If you don’t care about elk hunting in Colorado, bear with me. Colorado is the 800 pound gorilla of elk hunting, is the state I follow the most closely and is the state and species 90% of Eastern and Midwestern hunters are most interested in. As some hunters are in a constant state of thinking for the future, knowing how and where to spend your scouting efforts and research this summer and a complete understanding of the effect of the new draw rules may help you with your future application strategies.
Anyway, last year the Colorado Division of Wildlife announced they would finally offer a hybrid draw system, but only for the highest demand hunts. Previously, Colorado operated on a pure preference system, where the applicant with the most points got the tags (only state in the US with this type of draw). There was no chance for an applicant with fewer points to acquire a high quality permit in Colorado’s Northwest trophy units. The point creep also made it unlikely that some applicants would ever draw before dying or quitting hunting. Units 2, 10 and 201 require 15-20 points to draw, even for archery, and the number required was going up yearly. So, in order to give applicants with fewer points some sort of a chance of drawing, the DOW decided to go with a hybrid draw, where 20% of the tags would be randomly allocated to applicants with 5 or more preference points. However, that also meant that the tag quota would be reduced for the 80% preference point draw, increasing the points required.
Secondly, the Colorado Division of Wildlife also decided to do away with the former “statewide” muzzleloader elk tags and exert more control over hunter distribution. The old statewide tag was valid in most of the OTC archery units, which made up about 50% of the mountainous regions of Colorado. There were both bull and cow tags available in the statewide tag system and the old cow tags were list A. Meaning those who drew a statewide muzzleloader cow tag could not buy an OTC or leftover bull tag. By controlling the cow and bull harvest more closely with muzzleloader hunters, the DOW now offers List B cow elk muzzleloader permits. But, by breaking up the units from the statewide system to individual hunt codes, it was difficult to predict how many points would be required to draw each unit, especially without knowing the tag quotas ahead of time. We knew how many muzzleloader hunters hunted each unit, and there was talk of reducing muzzleloader hunter pressure in some areas, so combined with the hybrid draw, this year more than ever was a bit of a crapshoot for applications.
Lastly, the Gunnison Basin units, 54, 55 and 551 were removed from the statewide OTC archery tag, causing further confusion to anyone trying to predict how to use their applications. These were popular units, but the archer pressure was making it difficult for the DOW to hit their harvest objectives with the rifle hunters. To increase total harvest, the DOW decided to reduce the archer numbers which were scattering significant numbers of elk to refuges off of the public lands. Biologists also chose to reduce 1st rifle season pressure, so that there would be more elk and less pressured elk available for the OTC 2nd and 3rd rifle seasons. Added to those strategies were additional late season cow permits.
Anyway, this is will be a review of where the applicant pressure went. It’s possible that the preference points required for muzzleloader, hybrid and non hybrid trophy units won’t stabilize for several more years. Many hunters aren’t as savvy with applications as those with westernhuntingdata.com, do not read the draw summaries, do not have a cohesive application strategy and will continue to make unwise application decisions. But for those who try to have a strategy with long and short term goals, it’s difficult to predict an outcome when there are major changes to the mechanism by which we acquire our sought-after tags. So the point of this whole article is to educate ourselves on how to play the system as wisely as possible. I will probably send this out again next application season as a reminder.
I was curious to find out whether the new hybrid draw reduced the number of points required in the middle tier trophy units: 40, 61 and 76, and what effect the loss of the statewide muzzleloader tag would have on tag availability. Would fewer hunters apply first for a preference point and then try to draw a tag with a second choice? What would happen with the cow muzzleloader tags? Would more people be willing to apply for the northwest trophy units with one-third to one-half the required points hoping to steal a hybrid tag? Would more people apply for a preference point in the hopes of earning the 5 points required to by hybrid eligible? Would some people simply give up trying to draw the northwest trophy units knowing that the number of points required will keep increasing? What effect would the limitation of archers in the Gunnison area have on the draw? There are also Ranching for Wildlife bull and either sex tags available to Colorado residents only that became part of the hybrid draw, but that will not be the major focus of this report. There were very few deer tags that were hybrid eligible (as with the elk, hybrid units required 10 or more resident preference points to draw) and no other major changes, so I will not be taking a close look at the effects on the deer draw.
The whole preference system is based on simple supply and demand, so we first need to take an overview of the demand on limited Colorado elk tags. For 2010, there were 191,747 elk applications for 147,849 limited tags. This is continuing a downward trend from the 192,606 applicants in 2009, 197,413 in 2008, and 198,044 in 2007. The limited tag quotas hardly changed between 2010 and 2009, but are down from 156,925 in 2008 and 165,366 in 2007. The main decrease in applicants came from nonresidents, with 77,504 in 2010, 79,764 in 2009, 86,818 in 2008 and 88,522 in 2007. Resident applications are on the rise though, with 105,209 in 2010, 104,017 in 2009, 101,870 in 2008, and 101,104 in 2007. So both applications and tags are down from recent numbers, but overall limited tags represented 77% of applications in 2010, versus 83% in 2007. This indicates that the recent reduction in applications were not in line with the reduction in tags. So preference points required should increase slightly.
Every either sex or bull hunt in units 2, 10 and 201, plus muzzleloader in 1 and 61 and early rifle in 1 were all part of the hybrid draw (Have I told you unit 1 is fool’s gold yet? Most folks have no idea it is not on par with 2, 10 or 201, with harvest stats similar to standard crowd controlled draw units.). Several either sex RFW tags and the Bosque Del Oso hunts were also included. On average, the preference points required went up at least 1 point for nonresidents in these hunts and in some cases, the resident preference points also increased. Remember, the hunts requiring 6 or more resident points have an 80/20 resident to noresident tag allocation split, not the standard 65/35. So it stands to reason that across the board, the hybrid units would have an increase in nonresident preference points required. Surprisingly, it wasn’t the northwest trophy units that jumped in points the most, but the 3rd season special Bosque Del Oso hunt (unit 851), going from 13 resident and 15 nonresident points to 15 resident and 19 nonresident points. If you average the point increases for all the hybrid eligible hunts, on average they increased 1.36 points.
Ok, so the hybrid units take even more points to draw now. What are the odds of drawing a hybrid tag with fewer than the required minimum points? Let’s look at unit 2 early rifle: Unit 2 went from requiring 16 resident and 18 nonresident preference points to 17 resident and 19 nonresident points. Unit 2 early rifle applicants increased from 1113 in 2009 to 1385 in 2010. Those applicants with just 5 points increased from 42 to 91, and total applicants with 5 or more points increased from 568 to 902 (58% increase) for the 0.5% (5 out of 902) chance of drawing one of the randomly allocated tags. 0-4 point applicants also went up 15% from 296 to 342. That increase in 5 or more point applicants could have sucked a lot of potential high point applicants out of other potential draws, but my guess is that it mostly just reduced the applicants applying for a preference point only. 2010 preference point only applicants went down from 65,782 in 2009 to 62,999 in 2010.
Unit 2 early rifle was typical of many of the hybrid draw hunts. So, what about the non hybrid trophy units? What happened to those? Looking just at non hybrid hunts in units 40, 76 and 61, plus the RFW bull and either sex hunts, on average they increased 0.5 points. So for the most part, point creep is still affecting these units. Only a few hunts required fewer points in 2010 compared to 2009. Unit 76 first rifle decreased from 6 resident and 10 nonresident points to 5 resident and 9 nonresident points. That may have had more to do with the DOW adding an early rifle hunt than with folks trying to draw a hybrid tag. Another big loser was the Silver Spur RFW hunt, going down from 11 points in 2009 to 7 in 2010. But those were exceptions; the point creep is still having an effect on these trophy units. Several of these hunts are nearing hybrid eligibility, and it’s hard to say how many additional applicants will choose to participate. It’s also possible that many high point applicants realized that they might never draw the Northwest trophy units while they are still healthy and mobile, so they put in for these slightly lower tier units. Unit 76 first rifle required 9 resident points last year, but the addition of an early rifle hunt has changed the dynamic. Unit 61 first rifle also required 9 resident points in 2009 and did not gain an early rifle hunt. I expected applicants to decide they would rather earn points while having a chance in the hybrid draw. Unit 61 first rifle season increased in nonresident points required in 2010, from 14 to 15, but total applicants were down from 1641 in 2009 to 1477 in 2010. Savvy applicants with 5 to 8 resident points and 5-13 nonresident points seemed the most logical to jump ship and apply for hybrid draw hunts with no chance of drawing unit 61 first rifle, but at least a slim chance of drawing a hybrid unit. Sure enough, residents with 5-8 points decreased from 387 to 267, and nonresidents with 5-13 points decreased from 283 to 181. It seems that no more than the normal number of applicants decided they were done waiting on a tag, and applied with up to 3 more points that required the year before.
Now, if you’re still with me and not bored to tears, is there a way to take advantage of the increase in applicants in the “holding pattern” of earning points in the hybrid draw? Possibly, but unlikely. There will have to be an increase in the tag quotas for these high demand non hybrid units. If you’re watching the population objective and status and sex ratios carefully, you may be able to anticipate an increase in tags and poach a tag from 76, 40 or 61 at some point with 1 or 2 points fewer than the previous year. But that’s the only reason I can contemplate applying for these units when you have 1 or 2 points below the minimum number of points. It’s also possible that the word about the hybrid draw has not fully gotten out yet, and more high point applicants will choose to take that route instead of continuing to apply for non hybrid hunts, thereby reducing the point requirements. It seems more likely that 40, 61 and 76 will soon become part of the hybrid draw as they reach 10 resident preference points for the muzzleloader and early rifle hunts (61 is there already).
Alright, so what effect did the new muzzleloader tag system have on the draw? For starters, the cow tags that only had a moderate chance of drawing in 2009 with a 2nd choice, are for the most part available as leftovers this year, despite no real increase. It seems many applicants tried to apply for bull or either sex muzzleloader tags with 1st, 2nd or 3rd choices, instead applying for the cow tag with a second choice as they usually do. To illustrate: in 2009, there were 13,068 applications for the statewide muzzleloader bull tag which required 0 points for residents (but only about 15% chance of drawing with 0 points) and 2 points for nonresidents, and about 20% of those applicants applied with 2nd choice or later with no chance of drawing. Conversely, in units 6/16/17/161/171, the either sex muzzleloader tag now requires 1 resident point and 3 nonresidents points, yet 32% of applicants applied with 2nd choices or later. Now maybe that was because this tag was now either sex instead of bull only. But units 80/81 had a similar phenomenon with a bull only tag, as the resident and nonresident points increased 1 point each, and 32% of applicants also applied with 2nd or later choices and no chance of drawing. And what about the OTC rifle units that were not part of the statewide muzzleloader tag in 2009 like that Flat Tops and Bear’s Ears? Both units had point requirements increase, by 1 each for residents and nonresidents in the Flat Tops and 1 point for nonresidents in the Bear’s Ears. So, if several units increased their point requirements, it stands to reason that some must have decreased unless there was some sudden surge in muzzleloading interest. Sure enough, two units did decrease in their point requirements, and another two units increased in the resident point requirement, while decreasing the nonresident point requirement.
Below is a list of former statewide units that had a net increase in points required (either resident or nonresident or both):
6/16/17/161/171
14/214
15/27
18/181
21/22/30/31/32
25/26/34/231
28/37/371
38
53
54
70/71/72/73/711
74/741
80/81
551
Below are the two former statewide units that had a net decrease in points required:
35/36/361
86/691/861
Below are the two former statewide units with no net change, but increased in resident point requirements, yet decreased in nonresident points required:
3/301
59
Interestingly, the loss of the statewide muzzleloader tag may have cleared up confusion with previous applicants who did not understand the system, and chose to apply to crowd controlled units. Units 48, 56, 57/58, and 69/84 all had a net loss of points required. The preference point requirements might not stabilize for several years as savvy applicants chase list B cow tags with 2nd, 3rd or 4th choices and fewer applicants apply for bull and either sex tags with 2nd or later choices. I’d venture to guess that list A cow tags will continue to be had with 3rd, 4th and leftover choices for the foreseeable future, while the list B cow tags eventually go back to only being available with 2nd choices.
It’s difficult to put a finger on what happened with the limited archery tags in 54, 55 and 551. Each of these units had the previous archery hunter numbers reduced by nearly 40%, so it’s surprising they are available as leftovers. There were probably several factors at play leading up to the draw. It appears that many residents chose not to be limited to a single unit, as nonresidents outdrew residents in 54 by a margin of 102 to 157, but residents preferred the better access and slightly closer units of 55 and 551 by a combined margin of 353 to 202. That makes sense as nonresidents will most likely have just one week to hunt, and residents might hunt 2 or 3 weekends out of the month long season. The majority of Colorado’s population lives nearly 4.5 hours from those 3 units, so it seems likely that Gunnison residents were the majority of the residents who bothered with drawing those tags. I know several folks who hunt more than one unit during archery season and didn’t want to be tied down to going all the way to Gunnison every weekend. It’s also possible that many hunters still aren’t aware of the changes and intend to hunt their old units on the OTC archery tag. Although the tags are now available as leftovers, others were unsure whether they could be drawn as 1st or later choice tags. In 54, 14 applicants wasted 1 or 2 points each to guarantee the tag. Similar issues occurred in 55 and 551, with several hunters throwing away as many as 5 points for a tag that could be had as a leftover (of course they didn’t know that at the time). It’ll be interesting to note whether the leftovers are quickly picked up or if they continue to be available all season. It might take a full season of enforcement/reminders for hunters hunting on OTC tags to realize the new changes, or maybe the area will never see much significant archery demand again. If it’s an issue of awareness, with OTC hunters trying to hunt the Gunnison country, expect the tags to be harder to draw next year (but I’d still wager a second choice tag if I intended to hunt there). If the reason for the lack of interest is resident travel commitment, the tags will continue to be available as leftovers. And now what’s going to happen to the former OTC hunters who did hunt the Gunnison area? Were they mostly Front Range residents who will now continue to pressure the closest OTC units? Will they pile into neighboring units? There’s several hundred displaced hunters now.
So those are the biggies. There’s nothing we can do to change our applications for this year, but keep these affects in mind for this year’s leftovers and next year’s applications. You still cannot draw a second choice muzzleloader bull tag. Many bull and either sex muzzleloader tags had an increase in the preference points required for nonresidents. Only a few decreased the requirements, but that may not hold true for next year. We have cow muzzleloader tags available for the first time in several years. Don’t expect too many of those tags to fall to leftovers next year, especially List B tags. We know the preference point requirement for the Northwest trophy units will continue to increase. There will likely be a few more hunts added to the hybrid draw in the next several years. You may be able to get lucky and draw a non hybrid tag if you choose not to participate in the hybrid draws, which only give you a .5% chance of drawing. We won’t know what to make of the newly limited archery units in 54, 55 and 551 until we see whether the leftovers are quickly purchased or if they remain available throughout archery season.
I know this may have been tedious, but if you are trying to plan for future hunts, it helps to try to understand the effect of new regulations on tag demand. Good luck out there.
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Friday, June 25, 2010
Hold em or Fold em
Many of you have hunted the same units for several years and have noticed changes in the elk and deer numbers. In some cases, the animals are still “there”, but not in the same numbers in the same drainages you traditionally hunt. In other cases, the population has been severely reduced, sometimes due to intentional or accidental management decisions, other times due to factors out of our control. Populations fluctuate due to natural variables, but wildlife managers usually try to keep them steady around an objective.
Many hunters distrust the population surveys that the Colorado Division of Wildlife produces. But it’s what they use, and what is going to dictate their management decisions. So if you’ve been unhappy with the deer or elk hunting lately, it pays to look at the current population in relation to the objectives. If that population doesn’t appear to have changed much, you may want to consider doing some more research and scouting to see what has changed in other parts of the unit. Did the Forest Service close a road, creating a new sanctuary? Was there a fire in a neighboring drainage, producing younger, more palatable forage? How long has it been since the last mechanical or natural disturbance in your area? Maybe the plants have become older and tougher where you hunt. Maybe the trees are now thicker, with less light hitting the soil, shading out the more desirable forbs. Did a spring quit running? Has the livestock management changed? What about timber management? Did the rancher whose fields that the elk or deer used to raid change crops, get a new outfitter or quit outfitting? Any of these things and many more can change the distribution of game in your area without changing the population. Most hunters hunt just a small percentage of the total area available in a unit, so it pays to have a little better perspective regarding the population and habitat changes (if any) in that unit.
Nature is never static. Nothing stays the same; plants grow, animals reproduce, snow storms wipe out deer populations, fires set back succession of plant species. Add in human interaction with nature and you have more changes. Thankfully, we can arm ourselves with information and monitor or anticipate these changes, which may affect our decision making processes. Even if the habitat hasn’t changed much, rancher and farmer attitudes toward wildlife might, putting pressure on the Division of Wildlife to allow a larger antlerless harvest. We hunters tend to abhor change, but wishing things would stay the same will not make it so.
So what might make you decide whether to look for greener pastures or whether stick it out? Take a look at where the population is in relation to objectives. This won’t tell you anything about the game distribution, but it should tell you whether the wildlife managers will try to let it build back up to the numbers that you once saw. If so, you ought to consider sticking it out. Hunting during those leaner years, while frustrating, will make you more knowledgeable about the area. You might also consider a temporary move to different ground with the intention to return when things get a little better. But if you’re unhappy with the numbers and it appears that the wildlife managers intend to either keep the numbers at their present level, or worse yet, intend to further reduce it, it’s probably time to consider folding up shop in that unit.
Most state game departments do not produce nearly the quantity or quality of information that the Colorado Division of Wildlife produces for public consumption. Some states don’t do population estimates, many do not have population objectives. So I can’t be of much help outside of Colorado, but the following is a list of DAUs whose glory days may be returning, and whose sun has set. It’s not a complete list, just some highlights and doesn’t include those who are on their way down due to being way over objective (ripe units for those seeking new ground while your old unit builds back up). I don’t have complete population data prior to 2004, so this will be more about recent history.
DEER:
The winter of 2007-2008 really worked over the deer herds in Colorado, so many of these units show similar patterns in their populations: near objective, then a precipitous drop that didn’t show up until after the 2008 post hunt survey. For other units, the winter compounded an intentional decline. Deer populations also fluctuate much more than elk, as they tend to breed at an earlier age and often producing twins and triplets, but are much more vulnerable to smaller predators and the weather.
The Flat Tops, units 11,12,13,22,23,24,211,131,231: This deer population has seen its glory days and it’s not coming back any time soon. In 2005, this herd was over 105,000 animals, representing nearly 18% of Colorado’s deer population in just one herd. It was also 50% over objective. Combined with lots of tags, and some harsh winters, the population plummeted to its low of 61,450 this past year. The DOW intends to let the population build back up towards the objective, but it will probably never number near 100,000 animals again.
The Uncompahgre Plateau, units 61,62: In 2006, the Uncompahgre deer herd was nearly 40,000 animals. After the harsh 2007 winter, whose damage wasn’t fully realized until 2008, this deer herd now stands at less than 22,000. It will come back, but it will take time. Antlerless tags have been reduced by 66% for 2010, but the DOW projects very little population gain for next year. Even at a 20% growth rate, which assumes almost no doe harvest and mild weather, it will be no less than 3 years before the population can get close to the 36,000 deer objective. If this was your deer hot spot, you might consider hunting somewhere else for a few years.
Poudre Canyon, units 7,8,9,19,191: This has always been a popular area, but the proximity to Colorado State University and the prevalence of Chronic Wasting Disease made it the target of an experiment to find out to what degree CWD is density dependent. Reducing the population from a high of 13,900 in 1993 to just 5,700 in 2007 with a tremendous number of doe tags was intentional. If you moved due to the poor recent hunting, I can’t blame you, but it is on the way back up and quickly. The new population objective is 12,000, and the past two years have shown significant gains, which are projected to continue beyond the present 8,700 and 9,300 in 2010. If you’ve left, don’t come back yet, because it’s still shy of the early 90s. But it should be close to peaking by 2012 or 2013.
Gunnison- Powderhorn, Cimarron, West Elk and Taylor Park-units 54,55,551,64,65,66,67: The area around Gunnison received the most publicity during the severe storms and emergency winter feeding operation of 2007 and 2008, but losses were much more widespread. Each of these DAUs were significantly over objective in the mid 2000s, and had been for many years. Combined with the overpopulated elk outstripping the winter range and able to outcompete deer for precious forage, the area was primed for a fall. While the DOW attempted to compensate for the losses during the following hunting season by cutting tags in half, the deer population was still down by more than 8,000 in the 2008 post hunt survey. This isn’t a deer and history lesson, so which areas are coming back, and which ones aren’t? The Powderhorn units (66,67) will not be coming back to their high of the early 90s and early 2000s. They were way over objective, so the harsh winter only helped the management goal, and the herd is now at objective. It’s a quality managed deer unit, so the buck ratio is going to be kept high, but don’t expect to see nearly as many bucks as you once did. The Cimarron units (64,65) will be coming back, although they have continued to decline since the major winter die off. Presently these units are at their low of 8400 deer, down from nearly 15,000 in 2006. The objective is 13,500 and doe tags have been completely eliminated for 2010. The West Elk (54) and Taylor Park (55,551) units will be on the rise also, but they will not be near their previous highs in the early and mid 2000s. Unit 54 had 9200 deer and was 40% over the objective of 6500 back in 2004 but has since plummeted to about 4,000 and hasn’t grown at all since that harsh winter. This is a unit that will take a while just to return to objective, which it had previously exceeded since the 80s, so don’t expect it to ever return to what you had been used to. The Taylor Park units were nearly twice their objective of 6,500 in the early 2000s, and are now presently struggling to break the 4,000 deer mark. You might want to give either of these last two DAUs 5 or 6 years before considering them again (and you’ll need nearly that many preference points to hunt them anyway).
State Bridge, units 15,35,36,45: In 2006, the deer herd exceeded 24,000, with an objective of 21,000 and was among the top deer densities in the state. Harsh winters combined with generous doe quotas and a reduced population objective (several habitat, disease and human issues) knocked the population down to a low of less than 14,000 in 2008. The new objective is 15,000 and the present population is hovering around there at this time. This is a population that will not return to the tremendous densities of the recent past. It’s still among the higher densities in the state, but it will not be going back to what it once was in the 1980s and early to mid 2000s.
Glade Park, unit 40: This herd has been below objective for over 30 years. Even with virtually no doe harvest, the unit has stagnated, despite good fawn production. The lack of a population increase points to a probable winter range habitat problem, which is likely compounded by an overpopulated elk herd in the area. It’s tough to make a call on this unit, as the population is roughly half the 12,000 deer objective and has been for some time. The population has declined from its previous high in the mid to late 80s of rougly 13,000 deer, but the objective at that time was 16,000 deer. Given that herd hasn’t grown in 20 years, despite management efforts, I see no reason to believe it will again without major habitat improvements or maybe a decline in the elk population.
Grand Mesa, North units 41,42,421 and South units 52,411,521- The north herd has always been about 3 times as large as the south herd. In the 1980s, this herd was over 40,000 deer. Presently, it stands at just 20,000, significantly below the 29,000 deer the DOW was managing for. The herd was just over objective prior to the 2007 winter, which takes most of the blame for the present population. However, this herd is not coming back. The population objective was just reduced to a maximum of 23,000 due to the Division’s feeling that closer to 30,000 would be unsustainable with increased energy development and decreased winter range quantity and quality. The Southern Grand Mesa herd was hardly affected by the winter of 2007. Previously the herd had been at the objective of 10,500, but the herd has since declined by 15% in 2009 as the deadly combination of drought and harsh local winter conditions showed a larger than expected decrease this past year. This herd should come back, but it was never anything like the North Grand Mesa herd. If you enjoyed the recent deer hunting here, you might give it two years before coming back.
Bear’s Ears, units 3,301,4,441,5,14,214: In 2004, this deer herd numbered nearly 48,000. Attempts to bring the herd back under control with liberal a doe quota was slowly working. But once again, the winter of 2007, combined with lots of doe tags, knocked the population down below 36,000 this past year. The objective had been 37,000, so doe tags are being reduced by over 50% this year. It’s unlikely this herd will push 50,000 again in the near future. There’s still a lot of deer, but it won’t be like it was just 6 years ago.
Aspen, Eagle, Glenwood-units 43,47, 471, unit 44 and 444- The 2007 winter in Gunnison received the most publicity, but that same winter took a tremendous toll on the deer populations in these units. Most dramatic was south of Eagle in unit 44. This herd is 80% lower than what it was in 2006! The 2006 post hunt population was over 10,000 animals, 30% over the objective of 7,000. The herd has plummeted to less than 2,000 animals according the 2009 post hunt survey. It is going to be a looooooong time, if ever, for this population to return even to objective. There have been virtually no doe tags issued for several years, but the population has not rebounded. While not exactly cheery news, the 50% decline in unit 444 from the 2004 highs will likely rebound much sooner. The population is presently about 20% below the objective of 5300 deer, but should bounce back quickly. In two years, the population in 444 probably won’t be pushing 7,000 like it was in 2004, but should be closer to objective by 2011 or 2012, barring another disastrous winter. The Aspen units, 43,47,471, have lost over 65% of their deer since 2006. The 2006 high of 16,400 deer was 50% over objective, bottomed out in 2008 at just 5,770 and has since rebounded slightly to about 6,400. This unit will not see anywhere near the numbers of the mid 2000s anytime soon. It will recover, but not to the level you may have been used to.
Delores, units 70,71,711- Yet another huge deer herd that has lost nearly 40% of the herd from recent highs. While slightly over the 34,000 deer objective in 2006 at 36,000 deer, this herd now stands at just 22,000. However, and I’m not one to armchair quarterback normally, but I do not understand the mere 25% reduction in doe tags and projected 2010 population decline to just 19,000 animals. I don’t hunt there, so it’s not my problem, but if you do, you might deer hunt somewhere else for a few years. Keep an eye on what the DOW does so you can time your return, but it’s hard to project when that might be given the current tag quotas and projected declines. I actually don’t believe the population will continue to decline into the 19,000 range with the 800 doe tags being issued, but for some reason the DOW’s population model expects it to. Tread carefully here. It could be at objective in 4 years, or it may never return.
Saguache, units 68,681- In the early 2000s the population was being managed for 8,500 deer and the population was just under 9,000. The herd management plan describes the reintroduction of doe tags in 2006 and 2007 as “erroneous”, when the DOW falsely believed it was over objective. To put it mildly, the deer herd was decimated, and fell to just 3,700 animals. The new objective is just 4-5,000 animals and the population is there at the present time. This herd will not be returning to the mediocre numbers it enjoyed between the 1960s and early 2000s. It is now half of that previous population and will be staying there, apparently with local public support.
Elk
Elk present different management challenges than deer. It’s easy to build the population up by simply reducing the antlerless tags, as the Colorado winters generally aren’t harsh enough to hurt them, and the large predators aren’t present. But reducing an elk population is much more difficult, as during the early seasons they often inhabit difficult to access wilderness areas, and flee to private refuges when the guns start going off. So, it stands to reason that in Colorado, there are very few populations significantly below objective that will be allowed to grow. Instead this is a list of units that have declined in recent years, and will not be allowed to grow back to the numbers you were once accustomed to.
Units 35,36 State Bridge/Eagle’s Nest: In 2004, the elk population exceeded 6,600 animals. However, the objective was just 2,950 and presently stands at 3700. So, not only will this population not come near the highs seen in the middle of the last decade, the wildlife managers intend to continue the heavy cow harvests and late season hunts until the population is less than 50% of what you had come to expect 6 years ago. It’s time to move on, the glory days are gone.
Bear’s Ears, units 3,301,4,441,5,14,214: The area around Craig had seen some fantastic elk hunting in recent years. Good public access at higher elevations with no wilderness, and enough BLM and state lands at lower elevation to take advantage of a large migratory herd made this a popular unit. The elk herd numbered nearly 26,000 in 2006, but has since been hammered with either sex and antlerless tags. The winter of 2007 contributed to the decline by pushing the elk closer too close to the travel corridors along Highways 13 and 40, denting cars and trucks in addition to the elk population. The herd now numbers around 17,000 and is projected to decline into the 15,000 range, with the objective being 16,500. I’m not convinced they will hit 15,500 elk projection in the 2010 post hunt survey, as the DOW has cut the 1st season cow tags in half for the second straight year. There are still good numbers, but if you were hoping the population would build back up to the mid 20,000 range again; it might be time to move on. Tags have become much more difficult to get this area as demand has not fallen off yet. Folks I hunt with used to rely leftover 1st season cow tags, but they have completely dried up.
Poudre Canyon, units 7,8,9,19,191: Just 10 years ago, the elk population was over 6,000 animals and well over the population objective of 3,300. A tremendous surge in cow tags, plus late season hunting as part of the CWD monitoring project knocked the population down towards the objective by 2008. There has been a slight increase in the objective to about 4,200, but the present population is just 3,800, so the increase will not be particularly noticeable. If you enjoyed the hunting here in the late 90s and early 2000s, the elk numbers will not return in the foreseeable future. It’s probably time to move on.
Big Thompson/Estes, unit 20: This population will not be coming back to the recent highs in the middle of the past decade. Well over 4,000 elk were present with an objective of 2,400. Several late season hunts were instituted, but the real problem was the Rocky Mountain National Park elk never left their sanctuary of the Park or town of Estes. Over 200 cow tags were issued in each of 3 late seasons, and the local herds on National Forest lands were annihilated. Additional culling in the park by government personnel and volunteers has helped knock the population below objective to around 2,100 elk. The attempt to solve the Park’s population problem with hunting on National Forest lands solved nothing, and now the public land hunting is the worst it has been in years. And since there are very few cows left on the public land, it won’t be getting much better unless the distribution of the elk herds change.
San Juans, units 75,751,77,771,78: We’ll end with some good news. This population had been near the objective of 19,000 for several years, but a series of larger than expected harvested knocked the population down from 20,000 to around 17,000 recently. The change may not be drastic, but can be quite noticeable, as the herds that were hit were mostly led by cows on public lands. The DOW has pulled back slightly on the cow tags for this coming year and is trying to hit the objective with slow growth due to the reluctance of surpassing 19,000. So if you noticed fewer elk the past few years here, they will be back in a couple years. Give it three years.
I understand the hesitance to leave your old stomping grounds. Traditions, proximity and local knowledge all play a role in why we continue to return to places even after we know they will never produce like the “good old days” or even just 5 years ago. As a unit-hopper, rarely hunting the same place twice, I know full well the difficulties and expenses in scouting new country. But you can approach these new places with an optimistic attitude, rather than stay put and grouch about the fact that the deer or elk are no longer present in the numbers you once knew. If you’re willing to expand your horizons, there is still a lot of good elk and deer hunting to be had. And if you aren’t willing to leave your spot, well, that’s your choice too. But at least consider re-scouting it to find whatever hot spots are left. If you believe that your pasture is greenest, that’s great, but it doesn’t hurt to take a look around.
With experience comes wisdom, but not all of it may apply to a new location. So weigh the consequences of leaving your spot for somewhere new. Despite the decline in game numbers in your area, are you still successful? How much do you really care about success, and how attached are you to the memories of your old camp? Is your wife going to ban further hunting trips if you don’t come home with game soon? How confident are you in your abilities to find elk or deer in new places? These are just some of the questions you might ask yourself before folding up or holding on.
Many hunters distrust the population surveys that the Colorado Division of Wildlife produces. But it’s what they use, and what is going to dictate their management decisions. So if you’ve been unhappy with the deer or elk hunting lately, it pays to look at the current population in relation to the objectives. If that population doesn’t appear to have changed much, you may want to consider doing some more research and scouting to see what has changed in other parts of the unit. Did the Forest Service close a road, creating a new sanctuary? Was there a fire in a neighboring drainage, producing younger, more palatable forage? How long has it been since the last mechanical or natural disturbance in your area? Maybe the plants have become older and tougher where you hunt. Maybe the trees are now thicker, with less light hitting the soil, shading out the more desirable forbs. Did a spring quit running? Has the livestock management changed? What about timber management? Did the rancher whose fields that the elk or deer used to raid change crops, get a new outfitter or quit outfitting? Any of these things and many more can change the distribution of game in your area without changing the population. Most hunters hunt just a small percentage of the total area available in a unit, so it pays to have a little better perspective regarding the population and habitat changes (if any) in that unit.
Nature is never static. Nothing stays the same; plants grow, animals reproduce, snow storms wipe out deer populations, fires set back succession of plant species. Add in human interaction with nature and you have more changes. Thankfully, we can arm ourselves with information and monitor or anticipate these changes, which may affect our decision making processes. Even if the habitat hasn’t changed much, rancher and farmer attitudes toward wildlife might, putting pressure on the Division of Wildlife to allow a larger antlerless harvest. We hunters tend to abhor change, but wishing things would stay the same will not make it so.
So what might make you decide whether to look for greener pastures or whether stick it out? Take a look at where the population is in relation to objectives. This won’t tell you anything about the game distribution, but it should tell you whether the wildlife managers will try to let it build back up to the numbers that you once saw. If so, you ought to consider sticking it out. Hunting during those leaner years, while frustrating, will make you more knowledgeable about the area. You might also consider a temporary move to different ground with the intention to return when things get a little better. But if you’re unhappy with the numbers and it appears that the wildlife managers intend to either keep the numbers at their present level, or worse yet, intend to further reduce it, it’s probably time to consider folding up shop in that unit.
Most state game departments do not produce nearly the quantity or quality of information that the Colorado Division of Wildlife produces for public consumption. Some states don’t do population estimates, many do not have population objectives. So I can’t be of much help outside of Colorado, but the following is a list of DAUs whose glory days may be returning, and whose sun has set. It’s not a complete list, just some highlights and doesn’t include those who are on their way down due to being way over objective (ripe units for those seeking new ground while your old unit builds back up). I don’t have complete population data prior to 2004, so this will be more about recent history.
DEER:
The winter of 2007-2008 really worked over the deer herds in Colorado, so many of these units show similar patterns in their populations: near objective, then a precipitous drop that didn’t show up until after the 2008 post hunt survey. For other units, the winter compounded an intentional decline. Deer populations also fluctuate much more than elk, as they tend to breed at an earlier age and often producing twins and triplets, but are much more vulnerable to smaller predators and the weather.
The Flat Tops, units 11,12,13,22,23,24,211,131,231: This deer population has seen its glory days and it’s not coming back any time soon. In 2005, this herd was over 105,000 animals, representing nearly 18% of Colorado’s deer population in just one herd. It was also 50% over objective. Combined with lots of tags, and some harsh winters, the population plummeted to its low of 61,450 this past year. The DOW intends to let the population build back up towards the objective, but it will probably never number near 100,000 animals again.
The Uncompahgre Plateau, units 61,62: In 2006, the Uncompahgre deer herd was nearly 40,000 animals. After the harsh 2007 winter, whose damage wasn’t fully realized until 2008, this deer herd now stands at less than 22,000. It will come back, but it will take time. Antlerless tags have been reduced by 66% for 2010, but the DOW projects very little population gain for next year. Even at a 20% growth rate, which assumes almost no doe harvest and mild weather, it will be no less than 3 years before the population can get close to the 36,000 deer objective. If this was your deer hot spot, you might consider hunting somewhere else for a few years.
Poudre Canyon, units 7,8,9,19,191: This has always been a popular area, but the proximity to Colorado State University and the prevalence of Chronic Wasting Disease made it the target of an experiment to find out to what degree CWD is density dependent. Reducing the population from a high of 13,900 in 1993 to just 5,700 in 2007 with a tremendous number of doe tags was intentional. If you moved due to the poor recent hunting, I can’t blame you, but it is on the way back up and quickly. The new population objective is 12,000, and the past two years have shown significant gains, which are projected to continue beyond the present 8,700 and 9,300 in 2010. If you’ve left, don’t come back yet, because it’s still shy of the early 90s. But it should be close to peaking by 2012 or 2013.
Gunnison- Powderhorn, Cimarron, West Elk and Taylor Park-units 54,55,551,64,65,66,67: The area around Gunnison received the most publicity during the severe storms and emergency winter feeding operation of 2007 and 2008, but losses were much more widespread. Each of these DAUs were significantly over objective in the mid 2000s, and had been for many years. Combined with the overpopulated elk outstripping the winter range and able to outcompete deer for precious forage, the area was primed for a fall. While the DOW attempted to compensate for the losses during the following hunting season by cutting tags in half, the deer population was still down by more than 8,000 in the 2008 post hunt survey. This isn’t a deer and history lesson, so which areas are coming back, and which ones aren’t? The Powderhorn units (66,67) will not be coming back to their high of the early 90s and early 2000s. They were way over objective, so the harsh winter only helped the management goal, and the herd is now at objective. It’s a quality managed deer unit, so the buck ratio is going to be kept high, but don’t expect to see nearly as many bucks as you once did. The Cimarron units (64,65) will be coming back, although they have continued to decline since the major winter die off. Presently these units are at their low of 8400 deer, down from nearly 15,000 in 2006. The objective is 13,500 and doe tags have been completely eliminated for 2010. The West Elk (54) and Taylor Park (55,551) units will be on the rise also, but they will not be near their previous highs in the early and mid 2000s. Unit 54 had 9200 deer and was 40% over the objective of 6500 back in 2004 but has since plummeted to about 4,000 and hasn’t grown at all since that harsh winter. This is a unit that will take a while just to return to objective, which it had previously exceeded since the 80s, so don’t expect it to ever return to what you had been used to. The Taylor Park units were nearly twice their objective of 6,500 in the early 2000s, and are now presently struggling to break the 4,000 deer mark. You might want to give either of these last two DAUs 5 or 6 years before considering them again (and you’ll need nearly that many preference points to hunt them anyway).
State Bridge, units 15,35,36,45: In 2006, the deer herd exceeded 24,000, with an objective of 21,000 and was among the top deer densities in the state. Harsh winters combined with generous doe quotas and a reduced population objective (several habitat, disease and human issues) knocked the population down to a low of less than 14,000 in 2008. The new objective is 15,000 and the present population is hovering around there at this time. This is a population that will not return to the tremendous densities of the recent past. It’s still among the higher densities in the state, but it will not be going back to what it once was in the 1980s and early to mid 2000s.
Glade Park, unit 40: This herd has been below objective for over 30 years. Even with virtually no doe harvest, the unit has stagnated, despite good fawn production. The lack of a population increase points to a probable winter range habitat problem, which is likely compounded by an overpopulated elk herd in the area. It’s tough to make a call on this unit, as the population is roughly half the 12,000 deer objective and has been for some time. The population has declined from its previous high in the mid to late 80s of rougly 13,000 deer, but the objective at that time was 16,000 deer. Given that herd hasn’t grown in 20 years, despite management efforts, I see no reason to believe it will again without major habitat improvements or maybe a decline in the elk population.
Grand Mesa, North units 41,42,421 and South units 52,411,521- The north herd has always been about 3 times as large as the south herd. In the 1980s, this herd was over 40,000 deer. Presently, it stands at just 20,000, significantly below the 29,000 deer the DOW was managing for. The herd was just over objective prior to the 2007 winter, which takes most of the blame for the present population. However, this herd is not coming back. The population objective was just reduced to a maximum of 23,000 due to the Division’s feeling that closer to 30,000 would be unsustainable with increased energy development and decreased winter range quantity and quality. The Southern Grand Mesa herd was hardly affected by the winter of 2007. Previously the herd had been at the objective of 10,500, but the herd has since declined by 15% in 2009 as the deadly combination of drought and harsh local winter conditions showed a larger than expected decrease this past year. This herd should come back, but it was never anything like the North Grand Mesa herd. If you enjoyed the recent deer hunting here, you might give it two years before coming back.
Bear’s Ears, units 3,301,4,441,5,14,214: In 2004, this deer herd numbered nearly 48,000. Attempts to bring the herd back under control with liberal a doe quota was slowly working. But once again, the winter of 2007, combined with lots of doe tags, knocked the population down below 36,000 this past year. The objective had been 37,000, so doe tags are being reduced by over 50% this year. It’s unlikely this herd will push 50,000 again in the near future. There’s still a lot of deer, but it won’t be like it was just 6 years ago.
Aspen, Eagle, Glenwood-units 43,47, 471, unit 44 and 444- The 2007 winter in Gunnison received the most publicity, but that same winter took a tremendous toll on the deer populations in these units. Most dramatic was south of Eagle in unit 44. This herd is 80% lower than what it was in 2006! The 2006 post hunt population was over 10,000 animals, 30% over the objective of 7,000. The herd has plummeted to less than 2,000 animals according the 2009 post hunt survey. It is going to be a looooooong time, if ever, for this population to return even to objective. There have been virtually no doe tags issued for several years, but the population has not rebounded. While not exactly cheery news, the 50% decline in unit 444 from the 2004 highs will likely rebound much sooner. The population is presently about 20% below the objective of 5300 deer, but should bounce back quickly. In two years, the population in 444 probably won’t be pushing 7,000 like it was in 2004, but should be closer to objective by 2011 or 2012, barring another disastrous winter. The Aspen units, 43,47,471, have lost over 65% of their deer since 2006. The 2006 high of 16,400 deer was 50% over objective, bottomed out in 2008 at just 5,770 and has since rebounded slightly to about 6,400. This unit will not see anywhere near the numbers of the mid 2000s anytime soon. It will recover, but not to the level you may have been used to.
Delores, units 70,71,711- Yet another huge deer herd that has lost nearly 40% of the herd from recent highs. While slightly over the 34,000 deer objective in 2006 at 36,000 deer, this herd now stands at just 22,000. However, and I’m not one to armchair quarterback normally, but I do not understand the mere 25% reduction in doe tags and projected 2010 population decline to just 19,000 animals. I don’t hunt there, so it’s not my problem, but if you do, you might deer hunt somewhere else for a few years. Keep an eye on what the DOW does so you can time your return, but it’s hard to project when that might be given the current tag quotas and projected declines. I actually don’t believe the population will continue to decline into the 19,000 range with the 800 doe tags being issued, but for some reason the DOW’s population model expects it to. Tread carefully here. It could be at objective in 4 years, or it may never return.
Saguache, units 68,681- In the early 2000s the population was being managed for 8,500 deer and the population was just under 9,000. The herd management plan describes the reintroduction of doe tags in 2006 and 2007 as “erroneous”, when the DOW falsely believed it was over objective. To put it mildly, the deer herd was decimated, and fell to just 3,700 animals. The new objective is just 4-5,000 animals and the population is there at the present time. This herd will not be returning to the mediocre numbers it enjoyed between the 1960s and early 2000s. It is now half of that previous population and will be staying there, apparently with local public support.
Elk
Elk present different management challenges than deer. It’s easy to build the population up by simply reducing the antlerless tags, as the Colorado winters generally aren’t harsh enough to hurt them, and the large predators aren’t present. But reducing an elk population is much more difficult, as during the early seasons they often inhabit difficult to access wilderness areas, and flee to private refuges when the guns start going off. So, it stands to reason that in Colorado, there are very few populations significantly below objective that will be allowed to grow. Instead this is a list of units that have declined in recent years, and will not be allowed to grow back to the numbers you were once accustomed to.
Units 35,36 State Bridge/Eagle’s Nest: In 2004, the elk population exceeded 6,600 animals. However, the objective was just 2,950 and presently stands at 3700. So, not only will this population not come near the highs seen in the middle of the last decade, the wildlife managers intend to continue the heavy cow harvests and late season hunts until the population is less than 50% of what you had come to expect 6 years ago. It’s time to move on, the glory days are gone.
Bear’s Ears, units 3,301,4,441,5,14,214: The area around Craig had seen some fantastic elk hunting in recent years. Good public access at higher elevations with no wilderness, and enough BLM and state lands at lower elevation to take advantage of a large migratory herd made this a popular unit. The elk herd numbered nearly 26,000 in 2006, but has since been hammered with either sex and antlerless tags. The winter of 2007 contributed to the decline by pushing the elk closer too close to the travel corridors along Highways 13 and 40, denting cars and trucks in addition to the elk population. The herd now numbers around 17,000 and is projected to decline into the 15,000 range, with the objective being 16,500. I’m not convinced they will hit 15,500 elk projection in the 2010 post hunt survey, as the DOW has cut the 1st season cow tags in half for the second straight year. There are still good numbers, but if you were hoping the population would build back up to the mid 20,000 range again; it might be time to move on. Tags have become much more difficult to get this area as demand has not fallen off yet. Folks I hunt with used to rely leftover 1st season cow tags, but they have completely dried up.
Poudre Canyon, units 7,8,9,19,191: Just 10 years ago, the elk population was over 6,000 animals and well over the population objective of 3,300. A tremendous surge in cow tags, plus late season hunting as part of the CWD monitoring project knocked the population down towards the objective by 2008. There has been a slight increase in the objective to about 4,200, but the present population is just 3,800, so the increase will not be particularly noticeable. If you enjoyed the hunting here in the late 90s and early 2000s, the elk numbers will not return in the foreseeable future. It’s probably time to move on.
Big Thompson/Estes, unit 20: This population will not be coming back to the recent highs in the middle of the past decade. Well over 4,000 elk were present with an objective of 2,400. Several late season hunts were instituted, but the real problem was the Rocky Mountain National Park elk never left their sanctuary of the Park or town of Estes. Over 200 cow tags were issued in each of 3 late seasons, and the local herds on National Forest lands were annihilated. Additional culling in the park by government personnel and volunteers has helped knock the population below objective to around 2,100 elk. The attempt to solve the Park’s population problem with hunting on National Forest lands solved nothing, and now the public land hunting is the worst it has been in years. And since there are very few cows left on the public land, it won’t be getting much better unless the distribution of the elk herds change.
San Juans, units 75,751,77,771,78: We’ll end with some good news. This population had been near the objective of 19,000 for several years, but a series of larger than expected harvested knocked the population down from 20,000 to around 17,000 recently. The change may not be drastic, but can be quite noticeable, as the herds that were hit were mostly led by cows on public lands. The DOW has pulled back slightly on the cow tags for this coming year and is trying to hit the objective with slow growth due to the reluctance of surpassing 19,000. So if you noticed fewer elk the past few years here, they will be back in a couple years. Give it three years.
I understand the hesitance to leave your old stomping grounds. Traditions, proximity and local knowledge all play a role in why we continue to return to places even after we know they will never produce like the “good old days” or even just 5 years ago. As a unit-hopper, rarely hunting the same place twice, I know full well the difficulties and expenses in scouting new country. But you can approach these new places with an optimistic attitude, rather than stay put and grouch about the fact that the deer or elk are no longer present in the numbers you once knew. If you’re willing to expand your horizons, there is still a lot of good elk and deer hunting to be had. And if you aren’t willing to leave your spot, well, that’s your choice too. But at least consider re-scouting it to find whatever hot spots are left. If you believe that your pasture is greenest, that’s great, but it doesn’t hurt to take a look around.
With experience comes wisdom, but not all of it may apply to a new location. So weigh the consequences of leaving your spot for somewhere new. Despite the decline in game numbers in your area, are you still successful? How much do you really care about success, and how attached are you to the memories of your old camp? Is your wife going to ban further hunting trips if you don’t come home with game soon? How confident are you in your abilities to find elk or deer in new places? These are just some of the questions you might ask yourself before folding up or holding on.
Trophy Potential
Throughout the years, it has been difficult to determine trophy hotspots outside of areas that claimed to specifically manage for older age classes of animals. Trophy hunters were told to peruse the B&C or P&Y record books to uncover areas that have produced well in the past. However, the record books generally only recorded a county of kill, which won’t always be useful in determining an individual unit. Additionally, those kills may have been 100 years old, or so few and far between, that the records are virtually useless for determining places that routinely produce older animals. Also, keep in mind that a Boone and Crockett class animal is a freak of nature, whose antlers far exceed anything else in his age class.
Age, genetics and nutrition all play a role in producing large antlers, but age is the single most important factor. There is currently no practical way to determine the genetic potential in an area, and nutrition is usually sufficient in a mild year to come close to maximizing an animal’s antler growth for his age class.
However, at WesternHuntingData.com, we have devised two statistics to help you determine which areas have the greatest potential for older age classed animals. One of the statistics in our data sets shows the % of male animals harvested yearly. Obviously, harvesting a lower % of male animals increases the likelihood of allowing bucks or bulls to live an additional year, thereby growing larger antlers. Comparing between units to see which ones kill a smaller % of males is primarily how the statistic was designed, but can you use those statistics to determine an age class of animals to expect to be able to harvest? YES! Here’s how:
Let’s pick on my favorite unit to bash, unit 12 in Colorado, the most popular of the famed Flat Tops units. Unit 12 is part of a Data Analysis Unit where 45% of the available bulls are harvested yearly. Think about that, spikes aren’t generally legal, so hunters are harvesting over 45% of the bulls age two and older (spikes are almost always yearlings). Since spikes aren’t legal, that 45% bull harvest is a lot of pressure on the two and older class. So what’s the chance of harvesting a 3 year old bull? You have to make some assumptions here, but let’s assume a typical 40 calf: 100 cow ratio, with half of those calves being bulls, all of whom grow up to be spikes the following year. Now, in a unit whose pre season (not postseason) sex ratio is 40 bulls: 100 cows, it could be that nearly half of the bulls available are spike antlered yearlings. So, a 45% bull harvest, could be more like a 90% harvest of bulls age 2 and up if half of the bulls are spikes. The chance of surviving past age 2 is about 10%! Yikes. So since your typical 2 year old is a raghorn 3x4, 4x4 or maybe 5x5, and most three year olds are 5x5s or skinny 6x6s, what’s the chance of finding mature 6x6 5 year old bull? Nearly impossible, but let’s try to do the math. If a bull has about a 10% chance of survival from age 2 and on, to make it to hunting season of age 5, we multiply 10%(odds of making to age 3)x10%(to age 4)x10% (to age 5)=0.001, or 0.1%. That’s 1 in 1,000 bulls.
HOWEVER, this isn’t the whole story. These are the odds for the entire DAU (11,12,13,23,24,25,26,33,34,231,211,etc), not just unit 12. There is a lot of elk on private land that never ventures onto public ground, so maybe on those properties there is a 10% chance of making it to 3 years old or older. Not in unit 12. By applying the elk density to just the public land (which is likely higher than the entire DAU, so these are conservative estimates), and then extrapolating the number of available bulls, that 90% bull harvest jumps dramatically. You’re now looking at 288% of the extrapolated number of bulls being harvested (this is what we call the public pressure index). Of course they aren’t killing 288% of the bulls, but this number is useful in comparing other units. More than likely, private land harvest is having a significant impact on the total number of bulls harvested, thereby inflating the success rate. This number also shows that hunters are likely killing a heck of a lot higher % of bull elk on public land than on neighboring private lands. So in reality, the chance of finding a bull over 2 years old is almost impossible on public land. Compare this to unit 10, a famous trophy unit, not far from unit 12. The DAU% bull harvest is just 3% and the public pressure index is virtually identical (0.0477 or 4.77%), suggesting the vast majority of these elk are harvested on public lands. Well that’s a trophy unit, and it takes 13 resident preference points to hunt there. Would you believe that there are OTC units in Colorado that harvest less than 20% (and some less than 10%) of the available bulls in the DAU? And they clearly aren’t coming just off of private land when they have public pressure indices that are the same as or better than trophy units like 40 and 76 (but not quite as good as 10). So, in a unit where 20% of the bulls are being harvested on public land, what’s the chance of finding a 5 year old bull? Assuming no natural mortality and no spike harvest, the odds of the bull you found being 5 or is nearly 22%. That’s not bad at all. These units are out there and they are available over the counter. Nobody talks about them for a reason.
Similar things apply in every state. In some states (Montana for instance), spikes are legal with the bull tags in some units, so there is far less pressure on the older bulls. There are Oregon general season tags for units where less than 10% of the bulls are harvested yearly. In Idaho, a handful of units harvest less than 10% of the bulls, and many general units harvest under 20% of the bulls.
Now for deer, especially in places where spikes are legal, the odds of making it to an older age group change slightly. If yearlings are legal, we have to apply these mortality rates to yearlings. And of course, natural mortality is much higher with deer. Now let’s pick on unit 52 in Colorado. The % of bucks harvested in that DAU (includes 521 and others) is just 21%. So to make it to age two, you are looking at 100-21=79%. Well that’s pretty good, but we all dream of 4x4s, not big forkhorns. So to make it to age 3, assuming no natural mortality, multiply .79x.79=53%. Once again not bad, thank goodness for all deer tags being controlled in Colorado. But we forget about the public pressure index, which suggests closer to 80% of the available public land bucks are harvested. So in unit 52, you might be seeing all sorts of great deer on the ranch land as you drive up into the national forest, but all of a sudden, the big deer are gone, and you are only seeing little forkhorns. That’s because to make it to just to age two, that little buck’s odds are just .2x.2=.04, or 4%, not including natural mortality. So there is a chance of seeing a two year old, but it’s pretty slim.
So think about these things when selecting a unit if trophy potential has any meaning to you. Be honest with yourself, if you won’t be happy settling for a raghorn or forkhorn, whose meat is certainly delicious, don’t shoot it. Leave that animal to someone who would be happy with him. And if all you are seeing are little bucks, and you aren’t happy with them, you’re probably in the wrong unit.
Good luck this season
Age, genetics and nutrition all play a role in producing large antlers, but age is the single most important factor. There is currently no practical way to determine the genetic potential in an area, and nutrition is usually sufficient in a mild year to come close to maximizing an animal’s antler growth for his age class.
However, at WesternHuntingData.com, we have devised two statistics to help you determine which areas have the greatest potential for older age classed animals. One of the statistics in our data sets shows the % of male animals harvested yearly. Obviously, harvesting a lower % of male animals increases the likelihood of allowing bucks or bulls to live an additional year, thereby growing larger antlers. Comparing between units to see which ones kill a smaller % of males is primarily how the statistic was designed, but can you use those statistics to determine an age class of animals to expect to be able to harvest? YES! Here’s how:
Let’s pick on my favorite unit to bash, unit 12 in Colorado, the most popular of the famed Flat Tops units. Unit 12 is part of a Data Analysis Unit where 45% of the available bulls are harvested yearly. Think about that, spikes aren’t generally legal, so hunters are harvesting over 45% of the bulls age two and older (spikes are almost always yearlings). Since spikes aren’t legal, that 45% bull harvest is a lot of pressure on the two and older class. So what’s the chance of harvesting a 3 year old bull? You have to make some assumptions here, but let’s assume a typical 40 calf: 100 cow ratio, with half of those calves being bulls, all of whom grow up to be spikes the following year. Now, in a unit whose pre season (not postseason) sex ratio is 40 bulls: 100 cows, it could be that nearly half of the bulls available are spike antlered yearlings. So, a 45% bull harvest, could be more like a 90% harvest of bulls age 2 and up if half of the bulls are spikes. The chance of surviving past age 2 is about 10%! Yikes. So since your typical 2 year old is a raghorn 3x4, 4x4 or maybe 5x5, and most three year olds are 5x5s or skinny 6x6s, what’s the chance of finding mature 6x6 5 year old bull? Nearly impossible, but let’s try to do the math. If a bull has about a 10% chance of survival from age 2 and on, to make it to hunting season of age 5, we multiply 10%(odds of making to age 3)x10%(to age 4)x10% (to age 5)=0.001, or 0.1%. That’s 1 in 1,000 bulls.
HOWEVER, this isn’t the whole story. These are the odds for the entire DAU (11,12,13,23,24,25,26,33,34,231,211,etc), not just unit 12. There is a lot of elk on private land that never ventures onto public ground, so maybe on those properties there is a 10% chance of making it to 3 years old or older. Not in unit 12. By applying the elk density to just the public land (which is likely higher than the entire DAU, so these are conservative estimates), and then extrapolating the number of available bulls, that 90% bull harvest jumps dramatically. You’re now looking at 288% of the extrapolated number of bulls being harvested (this is what we call the public pressure index). Of course they aren’t killing 288% of the bulls, but this number is useful in comparing other units. More than likely, private land harvest is having a significant impact on the total number of bulls harvested, thereby inflating the success rate. This number also shows that hunters are likely killing a heck of a lot higher % of bull elk on public land than on neighboring private lands. So in reality, the chance of finding a bull over 2 years old is almost impossible on public land. Compare this to unit 10, a famous trophy unit, not far from unit 12. The DAU% bull harvest is just 3% and the public pressure index is virtually identical (0.0477 or 4.77%), suggesting the vast majority of these elk are harvested on public lands. Well that’s a trophy unit, and it takes 13 resident preference points to hunt there. Would you believe that there are OTC units in Colorado that harvest less than 20% (and some less than 10%) of the available bulls in the DAU? And they clearly aren’t coming just off of private land when they have public pressure indices that are the same as or better than trophy units like 40 and 76 (but not quite as good as 10). So, in a unit where 20% of the bulls are being harvested on public land, what’s the chance of finding a 5 year old bull? Assuming no natural mortality and no spike harvest, the odds of the bull you found being 5 or is nearly 22%. That’s not bad at all. These units are out there and they are available over the counter. Nobody talks about them for a reason.
Similar things apply in every state. In some states (Montana for instance), spikes are legal with the bull tags in some units, so there is far less pressure on the older bulls. There are Oregon general season tags for units where less than 10% of the bulls are harvested yearly. In Idaho, a handful of units harvest less than 10% of the bulls, and many general units harvest under 20% of the bulls.
Now for deer, especially in places where spikes are legal, the odds of making it to an older age group change slightly. If yearlings are legal, we have to apply these mortality rates to yearlings. And of course, natural mortality is much higher with deer. Now let’s pick on unit 52 in Colorado. The % of bucks harvested in that DAU (includes 521 and others) is just 21%. So to make it to age two, you are looking at 100-21=79%. Well that’s pretty good, but we all dream of 4x4s, not big forkhorns. So to make it to age 3, assuming no natural mortality, multiply .79x.79=53%. Once again not bad, thank goodness for all deer tags being controlled in Colorado. But we forget about the public pressure index, which suggests closer to 80% of the available public land bucks are harvested. So in unit 52, you might be seeing all sorts of great deer on the ranch land as you drive up into the national forest, but all of a sudden, the big deer are gone, and you are only seeing little forkhorns. That’s because to make it to just to age two, that little buck’s odds are just .2x.2=.04, or 4%, not including natural mortality. So there is a chance of seeing a two year old, but it’s pretty slim.
So think about these things when selecting a unit if trophy potential has any meaning to you. Be honest with yourself, if you won’t be happy settling for a raghorn or forkhorn, whose meat is certainly delicious, don’t shoot it. Leave that animal to someone who would be happy with him. And if all you are seeing are little bucks, and you aren’t happy with them, you’re probably in the wrong unit.
Good luck this season
What Ifs and Backup Plans
What ifs and backup plans
By the end of June, most hunters should have a pretty good idea of what tags they drew or didn’t draw. For some of you, it’s the same areas you’ve been hunting for 20 years, for others this may be the first time out west. Regardless of how long you’ve been hunting public lands in the west, there’s always a little bit of uncertainty and anxiety leading up to a hunt. Now is the time to be creating backup plans and going through “what if” scenarios, not the day you are scheduled to arrive in hunting camp.
Some of you will not have your application strategy go according to plan. So now what? What’s left if you still want to hunt Western big game? If you drew you what you expected, you may now be looking to add additional licenses in your area for the same season, or different seasons if you like to spread things out. If you didn’t draw what you expected, you’ll want to go to Plan B. But not yet, first figure out why you didn’t draw, so you don’t make the same mistake next year. Did you have a proper understanding of the draw process? Look at the drawing summaries. Was there a reduction in permits? An increase in demand? Did you understand or even look at the odds before applying?
If it’s mid-summer and you don’t have any licenses, what are your options? Of course, each state handles things a little differently. In some states, residents can purchase unlimited general licenses, but the nonresidents are limited. Colorado, Idaho, Oregon and Washington are going to be your only options for unlimited nonresident bull elk tags. Many states will have leftover limited licenses, mostly cow and doe tags, sometimes in marginal areas, other times in merely undersubscribed areas with a large number of tags.
If you want a buck deer license, you’re in luck because those are much easier to come by. Colorado has a few leftovers every year, mostly along the Northern Front Range. Wyoming usually has large numbers of leftover “region general” tags that are good for a large number of units. Utah often has Northern Region buck deer licenses left after the draw, but they go quickly. Idaho almost never sells out there nonresident general deer tag quota (good for most of the state). Oregon and Washington have unlimited general deer tags, with Oregon’s valid mostly in the western half of the state for blacktails, but eastern Washington does have some general mule deer licenses. California will usually have a large selection of blacktail licenses, many of which are pracically unlimited, but the mule deer zones are mostly draw only. Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico will have a handful of leftover buck deer tags also.
Of the fringe western states, Nebraska is one of your best bets for mule deer tags still. Public land is severely lacking in nearly all regions but the Pine Ridge, whose tags are available first come first served. At $209, it is still one of the better deals in mule deer hunting(although half the deer in the area are whitetails), and usually doesn’t sell out until the season starts. And did I mention you could have two buck tags?
If you live in or near the state you want to hunt, or will have time before the leftovers are gone and are considering new country, take a spin around the unit. Familiarize yourself with the terrain, vegetation and access. See if these things suit you and the style of hunting you prefer. In most states, you still have plenty of time to check out new ground before having to make your decision amongst the leftover and general units. Do some brief scouting, but allow yourself some time to compare this new spot with another area. If you wait until the last minute to check out the new ground, and then don’t like it, you’re kind of stuck.
If you’re hunting familiar ground this fall, do you need a Plan B? Yes! Do you know of additional suitable camp sites if your regular place is occupied? What are you going to do if there is a fire, a road closure, emergency drought relief cattle grazing, new timber harvest or energy development in your old spot? How would these things change your hunting? Keep an eye on the local forest service and BLM sites. Go through any posted management plans. Keep yourself abreast of timber sales or energy leases. Those practices may open new roads that may or may not be good for your hunting. It’s far better to know about these changes and be able to plan ahead for them, then to show up and unexpectedly find your old campsite that used to be at the end of the road but now connects to a paved highway with gas trucks moving up and down it. There are various government sites that will help you keep abreast of stream flow and fire conditions. You probably don’t need to check on them every day, but once a month during fire season should be sufficient. A fire in early summer might be a benefit to the habitat in your area, attracting even more game if followed by good rains. But a fire in September could have a devastating effect on cover and forage.
What about scouting? I wrote a pretty comprehensive article a few months back for you, but here’s another review of it: http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/ElkHuntingUniversity/EHULessons . Be sure to keep checking back with the Elk Hunting University Lesson Plans for more articles written by other Colorado Division of Wildlife Huntmasters. In your summer scouting, make sure you do not focus all of your efforts in a single area. Not only is it fun to see new country, but you can make more informed decisions when you have a basis for comparison. When checking out new country, dissect the unit by the major drainages to help spread out your efforts and to be able compare relative abundance of sign. If you’ve only seen one area, how can you have much of a backup plan? Make sure you have a plan when scouting, don’t just bumble around randomly sniffing the Wood’s Rose and hoping to find elk or deer. Have a checklist of things you hope to see or verify, and locations you expect to find them.
If you’ve done your homework, hopefully you will be prepared if you show up two days before the season starts and find your first choice area is 50 other people’s first choice also. If you had a plan for how to use heavy pressure to your advantage, you’ll still be fine. But if you thought you were the only one who would be hunting the beautiful meadow a half mile past the road closure, time to enact Plan B. What will you do if the weather isn’t exactly what you had hoped for? What are you going to do if it is windy, or snowing or raining or hot and dry? Plans A, B, C and D might have to be scrapped for Plan E.
Other problems can occur that may be difficult to anticipate. Some people cannot handle the higher elevations and thinner air in the west. Talk to your doctor ahead of time about prescription medications that may help you cope. Keep in mind that the elderly will have the hardest time acclimating to higher altitudes. In an elk camp of mine at a mere 9,000 feet, we had a 70 year old from Tennessee wake up with nausea, aching joints, headaches and dizziness from altitude sickness. By descending to lower elevation, and resting for another day, he was able to continue his hunt. If we didn’t have an alternate area to hunt, he would have been stuck in a motel in Craig, Colorado while his friends and relatives were hunting the high country without him. Make sure you aren’t fixated solely on high elevation areas. Even if you can physically handle the elevation, snow conditions may restrict your access temporarily. Lower elevation canyons can be rich in game, but difficult hiking.
Don’t overlook the demands placed on your vehicle(s). Fresh air filter, oil and oil filter is just a start. Chains aren’t just useful for snow, but can be crucial to your survival on muddy roads. At a bare minimum, make sure your tires have a decent amount of remaining tread.
Without being too much of a pessimist, make a list of “if A, then B” scenarios. Think about what could ruin your first plan, and what you would do about it. A few years ago, I found a beaver had built a dam just barely downstream of a road I was planning on using to access my hunting grounds. I considered trying to cross it in the Suburban I had, but quick prodding with a stick told me that was a recipe for disaster. By having good maps, I figured out a new, convoluted route to my hunting spot, which I liked much more due to the difficult access. That wasn’t much for preparation, but it changed my mental ranking of spots I was considering hunting by changing the previous parameters. Keep in mind that hunters do not like having to cross country that they cannot legally hunt. So in some places it makes sense to try to find pockets of country that are relatively accessible, but rejected by the public due to regulations making it less desirable. While studying your maps, you will find a crucial road being blocked by private land. Many county websites have their plat maps digitized, so it can be simple to figure out who owns that property so you might come up with an access arrangement.
Any scouting you conduct this summer will likely change what you thought you knew about an area and how you thought you may want to hunt it. So be flexible and be prepared. Know what you are going to do ahead of time when you are thrown for a loop.
There is no offseason to the dedicated. The end of application season is upon us, but it is now scouting season. Scouting season isn’t just for the upcoming fall, you should have your eyes open to future possibilities during your travels and adventures. You likely won’t get a chance to see much of the country you plan to apply for during the next application season if you don’t plan for it now. So if you take a little extra time this summer, you may be able to sharpen your long and short term plans. You do have long and short term plans, don’t you? Might be a topic for a future article.
By the end of June, most hunters should have a pretty good idea of what tags they drew or didn’t draw. For some of you, it’s the same areas you’ve been hunting for 20 years, for others this may be the first time out west. Regardless of how long you’ve been hunting public lands in the west, there’s always a little bit of uncertainty and anxiety leading up to a hunt. Now is the time to be creating backup plans and going through “what if” scenarios, not the day you are scheduled to arrive in hunting camp.
Some of you will not have your application strategy go according to plan. So now what? What’s left if you still want to hunt Western big game? If you drew you what you expected, you may now be looking to add additional licenses in your area for the same season, or different seasons if you like to spread things out. If you didn’t draw what you expected, you’ll want to go to Plan B. But not yet, first figure out why you didn’t draw, so you don’t make the same mistake next year. Did you have a proper understanding of the draw process? Look at the drawing summaries. Was there a reduction in permits? An increase in demand? Did you understand or even look at the odds before applying?
If it’s mid-summer and you don’t have any licenses, what are your options? Of course, each state handles things a little differently. In some states, residents can purchase unlimited general licenses, but the nonresidents are limited. Colorado, Idaho, Oregon and Washington are going to be your only options for unlimited nonresident bull elk tags. Many states will have leftover limited licenses, mostly cow and doe tags, sometimes in marginal areas, other times in merely undersubscribed areas with a large number of tags.
If you want a buck deer license, you’re in luck because those are much easier to come by. Colorado has a few leftovers every year, mostly along the Northern Front Range. Wyoming usually has large numbers of leftover “region general” tags that are good for a large number of units. Utah often has Northern Region buck deer licenses left after the draw, but they go quickly. Idaho almost never sells out there nonresident general deer tag quota (good for most of the state). Oregon and Washington have unlimited general deer tags, with Oregon’s valid mostly in the western half of the state for blacktails, but eastern Washington does have some general mule deer licenses. California will usually have a large selection of blacktail licenses, many of which are pracically unlimited, but the mule deer zones are mostly draw only. Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico will have a handful of leftover buck deer tags also.
Of the fringe western states, Nebraska is one of your best bets for mule deer tags still. Public land is severely lacking in nearly all regions but the Pine Ridge, whose tags are available first come first served. At $209, it is still one of the better deals in mule deer hunting(although half the deer in the area are whitetails), and usually doesn’t sell out until the season starts. And did I mention you could have two buck tags?
If you live in or near the state you want to hunt, or will have time before the leftovers are gone and are considering new country, take a spin around the unit. Familiarize yourself with the terrain, vegetation and access. See if these things suit you and the style of hunting you prefer. In most states, you still have plenty of time to check out new ground before having to make your decision amongst the leftover and general units. Do some brief scouting, but allow yourself some time to compare this new spot with another area. If you wait until the last minute to check out the new ground, and then don’t like it, you’re kind of stuck.
If you’re hunting familiar ground this fall, do you need a Plan B? Yes! Do you know of additional suitable camp sites if your regular place is occupied? What are you going to do if there is a fire, a road closure, emergency drought relief cattle grazing, new timber harvest or energy development in your old spot? How would these things change your hunting? Keep an eye on the local forest service and BLM sites. Go through any posted management plans. Keep yourself abreast of timber sales or energy leases. Those practices may open new roads that may or may not be good for your hunting. It’s far better to know about these changes and be able to plan ahead for them, then to show up and unexpectedly find your old campsite that used to be at the end of the road but now connects to a paved highway with gas trucks moving up and down it. There are various government sites that will help you keep abreast of stream flow and fire conditions. You probably don’t need to check on them every day, but once a month during fire season should be sufficient. A fire in early summer might be a benefit to the habitat in your area, attracting even more game if followed by good rains. But a fire in September could have a devastating effect on cover and forage.
What about scouting? I wrote a pretty comprehensive article a few months back for you, but here’s another review of it: http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/ElkHuntingUniversity/EHULessons . Be sure to keep checking back with the Elk Hunting University Lesson Plans for more articles written by other Colorado Division of Wildlife Huntmasters. In your summer scouting, make sure you do not focus all of your efforts in a single area. Not only is it fun to see new country, but you can make more informed decisions when you have a basis for comparison. When checking out new country, dissect the unit by the major drainages to help spread out your efforts and to be able compare relative abundance of sign. If you’ve only seen one area, how can you have much of a backup plan? Make sure you have a plan when scouting, don’t just bumble around randomly sniffing the Wood’s Rose and hoping to find elk or deer. Have a checklist of things you hope to see or verify, and locations you expect to find them.
If you’ve done your homework, hopefully you will be prepared if you show up two days before the season starts and find your first choice area is 50 other people’s first choice also. If you had a plan for how to use heavy pressure to your advantage, you’ll still be fine. But if you thought you were the only one who would be hunting the beautiful meadow a half mile past the road closure, time to enact Plan B. What will you do if the weather isn’t exactly what you had hoped for? What are you going to do if it is windy, or snowing or raining or hot and dry? Plans A, B, C and D might have to be scrapped for Plan E.
Other problems can occur that may be difficult to anticipate. Some people cannot handle the higher elevations and thinner air in the west. Talk to your doctor ahead of time about prescription medications that may help you cope. Keep in mind that the elderly will have the hardest time acclimating to higher altitudes. In an elk camp of mine at a mere 9,000 feet, we had a 70 year old from Tennessee wake up with nausea, aching joints, headaches and dizziness from altitude sickness. By descending to lower elevation, and resting for another day, he was able to continue his hunt. If we didn’t have an alternate area to hunt, he would have been stuck in a motel in Craig, Colorado while his friends and relatives were hunting the high country without him. Make sure you aren’t fixated solely on high elevation areas. Even if you can physically handle the elevation, snow conditions may restrict your access temporarily. Lower elevation canyons can be rich in game, but difficult hiking.
Don’t overlook the demands placed on your vehicle(s). Fresh air filter, oil and oil filter is just a start. Chains aren’t just useful for snow, but can be crucial to your survival on muddy roads. At a bare minimum, make sure your tires have a decent amount of remaining tread.
Without being too much of a pessimist, make a list of “if A, then B” scenarios. Think about what could ruin your first plan, and what you would do about it. A few years ago, I found a beaver had built a dam just barely downstream of a road I was planning on using to access my hunting grounds. I considered trying to cross it in the Suburban I had, but quick prodding with a stick told me that was a recipe for disaster. By having good maps, I figured out a new, convoluted route to my hunting spot, which I liked much more due to the difficult access. That wasn’t much for preparation, but it changed my mental ranking of spots I was considering hunting by changing the previous parameters. Keep in mind that hunters do not like having to cross country that they cannot legally hunt. So in some places it makes sense to try to find pockets of country that are relatively accessible, but rejected by the public due to regulations making it less desirable. While studying your maps, you will find a crucial road being blocked by private land. Many county websites have their plat maps digitized, so it can be simple to figure out who owns that property so you might come up with an access arrangement.
Any scouting you conduct this summer will likely change what you thought you knew about an area and how you thought you may want to hunt it. So be flexible and be prepared. Know what you are going to do ahead of time when you are thrown for a loop.
There is no offseason to the dedicated. The end of application season is upon us, but it is now scouting season. Scouting season isn’t just for the upcoming fall, you should have your eyes open to future possibilities during your travels and adventures. You likely won’t get a chance to see much of the country you plan to apply for during the next application season if you don’t plan for it now. So if you take a little extra time this summer, you may be able to sharpen your long and short term plans. You do have long and short term plans, don’t you? Might be a topic for a future article.
Game per hunter
We all like hunting in places where there are a lot of animals and not a lot of hunters. However, many of the elk and deer hot spots are either tightly controlled or too well known, with too many hunters.
When I first looked into the game per hunter statistic for my own unit selection, I was coming off two disappointing elk hunts in a row, hoping to find areas with just as many elk, but far fewer hunters. Both hunts were in well known areas of Northwest Colorado; the Bear’s Ears and the Flat Tops. Yes, I was hunting 1-2 miles from the roads, and yes I did harvest elk on both hunts, but I was stunned at the number of hunters, my inability to escape the pressure, and the degree to which the elk were run back and forth between ambush points. Shooting at panicked elk, with their tongues hanging out of their mouths from exhaustion was not my idea of a good time. The morning after I harvested the cow elk in the Flat Tops, I decided to hit a smaller, hopefully lesser known parcel of BLM to look for deer. I had allotted plenty of time to drive to the location and hike up the cliffs, but there were guys parked or camped all over the place, trying to hunt a roughly 4 square mile parcel of BLM. There was just nowhere to go to ditch the crowds. That’s really more of an issue of public land hunter density, but that hunter density breeds a competitiveness, and drive to shoot the first legal animal that many hunters would rather not deal with. Throughout most of the west, there are considerably more hunters than legal male animals during every season. If you want to shed some of the pressure to harvest the first legal animal you see, you need to look for under the radar areas with good numbers of game per hunter.
To some degree, higher hunter densities can be tolerated if you are seeing game. But those game sightings might not be what you consider an ideal opportunity to fill your tag. This is where the game per hunter statistic matters. Units with high game per hunter values, whether it is elk, deer, bucks or bulls per hunter, those are units that provide you the luxury of turning down a less than ideal shot at a less than ideal animal. Many areas have less than 1 elk, bull, buck, or deer per hunter, depending on the season. Those are places where you will be tempted to take that long distance, Hail Mary-type shot that you may or may not have been practicing all summer for. If you’re four days into the hunt and finally see your first elk running straight away through timber, you might be tempted to take a shot you wouldn’t otherwise be proud of.
This same line of thinking applies to buck and bull hunters who are trying to stick to an age or trophy standard. If there is less than one buck per hunter in the woods, you can’t really be picky and still expect to go home with an animal.
For instance, let’s say you are ready to apply for your first high quality deer tag (we’ll get to elk in a minute). We all dream of Boone and Crockett class deer, but in reality, those are freaks of nature, and not the norm. But let’s say a 4 year old deer is our goal, maybe it’ll score 160 inches, maybe you are more interested in 28 inch or better spread. Either way, you need to be able to pick and choose a little bit to harvest an animal that you are satisfied with (and you really shouldn’t be shooting a substandard animal just to fill your tag. If you have a standard, stick to it. Let someone else harvest that young deer if won’t make you happy.). But if what you’re looking for requires some age, say 4.5 years old, you need to know the odds of making it that old and how many deer you may have to turn down to find that old of a deer. We’ve already covered the trophy potential indices in previous articles (email me if you want another copy), but we haven’t covered the number of deer you’ll have to be willing to turn down yet, which is another use for the bucks/hunter statistic.
First, we’ll need some brief overview of population demographics. Each cohort or age group of deer will have the maximum number of males of a cohort available at birth, with that cohort declining over time. There will likely be a high rate of fawn losses over their first few months, after which the losses over time slow down, then increasing again as the deer age, and their teeth wear down. That is more applicable to does than bucks, as most hunters do not select for a particularly large, old, young or small doe. They often take the first legal animal. Bucks will be a little different. After fawnhood (50% mortality is pretty typical), there is a steadily increasing pressure on the bucks as they age, meeting more and more hunters’ trophy standards. A yearling buck in a trophy unit likely won’t have many folks willing to pull the trigger on him, but a 5 or 6 year old will likely meet 90% of hunters’ trophy standards.
Of course this takes nothing into account regarding that individual deer’s ability to avoid hunter pressure as he ages. So, in a medium density (hypothetical 8 deer/sq mi, 65 square miles, 25 buck: 100 does sex ratio) unit where 20% of the bucks are harvested annually (pretty typical outside of OTC states), and let’s say another 5% die of natural mortality between the ages of 1.5 and 7.5 each year, how many 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 year old bucks would you be likely to encounter before finding the 4.5 year old that meets your standard?
In this little unit, with 435 does and 87 bucks, we have a theoretical buck age structure of 25 1.5 year old bucks, 19 2.5 year olds, and 14 3.5 year olds before you get to the 4.5 and up crowd, with 11 4.5 year olds, 8 5.5 year olds, 6 6.5 year olds and 4 7.5 year olds before they all die out by age 8. So of the 87 bucks, 58 or 67% do not meet our requirements. See the problem developing here? If 2 out of every 3 bucks do not meet your requirements, you’ll need to see at least 3 bucks before you pull the trigger. In which case, hunting a unit with less than 3 bucks per hunter would be make no sense whatsoever. And if you want to start putting the odds in your favor, I’d be hoping to find a unit with 6 or more bucks per hunter. 6 bucks per hunter isn’t out of the question, as nearly 25% of Colorado’s western deer units meet that requirement. However, this isn’t the case with most other Western states that I’ve looked at. One would think that Utah might come close, but only in their 3 top trophy units do they exceed 6 bucks per hunter. Wyoming appears much better at first, as the state average is 7 bucks per hunter, but a few units that exceed 100 bucks per hunter really the exaggerate the statistic. In this case, it’s better to look at the median bucks per hunter in Wyoming which is just 1.16. In California, the state average is 3.6 bucks per hunter, but once again is being carried by a few top units. The California median bucks per hunter is just 2.1, which is still better than the mediocre units in Wyoming, believe it or not. Oregon, with their OTC deer tags is much worse, averaging 1.25 bucks per hunter, with only one unit exceeding 6 deer per hunter and just four units exceeding 3 bucks per hunter.
I’m sure you get the point, but if you have a standard that you plan on sticking to, you need to be in the right unit for you and your goals. And even in well managed states, you can’t find a unit like this by picking radomly.
Now, like I promised, let’s look at elk. On average, it seems more people are happier with a younger age class of bull than they are deer. A 3 year old bull is easily capable of exceeding 260 inches, which most hunters would deem a trophy. Elk are much hardier and don’t have nearly the calf mortality that deer suffer, but they also have fewer young cows reproducing. In a hypothetical unit of 4 elk per square mile, 90 square miles, 25 bulls per 100 cows, a post season ratio of 35 calves per 100 cows and 35% bull harvest is pretty typical. In Colorado, spikes are generally protected and suffer almost no natural mortality. So, if they survive calfhood, they will likely make it to 2.5 years old, at which point they are relentlessly pursued. In our little population of 61 bulls and 305 cows, we can expect 18 or so yearling spikes, 16 2.5 year olds, 10 3.5 year olds, 7 4.5 year olds, 4 5.5 year olds, 3 6.5 year olds, 2 7.5 year olds and an 8.5 year old. So of those 61 bulls, 27 meet our minimum critieria, or 44%. If you’re happy with raghorn 2.5 year olds, 43 bulls or 70% of the bulls would make you happy. But sticking with the 3.5 and older bulls we’ll still need to pass up one or two bulls before finding one we’d be happy with harvesting.
So, looking for a unit with 2 or more bulls per hunter isn’t out of the question, even during OTC seasons. Colorado’s first season averages more than two bulls per hunter throughout the western units we cover. 3rd season and archery is your best bet if you are trying to be picky during an OTC season in Colorado. The high pressure OTC second season drops that average to just 0.74 bulls per hunter. Idaho’s general elk units are popular enough that there are no units with over 2 bulls per hunter, there’s a similar problem with Montana and their general tags. Most of Wyoming’s units with over two bulls per hunter are limited units, but some general units do fit the criteria. About half of New Mexico’s units allow for over 2 bulls per hunter, same with Arizona. The only units in Oregon or Utah that manage for greater than two bulls per hunter are limited draw units. Even though Colorado is known as a raghorn state, it’s your best opportunity at a 3 year old and older bull if you don’t want to wait to draw a limited tag. But you have to be willing to pass up legal animals if that is your goal. Harvesting the first raghorn you see will guarantee that you never shoot a mature animal. I know the temptation all too well, as my standards are on a sliding scale, depending on many factors…
When I first looked into the game per hunter statistic for my own unit selection, I was coming off two disappointing elk hunts in a row, hoping to find areas with just as many elk, but far fewer hunters. Both hunts were in well known areas of Northwest Colorado; the Bear’s Ears and the Flat Tops. Yes, I was hunting 1-2 miles from the roads, and yes I did harvest elk on both hunts, but I was stunned at the number of hunters, my inability to escape the pressure, and the degree to which the elk were run back and forth between ambush points. Shooting at panicked elk, with their tongues hanging out of their mouths from exhaustion was not my idea of a good time. The morning after I harvested the cow elk in the Flat Tops, I decided to hit a smaller, hopefully lesser known parcel of BLM to look for deer. I had allotted plenty of time to drive to the location and hike up the cliffs, but there were guys parked or camped all over the place, trying to hunt a roughly 4 square mile parcel of BLM. There was just nowhere to go to ditch the crowds. That’s really more of an issue of public land hunter density, but that hunter density breeds a competitiveness, and drive to shoot the first legal animal that many hunters would rather not deal with. Throughout most of the west, there are considerably more hunters than legal male animals during every season. If you want to shed some of the pressure to harvest the first legal animal you see, you need to look for under the radar areas with good numbers of game per hunter.
To some degree, higher hunter densities can be tolerated if you are seeing game. But those game sightings might not be what you consider an ideal opportunity to fill your tag. This is where the game per hunter statistic matters. Units with high game per hunter values, whether it is elk, deer, bucks or bulls per hunter, those are units that provide you the luxury of turning down a less than ideal shot at a less than ideal animal. Many areas have less than 1 elk, bull, buck, or deer per hunter, depending on the season. Those are places where you will be tempted to take that long distance, Hail Mary-type shot that you may or may not have been practicing all summer for. If you’re four days into the hunt and finally see your first elk running straight away through timber, you might be tempted to take a shot you wouldn’t otherwise be proud of.
This same line of thinking applies to buck and bull hunters who are trying to stick to an age or trophy standard. If there is less than one buck per hunter in the woods, you can’t really be picky and still expect to go home with an animal.
For instance, let’s say you are ready to apply for your first high quality deer tag (we’ll get to elk in a minute). We all dream of Boone and Crockett class deer, but in reality, those are freaks of nature, and not the norm. But let’s say a 4 year old deer is our goal, maybe it’ll score 160 inches, maybe you are more interested in 28 inch or better spread. Either way, you need to be able to pick and choose a little bit to harvest an animal that you are satisfied with (and you really shouldn’t be shooting a substandard animal just to fill your tag. If you have a standard, stick to it. Let someone else harvest that young deer if won’t make you happy.). But if what you’re looking for requires some age, say 4.5 years old, you need to know the odds of making it that old and how many deer you may have to turn down to find that old of a deer. We’ve already covered the trophy potential indices in previous articles (email me if you want another copy), but we haven’t covered the number of deer you’ll have to be willing to turn down yet, which is another use for the bucks/hunter statistic.
First, we’ll need some brief overview of population demographics. Each cohort or age group of deer will have the maximum number of males of a cohort available at birth, with that cohort declining over time. There will likely be a high rate of fawn losses over their first few months, after which the losses over time slow down, then increasing again as the deer age, and their teeth wear down. That is more applicable to does than bucks, as most hunters do not select for a particularly large, old, young or small doe. They often take the first legal animal. Bucks will be a little different. After fawnhood (50% mortality is pretty typical), there is a steadily increasing pressure on the bucks as they age, meeting more and more hunters’ trophy standards. A yearling buck in a trophy unit likely won’t have many folks willing to pull the trigger on him, but a 5 or 6 year old will likely meet 90% of hunters’ trophy standards.
Of course this takes nothing into account regarding that individual deer’s ability to avoid hunter pressure as he ages. So, in a medium density (hypothetical 8 deer/sq mi, 65 square miles, 25 buck: 100 does sex ratio) unit where 20% of the bucks are harvested annually (pretty typical outside of OTC states), and let’s say another 5% die of natural mortality between the ages of 1.5 and 7.5 each year, how many 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 year old bucks would you be likely to encounter before finding the 4.5 year old that meets your standard?
In this little unit, with 435 does and 87 bucks, we have a theoretical buck age structure of 25 1.5 year old bucks, 19 2.5 year olds, and 14 3.5 year olds before you get to the 4.5 and up crowd, with 11 4.5 year olds, 8 5.5 year olds, 6 6.5 year olds and 4 7.5 year olds before they all die out by age 8. So of the 87 bucks, 58 or 67% do not meet our requirements. See the problem developing here? If 2 out of every 3 bucks do not meet your requirements, you’ll need to see at least 3 bucks before you pull the trigger. In which case, hunting a unit with less than 3 bucks per hunter would be make no sense whatsoever. And if you want to start putting the odds in your favor, I’d be hoping to find a unit with 6 or more bucks per hunter. 6 bucks per hunter isn’t out of the question, as nearly 25% of Colorado’s western deer units meet that requirement. However, this isn’t the case with most other Western states that I’ve looked at. One would think that Utah might come close, but only in their 3 top trophy units do they exceed 6 bucks per hunter. Wyoming appears much better at first, as the state average is 7 bucks per hunter, but a few units that exceed 100 bucks per hunter really the exaggerate the statistic. In this case, it’s better to look at the median bucks per hunter in Wyoming which is just 1.16. In California, the state average is 3.6 bucks per hunter, but once again is being carried by a few top units. The California median bucks per hunter is just 2.1, which is still better than the mediocre units in Wyoming, believe it or not. Oregon, with their OTC deer tags is much worse, averaging 1.25 bucks per hunter, with only one unit exceeding 6 deer per hunter and just four units exceeding 3 bucks per hunter.
I’m sure you get the point, but if you have a standard that you plan on sticking to, you need to be in the right unit for you and your goals. And even in well managed states, you can’t find a unit like this by picking radomly.
Now, like I promised, let’s look at elk. On average, it seems more people are happier with a younger age class of bull than they are deer. A 3 year old bull is easily capable of exceeding 260 inches, which most hunters would deem a trophy. Elk are much hardier and don’t have nearly the calf mortality that deer suffer, but they also have fewer young cows reproducing. In a hypothetical unit of 4 elk per square mile, 90 square miles, 25 bulls per 100 cows, a post season ratio of 35 calves per 100 cows and 35% bull harvest is pretty typical. In Colorado, spikes are generally protected and suffer almost no natural mortality. So, if they survive calfhood, they will likely make it to 2.5 years old, at which point they are relentlessly pursued. In our little population of 61 bulls and 305 cows, we can expect 18 or so yearling spikes, 16 2.5 year olds, 10 3.5 year olds, 7 4.5 year olds, 4 5.5 year olds, 3 6.5 year olds, 2 7.5 year olds and an 8.5 year old. So of those 61 bulls, 27 meet our minimum critieria, or 44%. If you’re happy with raghorn 2.5 year olds, 43 bulls or 70% of the bulls would make you happy. But sticking with the 3.5 and older bulls we’ll still need to pass up one or two bulls before finding one we’d be happy with harvesting.
So, looking for a unit with 2 or more bulls per hunter isn’t out of the question, even during OTC seasons. Colorado’s first season averages more than two bulls per hunter throughout the western units we cover. 3rd season and archery is your best bet if you are trying to be picky during an OTC season in Colorado. The high pressure OTC second season drops that average to just 0.74 bulls per hunter. Idaho’s general elk units are popular enough that there are no units with over 2 bulls per hunter, there’s a similar problem with Montana and their general tags. Most of Wyoming’s units with over two bulls per hunter are limited units, but some general units do fit the criteria. About half of New Mexico’s units allow for over 2 bulls per hunter, same with Arizona. The only units in Oregon or Utah that manage for greater than two bulls per hunter are limited draw units. Even though Colorado is known as a raghorn state, it’s your best opportunity at a 3 year old and older bull if you don’t want to wait to draw a limited tag. But you have to be willing to pass up legal animals if that is your goal. Harvesting the first raghorn you see will guarantee that you never shoot a mature animal. I know the temptation all too well, as my standards are on a sliding scale, depending on many factors…
Using your application choices wisely
While a lot has been said on how to read the preference point requirements or how to determine your draw odds to see which units you have a chance of drawing with you first choice, we haven’t spent a lot of time on how to use your second and later choices. The following is mostly focused on Colorado, as that is where the most interest is, but I will also cover some of the other states and how your draw strategies might change due to their processes.
First you must have an understanding of the draw process in the state you are applying for. In every state, you only gain points if you do not draw with your first choice. Many states offer a mixed or hybrid style draw, with a majority of tags going to those with the most preference points and 20-25% being allotted in a random draw for the first choice. States like Wyoming, Oregon, and California do this. Some states work on a bonus point system, which increase, but do not guarantee your drawing a tag if you have the most points. Essentially you have your name in the “hat” more than once with a bonus point. Montana, Arizona, Nevada and Utah are bonus point states. New Mexico and Idaho do not have a preference system, so the draw odds are equal for everyone. Colorado has a true preference system and a hybrid system. The hybrid system is only for a handful of trophy units that traditionally take over 10 resident points and is similar to the mixed systems of Wyoming, Oregon and California, except that applicants must have 5 points to be eligible.
The vast majority of Colorado’s tags are in the preference system. Those who have the most points are guaranteed the tag, those with the minimum number of points need to know how to read the draw odds and know what their actual chance of drawing the tag is. On the next Colorado update, I will include this in the data sets. The only way to guarantee yourself a tag is to have more than the minimum points required as stated on the preference point report. To determine your actual odds, you will need to look at the hunt recap summary. If a tag requires 1 point, and you only have 1 point, you are not guaranteed the tag. To determine your odds, look at how the tags are allotted between residents and nonresidents. Subtract from the number of tags available to you the number of applicants with more than the minimum number of points required to determine the remainder of tags available to the minimum point applicants. Let’s say there are 125 tags allocated to residents, and 75 resident applicants have two or more points. That leaves 50 tags available to applicants with 1 point. If there are 250 applicants with 1 point, your odds are 50/250=0.2 or 20%. If the odds are that low you need to have a backup plan with your second choice, or be planning to use OTC tags instead.
If you apply for a unit where you have fewer than the minimum number of points required, you are throwing away your chance at a tag with your first choice. Do this only if your intention is to earn a point. I believe it is advantageous to apply for a hunt rather than a preference point on the off chance that there may be less demand for whatever reason that year and you actually draw. But if you don’t want that hunt, do not apply for it. If your intention is to hunt with an OTC tag while you gather points, then it may make sense to apply for the preference point instead with your first choice.
If there is a chance that you will not draw with your first choice, then you need to know how to use your second and later choices. By looking at the drawing report, you will be able to see which units do not completely draw out with the first choice. For starters, all units that require preference points will draw out with the first choice. When there is a very small number of tags drawn with a second choice, make sure that those are not just landowner tags that you cannot draw. The report will show how many residents, nonresidents and landowners draw with which choices. So make sure you are looking at the correct column. Any tag that goes to leftovers will be guaranteed with a second choice. Those tags are marked with an asterisk in the Big Game regs, or have will have a number under the “current balance” heading in the draw report.
Use the same idea with 3rd or 4th choices. Look to see which tags are still available with a 3rd or 4th choice or leftover. If you are trying to maximize value and avoid the pressure of OTC tags (they aren’t all bad), find the tags that draw out with the third and 4th choices. But, if you are doing this as a group, without a group application, you run the risk of your party having different tags. So do a group application if you are counting on someone else drawing the same tag as you. The vast majority of tags that are available in 3rd or 4th choice are also available as leftovers. That is not the case with 2nd choice tags. Because there are no OTC tags for deer in Colorado, I spend the most time wringing my hands over 2nd and later choices for deer.
More often than not though it only makes sense to apply for a first choice and second choice tag, and then checking the box for the leftover draw so you can coordinate efforts with other party members. By learning how to read the drawing report, you will know which tags are available in the leftover draw. Very few people take advantage of the leftover draw, but some good tags are available by this method. If you want two tags, you will need to wait until the leftovers go on sale after the main and leftover draws. Have your plan laid out ahead of time and know which tags are available before you even attempt to purchase one.
And if you have any questions, don’t be afraid to ask. This isn’t rocket science, but it may seem like a foreign language to those who aren’t used to western style application processes.
First you must have an understanding of the draw process in the state you are applying for. In every state, you only gain points if you do not draw with your first choice. Many states offer a mixed or hybrid style draw, with a majority of tags going to those with the most preference points and 20-25% being allotted in a random draw for the first choice. States like Wyoming, Oregon, and California do this. Some states work on a bonus point system, which increase, but do not guarantee your drawing a tag if you have the most points. Essentially you have your name in the “hat” more than once with a bonus point. Montana, Arizona, Nevada and Utah are bonus point states. New Mexico and Idaho do not have a preference system, so the draw odds are equal for everyone. Colorado has a true preference system and a hybrid system. The hybrid system is only for a handful of trophy units that traditionally take over 10 resident points and is similar to the mixed systems of Wyoming, Oregon and California, except that applicants must have 5 points to be eligible.
The vast majority of Colorado’s tags are in the preference system. Those who have the most points are guaranteed the tag, those with the minimum number of points need to know how to read the draw odds and know what their actual chance of drawing the tag is. On the next Colorado update, I will include this in the data sets. The only way to guarantee yourself a tag is to have more than the minimum points required as stated on the preference point report. To determine your actual odds, you will need to look at the hunt recap summary. If a tag requires 1 point, and you only have 1 point, you are not guaranteed the tag. To determine your odds, look at how the tags are allotted between residents and nonresidents. Subtract from the number of tags available to you the number of applicants with more than the minimum number of points required to determine the remainder of tags available to the minimum point applicants. Let’s say there are 125 tags allocated to residents, and 75 resident applicants have two or more points. That leaves 50 tags available to applicants with 1 point. If there are 250 applicants with 1 point, your odds are 50/250=0.2 or 20%. If the odds are that low you need to have a backup plan with your second choice, or be planning to use OTC tags instead.
If you apply for a unit where you have fewer than the minimum number of points required, you are throwing away your chance at a tag with your first choice. Do this only if your intention is to earn a point. I believe it is advantageous to apply for a hunt rather than a preference point on the off chance that there may be less demand for whatever reason that year and you actually draw. But if you don’t want that hunt, do not apply for it. If your intention is to hunt with an OTC tag while you gather points, then it may make sense to apply for the preference point instead with your first choice.
If there is a chance that you will not draw with your first choice, then you need to know how to use your second and later choices. By looking at the drawing report, you will be able to see which units do not completely draw out with the first choice. For starters, all units that require preference points will draw out with the first choice. When there is a very small number of tags drawn with a second choice, make sure that those are not just landowner tags that you cannot draw. The report will show how many residents, nonresidents and landowners draw with which choices. So make sure you are looking at the correct column. Any tag that goes to leftovers will be guaranteed with a second choice. Those tags are marked with an asterisk in the Big Game regs, or have will have a number under the “current balance” heading in the draw report.
Use the same idea with 3rd or 4th choices. Look to see which tags are still available with a 3rd or 4th choice or leftover. If you are trying to maximize value and avoid the pressure of OTC tags (they aren’t all bad), find the tags that draw out with the third and 4th choices. But, if you are doing this as a group, without a group application, you run the risk of your party having different tags. So do a group application if you are counting on someone else drawing the same tag as you. The vast majority of tags that are available in 3rd or 4th choice are also available as leftovers. That is not the case with 2nd choice tags. Because there are no OTC tags for deer in Colorado, I spend the most time wringing my hands over 2nd and later choices for deer.
More often than not though it only makes sense to apply for a first choice and second choice tag, and then checking the box for the leftover draw so you can coordinate efforts with other party members. By learning how to read the drawing report, you will know which tags are available in the leftover draw. Very few people take advantage of the leftover draw, but some good tags are available by this method. If you want two tags, you will need to wait until the leftovers go on sale after the main and leftover draws. Have your plan laid out ahead of time and know which tags are available before you even attempt to purchase one.
And if you have any questions, don’t be afraid to ask. This isn’t rocket science, but it may seem like a foreign language to those who aren’t used to western style application processes.
Variables of Success
There are a lot of factors that go into successfully harvesting elk and deer, therefore success rates for a certain unit deserve some additional focus. An individual’s success is determined by many things, some of which he can control, some of which he cannot. But success rates for an entire population of hunters in one unit are often dictated by things beyond the control of the individual hunter, as one would assume individual luck and skill factors average out over the group. We’ll touch on some things you can do to increase your success, but let’s also look at how to put the odds in your favor and when to be concerned or when to disregard the success rate of an area. Knowing what factors increase and decrease success will help you to weigh your options more intelligently when choosing a hunting unit. Among the factors you cannot control that influence success rates over an entire unit: Roads and access, amount of wilderness, land ownership, hunter pressure, weather, timber (management, density and species), seasonal variations, game density. Things you can control that affect your individual success: using the wind, local knowledge, balancing speed and patience, physical fitness, determination, shooting skill, harvest preferences, and knowledge of how to maximize your odds to put yourself into position to succeed.
Land ownership within an area is something you cannot control, but need to be aware of when selecting a unit. National forest and BLM heavy areas often have private inholdings along the main creeks and even some of the higher meadows. Narrow drainages in private hands rarely create much of a refuge for elk and deer, but higher elevation holdings can create problems. There is nothing more frustrating to see than elk or deer feeding right next to a property boundary. So save yourself the hassle and hunt somewhere where private lands cannot create large refuges. Low elevation ranch lands can have the same effect, but typically only during later season hunts. If you are considering a late season hunt, make sure there is some kind BLM or state land that can be hunted below the forest service if the snows are heavy enough to drive the game much below 8,000 feet. Areas with large amounts of private land also tend to have high success rates. Be careful when perusing the stats. If an area (say Colorado’s unit 13) has high success, it may just be indicative of the land ownership, not of the game present and public hunting opportunities.
Roads are another important influence on success. Roads obviously allow hunters to spread out, creating pressure over a wider area on the game. Having only a few roads in an area creates bottlenecks of heavy pressure and then large voids where the majority of hunters are unwilling to hike to. Well maintained roads, attract more hunters. Poorly maintained, high clearance roads weed out a lot hunters. When looking at a map, if a road has a county number or name, not just a Forest Service or BLM number, it is likely a maintained road. We need these to access our hunting grounds, but do not expect anything but heavy pressure within a mile of that road. Typically, the higher the road density, the greater the success. Conversely, areas with large amounts of federally designated wilderness often have low success rates. That’s not because there aren’t any game animals in these places, but it’s because few people have the means to access them beyond the average foot hunter conducting day hunts from somewhere near the wilderness boundary. Once again, wilderness creates a bottleneck of hunters near the boundaries accessible by road and marked trailhead, and then refuges are created in the distant back country. Penetrating beyond four miles (as the crow flies) during a single day on foot, then returning to camp is about the maximum for the above average hunter. So when looking at the statistics of a unit with federally designated wilderness, one should expect to see lower success rates due to access difficulties created around the wilderness boundaries and the roads leading to them. If you are willing and able to hunt the backcountry, then you should place a lower emphasis on the unit-wide success rate, as they do not reflect your determination. But you may also want to compare that unit with other like units that are wilderness dominated.
Along the same line of thinking, you should pay attention to areas where the timber has been managed. Logging creates roads, sometimes those roads are open, sometimes they are not (look at your map), but it also creates better habitat conditions and more “huntable” land. Clear cuts, thinning operations, and even the road building process encourage game to feed on more palatable forage species, and also allow hunters to see them, reach them and retrieve them. Some places have had no real timber management, but fires may have put the timber into an earlier successional stage (first grasses, then brush species, then small shade intolerant timber species like aspen, then pines, then shade intolerant species like spruces and firs), with more brush species or aspens instead of thick stands of spruces, pines or firs. Early succession timber stages tend to increase success rates, as once again, the game is more “huntable”. Few hunters are competent thick timber still-hunters, so areas where black timber dominates often have very poor success rates, similar to archery success rates. Lower elevation or earlier succession plant species such as scrub oaks, increase success rates where they are present. This is partly due to the fact that elk and deer feel comfortable in such brush, but are quite visible to hunters after the leaves have fallen.
Game density of course influences success rates. Density, when stated, usually refers to the animals per square mile of the entire unit. Obviously game is not evenly distributed, but is concentrated in pockets, devoid in some areas, and sparsely scattered in other areas. Your preseason mission should be to determine those concentration pockets, but before then, you must select a unit to hunt. Areas with higher elk or deer densities usually have higher success rates because even when not hunting in the major concentration areas, there are simply higher numbers of scattered animals to randomly bump into or feed out into a meadow. When trying to put the odds in your favor, the more animals per square mile, the better the chance of success. Seems obvious. That’s why the Colorado’s Flat Tops are swarming with hunters. The success is high partly because there are a lot of animals, the timber is huntable, there are sufficient roads, and pressure bumps the numerous animals from one hunter to the next.
Which brings us to our next factor: pressure. Pressured animals move more than unpressured animals. When game is on the move, you are much more likely to encounter it. If game can bed down at midmorning and feel secure, you will have a very difficult to time finding that game. But if other hunters are constantly moving them around, it enhances the success of all hunters in the area. Pressure can be a necessary evil, but the units with low pressure are obviously more enjoyable for those seeking solace. But they tend to have lower success rates. Extremely low pressure can have the opposite effect, as the game may not be forced into nocturnal feeding patterns or is unconcerned with the presence of humans. This extreme is typically only seen in the trophy units, but the point is, is that there is a point where really low pressure increases success. Above that point, you have extremely low success rates as there aren’t enough hunters to move the game, and there is just enough pressure to cause the animals to take on nocturnal feeding habits.
Weather is one of the most talked about factors regarding hunting success. But it can be a double edged sword. Cold weather and deep snows may make for elk and deer feeding during daylight hours, sunning on south faces, and easy tracking conditions. But it also makes the hunting grounds difficult to access, discourages many hunters from hunting all day long, decreases the number of hunters in the field, increases equipment failures, and sometimes the snows are too deep on the public lands, forcing the game down to the private lands too quickly. I tried to correlate weather patterns to 1st season elk success in a unit I was planning on hunting in October of 2009 and wrote this piece in September of 2009:
“As most of you know, I'm kind of a data freak, so while a buddy and I are still wrestling with exactly which unit to hunt this year (our 1st season tags are good for more than one unit), I decided to do some historical weather data analysis to help explain the variability of success. Some of it is kind of obvious, but it's nice to have data to back up your statements.
Weather Underground has some really good historical data, including day to day looks at the weather for as far back as you can go, but I just took the last 10 years because that's all I have for success rates. I looked at the periods between September 19 and October 18, because twice in the last 10 years 1st season ended on the 18th and I figured Sept 19 would give me a full month out from the end of the season.
Variables I put into a regression analysis to correlate with success:
Temperature: Average low prior to opener, minimum low prior to opener, Sept 19-30 low, average low 7/5/3/1 day prior to opener, low temp on the opener plus days 2 and 3, days below 32 (at the airport where the data is recorded) prior to opener, and the season average low temp.
Precipitation: Total precip prior to opener, max precip event prior to opener, September total preicipitation, precip 7/5/3/1 day prior to the opener, precip on the opener plus day 2 and the total between those two days, season total precip and number of days of precipitation before the opener.
I also looked at how hunter numbers and the date of opening affected success.
Basically, none of the analyses returned anything significant, but there were some very weak correlations. Sort of significant is the lack of anything solid to hang your hat on regarding weather.
The closest I could come was (and if you know anything about stats, the closest I could come were r-values around .2 and F-stats around 1) with these variables in descending order of significance:
Season average minimum temp
Precipitation 1 day prior to opener
Opening date
Average Low prior to opener
Everything else had an r-value below .1. So in reality, the most significant conclusion I could make was weather has very little do with success over the whole unit. Common sense and conventional wisdom say otherwise, so I'm still just as confused as when I started. I guess I can't account for human dimensions such as people not being able to reach their spot due to weather, or hunters hunting somewhere else trying to anticipate the weather or things of that nature.”
So disregarding what the numbers told me from analyzing just one unit and the events that may affect the 1st rifle season, it seems logical to assume that an area with many good roads and with low elevation public ground would have higher success than areas with few and poor roads and very little low elevation ground to hunt. Also, in Colorado, where there is 4 rifle seasons (but this applies to other states like Arizona and New Mexico, and to lesser degree states with a single long rifle season), one can examine how success changes over time. At the statewide level, Colorado’s rifle seasons during the 2008 season (but this pattern applies to most warm years) went from averaging 31% in 1st season, plummeting to 16% in second season, to a low of 14% in 3rd season, then back up to 18% in 4th season. Deer are the opposite, with success increasing over the seasons. This is at the statewide level (not just the 105 units we track, and is for either sex), and is typical of the past 5 years, but at the unit level, some places buck that trend. Here’s where you’ll want to know how put information to good use. When selecting a unit to hunt, it is also important to know when to hunt that unit. We’ve made it easy for you to examine how success in that unit changes over the 4 rifle season (but also archery and muzzleloader, though that is comparing apples to oranges).
The other stat that we offer, which is frequently disregarded is the average deviation of success. This statistic helps to expose those areas where weather likely plays a major role in some aspect of huntability. It’s very difficult to make a broad generalization as to what is being affected, but since elk populations are relatively static (deer populations fluctuate much more due to weather), land ownership, timber management and successional stage, roads and pressure patterns don’t change much on a year to year basis, it seems the only thing that isn’t consistent is the weather. Weather could be affecting water sources, the elevation at which game is located, the ease at which they are tracked or found by glassing, or access to the hunting grounds, but it is difficult to make a blanket statement regarding a whole state in respect to how weather changes affect huntability. Nevertheless, looking at the average deviation of success in a unit (and amongst seasons in Colorado) will show you areas which fluctuate greatly and are difficult to depend on if making plans far in advance. For instance, unit 24 in Colorado has one of the highest average deviations in the state during 4th season over the past 5 years. The average fluctuation (+ or -) from the mean was over 20 percentage points! The past 5 years either sex success was 22, 6, 27, 81 and 12%. It’s very difficult to say what about the weather conditions created that 81% year and what created the 6% year, but do you want plan your hunt for a unit where success can vary that wildly? So pay attention to this statistic. We all spend a lot of money, time and effort planning and trying to put odds in our favor and control what variables we can. But the weather is way beyond our control and we can’t always know what effect it will have on our elk or deer hunt. If you can be flexible and well equipped, a unit with a high average deviation may not be so bad for you. But for most hunters, it is wisest to hunt somewhere more reliable.
Those were all things you can’t control that affect success. But you can control what you do with this information by how you emphasize success and the deviation of success in determining where and how you hunt. Other things that you can control and ought to spend the offseason improving are: local knowledge, your shooting skills, physical fitness, your mental state, attention to wind direction and knowing when to stop and glass, slow your movements or when to speed up.
Scouting will improve your local knowledge of an area, but for many people that is just not possible. Those not willing or able to do so must accept the disadvantage they are at, but can do small things to improve their chances of success from afar. Remote scouting through the use of maps and aerial photos will take the “newness” of the area out when you finally do arrive. Knowing in your mind’s eye what the area looks like and where features that you’ve studied are in relation to your current position without having to study a map will make you more comfortable and willing to travel further than the average hunter who does not know what lies over the next ridge. Local knowledge also entails being familiar with the local vegetation. This is a weakness of most hunters, and one of the things that separates biologists from the average hunter. Knowing what the animals are eating and where those plants are found is helpful when hunting less pressured animals (and not all animals are heavily pressured). Consider spending some time at your local University’s library (if they have a wildlife or ecology department) reading over some of the diet studies that have been conducted in the past. These studies can also be a good way of finding areas that have traditionally good hunting by paying attention to where the study was conducted. If that degree of study isn’t for you, at least consider picking up a plant ID book and getting to know some of the more important shrubs, then calling either a biologist or professor to get to know which ones may be preferred forage in your area. Not all shrubs have the same food value to an animal, and elk and deer diets are frequently different.
Regarding shooting skills, if you can’t hit a moving animal or at least cannot make a quick decision to shoot or don’t shoot, you probably shouldn’t be hunting in areas with lots of black timber. If you consider yourself a long range specialist, you should be hunting areas with good vantage points. Your shooting skills and preferences should be taken into account when selecting an area, as not all places have the terrain and vegetation that is right for you.
No one wants to be told to get fit, but being fit will help your endurance and your mental state while hunting. If you are completely physically exhausted after day 1, how are you going to get out of bed for day 2? I don’t want to be a nag about this, but you know whether or not you are in the condition you expect of yourself, and whether that condition limits your hunting success. This goes with physical fitness, but those who are mentally tough, willing to go the extra mile, willing to do what other hunters won’t are those who will increase their chances of success. You probably won’t kill an elk while sleeping in camp, and in some instances you’ve wasted time by going back to it with daylight remaining. If you aren’t comfortable walking to camp or to a hunting area in the dark, you are at a disadvantage. If you won’t shoot an elk at dusk 4 miles into the backcountry, why are you even there? You should know your limitations, but the most successful hunters likely have the fewest limitations holding them back from their goals.
Other things that have a great impact on your individual success is knowing how to play the wind. Understanding thermals and paying attention to wind direction is one of the best ways to negate a game animal’s greatest advantage over you. We all know game animals have a difficult time picking out someone who is standing still, so be careful when you are hunting. Every time you hit an opening, at the bare minimum, remain still, and glass the edges of the opening before exposing yourself to anything that may be watching it. Experience will teach you when to slow down and when you can risk speeding up, but also having a good feel for when to sit down and glass, and when to be patient along a trail will also help your success.
One other thing you can change is your selectivity regarding trophy quality. A good hunter who is happy shooting the first legal animal will likely have much higher success than a mediocre hunter with high expectations and is willing to turn down legal animals. For many hunters, this is a natural change over time, first just wanting to harvest a legal animal, then the desire to only take the best, then not caring whether one harvests at all, just focusing on the enjoyment in the field. But one must be comfortable with where they stand among these different mentalities in order to enjoy time afield. Harvesting animals you are unhappy with, or turning down animals you’d actually like to harvest, then not being happy with going home empty handed are surefire ways to have an unsuccessful hunt. Know yourself, and know whether you are hunting in the right area for yourself and your mentality.
Good luck out there
Land ownership within an area is something you cannot control, but need to be aware of when selecting a unit. National forest and BLM heavy areas often have private inholdings along the main creeks and even some of the higher meadows. Narrow drainages in private hands rarely create much of a refuge for elk and deer, but higher elevation holdings can create problems. There is nothing more frustrating to see than elk or deer feeding right next to a property boundary. So save yourself the hassle and hunt somewhere where private lands cannot create large refuges. Low elevation ranch lands can have the same effect, but typically only during later season hunts. If you are considering a late season hunt, make sure there is some kind BLM or state land that can be hunted below the forest service if the snows are heavy enough to drive the game much below 8,000 feet. Areas with large amounts of private land also tend to have high success rates. Be careful when perusing the stats. If an area (say Colorado’s unit 13) has high success, it may just be indicative of the land ownership, not of the game present and public hunting opportunities.
Roads are another important influence on success. Roads obviously allow hunters to spread out, creating pressure over a wider area on the game. Having only a few roads in an area creates bottlenecks of heavy pressure and then large voids where the majority of hunters are unwilling to hike to. Well maintained roads, attract more hunters. Poorly maintained, high clearance roads weed out a lot hunters. When looking at a map, if a road has a county number or name, not just a Forest Service or BLM number, it is likely a maintained road. We need these to access our hunting grounds, but do not expect anything but heavy pressure within a mile of that road. Typically, the higher the road density, the greater the success. Conversely, areas with large amounts of federally designated wilderness often have low success rates. That’s not because there aren’t any game animals in these places, but it’s because few people have the means to access them beyond the average foot hunter conducting day hunts from somewhere near the wilderness boundary. Once again, wilderness creates a bottleneck of hunters near the boundaries accessible by road and marked trailhead, and then refuges are created in the distant back country. Penetrating beyond four miles (as the crow flies) during a single day on foot, then returning to camp is about the maximum for the above average hunter. So when looking at the statistics of a unit with federally designated wilderness, one should expect to see lower success rates due to access difficulties created around the wilderness boundaries and the roads leading to them. If you are willing and able to hunt the backcountry, then you should place a lower emphasis on the unit-wide success rate, as they do not reflect your determination. But you may also want to compare that unit with other like units that are wilderness dominated.
Along the same line of thinking, you should pay attention to areas where the timber has been managed. Logging creates roads, sometimes those roads are open, sometimes they are not (look at your map), but it also creates better habitat conditions and more “huntable” land. Clear cuts, thinning operations, and even the road building process encourage game to feed on more palatable forage species, and also allow hunters to see them, reach them and retrieve them. Some places have had no real timber management, but fires may have put the timber into an earlier successional stage (first grasses, then brush species, then small shade intolerant timber species like aspen, then pines, then shade intolerant species like spruces and firs), with more brush species or aspens instead of thick stands of spruces, pines or firs. Early succession timber stages tend to increase success rates, as once again, the game is more “huntable”. Few hunters are competent thick timber still-hunters, so areas where black timber dominates often have very poor success rates, similar to archery success rates. Lower elevation or earlier succession plant species such as scrub oaks, increase success rates where they are present. This is partly due to the fact that elk and deer feel comfortable in such brush, but are quite visible to hunters after the leaves have fallen.
Game density of course influences success rates. Density, when stated, usually refers to the animals per square mile of the entire unit. Obviously game is not evenly distributed, but is concentrated in pockets, devoid in some areas, and sparsely scattered in other areas. Your preseason mission should be to determine those concentration pockets, but before then, you must select a unit to hunt. Areas with higher elk or deer densities usually have higher success rates because even when not hunting in the major concentration areas, there are simply higher numbers of scattered animals to randomly bump into or feed out into a meadow. When trying to put the odds in your favor, the more animals per square mile, the better the chance of success. Seems obvious. That’s why the Colorado’s Flat Tops are swarming with hunters. The success is high partly because there are a lot of animals, the timber is huntable, there are sufficient roads, and pressure bumps the numerous animals from one hunter to the next.
Which brings us to our next factor: pressure. Pressured animals move more than unpressured animals. When game is on the move, you are much more likely to encounter it. If game can bed down at midmorning and feel secure, you will have a very difficult to time finding that game. But if other hunters are constantly moving them around, it enhances the success of all hunters in the area. Pressure can be a necessary evil, but the units with low pressure are obviously more enjoyable for those seeking solace. But they tend to have lower success rates. Extremely low pressure can have the opposite effect, as the game may not be forced into nocturnal feeding patterns or is unconcerned with the presence of humans. This extreme is typically only seen in the trophy units, but the point is, is that there is a point where really low pressure increases success. Above that point, you have extremely low success rates as there aren’t enough hunters to move the game, and there is just enough pressure to cause the animals to take on nocturnal feeding habits.
Weather is one of the most talked about factors regarding hunting success. But it can be a double edged sword. Cold weather and deep snows may make for elk and deer feeding during daylight hours, sunning on south faces, and easy tracking conditions. But it also makes the hunting grounds difficult to access, discourages many hunters from hunting all day long, decreases the number of hunters in the field, increases equipment failures, and sometimes the snows are too deep on the public lands, forcing the game down to the private lands too quickly. I tried to correlate weather patterns to 1st season elk success in a unit I was planning on hunting in October of 2009 and wrote this piece in September of 2009:
“As most of you know, I'm kind of a data freak, so while a buddy and I are still wrestling with exactly which unit to hunt this year (our 1st season tags are good for more than one unit), I decided to do some historical weather data analysis to help explain the variability of success. Some of it is kind of obvious, but it's nice to have data to back up your statements.
Weather Underground has some really good historical data, including day to day looks at the weather for as far back as you can go, but I just took the last 10 years because that's all I have for success rates. I looked at the periods between September 19 and October 18, because twice in the last 10 years 1st season ended on the 18th and I figured Sept 19 would give me a full month out from the end of the season.
Variables I put into a regression analysis to correlate with success:
Temperature: Average low prior to opener, minimum low prior to opener, Sept 19-30 low, average low 7/5/3/1 day prior to opener, low temp on the opener plus days 2 and 3, days below 32 (at the airport where the data is recorded) prior to opener, and the season average low temp.
Precipitation: Total precip prior to opener, max precip event prior to opener, September total preicipitation, precip 7/5/3/1 day prior to the opener, precip on the opener plus day 2 and the total between those two days, season total precip and number of days of precipitation before the opener.
I also looked at how hunter numbers and the date of opening affected success.
Basically, none of the analyses returned anything significant, but there were some very weak correlations. Sort of significant is the lack of anything solid to hang your hat on regarding weather.
The closest I could come was (and if you know anything about stats, the closest I could come were r-values around .2 and F-stats around 1) with these variables in descending order of significance:
Season average minimum temp
Precipitation 1 day prior to opener
Opening date
Average Low prior to opener
Everything else had an r-value below .1. So in reality, the most significant conclusion I could make was weather has very little do with success over the whole unit. Common sense and conventional wisdom say otherwise, so I'm still just as confused as when I started. I guess I can't account for human dimensions such as people not being able to reach their spot due to weather, or hunters hunting somewhere else trying to anticipate the weather or things of that nature.”
So disregarding what the numbers told me from analyzing just one unit and the events that may affect the 1st rifle season, it seems logical to assume that an area with many good roads and with low elevation public ground would have higher success than areas with few and poor roads and very little low elevation ground to hunt. Also, in Colorado, where there is 4 rifle seasons (but this applies to other states like Arizona and New Mexico, and to lesser degree states with a single long rifle season), one can examine how success changes over time. At the statewide level, Colorado’s rifle seasons during the 2008 season (but this pattern applies to most warm years) went from averaging 31% in 1st season, plummeting to 16% in second season, to a low of 14% in 3rd season, then back up to 18% in 4th season. Deer are the opposite, with success increasing over the seasons. This is at the statewide level (not just the 105 units we track, and is for either sex), and is typical of the past 5 years, but at the unit level, some places buck that trend. Here’s where you’ll want to know how put information to good use. When selecting a unit to hunt, it is also important to know when to hunt that unit. We’ve made it easy for you to examine how success in that unit changes over the 4 rifle season (but also archery and muzzleloader, though that is comparing apples to oranges).
The other stat that we offer, which is frequently disregarded is the average deviation of success. This statistic helps to expose those areas where weather likely plays a major role in some aspect of huntability. It’s very difficult to make a broad generalization as to what is being affected, but since elk populations are relatively static (deer populations fluctuate much more due to weather), land ownership, timber management and successional stage, roads and pressure patterns don’t change much on a year to year basis, it seems the only thing that isn’t consistent is the weather. Weather could be affecting water sources, the elevation at which game is located, the ease at which they are tracked or found by glassing, or access to the hunting grounds, but it is difficult to make a blanket statement regarding a whole state in respect to how weather changes affect huntability. Nevertheless, looking at the average deviation of success in a unit (and amongst seasons in Colorado) will show you areas which fluctuate greatly and are difficult to depend on if making plans far in advance. For instance, unit 24 in Colorado has one of the highest average deviations in the state during 4th season over the past 5 years. The average fluctuation (+ or -) from the mean was over 20 percentage points! The past 5 years either sex success was 22, 6, 27, 81 and 12%. It’s very difficult to say what about the weather conditions created that 81% year and what created the 6% year, but do you want plan your hunt for a unit where success can vary that wildly? So pay attention to this statistic. We all spend a lot of money, time and effort planning and trying to put odds in our favor and control what variables we can. But the weather is way beyond our control and we can’t always know what effect it will have on our elk or deer hunt. If you can be flexible and well equipped, a unit with a high average deviation may not be so bad for you. But for most hunters, it is wisest to hunt somewhere more reliable.
Those were all things you can’t control that affect success. But you can control what you do with this information by how you emphasize success and the deviation of success in determining where and how you hunt. Other things that you can control and ought to spend the offseason improving are: local knowledge, your shooting skills, physical fitness, your mental state, attention to wind direction and knowing when to stop and glass, slow your movements or when to speed up.
Scouting will improve your local knowledge of an area, but for many people that is just not possible. Those not willing or able to do so must accept the disadvantage they are at, but can do small things to improve their chances of success from afar. Remote scouting through the use of maps and aerial photos will take the “newness” of the area out when you finally do arrive. Knowing in your mind’s eye what the area looks like and where features that you’ve studied are in relation to your current position without having to study a map will make you more comfortable and willing to travel further than the average hunter who does not know what lies over the next ridge. Local knowledge also entails being familiar with the local vegetation. This is a weakness of most hunters, and one of the things that separates biologists from the average hunter. Knowing what the animals are eating and where those plants are found is helpful when hunting less pressured animals (and not all animals are heavily pressured). Consider spending some time at your local University’s library (if they have a wildlife or ecology department) reading over some of the diet studies that have been conducted in the past. These studies can also be a good way of finding areas that have traditionally good hunting by paying attention to where the study was conducted. If that degree of study isn’t for you, at least consider picking up a plant ID book and getting to know some of the more important shrubs, then calling either a biologist or professor to get to know which ones may be preferred forage in your area. Not all shrubs have the same food value to an animal, and elk and deer diets are frequently different.
Regarding shooting skills, if you can’t hit a moving animal or at least cannot make a quick decision to shoot or don’t shoot, you probably shouldn’t be hunting in areas with lots of black timber. If you consider yourself a long range specialist, you should be hunting areas with good vantage points. Your shooting skills and preferences should be taken into account when selecting an area, as not all places have the terrain and vegetation that is right for you.
No one wants to be told to get fit, but being fit will help your endurance and your mental state while hunting. If you are completely physically exhausted after day 1, how are you going to get out of bed for day 2? I don’t want to be a nag about this, but you know whether or not you are in the condition you expect of yourself, and whether that condition limits your hunting success. This goes with physical fitness, but those who are mentally tough, willing to go the extra mile, willing to do what other hunters won’t are those who will increase their chances of success. You probably won’t kill an elk while sleeping in camp, and in some instances you’ve wasted time by going back to it with daylight remaining. If you aren’t comfortable walking to camp or to a hunting area in the dark, you are at a disadvantage. If you won’t shoot an elk at dusk 4 miles into the backcountry, why are you even there? You should know your limitations, but the most successful hunters likely have the fewest limitations holding them back from their goals.
Other things that have a great impact on your individual success is knowing how to play the wind. Understanding thermals and paying attention to wind direction is one of the best ways to negate a game animal’s greatest advantage over you. We all know game animals have a difficult time picking out someone who is standing still, so be careful when you are hunting. Every time you hit an opening, at the bare minimum, remain still, and glass the edges of the opening before exposing yourself to anything that may be watching it. Experience will teach you when to slow down and when you can risk speeding up, but also having a good feel for when to sit down and glass, and when to be patient along a trail will also help your success.
One other thing you can change is your selectivity regarding trophy quality. A good hunter who is happy shooting the first legal animal will likely have much higher success than a mediocre hunter with high expectations and is willing to turn down legal animals. For many hunters, this is a natural change over time, first just wanting to harvest a legal animal, then the desire to only take the best, then not caring whether one harvests at all, just focusing on the enjoyment in the field. But one must be comfortable with where they stand among these different mentalities in order to enjoy time afield. Harvesting animals you are unhappy with, or turning down animals you’d actually like to harvest, then not being happy with going home empty handed are surefire ways to have an unsuccessful hunt. Know yourself, and know whether you are hunting in the right area for yourself and your mentality.
Good luck out there
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)