# New hunts for 2017



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Here's an article put out by the DWR:

https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1940-dwr-recommends-new-hunts.html

And the full recommendation packet if you're interested in a closer look:

https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2016-11_rac_packet.pdf

A few highlights from the DWR's recommendations:

- More management deer hunts on the Henry Mountains
- A new mountain goat hunt on Mt Dutton
- A few more late season LE muzzleloader deer hunts on general units
- LE bull elk hunts during the general season on Manti and Wasatch units
- 7-day archery only extension on OIAL tags
- Nine Mile, Range Creek sheep hunt split into two units
- Pilot Mtn and Stansbury Mtns sheep hunts discontinued
- Book Cliffs, Wild Horse Bench hunt combined with the nine mile unit, season dates of August 1 - January 31
- Cow bison hunt on the Book Cliffs

What does everyone think? It looks like there's a lot of good news for bison and goat hunters this year, and not so much for the RM Bighorn hunters. If I were putting in for bison, I know that long season on the Nine Mile/Wild Horse Bench would appeal to me.


----------



## mrshmitty (Sep 23, 2015)

Looks like I'll be getting my hunting buddies together to talk about these new choices. It would be nice to do a Henrys hunt.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

It is good news, but will having a few hunts kicked back when you could have the 300 auction tags return to the draw. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WEK (Dec 3, 2010)

Some positive developments, for sure. Though I don't like the looks of more treatment of general units as LE units. It only serves to increase my concerns about where we're heading. 

At this point, the only rule I really want to see changed is the ability for applicants to, one time, transfer OIAL points from their original species to another. There's a lot of support out there for the change and I happen to know some conservation groups (not SFW from what I understand, but I could be wrong) that will be pushing for it in the future. Curious what people on this board have to say about that idea, now that I think on it. Anyone?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

WEK said:


> Some positive developments, for sure. Though I don't like the looks of more treatment of general units as LE units. It only serves to increase my concerns about where we're heading.
> 
> At this point, the only rule I really want to see changed is the ability for applicants to, one time, transfer OIAL points from their original species to another. There's a lot of support out there for the change and I happen to know some conservation groups (not SFW from what I understand, but I could be wrong) that will be pushing for it in the future. Curious what people on this board have to say about that idea, now that I think on it. Anyone?


While I can see the appeal, I'm opposed to that concept unless we hit a point where that species is literally no longer available for hunting.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

A one time transfer of OIAL points was looked at , 
and presented to the RAC's and Board not to long ago..

It was overwhelming denied...............


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> A one time transfer of OIAL points was looked at ,
> and presented to the RAC's and Board not to long ago..
> 
> It was overwhelming denied...............


I can see where a few would like that option and where a whole lot would be ticked off to no end.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> A one time transfer of OIAL points was looked at ,
> and presented to the RAC's and Board not to long ago..
> 
> It was overwhelming denied...............


I'm glad to hear that.

First I'll just say that I abhor and despise the use of bonus points on species that are as hard to draw as our OIAL species are. This is because I'm young and I entered the game late. I currently have 1 point for desert sheep. Every single person who entered the Utah desert sheep drawing 23 years ago either drew a tag, died or gave up. But 23 years from now, I'll still have plenty of company, and be years away from drawing. Bonus point systems are great if you get in right when they start, but with each passing year young guys like me are more and more disadvantaged. With the OIAL species, point creep just hits way too hard.

That being said...

When you create a bonus point system you create an expectation. People expect the current system to continue as they plan for the future. IMO, once that expectation is in place, it shouldn't be changed.

For example, mountain goats are the easiest OIAL species to draw. I imagine that some people began applying for mountain goats 10-15 years ago because of this fact. Now, they're getting very close to drawing.

Now imagine if a rule was made allowing people to transfer their points to another OIAL species. I can tell you what would happen - plenty of people would bail on their current species (I'd bet $$$ we'd see a mass exodus from the moose draw) and apply for mountain goat instead. Then, the guy who was within 1-2 years of drawing may now be within 5-10+ years of drawing. His expectations were off base and now his plan is totally screwed up.

I can absolutely see why a few guys would want this. I know if I were sitting on 18 moose points and had my choice between (1) Waiting 10-15 more years to draw a moose tag, or (2) drawing a mountain goat tag right now, I'd give serious consideration to switching. If I were getting old or getting ready to move out of state, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat. If we allow that, though, it is at the expense of guys like me who are lower down on the point scale, and already at a bigger disadvantage than the guys up top will ever be.

I say leave it how it is. You live with your decision, and I'll live with mine. And if I regret it down the road, at least I have to own the fact that I knew what I was getting myself into when I started applying for desert sheep way back in 2016.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Clarq said:


> Now imagine if a rule was made allowing people to transfer their points to another OIAL species. I can tell you what would happen - plenty of people would bail on their current species (I'd bet $$$ we'd see a mass exodus from the moose draw) and apply for mountain goat instead. Then, the guy who was within 1-2 years of drawing may now be within 5-10+ years of drawing. His expectations were off base and now his plan is totally screwed up.
> 
> I can absolutely see why a few guys would want this. I know if I were sitting on 18 moose points and had my choice between (1) Waiting 10-15 more years to draw a moose tag, or (2) drawing a mountain goat tag right now, I'd give serious consideration to switching. If I were getting old or getting ready to move out of state, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat. If we allow that, though, it is at the expense of guys like me who are lower down on the point scale, and already at a bigger disadvantage than the guys up top will ever be.


Mt Goats are no-where near that easy to draw. My wife drew in 2014 on the best odds in the state unit, with 17 points and it was still 1 in 3 for her. Next year should need 19-20pts statewide. Really messed things up when they combined Box Elder Peak with Timp... add to that no nanny tags on the beaver this past year, it meant alot less people moved through the draw.

-DallanC


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

It just depends on where you want to hunt, I guess. Last year, 18 points would have guaranteed the early Beaver tag, any of the 5 Uintas tags, any of the 3 Willard Peak tags, and Wasatch Mtns, Provo Peak.

Only 2 people with 19 points didn't draw, one on Box Elder/Lone Peak/Timp and the other on Central mtns, Nebo (which doesn't have a bonus tag). Only 9 people with 18 points didn't draw, 8 of them on the late Beaver tag and one on Box Elder/Lone Peak/Timp.

Below 18 points it does start to back up.

See https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2016/16_big_game_odds_report.pdf


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

I am glad to hear they are going to attempt to bring back elk numbers on the wasatch as well as some of the other units they put a slaughter on


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

The Mid-Season 12 day hunt on the Manti intrigues me. I've been seeing more and more large bulls (my idea of large at least) during the general hunt each year...would love the chance to harvest one instead of targeting their cows.

Not entirely against a one-time swap of OIAL points, but don't think I'd take advantage of it even if it were available. I only have 8 points for Moose so most if not all of those tags feel like impossible dreams for me anyway.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

hazmat said:


> I am glad to hear they are going to attempt to bring back elk numbers on the wasatch as well as some of the other units they put a slaughter on


IMO,
By FAR the best part in this packet recommendation :!:


----------



## elkantlers (Feb 27, 2014)

I am totally on board for letting people change their OIL points to a different species. I have 19 Desert Sheep points and when I started putting in for them that was the only species I had any experience with. Now that I am more experienced and have many years of hunting under my belt I really wish that I wasn't point bound for DS. Also, as a resident we are limited to only applying for only one OIL species. My thoughts are that we should have a OIL point that is not species specific. Let a person change year to year as they want.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Critter said:


> I can see where a few would like that option and where a whole lot would be ticked off to no end.


What Critter said!

Can you imagine the uproar from top points holders thinking they were going to draw only to get leap-frogged by someone who switched species?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

elkantlers said:


> I am totally on board for letting people change their OIL points to a different species. I have 19 Desert Sheep points and when I started putting in for them that was the only species I had any experience with. Now that I am more experienced and have many years of hunting under my belt I really wish that I wasn't point bound for DS. Also, as a resident we are limited to only applying for only one OIL species. My thoughts are that we should have a OIL point that is not species specific. Let a person change year to year as they want.


People can change their individual point each year should they so choose, so I'm not sure where you're going on this - unless you're saying that you could switch all your points each year back and forth between species. That would lead to a mutiny within sportsman's ranks.

The comment was also made earlier that moutain goats weren't all that easy to draw with 19 points a 1 in 3 odds (back in 2014). Looking at the odds from 2016, mountain goat tags for billies could be drawn with 15 points on many of the Uintahs units. A nanny tag on Willard could be drawn with 11 points. While 10-15 years is a long time to wait, it pales in comparison to sheep and moose (and probably buffalo too).


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

MWScott72 said:


> elkantlers said:
> 
> 
> > I am totally on board for letting people change their OIL points to a different species. I have 19 Desert Sheep points and when I started putting in for them that was the only species I had any experience with. Now that I am more experienced and have many years of hunting under my belt I really wish that I wasn't point bound for DS. Also, as a resident we are limited to only applying for only one OIL species. My thoughts are that we should have a OIL point that is not species specific. Let a person change year to year as they want.
> ...


I'd wager that elkantlers was thinking like I do. Most people will only have health/longevity enough to draw one, maybe two OIAL tags in their lifetime in the standard draw.

Yes they could alternate back and forth and slow down the point building process even further. Then they'd likely pass away with near max points for 4 species, never having drawn a tag.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

KineKilla said:


> I'd wager that elkantlers was thinking like I do. Most people will only have health/longevity enough to draw one, maybe two OIAL tags in their lifetime in the standard draw.
> 
> Yes they could alternate back and forth and slow down the point building process even further. Then they'd likely pass away with near max points for 4 species, never having drawn a tag.


And what do you think would happen for example if people with 20 points on moose were able to transfer them over to bison. Then the people with max points for bison would be left out and point creep would explode.

My point of view is that you started collecting points for one species, why should you be allowed to now use them on another one?


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Critter said:


> And what do you think would happen for example if people with 20 points on moose were able to transfer them over to bison. Then the people with max points for bison would be left out and point creep would explode.
> 
> My point of view is that you started collecting points for one species, why should you be allowed to now use them on another one?


What I suspect would happen, is that those people with 20 points would draw the tag, then be out of the OIAL pool for a VERY long time. Those that were at the top of the pool prior would then be "King of the Hill" once again.

Some people didn't choose to start collecting their points at all, some had the choice made for them by their parents or mentors who started buying them points when they were quite young.

I just stated that I'm not entirely against a one time shift in your species choice, that means I'm also not entirely in favor of it...just need to keep an open mind and consider all options.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

KineKilla said:


> What I suspect would happen, is that those people with 20 points would draw the tag, then be out of the OIAL pool for a VERY long time. Those that were at the top of the pool prior would then be "King of the Hill" once again.
> 
> Some people didn't choose to start collecting their points at all, some had the choice made for them by their parents or mentors who started buying them points when they were quite young.
> 
> I just stated that I'm not entirely against a one time shift in your species choice, that means I'm also not entirely in favor of it...just need to keep an open mind and consider all options.


Let's play with some numbers, and for simplicity sake these are all resident numbers not nonresident. Between applicants and BP purchasers (BPP) the max points for moose in 2016 was 23, with 1 BPP. Then moose continues with 6 people having 22, and 62 with 21 points. Mt. Goat, by comparison, has 2 BPPs at 21 points. There are more people with more moose BP than the 2 people with current max points (21) for goats than all the people with goat points from 17 points up (technically the 17pt category has 50 total people bringing the grand total of the 17 and up to 85). Moose bonus point holders with +17 total 1,909.

Statewide there were 90 goat tags in the draw, 42 in the bonus pool. Based on this, everybody with +17 goat points can be guaranteed a tag within the next 2 years. There are 112 total moose tags, 33 bonus tags. It will take 58 years to guarantee the 17 points and uppers a moose tag. Now say all the moose people bail to mt goat (obviously they wouldn't but I bet a huge % of them would bail to another species, with goats being a prime target). Those poor schlubs that were within 2 years of a guaranteed goat tag now would face a 48 year wait for a goat tag (along with all the moose people that jumped). Even if only 10% of the moose holders in that point range jump to goats it would push 2 years to 5 or more. If you take all the mt. goat point holders with 15 points or more there are only 281 in the state. That will take 7 years based on the 2016 tag allocations to push through (which due to transplants was a significant reduction in total permits). By comparison, there are 3,729 people with 15 or more moose points. Which is almost double, btw, of all OIAL bonus point holders for the other 4 species combined.

If we let a transfer occur just one time (forget that we'll just rack up the same problem again in 10-15 years), potentially the people with max goat points would be so horrifically watered down. So not only did they have to be unlucky applying for the species that they purposefully chose to limit themselves to for +17 years, they then get kicked in the nads by allowing people that had chances to draw a moose tag for that same time period but now just want to punch a tag so they get to cut in line? In the grand scheme of things, this won't help alleviate the backlog of point creep at all, it is basically the same as moving money from one pocket to the other, that doesn't make you any richer (aka cut down on point creep). Moreover, such a transfer would give extra help to those with species remorse while punishing those that chose their preferred species and stuck with it. I could not possibly be more opposed to this idea.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Just my opinion, but there should be an OIL point (good for either moose, sheep, goats, bison) and an LE point (good for either elk, deer, or antelope). A person should not be locked into their choice for the rest of their life (or until they draw). 


..


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Packout said:


> Just my opinion, but there should be an OIL point (good for either moose, sheep, goats, bison) and an LE point (good for either elk, deer, or antelope). A person should not be locked into their choice for the rest of their life (or until they draw).
> 
> ..


I agree with this IF it was the way the system started out, meaning I think this would have been the better way to do things. But, since we have the system we do, I don't think it would be fair to change things up on the people who have been in the system for years or, in some cases, decades.

In the grand scheme of things though, if the system were to change, there would be a number of people cheering and a number of people complaining. Then, in a couple of years, nearly everyone would find a new way to cope with the idea that they may have been donating their application fees to conservation with a VERY slim chance of ever drawing a tag. Such is life in the OIL permit field; those in early will likely draw tags, the rest of us are just hoping.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Im not advocating any change, but I don't think the " can't change it now " defense flies. 

The DWR already changed the system a number of years ago. They made it so the top point holders received 50% of the tags in the draw which I support. But, prior to that change I had applied for bison once. So, I am one point off of what I could be for moose. Add that to the one year I could not afford to apply and suddenly I am two back which is a looong way back as shown in a previous post. 

O well, at least I know I will draw in about 10 years!

I would give anything to get that point back for moose...


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

silentstalker said:


> Im not advocating any change, but I don't think the " can't change it now " defense flies.
> 
> The DWR already changed the system a number of years ago. They made it so the top point holders received 50% of the tags in the draw which I support.


Out of curiosity, what was the system like before they changed it to 50% to top point holders?

I think it's great how it is for the LE draw. OIAL, on the other hand... I think it will get to the point where every single bonus tag will go to a really old guy who is probably well past his prime by the time he finally gets it.

If I were king for a day, I'd change the OIAL draw to exactly how Nevada does it. Bonus points squared, no tags specifically reserved for top point holders. It seems to be a good compromise between rewarding those who have been in the game the longest and giving everyone a chance.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

It was a straight up draw with no bonus tags. 

I think your right about the OIL tags. Lots of older people growing old or dying before getting a chance. Unfortunately the supply just can not meet the demand. Especially with moose on a very serious decline.

Truth is every system has its good points and draw backs.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I think the name needs to be changed from OIL to LTHOIL, "lucky to hunt once in a lifetime." It just boils down to too many hunters and not enough animals. You can tweak the point or draw all ya want but it is what it is.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Interestingly, even with moose the way it is (and according to the DWR the population is stable to increasing) Utah offers more moose tags than any other OIAL species.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Moose permit/harvest data can be found in the most recent big game annual report. There were over 400 permits offered in 2008, and only 138 offered in 2014. Hopefully we can get back up to 2008 levels in the next little while and get some more people hunting.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Johnnycake,

Utahs moose herd is in a huge downswing. As Clarq posted the tags are 1/4 of what they used to be. And there are a ton more applicants as well.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Silent, I agree that the moose herd is not what it was ten years ago, but that isn't what I wrote about. I wrote that given the current state of things for moose, they still have the most tags. I also stated that the DWR seems to think moose are stable to increasing, aka not declining. But according to the DWR the herd is stable to increasing right now. Scroll to the bottom of this article, click on the link to the RAC PDF and then find the language on why they had cow moose tags again. Whether you or I agree with the DWR's statement is irrelevant to what the division is claiming. 
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=39019385&nid=1288

My phone was being ridiculous last night and wouldn't let me grab the url for the RAC packet. Here it is:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2016-04_rac_packet.pdf

And even with the less desirable population today, the number of moose tags is higher than the other OIAL species. In 2016 there were the following tags: Moose 112, bison 103, goats 90, RMBH 34, desert 47.

Points should remain species specific. Doing away with the bonus pool and just granting extra chances per point, that I could be swayed by.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Copy... yeah I think the DWR is saying they are starting to rebound as they historically seem to be a cyclic species in Utah. Between the brain worms poaching and vehicle accidents they are really struggling in a lot of units. 

I'm still excited to hunt them someday though.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Packout said:


> Just my opinion, but there should be an OIL point (good for either moose, sheep, goats, bison) and an LE point (good for either elk, deer, or antelope). A person should not be locked into their choice for the rest of their life (or until they draw).
> 
> ..


This has come up before, and I agree completely. Herds change, units change...why should we all be expected to predict the future? The inevitable changes will favor some while others get hosed. Being able to switch species would even things out. Also, people that draw a OIL tag will be right back in the drawing next year...for a different species. People that draw an elk tag and incur a 5 year waiting period will also be right back in the LE drawing next year...for deer or antelope. Currently no such thing as OIL or waiting periods in Utah.

Unfortunately those who control tag numbers don't want to reduce point creep. They only want to increase the value of the tags, and the number of high-value tags. Point creep is exactly what they want so it's not going away any time soon. General deer units are slowly being converted into LE units right under our noses. My deer unit (4,5,6) is over objective on buck:doe ratios despite having all the mature deer hammered on the extended hunts each year. Instead of giving out more general tags like they promised they just create a new LE hunt during the rut. Hmmm, any guesses who has their eyes on some of those LE tags for their auctions?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

El Matador said:


> This has come up before, and I agree completely. Herds change, units change...why should we all be expected to predict the future? The inevitable changes will favor some while others get hosed. Being able to switch species would even things out. Also, people that draw a OIL tag will be right back in the drawing next year...for a different species. People that draw an elk tag and incur a 5 year waiting period will also be right back in the LE drawing next year...for deer or antelope. Currently no such thing as OIL or waiting periods in Utah.....Point creep is exactly what they want so it's not going away any time soon.


I wanted to comment on this.

First off, I completely disagree that allowing a transfer of OIL points will help overall point creep at all. It might (very) slightly help one species, but markedly worsen others. There would be no overall improvement. Johnycake said it very well earlier in this thread.

"In the grand scheme of things, this won't help alleviate the backlog of point creep at all, it is basically the same as moving money from one pocket to the other, that doesn't make you any richer (aka cut down on point creep)."

The *only* way to really improve point creep is to either increase the number of tags available or reduce the number of applicants. Anything else is just a shell game.

To wit,

I'm not sure if this was what was suggested in the post or not, but one way that would reduce the number of applicants is to only allow a hunter to draw only one OIL species for lifetime or have a very long waiting period. I'm not sure that it would be very popular, but it would truly help some with point creep as opposed to the usual suggestions that are presented which have no true benefits.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Catherder said:


> I wanted to comment on this.
> 
> First off, I completely disagree that allowing a transfer of OIL points will help overall point creep at all. It might (very) slightly help one species, but markedly worsen others. There would be no overall improvement. Johnycake said it very well earlier in this thread.
> 
> ...


Exactly. As rough as it sounds, I would be ok with a 10 yr waiting period to apply for any other OIAL species after you draw (heck, I'd be ok to make that retroactive which would put me out of the running until 2023).

However, I think the future is looking good for bison in Utah and fantastic for goats. If we could group together enough to have the political clout to reduce domestic AUM allotments in certain areas and try to get some aggressive bison reintroductions done I really do think the state could support some mindboggling numbers of bison--and quickly.

I really like the aggressive goat reintroduction tactics that have been ongoing for a few years now and I think we are already starting to see dividends by way of new hunts with the current proposal. I would love to see +400 goat and bison tags offered and I bet that such an increase would pull lots of people away from moose even if it meant abandoning 15points or so. That alone would help moose point creep significantly.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Packout said:


> Just my opinion, but there should be an OIL point (good for either moose, sheep, goats, bison) and an LE point (good for either elk, deer, or antelope). A person should not be locked into their choice for the rest of their life (or until they draw).


I disagree... BUT... if they do this, I'll happily take my +20 moose points and go get me a nice Billy Mt Goat. :mrgreen:

-DallanC


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Catherder said:


> The *only* way to really improve point creep is to either increase the number of tags available or reduce the number of applicants. Anything else is just a shell game.


Both of these options would be very easy to accomplish if our wildlife board actually wanted to reduce point creep. But clearly they don't, because they have been doing exactly the opposite since the mid 90s. They have reduced tags far beyond what's needed, and the bonus point system is a magnet for applicants who have little or no interest in hunting.

You really want to get rid of point creep? Let's go back to a statewide deer hunt and a statewide elk hunt. No CWMUs, no LE units. Pay a trespass fee to hunt private land if you want. LE hunts are a disease that attracts the greedy and entitled.



> I'm not sure if this was what was suggested in the post or not, but one way that would reduce the number of applicants is to only allow a hunter to draw only one OIL species for lifetime or have a very long waiting period.


You're right. I'm confused as to why Utah thinks waiting periods and Once-in-a-Lifetime rules are a good idea, but then has a system that allows every single person to bypass those waiting periods. Since OIL tags are in such high demand it makes perfect sense to allow people only one in their lifetime, regardless of species.

At the very least we should have waiting periods that reflect the popularity of the hunt. For example:

Anything with odds less than 1% for new applicants: Once in a lifetime
Odds between 1-5%: 10 years
Odds between 5-10%: 5 years
Odds greater than 10%: use preference points and wait your turn.

Oh wait, that would prevent people from sending in their $30 per year in application fees.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

How about us guys with extra OIAL points?

The first 2 years of the point system, a guy could apply for everything.
Thus accumulating points for ALL OIAL species each year!

I'd LOVE to see the one time change of OIAL points! OR OIAL points good for any 
OIAL hunt!

IT would bump me up to 14 OIAL points even with spending 18 on my moose already!
Bring it on!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

And NR guys who have 10-20pts for every OIL... they might decide to move here for a year and cash in their 30-40pts for something. This can backfire so badly lol


-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

DallanC said:


> And NR guys who have 10-20pts for every OIL... they might decide to move here for a year and cash in their 30-40pts for something. This can backfire so badly lol
> 
> -DallanC


I believe that the regulation is only 6 months residency and I would do it in a heart beat.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The easiest way to stop point creep is to cap the number of points. Say 25. That would allow everyone a chance to get to the highest level while making people invest time in the draw. 

Many hunts take lifetimes to draw......

..


----------



## WEK (Dec 3, 2010)

DallanC said:


> And NR guys who have 10-20pts for every OIL... they might decide to move here for a year and cash in their 30-40pts for something. This can backfire so badly lol
> 
> -DallanC


This has already happened. I'm not going to say anything about who it was, when it was, or what the species was, so don't ask, but it was relatively simple and less expensive than I imagined. Have to have the right job for it though, among other things. I can't imagine it's very common at all.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Packout said:


> The easiest way to stop point creep is to cap the number of points. Say 25. That would allow everyone a chance to get to the highest level while making people invest time in the draw.
> 
> Many hunts take lifetimes to draw......
> 
> ..


I could support something like that.


----------

