Opportunity-what is it?

[Rank Amateur]

Shouldn't there be a way to mathematically express opportunity so that we have a measure to gage different hunt formats? What do we agree on?

Chance of draw-this directly effects opportunity, although being able to hunt lesser hunts while waiting can mediate this factor to a degree.

Success rate- again this is a direct result of opportunity.

Class of animal- this might be tougher, but I think as a general rule the bigger the animal the more value is given to the animal. Cow versus large bull.

Hunter density- this is a big factor in how hunters perceive the quality of the hunt and their satisfaction with the hunt.

Days to hunt- this factor gives hunters more chances to be successful or to be pickier as to what caliber of an animal they harvest. Many hunters opt for hunts that are longer in days, but might be lower in success rates.


So with these factors in mind, could we not express opportunity in a mathematical expression that takes these factors and places values for them?

Here is what I have in mind.

Chance of draw would be expressed in a decimal, i.e; 1 in 10 years would equal .10.

Success rate would be expressed as a whole number, i.e; 20 percent would be 20.

Class of animal-there might be two ways to do this, either by average antler point of harvested animals or average score of animals harvested. The latter would give this factor more weight in the mathematical expression, although this may not be needed. With the new mandatory hunt reporting, the average point class of animals harvested will be available. This factor will receive a plus 1 value to give Cows a factor.

Hunter density-this will be expressed as a decimal, hunters divided by square miles in the hunt.

Days of hunt- simply the number of days in the hunt.

So the equation for a theoretical hunt that a hunter can draw once every 4 years (.25), a success rate of 25% (25), the average antler points of bulls taken equals 5.5 points (5.5 +1=6.5), hunter density of 10 hunters in 100 square miles (.10) and the hunt is 9 days long would look like this.

.25 X 25 X 6.5 /.10 X 9= hunter opportunity factor. This hunt would have a value of 3,656.

Ok, pick it apart.

[SImudBogger]

I like what you thinking. I would use all decimals instead of part decimals and part whole numbers.

Any math teachers out there?

[Smoked Salmon]

Sounds good Dale. I would recommend that success rate remain a decimal though. That way, in your example, I could immediately see (pre-draw) that with that hunt I have a 2% chance of killing an animal (.10 x .20). Okay, well that is great for the meat hunter, but what if you want a trophy animal? You could break down the animal graduation class into groups based on age or value. Within that 2% chance, you might have 7/200 chance on the 6x6, 18/200 on a 5x5, and so on, and with mandatory cow harvest, a 40/200 chance at a cow. Those numbers imply that there are 200 animals harvested, and they come out of multiple age classes.
The other two factors, hunter density and days of hunt, play more into enjoyment or overall experience. In a fantastic setting, with a 14 day hunt, and only 800 hunters on those 200 animals, very little settlement and a good 4 season road system, I might give a value of 100. But a 5 day hunt, with mixed residential/commercial timber, with lots of closed roads and huge hunting pressure, I might give a value of 20.
So when rating that hunt draw it would break down like this
Animal class Kill chance Enjoyment factor Overall hunt rating
6x6 .035 x .02 | Perfect Hunt Unit = .07, SaddleMtn = .014
5x5 .09 x .02 | .18, .036
4x4 .25 x .02 | .5, .1
3x3 .35 x .02 | .7, .14
Spike .0725 x .02 | .15, .03
Cow .2 x .02 | .4, .08

What do these mean? Well not much until you have more variables mixed up. I kept the 10% and 20% numbers the same, but in reality they should shift with units. But in the example I gave, you can see that the overall satisfaction is higher across the board in the Perfect unit. The only thing that came close was the 3x3 hunt in Saddle Mtn. Remember, this isn't to gauge an actual experience. Those are all great. It is to place different values in the hunt book, so that Dale can be told exactly where to hunt, and how much to enjoy that hunt, and to give him the odds that he will actually get 100% value out of the hunt application he submits.

Or something like that. I think the best is to just follow Arnie on opening morning. He's got a nose that knows.

[bo4elk]

It wouldn't work. My brother-in-law (a big hunter) doesn't valuey an of this criteria. Temprature, sunrise, terrain (steepness), and campsite equities are far more important than any of these measurements.

[ehunter]

There are alot of these kinds of hunters but some of the more serious ones it would be kinda of cool.

How would you factor in the new years data before you hit the field like a bad winter that would screw up the potential harvest numbers before you even put in for the tag? Or are you only looking for historical data?

Originally Posted by bo4elk

It wouldn't work. My brother-in-law (a big hunter) doesn't valuey an of this criteria. Temprature, sunrise, terrain (steepness), and campsite equities are far more important than any of these measurements.

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by bo4elk

It wouldn't work. My brother-in-law (a big hunter) doesn't valuey an of this criteria. Temprature, sunrise, terrain (steepness), and campsite equities are far more important than any of these measurements.

Heck we can go camping any time.

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by ehunter

There are alot of these kinds of hunters but some of the more serious ones it would be kinda of cool.

How would you factor in the new years data before you hit the field like a bad winter that would screw up the potential harvest numbers before you even put in for the tag? Or are you only looking for historical data?

The value in getting a standard way to measure hunts is so that we are not sold a bill of goods by ODF&W. Currently they value a spike only hunt the same as Wenaha any bull tag, it's all opportunity, but most of us know different. Here are some rough estimates using some old data and then compared with more recent data. I do have the unit sizes if anybody wants them.

Saddle Mt. elk 1969 scores 45.65 (7.22 hunters per square mile)

Saddle Mt. elk 1996 second season scores 777 (1.21 per mile).


Murderer's Creek 1969 scores 662

Murderer's Creek first season 1996 scores 305 (reduced opportunity!)


Wenaha 1969 scores 54 (10.54 hunters per square mile)

Wenaha 1996 any bull scores 5,745 (.05 hunters with this tag per sq. mi.)


Of coarse these are generalizations, we would have to look at all the hunts combined in these units. In the early days it was mainly one hunt, now we have multiple hunts in a unit (trying to give opportunity).

[ehunter]

Rank I think the problem is that the OFWD consider hunting a recreational pursuit. I would be really curious to see how many hunter days are spread among the whole field. I will bet there are a lot of recreation hunters who go just to camp and if they get something that is great and if they don't they don't worry. Then are maybe 40% of the rest of that are truly disappointed if we don't get a opportunity to fill a tag. I for one don't just hunt to hunt I know that every time I go I have expect to fill my tag so I hunt according but there are a lot of people who are just going to get out of the house. Not that is bad but I hate to compete for tags with those guys although they have the same right as I do.

That is why I wish that this state would be put together like 10 units for trophy deer and elk then there would be greater chance of drawing those tags more than once in our life time and we could recreate hunt while waiting.

[BlindSquirrel]

Hey Rank,

Seems like you'd also have to take into account success rates of public access land vs. private land, and maybe experience level of hunter and experience in that area? I'm not sure how you'd measure those?

Another tough one to measure -- the seriousness of hunter -- sorting the campers and party'ers from the hard core...

I like where you are going -- and maybe some of these ideas can help to shape the mandatory harvest questionaire for next year - so that it can provide useful information?

Cheers,
BlindSquirrel

[Smoked Salmon]

Do you see this as a service of ODFW? I can't see how they would do it with their manpower problems. Well, I guess it's just that I would rather them do other stuff instead. This seems like a perfect opportunity for OHA or some other group to data-mine the ODFW records and prepare some sort of table. And most certainly it should be based off of hunting ability and seriousness of hunt.
I would like to compare the relative value of applying for Saddle Mtn 2 with the value in Murderers Creek 2. How about it?

[Don Becker]

Dale, I've only skimmed this and my head already hurts . What's the deal, no more song dogs left in your area? Don

[marked trail]

I like the idea of indexing. Placing a number value on a commodity is sometimes difficult, but individuals can make it work for themselves.

This proposal is a quantification of the process we all go through to select our controlled hunt choices. Just like the process of deciding where to apply for spring bear tags by yesterday's deadline. One of my decision criteria was closeness to my residence. When gasoline costs are tough, like now, a hunt over two months with several trip chances, travel cost is to be considered & important. I opted to stay a little closer to home this April and May of this year. Going to the corners of the state of Oregon, namely Curry or Wallowa counties is sometimes hard to justify.

I like the total quality management quantitative approach though, as it assists in identifying what is really important in an outdoor experience.

[Rank Amateur]

The value in having a Hunter Opportunity Score System (HOSS) is to help in monitoring units over time and when new management proposals are brought forward what the effects could be. Of coarse they would be used by hunters to help select units they may want to hunt in, but that would be secondary. Each individual would have to use their own criteria to add to the HOSS when determining whether or not they would want to participate in one of these hunts.

Then there would be an index for the total opportunity for all the hunts in a unit. Unit Opportunity Score System (UOSS). The HOSS and the UOSS may not have the same results.

I see Smoked Salmon is feeling his oats!! Why shouldn't ODF&W keep an index like this? Wouldn't this be a measure of how effective they are? Gee, I don't think this data gathering is going to sink the ship, they are already gathering it. Yes, an outside group could do it, but it would have more credibility if the department did it.......hmm....did I say that????

The reason I'm using the success rate as a whole number is one, to give it more emphasis and two, to give more spread in the final outcome. It is easier to see a difference when the measurement has more scale to it.

Here is an example of the Saddle Mt. unit, 1980 versus 2006. Rifle first and second seasons.

1980- HOSS=139 1st season. HOSS=423 2nd season.
2006- HOSS=281 1st season. HOSS=441 2nd season.

So what is the difference here? In 1980 the 3pt. seasons were a new thing and most of the hunters crowded the first season, this causes a lower score for the first season because of the high hunter density of 3.37 hunters per square mile. By 2006 the hunters have balanced themselves more evenly between the two seasons, but again the second season ends up with a higher score, because of lower hunter density numbers and longer season length.

So what does the unit as a whole look like?
The Unit Opportunity Score System (UOSS) is as follows. It is simply the number of hunters X the HOSS.

1980- UOSS= 939,673 2006- UOSS= 890,691

The factors in the decline in the UOSS for 2006 is the 1,941 fewer hunters and the shorter season lengths. These were driven my management changes in the unit and can be correlated with the decline of the overall elk herd population. It is good to see though that the value of the hunt has not declined while the unit opportunity has. This may very well be why Saddle Mt. hunters are so defensive of the 3pt. hunt format.

[bo4elk]

This is a great idea. The point I was making with my wise crack ;-) above is that the value of each factor in the equation will vary from person to person. My brother-in-law (he really does exist) values many trees around camp to pee behind. I've got two hunting friends that value the hunter per-square-mile ratio above all else. They pack into the eagle caps every year simply to get away from everyone, they never harvest anything, but they don't care. They are knowledgeable hunters too. Talk2Elk, my brother, values the number of elk calfs that are in the area since that is what he always ends up shooting (they do taste great).

I pretty much agree with the factors in your equations. But not everyone considers the same factors to be the most important when they hunt. "How far is camp from the nearest store that sells beer?" +9
"Isn't Winnemucca just an hours drive?" +14
"Can we shoot a doe with this tag?" +7
"Anywhere around here I can take a shower?" +19

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by Smoked Salmon

I would like to compare the relative value of applying for Saddle Mtn 2 with the value in Murderers Creek 2. How about it?

I take it you would mean 246A West Murderer's Ck? Using that hunt data for 2006 I get a HOSS of 314 for the Murderer's Ck hunt and the 2nd season Saddle Mt. scores 441.

I had to make the assumption that 246A hunt includes 60% of the Murderer's Ck. unit, that's just a guess. Looks like a long time to draw, over 7 years, or it will be if you start today.