Odds of a NR harvesting elk on public land stats.....

[squirrel]

A guy from Ohio rented two llamas at night headed to a trailhead he had never been to to hunt archery elk on his first adventure... What could go wrong??? 3 days later was back with the llamas and a 6x7 bull, said this elk stuff isn't so hard, you cow call they come in you shoot them... but the butchering SUCKS!! It was pretty funny, I told him he was obviously ready to publish a book on elking.

The elk must have gotten smarter since that year as he has not scored since. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then!

 

[BuzzH]

It’s easy to pick on fish and game guys, I do it often my self. Universally, having hunted elk and deer in six states I hear the numbers are a joke. I rarely read what’s wrong with the numbers, other than too many hunters too little game.
From my personal experience I think the hunter success numbers are pretty close in Oregon but that’s based on only two units I’m very familiar with. The unit I hunted in Colorado had very low numbers, 11% yet we were 3/5 on six points, Last year. Wilderness area, unguided but it was a drop camp.
What I’ve learned is there is a significant error in reporting data. Quite simply an awful lot of guys report success when in fact they did not tag an animal. Makes it tough to come up with good data, garbage in, garbage out kinda thing.

I'll give you a specific example of the crap data that Montana provides.

The main area my family and I hunt in Montana and have been since the late 1940's has a large winter range area that's a state wildlife management area. The unit that we hunt has a much smaller local elk herd, yet the count is conducted for the unit well after hunting season. Mind you those elk that winter on the WMA come from a large geographic area combined of several large hunting units.

Yet, they count the migratory elk for the hunting unit even though most migrate in there either after, or towards the very late part of the season. Meaning, those elk are just not available or only available to hunters for a short time while they haul ass to the safety of the WMA.

So, with that said, in early 2017 they estimated 780 elk in the unit. The bull to cow ratio was 8-10 per 100. So, that means, best case, they had 60-78 legal bull elk in the unit. I highly doubt that to be true, since the bulls in particular that they count come from many surrounding units to winter. But, lets just say that's true, that they have 60-78 bulls available.

The harvest for 2017 that they posted was 83 bulls. I would like to know how you kill 83 of 60-78 available bulls?

Their numbers are complete crap...the harvest stats that say they kill 83 bulls in the unit in question is totally false. Its not even a fair estimate. I would be shocked if there were more than 25-30 bulls killed per year. Even when there was a much bigger local herd, which I would say has been reduced by 50-60% since the late 90's-early 2000's, I doubt more than 30 bulls were killed annually.

 

[DWBMontana]

How about sticking to my OP, start your own if you wish to gripe about something else.

 

[Salmonchaser]

Being a retired cop I usually preferred good science to eye witness accounts. The exception to that would be highly experienced people, a rancher telling me what he saw on his land for example, a family who’s hunted the same area 8 decades would be another.
It’s been fifteen years since I hunted Montana, how do they gather their data for hunter success?

 

[wind gypsy]

I would bet single digits percentage wise for sure.

MN guy here. Over 4 years on MT non-guided public land OTC hunts and maybe 48 days of hunting, 2 tags have been cut both of which being 6 point bulls. If shooting cows I could have tagged out all 4 years. That is with the first 3 years hunting besides an Elk Killing SOB who mentored me. If starting out alone without a mentor, I might not have killed an elk yet.

 

[BuzzH]

How about sticking to my OP, start your own if you wish to gripe about something else.

Explaining the way the MTFWP comes up with their highly suspect numbers for success isn't sticking to your topic of trying to understand what the real odds are for a successful NR hunt on public land?

That's where a vast majority of NR's look for data in an attempt to figure out what their odds may be...and if the available data is total crap, they should know.

Reread your OP...you seem confused.

 

[ramont]

Explaining the way the MTFWP comes up with their highly suspect numbers for success isn't sticking to your topic of trying to understand what the real odds are for a successful NR hunt on public land?

That's where a vast majority of NR's look for data in an attempt to figure out what their odds may be...and if the available data is total crap, they should know.

Reread your OP...you seem confused.

Your opinion doesn't mean squat to me and anybody that makes broad, unqualified, rude comments usually has an axe to grind and I don't trust their drivel.

 

[BuzzH]

Being a retired cop I usually preferred good science to eye witness accounts. The exception to that would be highly experienced people, a rancher telling me what he saw on his land for example, a family who’s hunted the same area 8 decades would be another.
It’s been fifteen years since I hunted Montana, how do they gather their data for hunter success?

For fear of not sticking to the OP...I'll tell you exactly how they do it.

They combine check station data, that has gotten progressively worse over the years (check stations are open less days and close very early in the evening) as well as phone surveys. The interesting part of the phone surveys is that during the handful of times I've been called, I'm usually only asked about say, upland bird hunting, or deer. I have asked them, "don't you want to know about the elk I shot"...nope, we only are asking about deer.

Then, they run the combination of their data through a computer generated model.

I've talked with several biologists and none are very happy with how the harvest results are computed. Mainly because their numbers just don't add up...or make logical sense.

 

[BuzzH]

Your opinion doesn't mean squat to me and anybody that makes broad, unqualified, rude comments usually has an axe to grind and I don't trust their drivel.

Not my opinion, their numbers and how they come up with them.

 

[TexasCub]

I think the 2% mentioned above is more accurate than any other percentage. Guys have to understand that when it says 15% success in a unit that’s not just guys hiking in from trail heads bow in hand, that number also includes all the outfitted and guided hunts where guys are generally more successful. I talked to dozens of guys in just one small unit last year while elk hunting that were not successful and many who never even saw an elk. But like it was said above if Colorado told all the non-res archery hunters that they have a better chance of winning the lottery than killing a bull how many tags would they sell?

 

[cnelk]

The % of success includes, OTC, guided, and private land.

Big, big difference between all those 3.

 

[Salmonchaser]

There is so much good information out there I gotta believe the odds are better now then a few years ago. I haven’t studied Oregon’s hunt data for N/R success. They draw a small percentage of the available tags, assume they just get lumped in.
I think I would discount success rates if there is a lot of private, hunting land in the unit. I only guided for four years but we had to screw the data for the unit as a whole. I think a hunting unit that is 50% public land surrounded by large ranches would be a poor bet after opening day.
Conversely I would bet the data for units made up of mostly public land are reliable for the non residents.
If a state separated non resident from resident I really doubt they would separate out mentor ship.
As mentioned above that can be huge.
Regardless the perceived quality of the data it’s all you have to go on absent good intelligence.
The only way you’re going to learn to elk hunt is to go. I think the biggest mistake is to get too committed to a specific area with in the unit, particularly when you don’t know the area. For example working your way up a road you could walk faster then driving for an hour or two only to find the elk aren’t there. Makes moving tough.
Hiking by elk because somebody said you had to be in there is also a mistake.
Any units data is screwed by a road system. I hunt a unit that is known for big bulls, only a few tags allotted. I rarely run into a big bull hunter and some years never see a spike hunter. That means a lot of guys don’t leave the road.
Jeepers back to the Op; odds of a non resident hunting up a bull on public land, based on my success with a unit I’ve hunted a lot, talked to a few non residents, just on a WAG about 1/2 the published success rate. I think it’s probably the same for a first timer resident or non resident.

 

[elkguide]

Curious if anyone has seen data for this ? You would think states would be able to put together some sort of data for this, but perhaps, there is a reason they do not. I am guessing 12% of the NR hunters who hunt exclusively public lands without a guide or outfitter harvest an elk, cow or bull. Anyone else care to guess ?

If life were only that easy. I don't know if you could truly ever quantify a "GOOD" number to work from. Each NR hunter is going to be so different so here are a few examples of factors:

Have they ever hunted the West before?
What physical/mental shape are they actually in?
What knowledge do they have about hunting in general and elk in specific?
How much time do they have?
Are they hunting alone or in a group?
Do they have a resident/local contact?
How did they choose the area that they are hunting in?
And on and on and on.

I think that you are probably a little optimistic as to put the NR kill rate at 12%. I would think that it would actually be in the 4 - 6% range for the total NR elk hunting population. Since the invention of 24/7/365 hunting shows that are averaging a 85+% kill rate, many NR hunters are so disappointed to not find every opening filled with elk "as seen on TV!" I have found that a lot of NR hunters are extremely surprised to get into the Western "hills" and try and catch their lungs up with that low octane air of the West only to be discouraged very quickly. I have seen many that have never even imagined what a 400 yard shot looks like let alone the view in a mile long park.

My experience and view comes as a NR who has hunted the West since the early '80's, including 10 years of working as an elk hunting guide. After lucking into an early elk kill, I went through a several year drought mostly because of my own mistakes but I learned a lot and even this past fall, the bull that I took, helped me learn some new things to use this year. I have made some incredible connections and have accumulated a lot of experience and knowledge of areas to hunt. Even with those years of experience because of the hard winter of '16, I was scrambling on where to hunt in '17 as the game numbers were so down in my regular hunting grounds. So when you add someone like me into your NR number, who as my wife likes to say, will often fussy myself into tag soup because I know there is a bigger one over the next hill, I'm afraid that your numbers won't tell the whole story.

I think that the only thing that will give you any kind of statistics that you can somewhat begin from are total number of animals taken vs: number of hunters.

Numbers are just that...… numbers. Then of course the old adage goes...…..

"FIGURES DON'T LIE BUT LIARS FIGURE!"


I'm just going to keep on hunting, regardless what the numbers say!

 

[DWBMontana]

Buzz, I am not confused, you are one of those people who believe they are the know all, tell all , end all. If you can not realize you went off on a completely different tangent, your not as bright as you wish to think.

 

[elkocd]

I don't have a lot of MT data to go on. Only hunted it once 2 years ago on a general tag. But... I was into mature bulls every day in multiple different units and passed on about a dozen up to 300ish trying to get a good one. It seemed to me to be about on par with the other states I hunt. EXCEPT for the crowds in easy to reach locals. There were a lot of people. With all that said I would say it's the same old 90/10 rule. 10% of the guys could/would kill a good bull in MT every year. The other 90% will only be about 5-10% successful which brings the average way down for the entire NR group.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, I am not confused, you are one of those people who believe they are the know all, tell all , end all. If you can not realize you went off on a completely different tangent, your not as bright as you wish to think.

Stick to the OP...like I did.

Here are the ouija board produced numbers you cant seem to find for Montana:

FWP :: Harvest Estimates

Tell me again how they make sense, how they come up with the numbers, etc. Not to mention that nowhere in the data is there a way to tease out how many elk are killed on public VS private land.

Once you do that compare the observed elk counts by district VS the population estimates and bull to cow ratio's. See if those make sense. Once you figure out just how far out in the weeds the data is, like most anyone else that can read the most obvious of sign, let me know how a NR or R is supposed to figure out anything close to actual success rates, population estimates etc. Then combine that with oh...I don't know, 80 or so combined years of hunting experience between my Grandfather, Father, Brother and I. Experience documented in well kept hunting journals for over 40 years and also knowledge gained from hunting with and knowing some of the best elk hunters in Montana.

Look for yourself, get back to me on how good the only available data is for the unfortunate NR hunters who believe the "data" provided when trying to figure out if spending a grand on an elk tag in Montana is a good investment or not.

They're screwed before they even submit their application....and lied to by the Department their license dollars fund.

 

[BeaverHunter]

I would guess that the harvest rates for non-residents on public land are somewhere in the 5-15% rate. But that would be just a guess. Like others have stated, I think there is a lot of factors that would increase or decrease the odds.(guided or unguided, archery or rifle,1st time or seasoned elk hunter, etc)

I also think that the odds can be heavily tilted in your favor if you hunt the same area multiple times. For example, I've hunted the same area on 100% public land 3 different times as a non resident and been successful all 3 times on branch antlered bulls, including this last year during the archery season, on the first day I hunted in my first year of really trying with a bow.(as opposed to just bringing my bow along as I scouted the unit) Again the unit I hunt is a general season tag and I'm hunting public land only no where near private land.
The longer I hunt elk the more I think that they prefer the same areas year after year so if a guy is willing to spend the time scouting and hunting a unit multiple times instead of chasing the next great unit, I think you can be successful most every year on public land. It also helps of course if a person is willing to get away from the roads, is in shape so they can get to where the elk are and willing to pack a bull out a couple miles. So if I see a unit with low harvest rates after I've done some other research on the unit,(or ideally actually seen the unit in person) it doesn't make me too nervous that I can't be successful.
Hopefully I didn't get too off topic, just giving my 2 cents.

 

[prm]

Of course it would depend on many factors. That’s the nature of statistics.

If the states wanted this information they could easily obtain through post hunt surveys.

 

[idahohikker]

Buzz, I am not confused, you are one of those people who believe they are the know all, tell all , end all. If you can not realize you went off on a completely different tangent, your not as bright as you wish to think.

I read this as Buzz trying to help. He's a knowledgeable guy and he comes off as a little aggressive to me sometimes but this response is a little much and unnecessary escalation.

 

[MtGomer]

Your opinion doesn't mean squat to me and anybody that makes broad, unqualified, rude comments usually has an axe to grind and I don't trust their drivel.

Just to be clear, it’s not an opinion that what MT FWP puts out is just a guess, it’s a fact.

They don’t survey populations consistently.
There is no mandatory harvest or hunt reporting.

FWP has no idea how many elk were killed, where they were killed or even who hunted their tags. It’s a guess based on surveys of a segment of tag holders. (Unlike say, Nevada, that makes you report about your hunt)

It is impossible to quantify anything definitively using data derived from loose estimations.