WHY?

[Swede]

Over the years hunting equipment especially archery equipment has gotten better and better. The bows we shoot today are night and day different than the recurves we shot in the early 70s. Everything is better and faster. We have range finders, camo, more accurate arrows, etc. etc. etc.
Back in the day hunters with calls were never heard in the elk woods, now they are very frequent. People tout the virtues of everything they have including their stabilizer. It really adds up to thousands of dollars in equipment. If all of this stuff is really so great, why have we not seen an increase in hunter success rates? Are we trading hunting skill for gimmicks? We could say hunting success has kept up with the increased hunter numbers, but maybe they are the reason for the popularity of bow hunting. What do you think?

[Tigger]

A not so simple answer in my opinion. First, the number of hunters has increased substantially which in turn has educated animals. Flipping the question around a little, I think if you got in your trusty time machine and traveled back into the 70s with today's knowledge and equipment, you would have much higher success rates than the people did back then.

Another thing to consider is that people, in general, were more connected to the land than they are now which probably translated into better hunting skills. that is on average, over the entire population. Today, we are full of weekend warriors that never leave the roads, thus dragging down the stats.

I bet the best hunters of today are much better than the best hunters of yesteryear. But on average, over the entire hunting population, the hunters of old are better hunters than today's hunters.

I will have to noodle on this a little as I go set up my new-fangled, hyper-velocity, heat-seeking, teleporting, laser-guided, 85% letoff compound bow tomorrow!

[saddlesore]

There studies years ago that said just because the number of hunters increases,does not mean that anymore animals will be killed.

Say an area has five legal bulls.You can put ten hunters in there or 100 hunters , you still have only five bulls to kill. It is laughable if you look at CPW's Muzzle Loader restrictions. Adding scopes and sabot's won't kill anymore elk. Restrict archers to non-compound archery tackle.Still success rate will still be 11-12%. The hunters that know how to kill elk will keep doing it.The others looking for some magic gimmick will still go home with an un-punched tag. That is why Colorado Parks and Wildlife laugh all the way to the bank with the OTC units. They keep selling tags, no matter how many elk are in those areas, and hunters keep buying them.

[Wahpeton]

Isn't it kind of that way with most fishing / hunting in general? 80% of the game/fish is taken by 20% of the sportsmen?

If you are serious and are willing to learn/adapt you can, over time be part of that 20% who have success?

I am not part of the 20% successful population for elk, but hope to become part of it through dedication and having an open mind and learning as much as possible from those willing to share.

I could be full of bean juice, but that's the sort of split of successful hunters of nice whitetail bucks I see here in ND/MN. It's a small percentage of the hunters who consistently put it all together year after year.

[Elkduds]

Not sure if this is a factor, but when I was actively bowhunting in the early 1990s, most of the archers I knew spent 15+ days in the field during season. And there were far fewer total hunters. Same success rates.

[Roosiebull]

There studies years ago that said just because the number of hunters increases,does not mean that anymore animals will be killed.

Say an area has five legal bulls.You can put ten hunters in there or 100 hunters , you still have only five bulls to kill. It is laughable if you look at CPW's Muzzle Loader restrictions. Adding scopes and sabot's won't kill anymore elk. Restrict archers to non-compound archery tackle.Still success rate will still be 11-12%. The hunters that know how to kill elk will keep doing it.The others looking for some magic gimmick will still go home with an un-punched tag. That is why Colorado Parks and Wildlife laugh all the way to the bank with the OTC units. They keep selling tags, no matter how many elk are in those areas, and hunters keep buying them.

I feel you are pretty much spot on. The saying "it's the Indian, not the arrow" comes to mind.

I sure would like to spend about 2 months traveling back in time, and hunt around my house in the 1940's...just to see...i think we have more game now since elk weren't really around, and the logging boom I don't think had spiked the blacktail populations, but it would be a fun trip.

[Swede]

I think you guys have made some great points. I really don't know why either? Educated elk seems probable to me. Ignorant (no offense) hunters would appear to be a big part, not that they did not exist years ago. I know that for sure as I was one of them. As Roosiebull correctly observed, we have a lot more elk now, especially in some areas. I liked reading Tigger's observation a lot too, but I am skeptical about what he said that the best hunters of today are better than the Pope, Young, Bear, St Charles's of yesteryear. I had neighbors that hunted and trapped a lot back in the 50s. They knew what they were doing. They never thought they were special. Just like people here they would freely tell a kid what they were doing and share their methods. I smile to myself as I remember one old trappers "secret" formula for beaver bait.

The saying "it's the Indian, not the arrow" comes to mind.

Great Point Roosiebull. I really think my equipment has helped some, but is not the reason for most of the success I have had. The equipment has not made up for my mistakes either. Success can only come when we learn to get game into shooting range where they present a good shot opportunity. Luck is just a small factor. It will smile on us occasionally as it did on hunters centuries ago, but it is fickle. Nothing will keep us from failures if we don't internalize real hunting skill.

[scubohuntr]

Most of the time, the way we "improve" as hunters is by buying new stuff. It's easier than taking the time to actually improve our skills. It's awfully hard not to feel the pull when some grinning yahoo on TV is bragging up the 400 inch bull he just dropped with the new Acme Little Giant Super Duper Heatseeking Titanium Tactical Broadhead. Of course, he was the only hunter allowed in the high fenced property, but he certainly won't mention that. He's had his minions watching forty trail cams all summer so he'd know where to find that bull, and literally unlimited resources to put him in the right place at the right time. He does this professionally, so he doesn't have to fit hunting in around a job. But his whole shtick is to represent himself as the "average guy." Now, when Joe Bowhunter misses a shot after he has worked all season to set it up, it's human nature to hear a little whisper telling him, "Windplaning. The Acme Little GIant Super Duper Heatseeking Titanium Tactical Broadhead doesn't do that. The yahoo on 'Kill Em All Bowhunting TV' said so. Better go get you some." Much easier to point, click and order than to actually practice. When he does practice, he's shooting $10 arrows with $30 broadheads. He's not going to risk any more damage to them than he has to. No stump shooting for Joe.

Fifty years ago, there were very few bowhunters on TV. Fred Bear would try to sell you Razorheads, but pretty much everyone either shot or used to shoot those, so it really wasn't much of a factor. George Bowhunter (Joe's dad) spent the summers poring over the Herters or Kittredge Bow Hut catalogs for new tackle that he'd really never get around to ordering, and roaming around plinking gophers with cheap wood arrows the rest of the time. When he missed a shot, the usual response was, "Shoulda gotten a little closer." So he'd work on his stalking skills and practice. He'd read about Ishi and Saxton Pope and Art Young, and realized that bowhunting was a game of feet. Then he'd read Howard Hill and known that if he wanted to take long shots, he had to pull well over 100 pounds and shoot hundreds of arrows every day. Nowadays, everywhere you look, there's some moron talking about 60-80 yard shots, like that's just a great idea, as long as you have the nifty rangefinder and bowsight he's selling.

So now we have bowhunters heading out every season with mostly new gear, taking shots that nobody ought to consider, and thinking that every animal they take has to be P&Y class. After all, that's what they are learning. Even if you can resist the lure of commercialism, there are fifty other guys that can't, hauling thirty pounds of rangefinders, wind detectors, folding decoys, and GPS units around the woods, honking on their WalMart bugles every dozen steps, and hosing down the countryside with whatever scent was cheap at the Holiday station, providing every elk in the area with a free PhD in Hunter Avoidance. So the 10% that actually take elk are the ones who have the time and resources (either on their own or through a guide) to get into the back country, or have access to private land.

[Lefty]

All good stuff that travels across the board to other game animals
I was the first in my area to use custom or premium goose decoys, I also knew how and became skilled at reading and calling geese. 10-11,12 years back with that and a pit blind bringing in geese was like the pied piper and rats.
Now more hunters with those same skill sets and better gear,.. yet with geese those opportunities with educated geese the numbers are lower; is so similar to archery hunting

[Tigger]

Swede, let me expand on my comment that I think today's elite hunters are better than yesterday's elite hunters (conversely, today's average hunters are worse than yesterday's hunters). First, this is kinda like comparing Babe Ruth to Albert Pujols, I realize that.

Would Fred Bear be a better hunter if he was alive today than he was back then? I think he would have. I think he would have retained his hunting skills but his equipment and knowledge base would have been better overall. What took Fred years to learn, the elite of today learned by collaboration. Today's elite have amazing hunting skills as well. They also have the huge advantage of learning from the generations before them. They don't make the mistakes the pioneers had to.

Then there is the game animals themselves. Is it easier to call in a bull today or in the 1950s? My guess would be the 50s. So how would Fred and his ilk do on today's bulls? I really don't know who many of the great hunters of today are, but Chuck Adams and Randy Newberg come to mind. Pick two from yesteryear and I don't think they could do what these guys are doing.

I could be 110% wrong. Probably am. But that is my current theory!

I will say this, I wish I had a tenth of the skills that any of these types of guys had!

And I agree with scubohuntr completely. The average dude in the woods orders up some those fancy new broadheads and feels invincible. I wonder sometimes if hunting shows are really setting unrealistic expectations that are negatively influencing our young and inexperienced hunters to the point they give up the sport.

[Roosiebull]

Tigger, I think your theory is very plausible. Another comparison that may be better than baseball is mma, relatively, the best fighters of 20 years ago wouldn't stand a chance against the best fighters of today.

There has been so much technique shared to any audience that wants to know, like you said, nobody really has to pioneer anything anymore... it's kind of a shame I think.

All I know, is I love hearing hunting stories from people over 70.

[Scorpyd shooter]

maybe animals adapted, I hear most herd bulls leave if you challenge them with a bugle. guy told me they know the sound of all local bulls, new ones raise suspicion?

[Swede]

Tigger: I understand your perspective and completely agree with you.
Fred Bear was an excellent hunter for the times of Fred Bear. As a pioneer he advanced the sport of hunting with his equipment and hunting techniques. I remember seeing him on video taking the bark off a piece of wood. The bark was kept intact and slid off as a tube. Then Fred carved the stick and the bark and made a bugle for his elk call. That was hunting skill for Fred Bear times. Turkey hunters learned that they could take their turkey diaphragms and better imitate the sounds of elk with them. Advancement. Soon came the grunt tubes and again more advancement. The crazy thing is that we have not overwhelmed the elk. I guess they are developing their skills right along with us.
Anyway thanks for the explanation.

[saddlesore]

In the 60's we would make elk calls out of 3/4 " conduit, Then came the ones out of natural gas flexible appliance hook up sections. Then some company got the idea of putting a piece of wood on each end of one, so your lips would not freeze to them .
I still have mine,plus several of those plastic Cow Talk ones .