Success Rates

[idahohikker]

I hear a lot of people throwing around state-published success rates as useful information to determine likelihood of success in a given area. I've mentioned this before from time to time but success rates can be very misleading for a number of reasons, either looking better or worse than the expected success rate of a public land hunter in an area. There's also the question of whether you trust the reported states and/or whether the state uses robust and scientific processes for gathering the data. It drives me nuts a little bit all the new guys from out of state thinking success rates are the Bible.

The Frank Church in Idaho is a perfect example. 7 outfitters in one unit. Fly in hunters. Lots of horse guys. Private ranches and isolated private near mines. Nonresidents often are interested in the Frank just because of success rates but they want to drive in and hunt from a base camp. Yeah, your success rates, based on taking to 20+ such groups, are about 5-10%. Much of the harvest comes from many outfitted clients and resident horseback hunters. The documented elk population is at the lower end of all elk units in Idaho. Elk are hard to find without prior knowledge.

Then there's the areas with lots of private. Those success rates are very skewed because of the success that happens where there's good habitat on private.

There's also the areas near cities where there's a lot of weekend warriors, maybe a lot of road hunters and beer drinking Elmer Fudd types. Success rates there might be skewed due to a bunch of guys that don't hunt very hard.

Controlled hunt success rates can be skewed down where many people pass on critters while they have certain trophy expectations.

There's also the units that get popular for whatever reason and get a random flood of pressure. This plays with the success rates, often in a downward fashion.

Comparing success rates across different zones is problematic I've found. Success rates don't correlate with elk numbers or likelihood of success for a given hunter. Nonresidents, please consider this before blinding believing success rates tell the story of the best hunting.

I know ElkNut doesn't put hardly any stock into success rates. What do the seasoned guys think?

 

[jmez]

We don't consider them when choosing areas. I don't even look at them. Over the last 15 or so years there are three of us that have gone every year in either WY, MT or Co. None have ever been contacted by Game and Fish for an elk harvest survey.

Three different years in MT we've gotten deer licenses with out elk tags. All three years we've gotten surveyed for deer. Those numbers don't mean anything.

 

[apkleinschmidt]

I'd like to see states go to a system like New Mexico--if you purchase/draw a big game tag, you must submit a harvest report after your hunt or you'll be ineligible to buy a tag the next season (at least that was the case with my pronghorn hunt last year). Otherwise, success rates seem to be an educated guess at best. Then again I'm for as little government involvement as possible so I could see where reporting requirements like New Mexico are the start of a slippery slope into excessive oversight.

 

[bluetick78]

I think that requiring a harvest report should be mandatory. It takes almost no time, and is immensely important to game management. This may be only my experience, but out of a few dozen friends who hunt; I've had most of them state that they are more likely to submit a harvest report if they are successful. That tidbit right there tells me that harvest report statistics are probably garbage in most states, New Mexico excluded. I could care less if hunters have access to those numbers, but from a state management standpoint; I don't see how they can even begin to manage big game herds without accurate harvest statistics

 

[elkstabber]

Since each state owns the game animals and since biologists are hired to manage those game animals I think it is reasonable to survey each hunter at the end of the season. Anything less is just a guess.

NM requires that hunters respond to the survey or they can't apply the next year. This seems reasonable to me.

To the OP's question: I don't look very hard at hunter success rates. After some hunts I've looked back at the statistics. One time in NM I had a really tough hunt and yet somehow 45% of archers succeeded. Another time in ID I killed one the first day and went back with a second tag to kill another and yet somehow less than 20% of other bowhunters succeeded. My success rarely lines up with the statistics, so I just look for areas that I like and go hunting.

 

[cnelk]

Great post Idahohiker -

If the areas I hunt elk published true harvest stats, Id probably have to find a new place to hunt.

States should at least make note if elk harvests were on public or private land.

 

[elkguide]

I hunt areas that I have hunted before, where my friends have some knowledge of and mainly...…. areas that I can draw a tag in.

 

[juan trueno]

Other people’s lack of success has never bothered me. How bad at hunting the masses are has absolutely no bearing on my success. If a unit has below about 7-8% or over about 22-23% I will try to identify the factors that contribute to abnormally high or low success rates or if I see years tht are outliers by more than 5% or so I’ll take a look at that year and see wht went into it being overly bad or good.

 

[wannakillabigbull]

One thing I'll add to the discussion is that, even if survey responses were mandatory, it still doesn't mean they will be accurate. I know of people that always respond that they were unsuccessful regardless of whether they were out of fear that higher posted success rates would flood the area with more hunters and force them out of their spot. Perhaps those people are few and far between or perhaps they're not, I couldn't say. But regardless of the system that states implement, posted success rates aren't gospel as @idahohikker stated.

 

[Jbehredt]

You know what the success rates are in my elk unit? No seriously I’m asking..... because I’ve never cared enough to look

 

[NJDiverDan]

What's the old saying, 10% of the hunters kill 90% of the elk. This is very true, and typically it is the same 10% year over year.

I will give another example that agrees with idahohiker, one of the units I used to hunt had a 30+% success rate in archery season. Yes this was true, but not on the public grounds. There was a significant amount of private area that had ag fields with mountains coming down to them. The elk came into those fields every evening. Only access was through private. There were ALOT of guys who had "permission" to hunt there and filled their tags every year. The public was some of the steepest and most rugged mountains I have hunted with the elk on the public staying above tree line most of the time making them quite difficult to hunt.

So yes, take the success %s with a grain of salt, they can be helpful, but it is not the whole story.

 

[Rich M]

Harvest stats have their place in researching areas to hunt. Not my first line of research but can help determine an area with the potential for better hunts.

No way I'd spend time in a 7% unit if a 12%, 20%. XX% unit is just as easy to get into. Also, maybe you can tie a correlation to a low harvest unit and the topography, lack of easy access, or whatever.

Definitely a good arrow to have in the quiver.

Of course, if you get insider info on where to go, that trumps any statistical data review. There is SO MUCH data available to research the past year, the past 5 years. Yes point creep... but having all that data is just awesome.

 

[realunlucky]

Data out is only as good as that data that's reported. Hunters as a whole do a poor job of reporting harvest success.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Swede]

I hunt a unit that has large areas with few if any elk. My guess is that only about 25% of the unit has significant elk. Within that area most is not worth hunting. The statistics provided by the State are probably reasonably accurate.
The unit I hunt has about a decent success record over an extended time period. I think if someone from out of State was going to hunt Oregon, they would be better off hunting that unit than one of the State's 3%-4% units where you could go a week without seeing a fresh elk track, unless they have a lot of additional information.
Stats are a place to start. They are not the end of your search.

 

[GregB]

I pick my units based on hunter numbers, the less the better. I'd rather be by myself for 2 weeks and come home with nothing but sore legs. Now you see units or zones with good success rates and reasonably accessible from populated areas, it sells out in minutes. It would be really interesting to see what percentage of the harvest is from guide services and private land, especially for once in a lifetime hunts.

 

[Virginian]

As an easterner with little to no opportunity to scout and no local contacts. Where would you all start with identifying or excluding a unit/area? Biologist? Internet research? Or just trial and error?

 

[cnelk]

As an easterner with little to no opportunity to scout and no local contacts. Where would you all start with identifying or excluding a unit/area? Biologist? Internet research? Or just trial and error?

Look thru the Colorado Big Game Regs.
Find all the units that have 'B List' cow tags available.
This means that these areas are over-herd projections and want the populations reduced into herd management numbers.

More elk = More opportunity

Thats a good place to start.

 

[BuzzH]

Basing hunting areas on just success probably isn't telling the whole story. The general area I hunt, about 50-60% of the "elk hunters" never leave the seat of a machine and/or put in minimal effort.

In that same area, its a rare bird when I hunt a full day there and cant kill a legal elk.

This last season, for the first time in 19 years, I didn't fill my bull tag in Wyoming. That was 100% by choice as I saw 17 bulls in the 4 days I hunted, passed 7 that all I had to do was press the trigger. Killed a cow earlier in the season on a cow/calf tag, and killed 5 elk the year before. No meat shortage, so chose to either kill a nice 6 point or nothing. Probably not the best strategy with only 4 days to hunt general elk.

I filled out my survey this winter for my general tag and was counted as an "unsuccessful".

 

[juan trueno]

The One thing I consider probably above anything else and that I know most elk hunters aren’t considering- steelhead fishing. I picked the tag I’m hunting these days based on availability of steelhead fishing essentially co-located.

Once you’ve got a pretty established playbook that you trust- it gets easier to pick also. I pick the places that I want to go b cause they are where I want to go and the elk tag is the passport with which I gain entry. I’m not a trophy hunter, I won’t intentionally pass a legal bull- and I feel pretty good about my own personal odds anywhere there are elk and my track record bares that out.


One thing about the statistics- a lot of guys are worrying about accuracy. The stats are are valid only as they relate to each other. If you take an individual unit- poll 1/3 of the hunters, and 1/3 lie, 1/3 don’t respond and 1/3 are honest- for instance... you don’t really know
Much at all about harvest numbers in that unit unless you know how many were lying etc. if you use those statistics to compare units however- the same qualifiers are in play across the board- so the inconsistency and inaccuracy cancels itself out essentially- as it is going on across the board. So if one unit purports 20% and one purports 10%- that relationship is an accurate comparison point, whereas neither success rate can stand alone as an accurate data point. If any of that makes sense.

 

[ChrisAU]

What about the same unit, season vs season? Lets say one has a 19% success rate for a 9 day season and a 29% rate for a 5 day season.