides to apply this year for the same unit he does that his sure thing is no longer a sure thing! The inability to incorporate "The Point Buyer" into odds calculations is the great flaw in many of the odds calculators (including my own spreadsheets).

This table outlines the number of Utah resident Bonus Point Buyers, Actual Applicants, Total Active Applicants, and respective percentages of Bonus Point Buyers and Actual Applicants for the 2017 limited entry elk drawing. I realize that this is a lot of data and appears overwhelming, but take just a second to look over it carefully and digest it for just a few minutes.

Bonus Point Group	Point Buyer	Actual Applicant	Total Active Applicant Pool	% Point Buyer	% Actual Applicant
0	1916	9067	10983	17%	83%
1	1378	6257	7635	18%	82%
2	1172	5253	6425	18%	82%
3	1037	4384	5421	19%	81%
4	989	3432	4421	22%	78%
5	809	2912	3721	22%	78%
6	680	2477	3157	22%	78%
7	619	2212	2831	22%	78%
8	555	1844	2399	23%	77%
9	497	1728	2225	22%	78%
10	483	1663	2146	23%	77%
11	410	1414	1824	22%	78%
12	453	1267	1719	26%	74%
13	396	1166	1562	25%	75%
14	325	1037	1362	24%	76%
15	302	894	1196	25%	75%
16	245	676	921	27%	73%
17	210	603	813	26%	74%
18	158	469	627	25%	75%
19	140	390	530	26%	74%
20	114	292	406	28%	72%
21	62	181	243	26%	74%
22	53	119	172	31%	69%
23	19	24	43	44%	66%
24	6	1	7	88%	22%
TOTAL	13027	49762	62789	21%	79%

If you only look at the drawing results report you are neglecting 1/5th (21%) of the total picture and the amount of the picture you are neglecting gets bigger and bigger the more points you have. Let's assume that I was one of the individuals who entered the 2017 application with 23 points but was unsuccessful and will be entering the 2018 application with 24 points. With just a quick glance of the drawing results report I can see that the one Actual Applicant with 24 points in 2017 was successful in drawing a tag. So logically it would make sense to think that all the bonus point holders ahead of me are gone and my 24 points in the 2018 drawing would place me at the very top of the drawing. Turning to the bonus point purchase summary I would see that there were 6 individuals who purchased their 25th bonus point in 2017. These 6 individuals can't be expected to purchase points forever and they will eventually apply for and draw a tag.

The most interesting part of this table is that the percentage of Point Buyers increases as your point accumulation increases… at the max point total there were 6 Point Buyers compared to only 1 Actual Applicant.

So how does this contribute to point creep? Any one of these Point Buyers can jump back in the Actual Applicant pool. If I’m applying for a high demand unit that offers just a few tags, even one of these Point Buyers deciding to become an Actual Applicant can have a dramatic impact if he/she had enough points to jump in and be right at the top for the unit we’re applying for.

PREVIOUS: Point Creep Variable #1 - Tag Allocation
NEXT: Point Creep Variable #3 - "The Unit Jumper"

Point Creep Variable #1... Tag Allocation

The first variable to point creep to discuss is the allocation of tags based upon the management plan and the objectives assigned to each unit. Examples of objectives outlined in the management plan are age trends of harvested animals, buck to doe ratios, numbers of mature bucks/bulls per 100 cows/does, and/or overall herd estimates. Most of the counts that are obtained by DWR personnel are performed post-hunt while game animals are concentrated on winter range and are more easily observed and counted.
The DWR is bound by the management plan to propose tag numbers based upon the objectives outlined in the plan. If a unit has a herd that exceeds the prescribed herd objective then more tags must be proposed. If a buck to doe ratio exceeds what is outlined in the plan then the DWR is bound by the plan to propose more tags. The flipside is also required. If herd estimates are below the objective herd estimate then the DWR proposes fewer tags for the unit. Here is a recent example… the Cache, South unit age objective for harvested bull elk was recently increased from 4.75 to 6.75 years. The last harvest data that I have was several years old (from the 2015 Annual Big Game Report) lists the average age of harvested bull elk at 5.7 years old. Based upon this change in age objective we expected the number of tags to be cut. In 2015 and 2016 there were 140 and 156 bull elk tags, respectively, offered in the drawing under the 4.75 year age objective then in 2017, following the increase in age objective the number of tags issued for the Cache, South unit was reduced to 75… exactly what was expected to happen based upon the management plan.
There is an ebb and flow each year as the annual winter count data is gathered, analyzed, and reported. Based upon this report, the DWR makes a formal proposal for tag numbers for every species and every unit. This occurs in late March or early April in time for the April/May public process sessions of Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) and Wildlife Board (WB) Meeting.
Now here is where it gets interesting. The DWR is bound by the management plans and makes their proposal accordingly but during the RAC and WB meetings the public is allowed to provide input and Conservation Organizations and other Special Interest groups often make recommendations that deviate from the management plan. I have observed a number of RAC and WB meetings and I have found that these recommendations made largely cut tags from the DWR proposal for a number of reasons. Most often the Conservation Organization or Special Interest group couches their recommendation to cut tags from the DWR proposal as “preserving trophy quality” or something of that nature. There always seems to be a representative of the Cattlemen’s Association that recommends additional tag increases to reduce competition from big game with their cattle… but largely recommendations from the public seem to be skewed to one side requesting tags be cut from the proposal for one reason or another.
The WB considers the DWR proposal in combination with the public input and finalizes the tag numbers at the May Wildlife Board Meeting. This particular meeting is often the highest attended of the year and I have seen exchanges become rather heated during discussion periods. In general though, the WB has done a reasonable job of finding middle ground between the DWR proposal and public wants.
Tag cuts contribute to or exacerbate point creep for a unit, especially in units where there are already few tags offered to begin with.
Links to the individual management plans for each species can be found on the Utah DWR website (LINK HERE) about 2/3 of the way down the page.


PREVIOUS: Point Creep?
NEXT: Point Creep Variable #2 - "The Point Buyer"

Point Creep?

As we begin 2018 the great majority of us find ourselves firmly entrenched in the preparation and research portion of our hunting calendar. In the next few weeks as many of the western states publish their annual regulations and open their application periods there is one cryptic phrase that will generate page after page of message board fodder… the phenomenon of “point creep.”
For several years now on a handful of western hunting forums “point creep” has been a hot, but often misunderstood topic of discussion. Point creep is a result of an overwhelming demand for a limited resource, there just simply aren’t enough tags offered to keep pace with the increasing number of applicants. Obviously this results in a logjam of many applicants vying for few tags. This demonstrates by a unit that issued guaranteed bonus tags at… say… 10 points two years ago, issuing guaranteed bonus tags at 11 points last year. Let’s take a look at a couple specific examples, I tend to pick on the Central Mountains, Manti early any weapon hunt in this blog so let’s continue to do so here but let’s also take a look at a couple other early any weapon units and look at the number of bonus points it has taken over time to draw one of the guaranteed bonus tags.

Unit	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Cache, North	11	11	11	10	10	10	9	10	9	9	11	11
Central Mountains, Manti	12	12	13	13	13	13	14	14	14	14	15	15
San Juan	13	14	15	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	21	22

In these three examples we can see the three most common scenarios…
The Cache, North unit appears to require a relatively stable number of bonus points to draw one of the bonus tags oscillating between 9 and 11 bonus points. One could interpret this as reaching some sort of equilibrium between supply and demand… one could also interpret this as applicants are generally unwilling to “spend” more than 9 to 11 bonus points on this tag equating some kind of overall value to the tag. Take caution though if you think that this unit will stay between 9 and 11 bonus points annually… eventually it too will climb.
The Central Mountains, Manti unit shows a steady but relatively slow increase in the number of bonus points it takes to draw a guaranteed bonus tag. This increase is what many refer to as ‘point creep.” Many units that offer a high number of tags and are managed under the management plan for opportunity tend to have a similar point creep.
The San Juan unit is an extreme example of a unit managed for trophy quality, there are few tags offered to many applicants which results in a point creep that increases at a rapid pace. For many of the highest demand units it is common to see the point creep equal nearly a full point each year.
Now, careful study of draw results from previous years can, and should, give you an indication of the degree or severity of point creep for the unit that you are applying for and from there should help provide insight into your own predictions of when the tag could be drawn. Let’s take the next couple posts to examine some of the variables that contribute to point creep… some are obvious, some may not be so obvious.

NEXT: Point Creep Variable #1 - Tag Allocation