Elk Quality v. Opportunity

[Stubaby]

That game was over when........

K-state couldn't capitalize on the botched fake punt just before halftime.

Those numbers are interesting. Utah has relatively small amount of "elk country" compared to MT and CO. They have 1/3 or less the population of elk as CO and half of what MT does. My brother in law is a game warden in central Utah and he still thinks that more mature bulls get killed by cars or die of old age than get shot durring the hunts. There are the guys that hold out and kill big bulls. However, he said every year he checks many guys who kill the first bull they see even though they had waited 12+ years to draw.

I saw a truck with three rag bulls in it at the gas station in Ephriam one afternoon. All were shot with the limited entry rifle tag. Those guys were tickled to have just killed "bull elk". Most people that I meet are not of the mossback genre, but every state has people who kill big no matter the how or why.

I wonder what the the ratio is from people who kill b&c bulls to entering them. I know a guy who killed a 230" deer and he doesn't even want to enter it. Are some states more "enter my bull in the books" happy than others?

 

[d-bone20917]

Fin, Dink didn't mean for you to answer that out loud. I will look and email him.

Sure you had to jump in didn't you?

 

[Lawnboy]

Are some states more "enter my bull in the books" happy than others?

To be honest if I ever shot a 375 bull I wouldn't enter it. It would be a trophy of a lifetime for me but when you look at the book you are just one of hundreds that are in that caliber. I would want it to mean more to me than to have my name at the bottom of some list.

 

[ihuntelk]

Stu- I would venture to guess that Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada are more "enter happy" than Wyo or Montana. Guys in Montana and Wyo that can hunt elk every year might care less than guys that only get to hunt every 5 - 20 years. Same with the Non-Res draw. Guys can hunt Montana and, for-the-most-part, Wyoming every year. It can take years and years to draw the other states.

Colorado to me might be the real flyer in the bunch. Seems like LOTS of folks get it done every year on an OTC tag, but there are enough outfitted hunts on big ranches where score might trump everything else.

Kinda fun to think about from my little soap box with a clear view of all the worlds problems........

I know for me personally - I've killed pronghorn that qualify for both B/C and P/Y and have only entered 1. I've never entered a P/Y bull elk even though I've killed more than my share. I haven't even scored my last 3 or 4 bulls - but I bet I know within 5 inches of what they would score! Never killed a B/C elk or deer but doubt I'd enter them either. Score can never tell even 1/100th of the story of the hunt, struggle, sacrifice and respect in harvesting an animal.

Just my 2 cents........

-Cade
www.HuntForeverWest.com

 

[1_pointer]

Though I'm too lazy to due the analysis, I think total numbers of heads reaching a certain size is a bit of a weak comparison solely due to sample sizes being so different. A better way to compare would be the number of heads/license sold or something along those lines. I think a "rate" or "density" comparison would be a) more fair and b) more telling. FWIW...

 

[Big Fin]

My thoughts exactly. I'd venture a guess most of those B&C elk were not available to the general public. Not to take anything away from the animal or hunter, but I wish that was disclosed.

That data is not there specifically, but a lot can be learned with some investigation.

I have personally talked to five people who were on the list of Montana bulls entered. Every one of them I talked to shot their bulls on public land. Not saying all were, but looking at the list and where they came from, much of that hunting occurs on public land.

I just looked at the MT data. Park and Gallatin County accounted for 30% of the bulls taken from 2005-2012. Those are almost all public land, with very little private land stuff happening. Some, but the majority of elk killed come off public.

Big Horn county was next, which will be mostly a private land deal. It had 7% of the entries.

Next on the list were the areas around the Missouri River Breaks, of which much of the elk killed there are on public, near the river. The two people I personally talked to who killed bulls entered from those areas both killed their bulls on public land, with limited entry tags.

Interesting to see how people follow rumors and stories. The most popular limited entry elk unit in Montana is the Elkhorns. Unit 380 in Broadwater County. In the 8 years since 2005, Broadwater County has had one, yeah, ONE, entry. If you listened to guys at the sporting goods counter, you would think the Elkhorms had B&C bulls in every drainage. And people ask me why I don't apply there.

I guess my answer to your question is that I think most of those bulls were accessible to the average hunter with a general season tag. Not all, but the majority. Not bad results for a state that sells as many tags as we do in Montana and has eleven weeks to chase them.

 

[Big Fin]

Though I'm too lazy to due the analysis, I think total numbers of heads reaching a certain size is a bit of a weak comparison solely due to sample sizes being so different. A better way to compare would be the number of heads/license sold or something along those lines. I think a "rate" or "density" comparison would be a) more fair and b) more telling. FWIW...

I would agree, if the analysis were strictly about size of heads. The discussion I am trying to bring forward has to do with state being able to provide good opportunity, in terms of tags and season lengths, along with the consideration of size of racks. Not just about size of racks, for the sake of growing B&C animals.

A discussion of rate/density would easily fall in favor of those states with extremely limited opportunity. No arguing that. That is the Utah model.

I think most here would argue that extreme limits on opportunity, just for a small increase in perceived quality is not a price they are willing to pay.

 

[drthornton]

I wonder what the the ratio is from people who kill b&c bulls to entering them. I know a guy who killed a 230" deer and he doesn't even want to enter it. Are some states more "enter my bull in the books" happy than others?

Very well founded thoughts here from Stubaby and others. This comes up every time stats like these come up on the boards. I think it would take some real deep research to shake something like that out but from what I can tell the "I'm not gonna enter my bull in the books" mentality is flat across states. It is also flat across species, as far as I can tell as well, although I have only done Analysis on Elk, Mule Deer, Whitetail and Elk. However, my gut feeling is that Trophy species(Sheep, Mt Goat, Bison etc...) may have less of a discrepancy.

Reasons for not submitting are much like the ones already showing up on this thread,
- Keeping it personal
- Not wanting to give up an area
- Distain for either B&C or P&Y
- Pure laziness

I do think that B&C and P&Y have the best data and largest sample sizes, not to state absolute numbers but to shake out trends and areas.

 

[sagebrush]

+1 Cade. Also, a book entry to tag number ratio would be interesting. A state like NV probably has a pretty high ratio. Another interesting statistic would be a tag number to population ratio. Fin - if you are really bored, maybe you could CPA up those numbers.

 

[BRI]

I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying!

I too am amazed at all the 380" elk that are seen in the elkhorns every year.

 

[1_pointer]

I would agree, if the analysis were strictly about size of heads. The discussion I am trying to bring forward has to do with state being able to provide good opportunity, in terms of tags and season lengths, along with the consideration of size of racks. Not just about size of racks, for the sake of growing B&C animals.

A discussion of rate/density would easily fall in favor of those states with extremely limited opportunity. No arguing that. That is the Utah model.

I think most here would argue that extreme limits on opportunity, just for a small increase in perceived quality is not a price they are willing to pay.

I agree and do think it's a worthwhile discussion. A turn of your last sentence is something to consider as well. How many would accept a small increase in opportunity for a large increase in quality?

For someone like me who's yet to kill a bull elk, it's not really pertinent as I just want the chance to finally kill one. I'll worry about size later. Which is much the reason I've done most of my elk hunting in Idaho. I can go about any year I'm willing to pay for it.

 

[WapitiBob]

Pretty sad when your own state (Oregon) has the 3rd largest Elk herd and you don't even make the top 10.

I do believe that qualifies us as an "opportunity state".

 

[Oak]

Pretty sad when your own state (Oregon) has the 3rd largest Elk herd and you don't even make the top 10.

I do believe that qualifies us as an "opportunity state".

Roosevelt's elk is a separate category, so your entries are split.

 

[bobbydean]

Just curious,

New Mexico rated 5th. Would anyone here trade a tag in the Gila for any tag in Montana? I also wonder if the entries were on private land or public?

I appreciate New Mexico's public land even though I cannot draw a tag!

 

[drthornton]

Here's an interesting graph that shows P&Y harvest per date and for 5 different States. It's a little busy and hard to see as a post but it gives you an idea when big Elk are being taken.

Another interesting fact is you can really see how the different state's season structures effect harvest.

Sept 19th is the Center of the graph

Legend:
Lime- New Mexico
Blue- Wyoming
Red- Colorado
Montana- Purple
Aqua- Arizona

 

[DWarcher]

I thought Wyo was just a raghorn state.
www.HuntForeverWest.com

It is Cade, it is!

 

[Straight Arrow]

Never having taken a true trophy bull, and at the risk of some criticism, I have taken many raghorns and many more cow elk. Our freezer continues to hold elk meat as the primary meat staple. I would certainly fit in the category of being adamantly opposed to

extreme limits on opportunity, just for a small increase in perceived quality

.

Having said that, admittedly like most elk hunters, it would be nice to hang a trophy bull on the wall.
(I only hope that "meat hunter" is not a derogatory expression on this forum.)

 

[bjtc_brian]

Interesting to see how people follow rumors and stories. The most popular limited entry elk unit in Montana is the Elkhorns. Unit 380 in Broadwater County. In the 8 years since 2005, Broadwater County has had one, yeah, ONE, entry. If you listened to guys at the sporting goods counter, you would think the Elkhorms had B&C bulls in every drainage. And people ask me why I don't apply there.

I/we have been telling people for years and years. The elkhorns are not a true trophy area. They sell it as that, because of the limited tags. But, they don't have the genetics or the mineral content for good horn growth. The 3rd's are as puny as they get on most bulls. And not much mass to the horns for they age groups. Now, don't get me wrong. You can see a ton of 325-330 bulls, their numbers are high. But to get a true B&C trophy bull, the elkhorns really aren't the place. You have no idea how many people tell us how many 400" bulls are in the elkhorns! Well, if that were the case, at least 1 person would have one entered in the records book. I have seen a LOT of people judge a 350-360 bull in the elkhorns as been 400". We had a semi-resident one this fall that I heard at least a dozen "experienced" hunters say he was a 400" bull. If the bull would have broke 360" I would have been surprised.

Now, don't get me wrong. A 330" bull is a big bull, but not the trophies that people think they are before they hit the ground.

 

[Stubaby]

I think that one of the points Randy is trying to make is that those who hunt Montana have it pretty good. I agree. I always put in for a limited draw area to either get a point or get lucky. That being said, I know that between the general areas and the bundle tag that I normally get for archery as a second choice.........if I don't score on a good bull it's my fault. It's lack of time, commitment, energy or something that's in my court that doesn't allow a good bull to die every year----not a lack of "opportunity".

Mule deer is a different story. I know many guys keep the hunt dates near and dear to thier hearts, but as the population of Montana increases and the mule deer population decreases it wil come to a tipping point. Montana has it nailed with elk hunting, but whacking a rutty Muley from the truck over thanksgiving will lead to less and less "opportunity". Can you imagine if they allowed rifle hunting on general areas during mid-September for elk? You thought that the Gardiner area a few years back was a slaughter. Oh man.

I like the hunt dates because it gives lots of opportunity to be out and about, I'd like to see the last 2-3 weeks be archery only or maybe muzzy only for Muleys. I'm not writing senators or anything, nor am I picking a fight.......but with mule deer in Montana, I for one would be willing to give up a little more "opportunity" for some better quality that's all.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Stubaby, great point regarding mule deer numbers as well as quality. If and when elk numbers and quality diminish, that is when it is acceptable to me to give up opportunity. And that is the case in a few particular hunting districts in Montana.

Having hunted many years in the upper Yellowstone and in the upper Gallatin areas, I now find it appropriate and fully acceptable that the opportunity has been decreased by limited permits and very limited specific areas, due to the decrease in quality and quantity of elk.

I also agree that limitations during the mule deer rut at the end of November would be worth considering.
The opportunity to take a real trophy mule deer buck has diminished significantly over the past decades due to the number of "respectable", but not trophy, bucks taken by rifle during the rut.