Success Rates

If I make it back home alive, I consider it a successful hunt. So far everyone of my hunts have been a complete success, so I guess I'm batting a thousand.:)
 
I'm thinking you're looking for a scientific evaluation of a largely aesthetic pursuit.

I think early mankind did those kinds of evaluations, put animals into pens...and became farmers. I'll pass.

There are days I pass up critters because I simply don't want to be done hunting yet- how would that calculate? Or days where despite my best effort- can't find an animal for love or money. Or those days when the (apparently) dumbest critter on earth prances into camp with a (figurative) "kill me" sign around its neck? I've had all of those things happen.

I don't believe in luck because it tends to follow preparation and hard work around, but there is a significant part of hunting that entails dealing with the unknown....and that's the part of it I find appealing.
 
TBM are you asking about simple math?

2 for 2 is 2 divided by 2 = 1 then for percentage always add 2 zeros. so 1 for 2=.50 adding 2 zeros moves the decimal point 2 places
_________

I too liked Lukes post and have found myself in that situation of 'shooting an animal early ends the hunt'. I almost always choose extending the hunt...and have many times taken it on the chin by not bringing anything home.

On the other hand, I can understand a guy with less experience wanting to get his feet wet by shooting critters....its good experience, can't fault wanting to get some animals under your belt!

Hey, I'm not afraid to admit I like seeing critters go down as much as the next guy.....though after many years, I get just as much enjoyment from the success of friends. This year i was drawn on a bull broadside at 25 yds...but held....and waited for a buddy to line up on him and drill the bull on a frontal shot- his second or third,something like that. I think I was happier than he was!

I think the danger to us as hunters is letting some outside influence get under our skin; magazines, forums, Trophy animals, etc. If you don't enjoy the process.... or you judge YOURSELF by trophy quality or animal count....you will always be setting yourself up for disappointment.

Its the same in life....some folks that always want more.....instead of appreciating what they have.

There is no 'one size fits all' right or wrong answer. Frankly, the guys I'm envious of....are the guys spending 80 days a year in the field!
 
That's fine, but if one is serious about taking game and studies up on the subject, accurate data is useful. It is a shame in this day and time to have such little data and such unreliable data that actually does little to depict the reality of an area. There is little doubt that if such data existed it would be used by hunters and management alike.


A few things come to mind.

First, your level of serious varies considerably from mine. Trust me, I can tell.

Second, I choose not to share my data with you or anyone outside my circle. I don't want you to show up where I hunt.

Third, the data does exist. It may not exist where you live, but [accurate] data does exist.
 
Anyone who's definition of a "successful hunt" is limited to killing something is missing the bigger picture because it's only one contributing factor of many!

Maybe watching too many hunting shows on TV?
 
Anyone who's definition of a "successful hunt" is limited to killing something is missing the bigger picture because it's only one contributing factor of many!

Maybe watching too many hunting shows on TV?

this ++++ couldn't agree more!
 
Getting good data promptly could really help biologists make informed decisions and help them combat the environmentalist agenda.

The negative is yes, good data point more hunters to areas of higher concentrations and that could give some more competition. That is better than haveing too many hunters in an area of low herd population.

The data would be basically what you would like to ask the other hunters when meeting them on the trail. What did they see, how many, any 350 class bulls etc
 
Man, at first I thought this would be about how different states calculate this but it got into some funny math and "what does hunting mean to you" talk pretty quick.

I think there is some value in success rate info from state fish and game agencies. #'s will never tell the whole story but they can provide a little insight. The math should be pretty simple- Elk hunter Success rate = percentage of people who hunted elk in a given area that killed/recovered an elk. For more detail they also look into the average number of days each hunter pursued a given animal.

The success rates shared on say GoHunt.com insider (I assume they come from state game agencies) along with knowledge on how much of the area is private or public, public access difficulty, and outfitting businesses in the area is valuable information in making decisions in my opinion.
 
As an aside, this thread reminded me that is was time to do my hunter reporting to ODFW for 2016. They asked what and where I hunted, and how many days in each area. They asked if I killed anything.

They didn't say anything about success.... 😉
 
I think there is some value in success rate info from state fish and game agencies.

This is, of course, beneficial to both hunters and management agencies, and most states track it pretty closely.

This is much different than making up absurd statistics about hunting prowess (200% successful?) and an apparently ego-stroking hours-per-kill analysis, that does little, if anything, to help hunters or game management.
 
And how are the statistics calculated? Looks like Montana multiplies the number of hunter times the number of days in the field. Divide that number by the total harvest. Very misleading!!!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
In states where reporting your kill is mandatory it's pretty simple, number of kills reported divided by number of tags sold. How hard is that?

As far as defining success, this obviously relates to killing an animal and filling your tag. You may have been successful in enjoying yourself, but unless you kill an Animal you weren't successful filling your tag.
 
I've filled out 3 questionnaires in my life, 2 really detailed ones on a specific area I Kentucky I referred to earlier, and one bubble sheet in Alabama. That is not much data.

Alabama has stepped up and now requires all deer and turkey to be electronically entered.... does as well as bucks. We have the host of the Management Advantage as commissioner now, and obviously some data base has been set up.

I would think the west, with all the bear and wolf and lion issues, not to mention winter kill would benefit most from such a data base. If all states used the same format it would be easier to compare areas across state lines.

It would also be enlightening to see how my hunts compare to averaged data for the unit. I know I don't see as much game as some do per their write-up here and other sites, so I'm either hunting poor areas or not doing something right.

I'm sure there is more data out there than I am finding...I just drive out and park and hunt....not much research involved, but that is because it is pretty taxing finding the info. Combine that with the complexity of draw odds and it becomes to much a mental process. I just like to show up and hunt, but would do more research if it was a good database of info on a single site that is easy to axcess and the same for different states.
 
I am one to believe that the biologists don't care about you feeling successful on your hunt. they have probably the most accurate estimates of heard population and health there is. They don't care if you passed up a small buck opening day, and blew 7 stalks on a P&Y buck of a lifetime but will only add you to the successful category if you harvest an animal. and if success rates go up, tag availability will probably go down.
to each their own when it comes to your feelings...
but im surprised it too 19 hours to get the answer that IA Monsterbuck said:
this obviously relates to killing an animal and filling your tag.
 
I agree whole heartedly that filling your tag is the only measure of success that the states should care about. My only problem is the gathering of data and then how they display it. For instance. I'm researching Montana right now and let's take area 121 as an example. It shows 2591 hunters spent 22,739 days in the field where they harvested a total of 265 animals. Success rate for the hunt is listed at .2%. Even though statistically speaking 9.77% of the hunters put meat in the freezer, that number isn't given.

I wish there was a standard reporting for all states. It would make it easier for everyone involved, including a wildlife biologist from KY who wanted to work in Montana.

In KY, we have telecheck, where every turkey, elk, deer, bobcat and otter must be reported to the state.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
I willx2 what Luke said...enjoy all aspects of the hunt the prep, planning and time afield. Seasons are short and years long enjoy any time out in the woods👍 I often eat my mt combo tag just enjoying another season in another state...case in pt passed a on 17 bucks and two Bulls in the nwest cabinets of Montana this year waiting on snow that never came and very large antlers for either species that never showed up so I enjoyed eating those inexpensive tags 😀 It was a great time and I will be doing it again next year eating aleve like candy to hump the backcountry👍
 
My buddy got an antlerless cow moose tag and hunted every weekend since November 1st with nothing to show for it. Wednesday on his way to the store he sees a cow goes home gets his rifle and shoots the cow on a day he wasn't hunting. Does that mean his success rate when hunting is 0, even though he harvested an animal?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top