Success Rate Stats - How important?

[Prerylyon]

Does everyone have their pencils sharpened for the upcoming draws?[emoji2]

How much importance do you place on the success rate for a unit you're interested in?

I think for me, my mindset is changing. I used to look at those numbers with a lot of interest, but after a few trips out west under my belt, I'm not so sure that the importance I used to place on success rates to guide my unit choice was all that. My goals are simple for the next few years: boots on the ground experience, yearly, as economically I can make a trip, with a chance at some freezer queens.

How much weight do you place on a unit's reputation for hunter success?

Regards,

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

 

[rammont]

Back when I had to travel long distances and spend a lot of money to go hunting I paid a lot of attention to the numbers but now that I live where I hunt I don't pay any attention to them other than to look at them once in a while to sort of monitor the condition of the local herds.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I view most of these stats with a grain (or two!) of salt, as they say. Most states survey hunter success based on reports by hunters. Hard to believe what EVERONE has to say. Lots of bogus data is given, IMHO. One of the only state's data that I know of that I would really believe is California's. All hunters must return their tags. The number crunchers can gather their data first hand and their numbers have a high confidence level for me.

Here in Colorado, I get a call after the season asking about how I did maybe 2 out of 3 years. How can anyone believe the numbers when all hunters are not surveyed. How about how truthful the hunters are......well I'm not going there!

 

[Hilltop]

I agree with CC. In a state like Nebraska, the numbers are very good as all hunters are required to check in their game. Of course I'm sure some go unchecked but in general I believe their accuracy for success rates is great. In a state like Wyoming, I wouldn't put any stock in success rates since there is no mandatory check in. Their data relies on the accuracy of the surveys they send out. I have no idea how many surveys they send out but I can tell you there have been many years I didn't receive a survey after having a big game permit- this past season included. That tells me they only survey a percentage of tag holders and then they try to average the numbers. No way that ends up accurate imo.

 

[Prerylyon]

I just had a little eye opening experience this past October.

Due to weather issues, I had to unexpectedly access the WY unit I was hunting from the CO side and adjust my hunt plans real-time. Weeks of marking maps and loading up the GPS weren't completely useless, but I sure wished I made some more marks down near where I was coming into the unit. lol I saw a variety of big game animals on the CO side, as well the WY side. Maybe it was dumb luck or a fluke, but I made a mental note of it.

Fast forward to hunt planning time, and I decided to see what that unit in CO was all about-just in case I don't pull the tag I might want in WY-if that could even be an option to try in CO.

Armchair research shows that CO unit to have poor stats and a reputation for crowds; while I won't claim my short time on the ground last fall refutes any of it, I liked what I saw and, enough so, that I might go against my prior logic system and try to hunt it if I don't draw in WY.

Regards,

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

 

[sheephunter]

This reminds of the saying that 79.8% (or substitute whatever number you want) of statistics are made up on the spot. Seriously though, if a unit has a published success rate of 10%, for 10 guys out of a hundred it's a darn good unit, and for the other 90 guys it's not so good. So I guess my goal is to hunt wherever I like and try and be one of those 10 guys.

 

[ScottR]

Success rates are low on the totem pole for me...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Prerylyon]

I think what I'm starting to experience is the value of getting out into the units to see them 1st hand to really figure them out. Its obvious, I guess.

Its a tough pill for a non-res, and if you're a busy guy, even tougher to break free for a few days or more to scout. Being a 1,000 miles away from a unit can make unit selection tough and we have to start somewhere. Toss in the time lag between draws, and it makes sense we we pour over Fish and Game reports and try to learn as much as we can from each other on the forums.

All that being said, I got my best data from taking an August fishing/camping trip with my boys; in the unit, and living in it for several days this October during the hunt. I think this will be something we do every year. The cost for the summer trip-other than gas-was not bad and the boys got to experience the Rockies.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

 

[mallardsx2]

The area I hunted in Colorado had a 5% success rate on elk. After 14 days of boots on the ground, I believe it. lol

 

[Ikeepitcold]

High success rate means high tag allocation to me.

In Nv I pay more attention to the antler point rather then success. We have to report unit, day of harvest and how many points on each side of animal. The more points the more mature buck, not always but in general. So I look at the area I want to hunt, look at the success rate just to see what it says but then I pay attention to the point averages.

 

[Alaskabound2016]

I do believe in the success rates in California. If you do not submit your harvest report by a certain day you get charged a fee ($20-$25 I think?). I would think many people wouldn't want to pay that and just simply go online and click a few buttons to avoid it. And having hunted the same unit the last 4 years, I believe in the 3% success rate! Haha

 

[jtm307]

Harvest rates tell you very little. It is not uncommon for people to buy tags but never go hunting or buy a tag and never leave their vehicle. I know a guy who drew WY deer area 87 but never went out to fill it.

 

[Ikeepitcold]

I do believe in the success rates in California. If you do not submit your harvest report by a certain day you get charged a fee ($20-$25 I think?). I would think many people wouldn't want to pay that and just simply go online and click a few buttons to avoid it. And having hunted the same unit the last 4 years, I believe in the 3% success rate! Haha

Nv is $50 and I think you may not be able to apply for tag the following year.

 

[Prerylyon]

I agree with what you guys are saying about the nuances between specific states data. That is something to consider.

My thing, I guess really, was seeing animals in what last year I might have considered lousy units- just by the numbers alone in the papers.

I didn't get my freezer queen this year, but I was on them and had fresh sign daily. I think if me and my partner had pushed just a little harder we'd have punched our tags.

My short term plan is spend the next few years in that country. After a few years learning it, I'll decide on trying someplace new- but plan to hunt WY again if I pull that tag-otherwise I'll hunt the south side in the CO country. I saw plenty of nice deer on both sides too. Might cash in my WY points if I dont draw an elk tag-I just want to get out there. [emoji6]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

Like so many have said before....no substitute for boots on the ground.

 

[Fink]

Harvest rates tell you very little. It is not uncommon for people to buy tags but never go hunting or buy a tag and never leave their vehicle. I know a guy who drew WY deer area 87 but never went out to fill it.

This.. I put no stock in harvest rates, I've seen how some people 'hunt' their tags.. Herd sizes, bull to cow ratio, total tags/total area.. these are things I look at.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Over the years we have hunted the same area here in NV for 2 bulls and 4 cows, we were only unsuccessful on one, my first cow tag and only because I missed my only shot.
That area usually has a success rate of 16-18 % for cows and less than 50% for bulls. We are 100% on 2 bull tags and 75% on cows. I think those are pretty good percentages compared to the average success rate of the area.
I can only speak of my own experience here in NV and I like to think it's because we are willing to work harder than most other hunters.
Here in NV the hardest part is just drawing the tag. To me success rates have no bearing on my area choices.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

Since we usually hunt an out of state and rarely hunt a unit more than once or twice, I'm always considering the harvest success when selecting a spot to go. With that said I don't just take things at face value.

Antelope: On a quality antelope hunt with tons of animals, success rates should run north of 80%-85%. if success is own under something like 70% I figure this is an area that will take some effort to get a buck, and is likely not a slam dunk to see a ton of antelope in that area. I would want to do a lot more research on that area.

Deer and elk: I have been in high demand trophy units with lots of animals and still see guys who won't leave their ATV. I don't care where you hunt, other than a couple extremely glassable units I can think of, where bulls can be easily found from roads. When we elk hunt, I know we will put in a lot of effort. For these tags, I tend to take the success rate, double it and figure that is roughly our chance to kill a bull. For example if the elk harvest rate is 25% I figure we have about even odds of killing a bull. Like IKIC said, I like looking at antler point data as well if available. Another thing to consider is that if there are very low tag numbers for a hunt, you might see wide swings in harvest success for no other reason than only a certain percentage of the hunters report and the sample size is low. Also the lower the motivation to put out efforts, like on an antlerless tag, the more the harvest can be biased low.

Once In A Lifetime Trophy Species (sheep, mountain goat, moose, etc): I think the harvest stats tend to be much more accurate on these since there isn't the motivation to falsify reporting (people who don't want others hunting their "spot") and the reporting requirements tend to be more stringent. Again I look at data that quantifies the antler or horn configuration as well.

 

[hoshour]

Harvest rates tell you very little. It is not uncommon for people to buy tags but never go hunting or buy a tag and never leave their vehicle. I know a guy who drew WY deer area 87 but never went out to fill it.

Whenever possible, the MRS calculates our own success rates based on the reported figure for the estimated number of hunters that actually hunted the unit rather than the number of tags sold. Also, success rates in the state harvest reports often refer to total success and we prefer to use success on bucks and bulls which means we have to calculate it.

 

[hoshour]

Since we usually hunt an out of state and rarely hunt a unit more than once or twice, I'm always considering the harvest success when selecting a spot to go. With that said I don't just take things at face value.

Antelope: On a quality antelope hunt with tons of animals, success rates should run north of 80%-85%. if success is own under something like 70% I figure this is an area that will take some effort to get a buck, and is likely not a slam dunk to see a ton of antelope in that area. I would want to do a lot more research on that area.

Deer and elk: I have been in high demand trophy units with lots of animals and still see guys who won't leave their ATV. I don't care where you hunt, other than a couple extremely glassable units I can think of, where bulls can be easily found from roads. When we elk hunt, I know we will put in a lot of effort. For these tags, I tend to take the success rate, double it and figure that is roughly our chance to kill a bull. For example if the elk harvest rate is 25% I figure we have about even odds of killing a bull. Like IKIC said, I like looking at antler point data as well if available. Another thing to consider is that if there are very low tag numbers for a hunt, you might see wide swings in harvest success for no other reason than only a certain percentage of the hunters report and the sample size is low. Also the lower the motivation to put out efforts, like on an antlerless tag, the more the harvest can be biased low.

Once In A Lifetime Trophy Species (sheep, mountain goat, moose, etc): I think the harvest stats tend to be much more accurate on these since there isn't the motivation to falsify reporting (people who don't want others hunting their "spot") and the reporting requirements tend to be more stringent. Again I look at data that quantifies the antler or horn configuration as well.

Agree with you on trophy species where you are required to check the animal.

I would like to see every state require reports from every hunter and penalize hunters that don't send in their report, which some states do. However, most statistics in whatever field these days are based on sampling rather than calling every person, and in most surveys not everyone answers honestly. It's not that statistics are worthless, you just have to understand how data is collected, how much is collected and where inaccuracies are liable to come up and why. Because most news is headline news and these kinds of details are not mentioned, the spin the reporter puts on it may be way off. It's one of my pet peeves.