Do Not Pass On First Day What You Would Be Happy To Shoot On The Last: A Refutation

[Nameless Range]

The saying "You should not pass on the first day what you would be happy to shoot on the last" is something I've heard since I was old enough to hunt. That said, it is not rational, and assumes a static threshold for satisfaction during a hunt, ignoring how rational decision-making adjusts in response to dwindling time and updated expectations based on what a hunter thinks may be possible with what time is left. This is my attempt of a refutation at the old adage.

Rational Adjustment Over Time

A hunter has a personal satisfaction threshold for the buck size they desire (B). As the hunt progresses and days are used up, let us assume that the probability of encountering a buck larger than (B) decreases. Therefore, the optimal threshold (B) may(satisfaction is subjective) lower as time runs out, reflecting the collision of a desire to harvest any buck that meets minimum satisfaction, rather than holding out for a more ideal specimen.

Formally

Let:

• TT = Total days to hunt
• tt = Days remaining (so tt runs from TT down to 1)
• StSt = Satisfaction threshold on day tt
• p(x∣t)p(x∣t) = Probability of seeing a buck of size xx or better with tt days left
• U(x)U(x) = Utility (happiness) the hunter receives from shooting a buck of size xx
  
  

I struggle to help my daughter do her algebra homework, so in full transparency, an LLM helped me write this equation.

On day 1, you’d set a high threshold STST because the chance of future opportunities is high:

ST=argmaxx[p(x∣T)⋅U(x)]ST=argmaxx[p(x∣T)⋅U(x)]

Each day that passes, if no suitable buck is encountered, you’d recalculate:

St−1=argmaxx[p(x∣t−1)⋅U(x)]St−1=argmaxx[p(x∣t−1)⋅U(x)]


Another way to look at it: Suppose a hunter has 5 days to hunt. In this hunt, a hunter’s baseline is to harvest a buck of at least size XX, but on earlier days, passes on smaller bucks as large as or even larger than XX, hoping for a bigger one. The expected benefit of waiting is high when 5 days remain, but drops some with each unused day. On the last day, the desire to not go home empty-handed increases, rationalizing shooting a buck of a caliber previously passed.

In conclusion, the saying, "You should not pass on the first day what you would be happy to shoot on the last", makes the mistake of treating all days equally. This ignores Bayesian probability, opportunity cost, and the dynamics of satisfaction - none of which are fixed over time.

 

[bigsky2]

I’ve always hated that saying. I guess it probably makes more sense for people that refuse to have a tag go unfilled.

 

[17remhunter]

Depends on where you hunt. In Nevada you may glass numerous really exceptional bucks first morning as I have numerous times while hunting with my Leman Indian Trade Rifle You get real picky passing on reasonable bucks. For me not filling my tag is perfectly fine. It was the experience and privilege

 

[TOGIE]

I just spent some time in the field with a guy who said the exact same thing, sans equation.

I do think the saying can often be taken too literally. I see it as a generalized philosophy about hunting and, that being, that it is hard and you should take your wins if they present themselves.

But, many other variables might go into the equation as well - perhaps for simplicities sake, a big one missing from your equation might be Pp which would be preference points used.

Other variables, like ones that touch on unit quality, might be added and certainly preference points could just be a proxy for - but say we add sex ratios of the animal, total numbers, and tag numbers.

The further you drift into high unit quality and years invested into the tag the benefit of waiting increases substantially. Plug into the equation a Colorado OTC elk tag and you see a meteoric shift in the other direction.

You could add variables such as freezer fullness factors and the expected meat quality of the pursued quarry. We'd be leaning into multivariate differential equations we'd certainly need computers to approximate the solutions for, which leaves me to my final thought:


it's impossible to objectively quantify subjective things.

 

[MNElkNut]

I have always hated that saying too. There is nothing wrong with changing your expectations during a hunt. Could go up or down. Shoot what you want at the time. If it makes you happy at the time, shoot it. If you want to hold out, that is fine too. I think it stems from the thinking that you HAVE to fill your tag. It is okay to go home without harvesting.

If person A shoots a spike on opening morning, Great! It was his/her tag and they can do what the want.

If person B passes multiple huge bulls/bucks and goes home empty handed, Great! It was his/her tag and they can do what they want.

I also think the quality of the hunt is a huge variable. If you have a great cat and mouse game with an animal in an awesome setting, put forth a great effort and are successful, that may be a better harvest than shooting a bigger one while walking in on the trail when it just stands up.

 

[Nameless Range]

I just spent some time in the field with a guy who said the exact same thing, sans equation.

I do think the saying can often be taken too literally. I see it as a generalized philosophy about hunting and, that being, that it is hard and you should take your wins if they present themselves.

But, many other variables might go into the equation as well - perhaps for simplicities sake, a big one missing from your equation might be Pp which would be preference points used.

Other variables, like ones that touch on unit quality, might be added and certainly, preference points could certainly just be a proxy for - but say we add sex ratios of the animal, total numbers, and tag numbers.

The further you drift into high unit quality and years invested into the tag the benefit of waiting increases substantially. Plug into the equation a Colorado OTC elk tag and you see a meteoric shift in the other direction.

You could add variables such as freezer fullness factors and the expected meat quality of the pursued quarry. We'd be leaning into multivariate differential equations we'd certainly need computers to approximate the solutions for, which leaves me to my final thought:


it's impossible to objectively quantify subjective things.

Totally. Another variable I’d add, and one that I have felt when it has been said to me, is I just like to Hunt. The dead animal is only a part of the hunt, and if you got five days to hunt and see a great animal on day one, it may just be that you don’t want the Hunt to end because there’s so much fun to yet be had.

 

[Stocker]

I think it depends on what kind of hunter you are or what you want out of a hunt. The older I get the more I’m fine with tag soup if I hunt the way I want to. If I pass one up and eat tag soup I’m ok with it.

 

[cwitherow]

As someone who hunts by that statement, it is a combination of meat in the freezer and opportunity to hunt. If I can only hunt for 2 and a half days, and my priority is to harvest an animal to eat...the "size" threshold is incredibly low.

Edit to add: this is only amplified on any western hunts, which I am limited to every 3 or 4 years.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The difference between folks who consistently achieve their hunting goals for harvest size and folks who shoot dinks is that the folks who achieve their goals understand their chance for finding the needle in the haystack increases for each day in the field. Success is relative to how much time is spent searching rather than how much time is left to search.

That’s why the last day is more likely to produce a trophy than the first day.

Then there’s the rest of us who just get excited and think a buck is bigger than it is as the hunt is winding down….

 

[Nameless Range]

The difference between folks who consistently achieve their hunting goals for harvest size and folks who shoot dinks is that the folks who achieve their goals understand their chance for finding the needle in the haystack increases for each day in the field. Success is relative to how much time is spent searching rather than how much time is left to search.

That’s why the last day is more likely to produce a trophy than the first day.

Then there’s the rest of us who just get excited and think a buck is bigger than it is as the hunt is winding down….

That is a great point as well.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

The difference between folks who consistently achieve their hunting goals for harvest size and folks who shoot dinks is that the folks who achieve their goals understand their chance for finding the needle in the haystack increases for each day in the field. Success is relative to how much time is spent searching rather than how much time is left to search.

That’s why the last day is more likely to produce a trophy than the first day.

Then there’s the rest of us who just get excited and think a buck is bigger than it is as the hunt is winding down….View attachment 392545

1. If I fill my tag on the first day and my wife finds out then I start getting the calls and texts to come home to handle whatever emergency always arises while I'm away.

2. If I'm in a "meat crisis" to quote Rinella then my standards change for elk or antelope. Deer is further down the list of my family's favorite table fare so I'll happily hold out until the last day.

3. I like to hunt and generally learn alot more being in the field more days. I agree the odds of killing a big one go up as you learn the current patterns, etc for a given hunt. Most hunts aren't some kind of grand trophy hunts but I still like finding the best one I can. I rarely find the best animal of the trip on the first day anyway. Success for me is generally getting the max time in the field.

4. Sometimes when you're the last guy in the market you score the prize the others gave up on. Good advice for the young singles out there...

 

[NoWiser]

Look no farther than Greenhorn’s Arizona elk hunt this year for validation of your theory. That meat bull was safe right up until the very last day.

 

[Hem]

I have always used that expression, but never followed it.
Im generally optimistic.

 

[Doublecluck]

Came to full draw on him at 30 the second week of archery. Let down and watched him walk away. No regrets. Was hoping one of the kids or the half blind uncle could connect but he’s migrated to the draw side of the road with the ladies for now.

 

[atlas]

What if you just like to hunt more? That's my simple argument for when I shoot a smaller bull than one I passed on this year.

 

[BRI]

Must be a slow day at the office . I like it! As I'm taking a break from processing my smaller than hopeful whitetail buck, I was thinking similar thoughts. The variable that isn't in your equation, and has dramatically changed over time, is the amount of animals xx present in the area. As I was cutting steaks, I kept thinking about how the amount of actual harvesting opportunities in a given year have gone drastically down. 20 years ago, If I hunted, 20 days in a year, I would likely have multiple harvest opportunities per year. Nowadays, in those same 20 days, there is considerably less. Another variable that just popped up as I type this is FOMO factor. With less opportunities, that factor changes and trigger finger gets itchy.

Ah the hell with it, I need a beer!!!!!

 

[El Jason]

My decisions are usually quite impulsive and lacking in any mathematical substance.

 

[2rocky]

Are you folks familiar with the "Secretary Problem"?

I asked Copilot to summarize it:

The secretary problem is a classic optimal stopping problem where the goal is to select the best candidate from a pool of n applicants who are interviewed sequentially in a random order. The key constraint is that a decision to hire or reject a candidate is immediate and irrevocable, and the decision must be based solely on the relative ranks of the candidates seen so far. The optimal strategy is to first observe and reject a certain number of applicants (approximately the first n/en / e or 37%), and then hire the first subsequent candidate who is better than everyone seen in the initial observation period.


The optimal strategy
The best strategy involves a two-phase process: exploration and exploitation:

1. Explore: Automatically reject a fixed number of the first candidates. The optimal number is approximately the first
   n/en / e
   applicants, where
   ee
   is Euler's number (approximately 2.71). This phase is for gathering information.
2. Exploit: After the exploration phase, continue to the next candidates and select the first one who is better than all the candidates you saw during the exploration phase. If no one better appears, you will ultimately be forced to select the last candidate (though this would be a failure).

Why this works

• Rejecting the first
  n/en / e
  candidates provides a baseline for comparison, giving you a good understanding of what a "good" candidate looks like.
• If you stop too early, you won't have enough information. If you wait too long, you risk the best candidate passing you by.
• The
  1/e1 / e
  rule strikes the right balance, resulting in a probability of approximately
  1/e1 / e
  (about 36.8%) of selecting the best candidate, notes this YouTube video.
• The strategy is robust enough to be applied to a wide range of problems, such as finding the right apartment or partner, although the underlying assumptions may not perfectly match real life, as discussed on Medium.

So ideally you would be able to determine the number of legal deer you would see, and what 37% of that is. So the first 1/3 of your hunt would be scouting essentially. If you have time before opening day you can assess what the population is and act on that info opening morning. This is more ideal in Open settings where you can glass a large number of areas and animals. (Like a Western Wyoming Antelope hunt)

 

[pabearhunter]

For me it depends on what the freezer looks like !!

 

[DFS]

I’ve never regretted having a tag in my pocket. I have regretted not having a tag in my pocket.