Irrelevant
Well-known member
Here's the data.
Now please continue to blame NR for the crowding problems.
The Great Misconception - Montana Elk Hunting Pressure: R vs NR
- Thread starter Irrelevant
- Start date
Here's the data.
Now please continue to blame NR for the crowding problems.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
#stopthesteal
You know these numbers are fake.
You know these numbers are fake.
EYJONAS!
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 6,516
So uh.... what do you do for work?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Depends on the day... thanks to covid, that answer is teach too often.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Looks to me like resident pressure has increased 0% in 15 years while NR pressure has increased about 33%! Just keeping the narrative alive... Its all about how you present the information
Guessing OTC cow tags and come home to hunt are reasons for the the increase? It would be interesting to see the success rate comparison and see if there is any trend.
Guessing OTC cow tags and come home to hunt are reasons for the the increase? It would be interesting to see the success rate comparison and see if there is any trend.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I'm not sure I would agree with that. The R # of hunters hasn't changed, but the number of R hunters days is definitely trending up.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
I wonder if any of the dots are outside the error bars for all the other dots.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Hard to say for sure. My initial thought looking at your graph was that it was proving the point that NR's are the reason for crowding issues. I suppose it all depends on what day you are out in the field. Since so many of MT deer and elk seasons run concurrently, wonder what it looks like when you add in deer hunter numbers.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I would assume the # of hunters is fairly tight, if not exact. My guess is that isn't simply license/tag sales. Days likely has a very wide range.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I'm not following that, can you explain further?
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Since 2004 res hunter numbers are flat while NR hunter numbers increased by what 40%. If I'm hunting the first week of the season then I am going to see the same number of resident hunters that I did in 2004 and potentially 40% more NR hunters. Again, all dependent on what day your out in the field.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
That makes sense.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Well in 2004 there were 16k NR hunters. In 2019 there were 20k. Those 4k represent 4% of the hunters in the state. I find it hard to believe 4% is perceptible.
Vs the range of R hunters fluctuates between 79k and 88k. That 9k difference represents over twice the hunter of total hunters in the field as the increase in NR do.
And what we're really after is hunter days anyway. Which the graph clearly shows is increasing more significantly for R than NR. But as Snowy pointed out, that data is squishier.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
It would be interesting to see the same graph extended back to the 80's and then overlay the number of elk killed/success rates.
Sasquatchewan
Well-known member
That is not a flat line... It clearly shows Resident hunter population fluctuating a lot but that NR has a slow steady increase, 4,000 over 15 years.
I'd like to see a graph on overall population growth over the same timeframe. A quick google search showed that the population of Montana has grown by 143,289 people over the same time frame yet the number of hunters is the same in 2004 as it it in 2019. There are less resident hunters per capita now that there were then. The fluctuation in resident number between 2014 and 2015 alone is greater than the increase in NR over 15 years.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I can do that, but then we have to open the can of accuracy on the harvest data, which is never a fun or defensible can to be opened.
That's the wolves fault
Wildabeest
Well-known member
Here’s a better graphic. The lady with her back to you is the NR. It’s all her fault.
Bambistew
Well-known member
I'm
I'd really like to see the success rate comparison, even if its all lumped into one cow/bull/bow/rifle. I'd be willing to bet success rates have declined for residents (they are hunting longer), while NR has remained similarly flat, due to most all of them being at the mercy of the weather and other factors during their 10 day vacation period which they hunt. It really seems like the perception of pressure is highly contingent upon success.
We spent a lot of time a few years ago discussing the perception of hunting pressure with regards to sheep, here in AK. Even though there was fewer hunters than historically, the perception was that NR were killing the majority of the rams, that the majority of rams were being killed as soon as they were legal, amongst many other things.
The one thing that stood out was that a highly coveted draw tag, had more hunting pressure and higher density of hunters the field than any of the OTC areas and basically zero guide/NR pressure. The sheep population was decent, but not exceptional. Success rates are a little better than most OTC, mostly because people hunted harder and longer and were dedicated to the OIL hunt. There was basically zero complaints about pressure, even though the pressure was almost 2x as high as most OTC and guided areas with similar sheep densities.
What was gleaned from that, is that the perception of pressure is directly linked to success up to a certain extent. At some point, even with high success, saturation by hunters becomes detrimental to the quality of the hunt. People are far more tolerant of others if the success is high, people bitch less and don't blame others for their lack of success.
I would also venture to guess, that in MT there are more people hunting public land than before, for a number of reasons. OnX, the internet, less private land available, less game available so people hunt harder, etc
Its a lot more complex than there being 4000 more NR hunters or a little more resident pressure.
I'm just busting your balls. I agree that the pressure from NR is a perception issue rather than reality.
I'd really like to see the success rate comparison, even if its all lumped into one cow/bull/bow/rifle. I'd be willing to bet success rates have declined for residents (they are hunting longer), while NR has remained similarly flat, due to most all of them being at the mercy of the weather and other factors during their 10 day vacation period which they hunt. It really seems like the perception of pressure is highly contingent upon success.
We spent a lot of time a few years ago discussing the perception of hunting pressure with regards to sheep, here in AK. Even though there was fewer hunters than historically, the perception was that NR were killing the majority of the rams, that the majority of rams were being killed as soon as they were legal, amongst many other things.
The one thing that stood out was that a highly coveted draw tag, had more hunting pressure and higher density of hunters the field than any of the OTC areas and basically zero guide/NR pressure. The sheep population was decent, but not exceptional. Success rates are a little better than most OTC, mostly because people hunted harder and longer and were dedicated to the OIL hunt. There was basically zero complaints about pressure, even though the pressure was almost 2x as high as most OTC and guided areas with similar sheep densities.
What was gleaned from that, is that the perception of pressure is directly linked to success up to a certain extent. At some point, even with high success, saturation by hunters becomes detrimental to the quality of the hunt. People are far more tolerant of others if the success is high, people bitch less and don't blame others for their lack of success.
I would also venture to guess, that in MT there are more people hunting public land than before, for a number of reasons. OnX, the internet, less private land available, less game available so people hunt harder, etc
Its a lot more complex than there being 4000 more NR hunters or a little more resident pressure.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
All of what you said is true, but... By using this graph as the only data source, the point I am very poorly and unsuccessfully trying to make is, If I'm a res elk hunter that has hunted the same area since 2004 I have seen more years of equal to or less than res hunter numbers than I have years of greater resident hunter numbers. Over that same time I have seen a steady increase in the number of NR elk hunters. Even if that increase is small relative to the total number of elk hunters in the area. Further, I have had to increase the number of days I had to hunt to find an elk from 8 to 9.5. I can easily see how resident MT elk hunters get to the view that the problem is too many NR elk hunters. This is the only thing that has consistently increased since 2004. I am not trying to say that perception is correct but I certainly see how a person could get there. Further, I think that even a 4% increase is perceptible. If I go to the ridge I typically hunt and there is even one person there, its a problem for me. You potentially had 3999 other res elk hunters that experienced the same thing and had the same thoughts. Completely agree that there were years that the increased number of hunters hunting "my" ridge was due far more to resident hunters than NR's but eventually those resident hunters went away. The NR's hunters didn't.
I'm going to stop now, as I'm starting to confuse myself.
