Montana Archery Success Rates

[119bowhunter]

Hello all,

I'm in the process of planning an elk hunt for this fall, I've applied in New Mexico but plan B will be to hopefully pick up a leftover Montana general tag if there are any available after the draw. I've been doing a lot of research on the general units in Montana on the FWP website and I've been running the harvest statistics but I haven't been able to find any breakdown by weapon type. I am looking to bow hunt so I was interested in the archery success rates, does anyone know if this information is available anywhere?
Thanks

 

[ndhunterman]

It's available. Just have to dig a little on the Montana g&f website.

 

[8andcounting]

There will be general elk combos leftover I'll guarantee you, maybe even some big game (deer and elk) combos . However I know this is an elk thread but I do believe the deer combos for NRs will go in the drawing April 17.

 

[Millsworks]

Look on Google" Montana harvest and hunt report" .
I found info there when I was researching what state to hunt for elk. But, after you compare the sad success in Montana to the tag prices, it becomes not so attractive. I would bet not the worst in elk country but darn near.
I decided on Wyoming lo g ago. Can't argue with the quality hunts in Wyoming for not just success but not nearly as crowded per unit as most other places.
Obviously getting a tag is certainly easier in some other states. Wy probably 2 to 10 year wait depending on unit and type.
Took me 4 years for a limited quota bull tag.
I haven't looked lately, but Colorado might be a better choice for a 2017 elk hunt at this point. No easy trophy but you might have better chance at an elk and you could always get lucky and get a good bull!

 

[flyingvmt]

harvest data for MT is crap imho as it is not mandatory for all tag holders to report on their status at season close. It is based on the percentage of hunters that roll through check stations, which can not even come close to being an accurate representation.

if I am wrong, please someone call me out and educate my transplanted butt.

:/

 

[Millsworks]

If Mt. is only gathering info by who stops at check points then any success rate posted,any population numbers given, and vertually all management efforts have and will always be a waste of time.
Making a hunt there a waste of time also.
I sure hope not.

 

[flyingvmt]

If Mt. is only gathering info by who stops at check points then any success rate posted,any population numbers given, and vertually all management efforts have and will always be a waste of time.
Making a hunt there a waste of time also.
I sure hope not.

Well there is no mandatory harvest reporting like there is in NM. In NM, if you buy a license, you must do harvest report to purchase a license again...regardless of success or not. Unless I am severely mistaken, Montana has a flaw in its success data that is found on the MT FWP site. But like I said above, I hope someone that had been here longer than I have can show me that I am in fact wrong....This has bugged me since 2014 when I moved up here....

 

[Jesnoc]

MT does not have a mandatory harvest report, however the FWP does call all license holders to verify his/ her harvests after the general season has ended. That combined with the check stations helps to get semi accurate numbers. Most likely not as accurate as a mandatory reporting State.

 

[mtmuley]

Success rates are very misleading. FWP does not call every license holder. And when they do, questions are random. mtmuley

 

[119bowhunter]

I've spent a good amount of time on the fwp website and I found the harvest and hunt report data, just didn't know if it was possible to find the information broken down specifically by weapon type. I am obviously hoping that we are drawn for New Mexico but I wanted to have some solid back up plans as I know there is certainly the possibility that we won't draw. I don't have any points for anywhere yet (starting to collect some this year) so backup plans will be Montana, Idaho or Colorado. I have a notebook filled with all sorts of random information so far, but I'm trying to do as much research as I can...Thanks for all the help-TJ

 

[406LIFE]

Success rates are very misleading. FWP does not call every license holder. And when they do, questions are random. mtmuley

I put almost no stock in the success rate numbers from MT FWP. I have only been to a game check station a few times in my life, and I have never skirted one. They just aren't open. I got 2 survey calls this year, both asked about harvest rates.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

I get a call about every other year from MT and half the time they don't even ask if I killed an elk. NV has mandatory harvest reporting or you can't apply the next year plus they fine you for not reporting on time.

If you don't have anything close to reliable data, how can you report harvest statistics? Just a basic question for FWP...

 

[npaden]

Believe it or not there are actually folks who specialize in figuring this stuff out. According to FWP their sampling methods are more accurate than the mandatory reporting methods that many other states use. The mandatory reporting methods still don't get 100% of the hunters reporting, there are always people who don't fill out the survey. The results tend to be slightly biased toward successful hunters reporting in to make sure that they get a chance to hunt next year while unsuccessful hunters may decide they aren't going to bother with hunting next year anyway because they had a poor hunt so why fill out the survey. I've also heard of people intentionally falsifying their report to make the unit they like to hunt in look less desirable. (i.e. they make sure to put in every year that they weren't successful and they rate the unit as a poor quality hunt, even if they actually did in fact harvest).

The random sample method theoretically avoids this by selecting at random the individuals to be surveyed each year. Just like polling for elections, they don't survey 100% of the folks who are going to vote, they just pick a sample. It tends to be pretty close.

Last year I bought a deer/elk combo and I got called asking if I hunted upland birds and how many I harvested. They didn't care about my deer or elk hunting because I wasn't part of that sample.

This year I got a call asking about my elk hunting. They didn't want to know about whether I hunted upland birds or deer because I wasn't part of that sample.

I'm a CPA and we use sampling in our auditing process and you can get some pretty good confidence levels with some pretty small samples when it really comes down to it. The trick for FWP is to get a high enough sample of folks that hunted in each hunting district. Not really sure how they do that without having to pick a much larger sample than needed because they really won't know until they call folks what unit they hunted in on the general units.

I actually think a state like Montana is spending more time and effort and $ on their harvest statistics than the mandatory reporting states do. Anymore with online surveys it is pretty much just a one time cost to develop the program and pretty minimal resources to compile the data after that. Vs. I bet Montana spends a bunch of money on dozens of employees or contractors calling thousands of hunters to gather the information that they do.

Oh well, just a ramble I guess, but my opinion is that the Montana statistics are probably pretty accurate.

 

[BuzzH]

That's funny chit right there...

Rolling chicken bones is probably more statistically accurate than anything the MTFWP has produced in the last 50 years.

The bigger question is why they bother to gather a bunch of BS data??? To what end?

They don't change the season structure, don't change season length...so why bother with "data" that you aren't going to use anyway?

Seriously, single digit bull to cow ratio's, killing more bull elk than their "data" says are even in a unit, allowing cow harvest and shoulder seasons on areas under objective, all that is just business as usual with the MTFWP.

When your own data doesn't make sense, how do they honestly expect anyone to believe their data is sound?

Its all bullchit...they really don't have a clue....that's the only "fact" their data proves.

 

[hobbes]

I'd recommend any state besides MT. All hunting sucks here. We are almost out of bulls and the shoulder seasons will finish off the cows. Surely you heard that the last mature bull was killed last season.

However, if you're looking for armchair biologists and fwp critics...well...weve got plenty of those. They're numbers have increased so much that they've started migrating south.

 

[flyingvmt]

I'd recommend any state besides MT. All hunting sucks here. We are almost out of bulls and the shoulder seasons will finish off the cows. Surely you heard that the last mature bull was killed last season.

However, if you're looking for armchair biologists and fwp critics...well...weve got plenty of those. They're numbers have increased so much that they've started migrating south.

And thus my point with the harvest stats being shit. Npaden makes a good point, but no way is that close to effective with populations seemingly exploding to the point they are hunting cows into Feb.

 

[JMG]

+1 on what Npaden stated.

MT FWP uses the results to "manage" the game and set quotas in the new regulations. But as Buzz indicated, a lot of what the MT FWP does is based on money and social issues. MT FWP is in a hard place, they are constantly "attacked" by folks (who know more than they do ) and their own MT Legislature. The MT Legislature pretty much holds the MT FWP hostage with threats of withholding or pulling funds. So, if your "boss" tells you to do something . . . . . You do it. I do agree that it's too bad, MT does not manage wildlife based on Science and not on Politics.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but gathering harvest statistics has been this way for as long as I can remember. So, take them for what their worth.

 

[ndhunterman]

I've gone through very few check stations but get a call from them yearly asking how I did.

 

[MiStickSlinger]

Believe it or not there are actually folks who specialize in figuring this stuff out. According to FWP their sampling methods are more accurate than the mandatory reporting methods that many other states use. The mandatory reporting methods still don't get 100% of the hunters reporting, there are always people who don't fill out the survey. The results tend to be slightly biased toward successful hunters reporting in to make sure that they get a chance to hunt next year while unsuccessful hunters may decide they aren't going to bother with hunting next year anyway because they had a poor hunt so why fill out the survey. I've also heard of people intentionally falsifying their report to make the unit they like to hunt in look less desirable. (i.e. they make sure to put in every year that they weren't successful and they rate the unit as a poor quality hunt, even if they actually did in fact harvest).

The random sample method theoretically avoids this by selecting at random the individuals to be surveyed each year. Just like polling for elections, they don't survey 100% of the folks who are going to vote, they just pick a sample. It tends to be pretty close.

Last year I bought a deer/elk combo and I got called asking if I hunted upland birds and how many I harvested. They didn't care about my deer or elk hunting because I wasn't part of that sample.

This year I got a call asking about my elk hunting. They didn't want to know about whether I hunted upland birds or deer because I wasn't part of that sample.

I'm a CPA and we use sampling in our auditing process and you can get some pretty good confidence levels with some pretty small samples when it really comes down to it. The trick for FWP is to get a high enough sample of folks that hunted in each hunting district. Not really sure how they do that without having to pick a much larger sample than needed because they really won't know until they call folks what unit they hunted in on the general units.

I actually think a state like Montana is spending more time and effort and $ on their harvest statistics than the mandatory reporting states do. Anymore with online surveys it is pretty much just a one time cost to develop the program and pretty minimal resources to compile the data after that. Vs. I bet Montana spends a bunch of money on dozens of employees or contractors calling thousands of hunters to gather the information that they do.

Oh well, just a ramble I guess, but my opinion is that the Montana statistics are probably pretty accurate.

Yep, Michigan does something similar. I've listened to biologists from states that have mandatory check in say that it's actually one of the least accurate procedures for estimating harvest. Compliance rates vary wildly from year to year. If you get 40 percent compliance one year and 12 percent the next, it really does you no good and that's what these states are dealing with. With the survey they can set a fixed sample size and estimate harvest with a pretty high confidence interval just by plugging in the number of licenses purchased.

 

[Poke 'Em]

Believe it or not there are actually folks who specialize in figuring this stuff out. According to FWP their sampling methods are more accurate than the mandatory reporting methods that many other states use. The mandatory reporting methods still don't get 100% of the hunters reporting, there are always people who don't fill out the survey. The results tend to be slightly biased toward successful hunters reporting in to make sure that they get a chance to hunt next year while unsuccessful hunters may decide they aren't going to bother with hunting next year anyway because they had a poor hunt so why fill out the survey. I've also heard of people intentionally falsifying their report to make the unit they like to hunt in look less desirable. (i.e. they make sure to put in every year that they weren't successful and they rate the unit as a poor quality hunt, even if they actually did in fact harvest).

The random sample method theoretically avoids this by selecting at random the individuals to be surveyed each year. Just like polling for elections, they don't survey 100% of the folks who are going to vote, they just pick a sample. It tends to be pretty close.

Last year I bought a deer/elk combo and I got called asking if I hunted upland birds and how many I harvested. They didn't care about my deer or elk hunting because I wasn't part of that sample.

This year I got a call asking about my elk hunting. They didn't want to know about whether I hunted upland birds or deer because I wasn't part of that sample.

I'm a CPA and we use sampling in our auditing process and you can get some pretty good confidence levels with some pretty small samples when it really comes down to it. The trick for FWP is to get a high enough sample of folks that hunted in each hunting district. Not really sure how they do that without having to pick a much larger sample than needed because they really won't know until they call folks what unit they hunted in on the general units.

I actually think a state like Montana is spending more time and effort and $ on their harvest statistics than the mandatory reporting states do. Anymore with online surveys it is pretty much just a one time cost to develop the program and pretty minimal resources to compile the data after that. Vs. I bet Montana spends a bunch of money on dozens of employees or contractors calling thousands of hunters to gather the information that they do.

Oh well, just a ramble I guess, but my opinion is that the Montana statistics are probably pretty accurate.

Sorry, that doesn't fit Buzz's agenda.