Percent Who Can Really Hunt

[ICMDEER]

Many of the posts on MM say that hunters have gotten better, equipment is better, and mule deer are in more often in trouble from well equipped really good hunters.

So my question is - What percent of mule deer hunters are really serious and can almost always get the job done?

From my experience, the vast majority of the hunters I see road hunt. The few that hike go less than 1 mile from the road. Most want to stay in a good camp, usually a motel or trailer. And most do not seem to have good optics, or if they do, they don't spend much time using them.

And then being able to stalk and shoot. I am around a lot of hunters and only 10% can shoot well. Many can shoot a sub minute group off a bench rest, but that can't do much without all kinds of time and a real good rest when out hunting.

I'll start. I'd say that from what I see less than 10% of muley hunters are dead serious about it, and have the time, ability and equipment to routinely harvest big-time deer. There just are not many Randy Ulmers or David Longs out there - IMO.

 

[cmbbulldog]

I tend to agree with your premise. Have to realize the serious people here make up a very small % of hunters in general. I do think technology (ie people shooting deer at 800 yards) hurt deer in general. You dont have to be a very good hunter if you can shoot that far. Plus, with the right equipment, you can see for miles now. Sit in your truck, glass for miles, find something you like. Sneak to 1000 yards, set up your bench, and Boom. Then call in packers to go get it for you

 

[justr_86]

I think technology is making up for the shortfalls or laziness of people. I agree people dont know how to use what they have, but they are learning.


You find out who your friends are when you see who shows up to help pack your bull out!

 

[BrowningRage]

This is a great thought ICMDEER. My opinion is the best, most dedicated hunter's use primitive weaponry (i.e. archery, and muzzleloader). More tag allotments for these types of hunts could result in deer harvested, better deer numbers, better deer quality and an all around better population of "dedicated hunters".
I do feel that rifles have their place in hunting, there should just be less opportunity to hunt with a rifle. I put in LE rifle every year, because it obviously will afford me the greatest chance of harvesting my trophy animal. As such, a rifle hunt every few, or maybe 5 years could offer everyone better quality of deer, if the years in between were spent with sticks n' strings or old smoke poles.
I have hunted archery or ML for the last 5 years. I have harvested only one buck in that time. I have had the best archery experiences in my life at that same time though, getting in close, and even missing trophy animals. I feel I am a more-dedicated-than-average hunter, and I only got one deer in 5 seasons with primitive weaponry (and a bit of a picky disposition). In the years prior to that, hunting rifle only, I harvested 3 deer in 4 years.
Fewer rifles afield would mean more deer, I doubt anyone can dispute that. If you can, I'd like to hear how, and I may change my mind. I'm not stubborn that way.
Great post ICMDEER...


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[need4x4]

It is a small percentage.

There is a percentage that is dangerous with the rifle, maybe 20% of folks can kill at say 450 yards given the chance. I am talking on a regular basis. They also are generally ready for that quick chance that lasts only seconds.

Then there is another group that can really give it an effort, you know young people and those that are very dedicated. Maybe that group is 20%. People that are out every day in position before light. This group is in shape in general.

Now, how much of those two groups are in both? Not many.

On an out of state hunt that lasts say 5 days. There aren't many people who can shoot and get in good position on each of those five days. There just aren't very many.

Folks in general are out of shape and not used to the altitude.

To each his own.

 

[nickman]

Dang Browning.....You are an instant target now!

As a stick flicker, you make a good point ....for stick flickers.

Why should archery people have more opportunity? Sort of one sided don't you think? It's simply your choice to hunt with whatever equipment you choose. Dosen't make you guys superior hunters....except in your own minds.

There are upsides and downsides to every option. I have taken deer with and rifle and bow; is bowhunting harder? Absolutely! But it's still only about choice.

And, seriously, in most cases, the word "primitive" is simply ludicrous. What is so primitive about a modern compound bow? What is so primitive about a modern muzzy? They both evolve weekly, and by the time you add all the "junk", they don't much resemble anything "primitive". I won't even go into the advances in arrow and powder technology.

The absolute only difference in modern rifle and modern bow or muzzy hunting is the fact that you have to get closer.....and most archery deer killed nationwide are hunted from tree stands anyway. This arguement always cracks me up.

"Percent that can really hunt".....Based on who's standards?
In the world we live in, we don't know a single hunter that could follow your great, great grandmothers azz from St Louis to Oregon.....if all they had to do was collect buffalo chips!

No arguement, some hunters are more willing, physically more capable, less equipped and overall, more successful than others....just like life in general.

Do what you do, the best that you can, as responsibly as you can and derive your own level of contentment from it. When you start demeaning anothers accomplishments, based on YOUR values....you become an AZZ.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

I do believe that equipment imrpovements have a lot to do with making hunters successful but it is accross the board with choice of weapon. You now have bows that some feel comfortable shooting animals at 100+ yards, muzzle loaders that shoot 300+ yards and rifles that fling lead at 1000+ yards. I also believe that the Randy Ulmers and David Longs are extremely rare but mainly because of time limitations, not necessarily the skill level of the hunter. I think we would all be a lot more successful if somebody else was footing the bill, and writing our paychecks so that we could call hunting our "profession".

BrowningRage - I hunt with all of the weapons listed above and each one has it's challenges. Making it sound as if one weapon of choice makes a hunter better than the other makes absolutely zero sense. I'm not sure where you base your premise but it is definately biased. Your post makes me think that you hunt with a bow unless you draw a "good" tag, then you don't have enough confidence in your skills as a bowhunter or a longgun hunter to get the job done so you choose to hunt with a rifle. If you truely stand by your statement, quit applying for rifle tags and stay with your "primitive weapon" hunting and get the job done.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[mntman]

I too feel you are right in that about 10% of the hunters are seriously dedicated but if you look at the average hunter 30 years ago, that same average hunter exists. They are also at the same percentage but the technology has changed drastically too for the average guy. 30+ years ago the average hunter had open sights and would shoot out to only 200 yards tops (I'm only 32 so not sure on details when I was born). Now the average hunter is using a 3x9, 40mm scope that can shoot in the least amount of light possible out to easily 300 yards. Plus all of information put out there these days drastically shortening the learning curve definately makes average hunters more efficient than they were years ago.



AWHOLELOTTABULL, I seen a rerun of Western Extreme (I think)today and he claimed that his muzzleloader would shoot accurately out to 500 yards!???? that is crazy if true.

Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"

 

[Triple_BB]

I'll say 12%...

 

[gb22]

Don't know what percentage actually are "HUNTERS". I do know there is nothing that delineates by weaponry. I'd put my experience and skill level against anyone (on TV or not). I've taken deer/elk with bows, handguns, muzzleloaders and even with an in-line muzzleloader.

I prefer my rifle......just LOVE the crosshairs and shooting.

I don't think I've ever (not since I learned how) had a season in which I've not had the opportunity to shoot one of whatever I was hunting. There have been days...even a couple of days at a time...but never a season. There have been lots of times when I chose NOT to let the arrow go or pull the trigger........I do ALWAYS whisper, "bang, you're dead"!

I often pack far into the backcoutry....but animals are finable within site of pick-up trails.....I just like the experience away from everyone else.


Within the shadows, go quietly.

 

[HKShooter]

I hunt naked and use a toothpick to kill bucks.

I'm clearly the best.

HK

 

[cabinfever]

I agree with AWLOB.

Heck, if I could scout 2 months out of the year, hunt as long as it took to get the job done, and had an open checkbook to hunt top end areas every year, I feel very confident that I, and many others, could consistently produce trophy class critters on a regular basis. Oh, and did I mention do all of this and stay married and employed.It's a balancing act!

Mike

 

[BrowningRage]

You make a good point about the term "primitive". But you do have to gauge it on modern standards as I do. Bows are most primitive, and muzzleloaders next, then rifles. Common logic I'd say.
You stated "Why should archery people have more opportunity?". I don't mean "archery people" should have more opportunity, but there should be more opportunity for everyone to hunt archery. This is based solely on lower success rate numbers and a hope that it could improve deer numbers and quality, that's all.

"When you start demeaning anothers accomplishments, based on YOUR values....you become an AZZ." Pot calling the kettle black eh..?

Thanks for your comments Nickman.


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[BrowningRage]

"Making it sound as if one weapon of choice makes a hunter better than the other makes absolutely zero sense."
Come on, really...? Of course all seasons and hunts present challenges, but there's no way all my years of rifle hunting were as difficult and challenging as archery hunting.


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[7]

You're right about that Mike! Family obligations along with trying to earn a living plays a major role in our hunting lives. Just because someone is fortunate enough to spend countless hours & days in the field doesn't mean they're more dedicated or a better hunter than those who only spend a few weeks a year hunting!

7 Mag

 

[REDDOG]

If were talking MM members, 100% of corse

 

[swbuckmaster]

whats the saying 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish. I think is is the same in hunting with what ever weapon you hunt wiht.

However it does take more work to be efficient with a bow and kill a deer then it does to pick up a rifle and kill a deer.

Killing big bucks "consistently" demands loads of time in season and out of season no matter what weapon you hunt with!

Nets are for fish!!

 

[3bigelkid]

If the 10% rule applys then only 783 MM members are legit. I will let ya all fight over those 783 spots!

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

This is totally based on my own personal quest to harvest great animals. If I wanted to just shoot a buck it is just as easy for me to do it with a bow as it is a rifle. Granted, you have to get closer to the animal to actually kill it but if you have done your scouting and you can wait those bucks out on water or trails (in a blind or a tree stand) I have had opportunities every year to kill a buck. On the other hand, I am after better than average bucks at this time in my life and so I pass on a lot of smaller, average bucks to harvest something better. It doesn't matter the weapon I am using. My experience has been that the pre season scouting is what makes or breaks a successful hunt, whether you are hunting primitive weapon or firestick. A rifle allows me to be a lot more selective on the animal I choose to kill but, I have yet to get any mule deer in "the books" whether it be P&Y or B&C so my quest is still alive. I personally enjoy hunting period! It doesn't matter the weapon I am using. I use the same skills and knowlege of the animal with any weapon I choose to hunt with. The tactics and game plan change depending on the weapon but the animal and behaviors don't. To harvest an exceptional animal on a DIY, public land hunt, it all has to come together perfect regardless of what you are hunting with.

My theory on harvest success rates being so low on archery is the fact that people hunt the same tactics with a bow as they do with a rifle and the majority of the time that doesn't cut it. Lumbering around the mountain trying to "sneek up" on a buck will result in failure the vast majority of the time. It still baffles me when people say they didn't have an opportunity to shoot on a LE archery elk hunt. In my experience, those people didn't have the patience to wait them out. Maybe I'm simplifying this too much and I don't want people to think that I am saying I am a better hunter than anybody else but I have had this same conversation with a lot of people that feel the same way. This is just my oppinion so please take it with that in mind.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[BCBOY]

That is a very loaded question. How does one qualify ability to hunt? Is it by the size of their trophy room? IMO, there are plenty of people who have big trophy rooms and yet couldn't hunt their way out of a plastic bag. I know every guide on here knows of plenty of past clients that were idiots when it came to hunting but hired the right guide to get the job done. A shooter and a hunter are too completely different things. On the other side of the coin I look at numerous ol' timers, my old man being one, that are amazing hunters and yet have never been drawn into the so-called trophy race. They hunt because they love it and when they see an animal that they want, be it big or small, they get the job done. Are they any less capable as a hunter? Is someone that goes out and puts meat on the table year in and year out less of a hunter than the one that eats tag soup year in and year out in hopes of taging a monster?

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

Well said BCBOY!


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[TheKnack]

I would say 1% or most likely less, are superb "Trophy" hunters.....
There are also great hunters that can bag a buck every year who could care less about antler size as Bcboy stated.
Many that people think are good who regularly bag big bucks get landowner tags every year and hunt the rut or are connected to private property owners.
They may tell you an elaborate story thats sounds good but it's all made up in there heads to help them feel better about an easy trophy.
The guys that "actually" do it on public land during regular seasons without the Insane Clown Posers helping are a select few in my opinion and they are the ones that I respect most.
My opinion.
Best,
Jerry

 

[Ticks N Tines]

I would say there are plenty of "Serious" hunters out there. But I think the key is "Time". Most of us don't have much time to spend scouting. I have to settle for the weekends and maybe a few holidays. The guys that sit in the hills all day long scouing and learning are the ones that will be sucessful year after year. Take the Tines Up crew and Mossback, they are watching those animals everyday and can tell you where they will be anytime of the day, week, or month. It takes time to study patterns and routes.
The average Joe with a full time job and kids can't get out as much as Randy Ulmer does. Not saying you can't be a serious hunter and a average Joe. But I do think "Time" is a big part of hunting. The more you study and learn the area and the animals, the better chance you have of taking them.

 

[BacDoc]

"I ain't as good as I once was, But I'm as good once as I every was". This describes my dad. Killed a six point bull for his 70th Birthday, and a 25" buck for his 80th. Plans are in the making for his 90th. There's still some good hunters around. He's passed it on to me and my sons.

 

[Jazz]

Interesting topic for sure. Not sure though that we all have the same definition of "hunter". As stated by others I have hunted in places both DIY and on private lands where I passed on dozens of bucks, many times never killing anything and sometimes killing a good buck. I have also done "everything" right and not seen or killed a good buck and then a few times just happened to be in the right place at the right time, although I've never killed a great buck this way. However there have been some really big bucks killed just driving down the road! Not sure they were good or bad hunters it just happens that way sometimes. I did kill a great antelope buck that way once after scouting for days and days and he just happened to show on the first day of the season while I was leaving the area. Anyway I'm sure that the 10% estimate is reasonable but it also might depend on the animal. I have been lucky enough to hunt deer, elk and antelope in NV the past 5 years and I will say that after the first 3 days I was ALONE and did not see another hunter until I was finished. The elk hunt was also more of a meat hunt for the "residents" and most shot a raghorn the first two days. I also hunted a couple times with two friends that were in great shape and willing to climb every mountain but you know I never saw them ever kill a decent buck? You know why because they were too wrapped up in being a "tough" hunter and climbing the mountain while they walked past or ran out every deer in the country!

 

[ICMDEER]

I was hoping the time factor would come up, and I agree wholeheartedly. I'll go and scout deer during the summer and try to go get them with a bow. It's the most fun I have. But I can usually only hunt a few days. Last year, I saw a buck I'd love to have hanging on the wall and I could only hunt for 2 days. In the bunch of bachelor bucks, I just could not get to him in that amount of t=ime. I'll hope no one whacked him and he's back this year. I hope to be able to hunt 5 days this year.

But there are some times you can't scout. I'll go look over country in the summer where I'll be hunting 3rd season in Colorado (when I draw). But the deer are up higher and usually moving in during or just before that season. Same for some areas like the Pauns in Utah. But for most bow and muzz seasons, scouting is the ticket.

Don't forget the $$$ factor as well. I got the new Muley Crazy last night. One of the guys featured in it had 7 mule deer hunts in 2009. I'll bet the average cost per hunt was close to or over $10,000. Not many of us muley fanatics that can afford that.

And BC makes another good point. Some people who can really hunt do not care about trophies. My dad was like that. He could hunt like crazy and took too many critters to count. And some big ones, but it was the hunt with friends and family and the meat that really mattered to him.

 

[tufcntry]

i beleive the percent that can really is low. but alot of people don't have the passion either, i beleive alot of road hunters just want ot cruise around have beer with some buddies. thats fine with me. and also some guys just don't have the means to hunt how we portray as a good hunter, we need to realize we are the extremes of the sport, and we eat sleep and breath this stuff all year round. guys like randy ulmer could easily be an average joe but and not an elite hunter. to he could be like the guy who had 7 mule deer hunt in a year with guides if i could afford i could kill a bunch of big dogs to. i think long is a flat stud though. you can tell by his books and articles he puts in the real time needed. and guys like that are few and far between.

 

[Romulus]

I think it depends on the season. There are plenty of guys with good equipment, who are in decent shape and can and will hunt bucks who are beginning to get stupid early in Nov in Colorado and the quality is going to continue to suffer because of this especially with the longer and later 3rd season. There is usually plenty of deer to be seen and enough bucks around to keep guys interested and hunting relatively hard for 5-7 days. So I will say 25% of the hunters are good hunters in this scenario which was the scenario that this topic was based on. However this same group would shrink to around 5% -10% if the seasons were in October. Most guys just are not mentally tough enough to hunt for 7 days if the hunting is tough. If the rut is not in play and they have not been seeing decent bucks they give up and shoot something to be done because it is starting to become like a job. The big money guys who brag about hunting 50 days in year are showing up and hunting prescouted animals for a few days with guides and moving on to something new and exciting. This is not the same as a DIY guy scouting for 30 days and hunting a whole season for a chance at a trophy. Few guys have the drive even if they had the time to truly hunt and scout hard for long periods of time. Many will say they wish they had the time and they would be more successful if they did but extra effort does not ensure success it only increases the chances for success. I know lots of guys who will hike 5 miles in the dark if I "guarantee" they will get a shot at a giant buck or bull. But 95% will not do it for a 10% chance it is to much work with no guarantee of reward and less than that will do it on their own.

 

[sageadvice]

As a young guy with several friends that were also really into hunting every day of the local season and making at least a couple outa state hunts each year, we all got together at the end of the year and compared our bucks and ended up making it a contest-party. This grouping of guys grew to the point of having to rent the rod & gun Club because it just got so large with several hundred guys entering each year. It took great bucks, both local Blacktails and outa state muleys, to even place in the top 10 of each division.

Couple things. The same 8-10 or so guys always seemed to bring the best bucks back from outa state. Some years better than others but you just knew that some guys were going to bring in good bucks and rarely did that not happen. Also, the same could be said of the Blacktail division but in that case, it wasn't so much how hard and determined the hunter was but how good the property he had to hunt was. The better the property, the better the bucks.

Our ranch was not among the better properties but i usually managed to place by getting the best that it had to offer. As far as outa state, i never did win it but i was also always in the mix of guys who brought in "nice ones" and placed well several times. I haven't a clue what all the other guys were doing wrong but their bucks were displayed along with the rest and there was always respect there, even if they weren't considered anything like some of the really nice trophy bucks.

This was always a great event, fun, and long looked forward to at the end of each season. Though i no longer live in that area, i still sometimes make the trip down for the event. Many years have passed since we few started that contest and it's still going strong. Never a problem, a lot of good sportsmanship and nice friendly competition. I'd say it was a very positive thing. It did prove though, that most years the better bucks were taken by the same bunch of hard hunting guys and having hunted with most of them, they well knew what the game was all about.

Joey

 

[grizzmoose]

Hunting is no different than any other sport or hobby. There are some that are good at it, some that take it seriously, and some that do it just for fun. Its just like golf. A small percentage of everyone on the course actually are good at it. Those that aren't ding up the course, dont replace their divots, etc. But they are welcome to the course because they paid the price. I see it the same way as hunting. People have to start somewhere, and hunting really isnt the easiest thing to learn considering you only get to do it a couple times a year. Yes, equipment makes some people better at it, but again, thats true of every other sport too.

 

[TwoDogs]

.0034%.

 

[searcher]

ICMDEER

This is a very good question but at the same time it is unfair. There are only so many David Longs just like there are only so many Tom Brady / Payten Manning quarterbacks. These guys are head and shoulders above every other quarterback just like the David Long / Randy Ulmers have very few peers. The question should be how many hunters are willing to put in the effort to consistently be successful. Then you have to define successful. Does a guy who buys a governer's tag and can afford to have several outfitters on retainer looking for the next world record buck deserve to be in the same discussion with the guy who is limited to DIY public land hunts? The odds are heavily stacked against the DIY hunter but my money says he hunts harder than the guy with governer's tag.

I agree that very few hunters are willing or able to put in the extra effort to be in the "elite" group. Living in the east and hunting DIY 90% of the time, I am limited to at most 10 days hunting mule deer hunting each year. Throw in age, health problems, work and family obligations, I am willing to say that I get as much satisfaction out of taking a 20" 4 X 4 as the elite hunters get out of taking 190" class bucks. If I ever get a 20" 4 X 4 on a DIY hunt 3 or 4 miles from a road, bone it and pack it out, I will be just as satisfied as the guy with the governer's tag who takes the next world record on a guided hunt with minimal effort.

Thanks for listening. This is a great post.

Tim
Searchin' for a 4 X 4

 

[2lumpy]

As far as mule deer go, I'm grateful 99.9966% of us are lousy hunters. Long live mule deer!

DC