What Does Hunt “Quality” and “Opportunity” Mean?

[FairWeather]

These are words I see and hear often in regards to hunting, and I’m not sure I really understand what people mean when they use them. It seems to be code for something, almost a euphemism.

A generic example could be a statement that says current wildlife management policies and practices will lead to a reduction in the quality of hunting, or People saying they want to draw a specific tag/unit for the better opportunities there.

Sometimes they seem to be used interchangeably. Other times, it’s implied they are two separate aspects of a hunt.

Are these just euphemistic ways to say it’s easier to find a “trophy” animal and/or less competition in the units? Or is there something specific beyond that that makes a hunt or unit higher quality/opportunity?

 

[rtraverdavis]

I think of it like this:

Quality: more mature animals and fewer hunters competing, which leads to a higher quality experience. Typically hard to draw or access.

Opportunity: fewer mature animals and more hunter competition, but easier to draw or access.

Quality Opportunity: the ability to post another swamp booger pic even though it has no relevance to the thread—‘Murica

 

[QuazyQuinton]

Sometimes they seem to be used interchangeably. Other times, it’s implied they are two separate aspects of a hunt.

You are correct. Sometimes they are used synonymously in the sense that a better quality hunt will present more opportunities to shoot a buck or bull. Of course, quality and opportunity are both subjectively defined, and everybody has their own idea of what precisely they mean. Everyone wants more opportunities to hunt, and no one want the quality of hunting to decline.

They do have opposing meanings, as well. When we discuss hunts that are managed for opportunity, we mean that those hunts are intended to allow as many people as possible to get into the woods to hunt. These would be general season OTC tags or limited quota tags that allow hundreds or thousands of tags for a given unit. Lots of people get to go to deer or elk camp. They may kill a decent number of animals, but there will likely be other hunters everywhere, and most of the animals killed will be younger/smaller. These are the tags for people who just want to be able to hunt every year.

Hunts managed for quality typically have far fewer tags given out and are much harder to draw. There will be fewer other hunters in the woods, and the animals have a chance to grow larger in general. You will see more and bigger animals, but you will have to wait a few years between drawing these tags.

Since you are from Oregon, you should recognize that most deer hunting in Oregon is managed for opportunity. We give out a bazillion deer tags, but if you see a legal buck, you better shoot it, because it may be the only one you see in a week of hunting. Antelope, on the other hand, are managed for quality. Oregon puts out some nice antelope, but you can only get a tag every 15 to 20 years.

QQ

 

[FairWeather]

You are correct. Sometimes they are used synonymously in the sense that a better quality hunt will present more opportunities to shoot a buck or bull. Of course, quality and opportunity are both subjectively defined, and everybody has their own idea of what precisely they mean. Everyone wants more opportunities to hunt, and no one want the quality of hunting to decline.

They do have opposing meanings, as well. When we discuss hunts that are managed for opportunity, we mean that those hunts are intended to allow as many people as possible to get into the woods to hunt. These would be general season OTC tags or limited quota tags that allow hundreds or thousands of tags for a given unit. Lots of people get to go to deer or elk camp. They may kill a decent number of animals, but there will likely be other hunters everywhere, and most of the animals killed will be younger/smaller. These are the tags for people who just want to be able to hunt every year.

Hunts managed for quality typically have far fewer tags given out and are much harder to draw. There will be fewer other hunters in the woods, and the animals have a chance to grow larger in general. You will see more and bigger animals, but you will have to wait a few years between drawing these tags.

Since you are from Oregon, you should recognize that most deer hunting in Oregon is managed for opportunity. We give out a bazillion deer tags, but if you see a legal buck, you better shoot it, because it may be the only one you see in a week of hunting. Antelope, on the other hand, are managed for quality. Oregon puts out some nice antelope, but you can only get a tag every 15 to 20 years.

QQ

Thanks, that does answer my questions in the context I was thinking.

About 2 years ago, after my first unsuccessful season hunting blacktail, I joined the OHA. Everyone I’ve spoken to there has given me the advice to start buying points for out east. Typically saying they’ll be higher quality hunts with more opportunity, and for the life of me I just don’t see how/why.

In the framework of reduced competition = higher chances of seeing mature animals, it makes sense. So far, though, I’m really liking the general season OTC hunts, even if I’m not seeing much for game. I suppose it’s lucky that it’s going to take years to actually draw one of those eastern tags, as by that time maybe my feelings on this will have changed.

The other aspect of this discussion that I’ve heard, is the East vs West of the country. Why is there such a strong desire for folks out East to come hunt the West? Is it just the landscape?

It seems to be really romanticized, but is the game that’s pursued really all that different if there are elk and deer hunting opportunities east of the Mississippi as well? It makes me think it must be more about the terrain, or something else, than it is actually about the quality or opportunity exclusively.

 

[FI460]

Thanks, that does answer my questions in the context I was thinking.

About 2 years ago, after my first unsuccessful season hunting blacktail, I joined the OHA. Everyone I’ve spoken to there has given me the advice to start buying points for out east. Typically saying they’ll be higher quality hunts with more opportunity, and for the life of me I just don’t see how/why.

In the framework of reduced competition = higher chances of seeing mature animals, it makes sense. So far, though, I’m really liking the general season OTC hunts, even if I’m not seeing much for game. I suppose it’s lucky that it’s going to take years to actually draw one of those eastern tags, as by that time maybe my feelings on this will have changed.

The other aspect of this discussion that I’ve heard, is the East vs West of the country. Why is there such a strong desire for folks out East to come hunt the West? Is it just the landscape?

It seems to be really romanticized, but is the game that’s pursued really all that different if there are elk and deer hunting opportunities east of the Mississippi as well? It makes me think it must be more about the terrain, or something else, than it is actually about the quality or opportunity exclusively.

@rtraverdavis and @QuazyQuinton nailed it.

One thing to consider with OHA is a lot of these guys were hunting western Oregon during the heyday of timber harvest. Blacktail and roosie populations were sky high, and they have really plummeted since the 90s. I talked to a member of my chapter last month who said he and his brother both tagged out for 17 of 18 years in Southern Oregon through the 80s into the 90s. They've had very little success in the 21st century.

I agree with you that there is some quality blacktail hunting on this side of the cascades as well though. I think two things draw folks to the eastern side of the state: Spot and stalk hunting is a much preferred method, and mule deer are just bigger. Not to say that a blacktail can't be big, but generally a large blacktail is the equivalent to a small mule deer. I haven't spent much time hunting the east side, but I hear a lot of complaints about crowding in units that take multiple points to draw. Once you learn some spots on the west side I don't think it's that difficult to get away from other hunters. The harder part is finding a nob to glass from. You have to be content to wander through the timber a lot of the time.

 

[2rocky]

Are these just euphemistic ways to say it’s easier to find a “trophy” animal and/or less competition in the units? Or is there something specific beyond that that makes a hunt or unit higher quality/opportunity?

Every hunter has his or her own definition of what makes something a "Quality" hunt. It is truly an Adjective Buffet...
I guess my personal ones are:

• Room to roam. Plenty of acreage, not limited by property borders.
• Terrain that allows you to see lots of animals and get in position on target species
• If you encounter other hunters, they don't hinder your efforts in finding your target species
• An opportunity to pass on individual target species.
• Weather that is conducive to animal movement and feeding
• A feeling of accomplishment when you find animals or fill your tag.

 

[FairWeather]

@rtraverdavis and @QuazyQuinton nailed it.

One thing to consider with OHA is a lot of these guys were hunting western Oregon during the heyday of timber harvest. Blacktail and roosie populations were sky high, and they have really plummeted since the 90s. I talked to a member of my chapter last month who said he and his brother both tagged out for 17 of 18 years in Southern Oregon through the 80s into the 90s. They've had very little success in the 21st century.

I agree with you that there is some quality blacktail hunting on this side of the cascades as well though. I think two things draw folks to the eastern side of the state: Spot and stalk hunting is a much preferred method, and mule deer are just bigger. Not to say that a blacktail can't be big, but generally a large blacktail is the equivalent to a small mule deer. I haven't spent much time hunting the east side, but I hear a lot of complaints about crowding in units that take multiple points to draw. Once you learn some spots on the west side I don't think it's that difficult to get away from other hunters. The harder part is finding a nob to glass from. You have to be content to wander through the timber a lot of the time.

I see the small size of the blacktail as a benefit. My knees and back aren’t what they used to be, and given the incline that’s typical around here, I’m of the mind that the smaller, the better. If I can pack it out in one trip without hurting myself, that is ideal.

Definitely on to something about the age of the folks I’ve been speaking to. Most are 50 and older. Could simply be that they knew times where it was easier to fill a tag on the west side, so by comparison the east side is more appealing now. I also imagine with years of hunts behind them, they may not mind waiting a few years as much as I do.

 

[Carnage2011]

This is an interesting conversation. When I was on the Elk management citizens advisory group this was brought up by a Montana resident that called me. He was pissed about the choose your weapon proposal. His argument was that “you’re taking away my opportunity to kill an elk.” My argument was that if we start to limit hunters in some form then your opportunity may improve. For example, in Utah on an archery elk hunt, we had more opportunity to shoot nice bulls in 8 days than I have in MT on any given year. I’m not advocating for Utahs management by any means but the argument of shorter seasons meaning less opportunity is a false.

 

[winmag]

This is the classic supply and demand scenario for a limited resource.

Quality = minimum supply [a coveted draw tag, or a governors tag even], maximum probability of harvest and a good time

Opportunity = maximum supply [otc tag], minimum probability of harvest and a good time

It’s not to say you can’t harvest good animals or have a good time on an OTC tag, but you might have 2000 of your closest friends going after the same pool of animals (like certain otc archery units in Colorado, for example).

I was going to draw a graph but I think you can visualize this scenario.

 

[TOGIE]

for me quality is nearly entirely dependent on lack of pressure and likelihood of seeing animals. size is irrelevant for me. i'd rather shoot 10 cows in 10 years than one 360" bull in 10 years if given the guaranteed options.

opportunity means i can go every year.

wyoming is damn near the only place that has quality opportunity from what i can tell, for residents at least. our mule deer hunting in CO nearly fits the bill IMO

 

[RyGuy]

The other aspect of this discussion that I’ve heard, is the East vs West of the country. Why is there such a strong desire for folks out East to come hunt the West? Is it just the landscape?

It seems to be really romanticized, but is the game that’s pursued really all that different if there are elk and deer hunting opportunities east of the Mississippi as well? It makes me think it must be more about the terrain, or something else, than it is actually about the quality or opportunity exclusively.

This is an interesting observation and I think it also comes down to the opportunity vs quality discussion. The way I see it, there is much more opportunity out west to hunt mule deer/elk. Even the “quality” tags tend to be easier to draw, where as the limited elk tags out east are on a lottery system and may never be drawn in a lifetime. That’s my understanding at least

 

[seeth07]

This is an interesting conversation. When I was on the Elk management citizens advisory group this was brought up by a Montana resident that called me. He was pissed about the choose your weapon proposal. His argument was that “you’re taking away my opportunity to kill an elk.” My argument was that if we start to limit hunters in some form then your opportunity may improve. For example, in Utah on an archery elk hunt, we had more opportunity to shoot nice bulls in 8 days than I have in MT on any given year. I’m not advocating for Utahs management by any means but the argument of shorter seasons meaning less opportunity is a false.

Bingo. This is so true. The question is really is what does opportunity mean. Does it mean simply having a tag in your pocket so you can venture out and hunt or does it mean having the ability to actually kill something. Or kill something big. At some point along that line it crosses from opportunity to quality.

 

[hank4elk]

It all sounds like my situation. I get an opportunity to have a quality hunt for elk every year. Right here at home.

 

[WildWill]

for me quality is nearly entirely dependent on lack of pressure and likelihood of seeing animals. size is irrelevant for me. i'd rather shoot 10 cows in 10 years than one 360" bull in 10 years if given the guaranteed options.

opportunity means i can go every year.

wyoming is damn near the only place that has quality opportunity from what i can tell, for residents at least. our mule deer hunting in CO nearly fits the bill IMO

Exactly how I feel! Only thing I'd add is access to the list that effects quality.

 

[2rocky]

 

[Akcabin]

I'm glad that they are somewhat the same for me. Every opportunity to get out is quality time in my mind. And the opportunity to have an equal chance as anyone to harvest game. It's all quality time and harvesting is like icing on a cake.
Equal quality and opportunity should be our governments first goal. Too often some believe that if you can pay money that you should have more opportunity to harvest game greater and more money can get you bigger game and more money can make it easier.
Nobody should have more opportunity for quality on public land. More folks would have quality hunting if everything was equal opportunity. If quality is defined by harvesting game.
I'm just glad I can go do my own thing. And when on public land I can count on my skills to provide better opportunities to harvest game because I spent a great deal of time honing them. So the quality of my hunting gets better every time I go out.
To me having someone else to help is fine. But only if done by the same rules for everyone. Starting out with equal opportunity so everyone can have a quality hunt knowing that the rules are the same for everyone.
More opportunity would be available if it wasn't sooooo expensive. Our government just spent a lot of money to shoot brown bears for population control. When a kazillion hunters would have paid the state good money for the opportunity to harvest one. Too bad thousands of opportunities were lost. And somehow the state seems to believe that you are required to pay someone to help you if you want to harvest a bear.
To make sure you stay safe or to insure your chances to harvest game on public lands ?
Yeah I believe everyone should have equal opportunity for a quality hunt. I've had a lot of great experiences and quality time and didn't harvest a thing. Just wish more folks could do this for the enjoyment

 

[FairWeather]

I'm glad that they are somewhat the same for me. Every opportunity to get out is quality time in my mind. And the opportunity to have an equal chance as anyone to harvest game. It's all quality time and harvesting is like icing on a cake.
Equal quality and opportunity should be our governments first goal. Too often some believe that if you can pay money that you should have more opportunity to harvest game greater and more money can get you bigger game and more money can make it easier.
Nobody should have more opportunity for quality on public land. More folks would have quality hunting if everything was equal opportunity. If quality is defined by harvesting game.
I'm just glad I can go do my own thing. And when on public land I can count on my skills to provide better opportunities to harvest game because I spent a great deal of time honing them. So the quality of my hunting gets better every time I go out.
To me having someone else to help is fine. But only if done by the same rules for everyone. Starting out with equal opportunity so everyone can have a quality hunt knowing that the rules are the same for everyone.
More opportunity would be available if it wasn't sooooo expensive. Our government just spent a lot of money to shoot brown bears for population control. When a kazillion hunters would have paid the state good money for the opportunity to harvest one. Too bad thousands of opportunities were lost. And somehow the state seems to believe that you are required to pay someone to help you if you want to harvest a bear.
To make sure you stay safe or to insure your chances to harvest game on public lands ?
Yeah I believe everyone should have equal opportunity for a quality hunt. I've had a lot of great experiences and quality time and didn't harvest a thing. Just wish more folks could do this for the enjoyment

That’s how I feel about it, too. Thus far, I’ve only hunted on OTC tags, general season, and have filled 1 tag out of 8. I’ve had what I think were great quality hunts, though, because there was always the possibility to fill them if I only knew where and when to be (and a touch of luck). I hate the competition out in the woods, but it also fuels me to keep at it. I want to get there earlier, stay later, go in deeper, trek farther etc. to fill that tag.

The only ones that really bug me are when there’s general season OTC tags for game that is almost exclusively on private land. That kinda feels like a scam, as there isn’t actually the opportunity that it seems like there is.