# Increased Harvest Muzzy W/Scope



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

I was really looking forward to this year's harvest statistics coming out. I wanted to know how much of a difference having a magnified scope on a muzzle loader made for the hunter.

Interestingly enough, there was an increase in the average harvest rate. However, looking back we've had a slight increase over the past 4 years regardless of the magnification.

I tossed all the nubers into a google doc here.

I think we need at least a couple year's worth of additional data to say definitively there is an overall increase in success rates using a magnified scope.

Here were the averages for the past few years. 
2013 31.19
2014 33.71 (8.07 Percent increase) 
2015 36.17 (7.29 Percent increase) 
2016 41.70 (15.28 Percent increase)

From 2013 to 2016, that is a 33.69 % increase in harvest rates.

Let's hear your thoughts.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Part of that increase is in relation to the growth in the deer population. Mild winters=More deer, more bucks=higher success rates. We have been on a good run. Hopefully this winter does not reverse that trend.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

silentstalker said:


> Part of that increase is in relation to the growth in the deer population. Mild winters=More deer, more bucks=higher success rates. We have been on a good run. Hopefully this winter does not reverse that trend.


Totally agree Silentstalker.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> Let's hear your thoughts.


DWR never cared about it being a primitive hunt. Heck the first ML hunts were using your RIFLE season tag to hunt the week after the rifle hunt ended.

When allocating tags pre-Opt2, there never was a "muzzleloader" pool, it was just rifle and archery. If you drew rifle or ML, you could swap back and forth for a $6 fee as long as either season hadn't started first. ML and Rifle tags came out of the same "pool", and DWR never differentiated between them nor subseqent harvest rates.

Its never ever been a "primitive season" per say, but more of a way to spread out hunters over the fall months.

That said, I wish they had kept to a 2x optical limit for scopes... just enough to help the older hunters, but not enough to make Joe Smoe think he can tip over deer at 800 yards with a 44x nightforce.

I also wish they required exposed ignitions, full bore projectiles and BP/Pyrodex substitutes only (no BH209). But heck, we cant all get what we want.

PS: I shot my buck this year at 50 yards 8)

-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

silentstalker said:


> Part of that increase is in relation to the growth in the deer population. Mild winters=More deer, more bucks=higher success rates. We have been on a good run. Hopefully this winter does not reverse that trend.


Agreed, it's tough to truly isolate the effect of the magnification reg-change, but the information is still interesting/potentially informative.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

My daughter and I both shot our bucks at about 80 yards with a new scope. Pretty sure those deer come home with us either way. The extra magnification was nice tho.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

silentstalker said:


> Part of that increase is in relation to the growth in the deer population. Mild winters=More deer, more bucks=higher success rates. We have been on a good run. Hopefully this winter does not reverse that trend.


If it was population based I would expect to see an improvement across the board no matter what the weapon type.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Good point middkefork. Maybe biwhunt3r4l1f3 can put that data on here too.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

I think you can draw a few conclusions based on two things. 

First, there's an overall increase of 2.52 from 2013 to 2014 and 2.46 percent from 2014 to 2015. But from 2015 to 2016 it's 5.53 which is double the increase. 

Second, the increases in Archery and Any Weapon do not follow the same trends. 

2013 to 2014 
Archery +2.4
ML +2.52
AW +1.2

2014 to 2015 
Archery +3.1
ML +2.46
AW +3.8

2015 to 2016 
Archery -1.16
ML +5.53
AW +4.5


The Any weapon success continues to increase but not at a comparable rate. My opinion, the magnification has something to do with the increased success.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

What I would like to learn but it isn't available is how many animals were shot that were not recovered.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

I just read my post. Good grief I'm bad at explaining what I'm talking about sometimes. Here's a screen shot of my spreadsheet:


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I would think "yes" the magnification helps some hunters be successful.


----------



## toymanator (Dec 29, 2010)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> I was really looking forward to this year's harvest statistics coming out. I wanted to know how much of a difference having a magnified scope on a muzzle loader made for the hunter.
> 
> Interestingly enough, there was an increase in the average harvest rate. However, looking back we've had a slight increase over the past 4 years regardless of the magnification.
> 
> ...


I am glad I am not the only one who geeks out over stuff like this. Another factor that wasn't considered in your analysis is the number of hunters. Permits have also increased over the years.

Year # of Hunters % increase
2016 14561 6.78%
2015 13637 2.77%
2014 13270 2.27%
2013 13578

I would bet that some of the increase in harvest rates also had to do with some of the hunters who traditionally hunt with a rifle/bow put in for muzzleloader units. I have always kicked around the idea of buying a smoke pole. When the regulations changed to allow scopes, I took a hard look into it and some of the new inlines were really calling to me. My abilities as a hunter have not changed and muzzleloaders are not better now than they were last year, but I am more comfortable looking through a scope than traditional sites.

Having more hunters in the field may or may not increase success rates. However it would be interesting to see the number of hunters who had hunted with a muzzleloader in the past using an iron sight, immediately put a scope on last year.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> Here were the averages for the past few years.
> 2013 31.19
> 2014 33.71 (8.07 Percent increase)
> 2015 36.17 (7.29 Percent increase)
> ...


It would have been interesting to see the reaction if you only compared 2015 to 2016. But since there was an equal increase from 2013 to 2015 prior to the magnification regulation change, it's tough to say what impact came from where. There are obviously other things in play as well. Someone smarter than me will have to figure it all out.


----------



## WEK (Dec 3, 2010)

middlefork said:


> If it was population based I would expect to see an improvement across the board no matter what the weapon type.


Ding--we have winner! Well done, middlefork. I kept hoping to see someone say this as I scrolled down. A big tip of the cap to you for being one of a couple dozen on the entire internet who understand basic statistical analysis/reasoning. (I exclude myself from that group.)


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think I was one of only a few that kept their 1x scope and I killed my buck at 150 yards last year. With a 9 power, 200 yards would be very makeable.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I saw a substantial increase of muzzle loaders at Lee Kay sighting in those shiny new 3-9x scopes last summer/fall. 

There are always people that go out there in August/Sept. to test their loads but last year with the rule change the difference in numbers was significant.

I typically would not have noticed it but I was aware of the change and I caught several lung fulls of burnt black powder smoke which I am still clearing out of my system. Choking on the smoke brings the source to your attention a lot more.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Although we could probably never get the information, I wonder if the increase can be attributed to more of the deer that in past years were shot and lost were actually recovered this year due to better shot placement. I know every muzzleloader hunt I've been I've seen folks make some terrible shots and wound animals that I'm sure died the same year but were never recovered. Maybe some of those deer were actually recovered this year, which really would not make much of an impact on population growth or loss. In fact it may make less of a population impact because now guys aren't going and shooting 5 deer before they put a tag on one. Just a thought anyway, don't think you could ever actually bare that out with the limited information you could get on the subject.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Looking at it on a unit by unit basis... I don't know how to do this except for just throwing a bunch of numbers out there for everyone&#8230;
Beaver: archery +16%, any weapon +32%, muzzleloader +122% 
Box Elder: archery -24%, any weapon -19%, muzzleloader -45%
Cache: archery -32%, any weapon -11%, muzzleloader -42%
Central Mountains, Manti/San Rafael: archery -17%, any weapon +8%, muzzleloader +38%
Central Mountains, Nebo: archery +29%, any weapon +17%, muzzleloader +38%
Chalk Creek/East Canyon/Morgan-South Rich: archery -13%, any weapon +29%, muzzleloader -3% 
Fillmore, Pahvant: archery +434%, any weapon -17%, muzzleloader +26%
Kamas: archery -75%, any weapon +0%, muzzleloader +1%
La Sal, La Sal Mountains: archery +9%, any weapon -3%, muzzleloader +165%
Monroe: archery +42%, any weapon +130%, muzzleloader +60% 
Mt. Dutton: archery -47%, any weapon +66%, muzzleloader +95%
Nine Mile: archery +11%, any weapon -16%, muzzleloader +64%
North Slope: archery -37%, any weapon -25%, muzzleloader -28%
Ogden: archery -4%, any weapon -14%, muzzleloader -30%
Oquirrh-Stansbury: archery -7%, any weapon +101%, muzzleloader +60%
Panguitch Lake: archery +8%, any weapon +9%, muzzleloader +30%
Pine Valley: archery -12%, any weapon +35%, muzzleloader +44%
Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowitz: archery +38%, any weapon +35%, muzzleloader +43%
Plateau, Fishlake: archery -30%, any weapon 0%, muzzleloader +56%
Plateau, Thousand Lakes: archery -14%, any weapon -9%, muzzleloader 0%
San Juan, Abajo: archery +34%, any weapon -27%, muzzleloader +10%
South Slope, Vernal/Bonanza: archery -11%, any weapon +87%, muzzleloader +30%
South Slope, Yellowstone: archery -48%, any weapon +42%, muzzleloader -2%
Southwest Desert: archery +41%, any weapon -52%, muzzleloader -21% 
Wasatch Mountains, East: archery -16%, any weapon -26%, muzzleloader -31%
Wasatch Mountains, West: archery -45%, any weapon -33%, muzzleloader -23%
West Desert, Tintic: archery +56%, any weapon -8%, muzzleloader +11%
West Desert, West: archery -62%, any weapon -10%, muzzleloader -40%
Zion: archery +189%, any weapon -3%, muzzleloader +106%

*Seven hunts showed a percent increase of greater than 100%: 
*Fillmore, Pahvant archery (434%)
Zion archery (189%)
La Sal, La Sal Mountains muzzleloader (165%)
Monroe rifle (130%)
Beaver muzzleloader (122%)
Zion muzzleloader (106%)
Oquirrh-Stansbury rifle (101%)

Interesting to me that the top two are archery... and looks like some guys really got the job done on the Pahvant last year, well done!

*Units where muzzleloader was the highest percent increase between the different weapon types:*
Beaver
Central Mountains, Manti/San Rafael
Central Mountains, Nebo
Kamas
La Sal, La Sal Mountains
Mt Dutton
Panguitch Lake
Pine Valley
Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowitz
Plateau, Fishlake
Plateau, Thousand Lakes
Wasatch Mountains, West

*Units where muzzleloader was the highest percent decrease between the different weapon types:*
Box Elder
Cache
Ogden
Wasatch Mountains, East

*That's enough about muzzleloaders&#8230; the units where ALL weapons had an increase:*
Beaver
Central Mountains, Nebo
Monroe
Panguitch Lake
Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowitz

*And units where ALL weapon types had a decrease:*
Box Elder
Cache
North Slope
Ogden
Wasatch Mountains, East
Wasatch Mountains, West

All the other units were a mixture of one or two weapon types having a percent increase over 2015.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. A tip of the cap to you for being one of the dozen or so people on the internet that understand basic statistical analysis/reasoning. 

Because anyone that took a basic stats class in college knows that you don't just pull one number and make a statistical analysis. Different locations, with different herd health, at different times of the year, with different weather patterns from north, to south, to east, to west, with different habitat quality...all impact these numbers. It isn't as simple as just looking at 3 numbers state wide and making a "statistical analysis." Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox, and go back to the real discussion at hand. 

What does the data show? That the increase or decrease in harvest success rates by unit and weapon is all over the board. Certainly not something anyone on this forum can claim to know with a large measure of certainty. But it is pretty fascinating to just look at the numbers.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

My nephew killed his deer 20 yards with a 1 power scope. I dont like the one power scope. i like to be able to really pick a spot on my deer where i want to hit and with a 1 power scope you can really do that. Just because you have a higher power scope dont make you think you can shoot further. Last year doring the hunt I did not see many people with scopes on there muzzyloaders.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> Ding ding ding! We have a winner. A tip of the cap to you for being one of the dozen or so people on the internet that understand basic statistical analysis/reasoning.
> 
> Because anyone that took a basic stats class in college knows that you don't just pull one number and make a statistical analysis. Different locations, with different herd health, at different times of the year, with different weather patterns from north, to south, to east, to west, with different habitat quality...all impact these numbers. It isn't as simple as just looking at 3 numbers state wide and making a "statistical analysis." Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox, and go back to the real discussion at hand.
> 
> What does the data show? That the increase or decrease in harvest success rates by unit and weapon is all over the board. Certainly not something anyone on this forum can claim to know with a large measure of certainty. But it is pretty fascinating to just look at the numbers.


 I'm still waiting for confidence intervals and standard deviations.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I'm still waiting for confidence intervals and standard deviations.


I have no confidence whatsoever and I deviate all the time.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

derekp1999 said:


> I have no confidence whatsoever and I deviate all the time.


Sounds like 90% of the politicians in DC that you never hear about.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

60% of the time, it works every time.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

The success rate of my group was the same 2016 as it was 2015... 1 of 6... so all of us switching out our 1x or iron sights for 4-12x scopes didn't increase our success over the previous year.
The buck that I shot was just under 100 yards and I'm pretty darn confident I would have made that shot with a 1x.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> 60% of the time, it works every time.


Made with bits of real data, so you know it's good.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Made with bits of real data, so you know it's good.


It smells like bigfoot's data!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

LOL

-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> It smells like bigfoot's data!


They've done studies you know.

It smells like a used dataset, filled with Indian food.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I done posted it on the interwebs so it has to be true.

Indian food? Gag me... I just threw up a little... wasn't Indian food but it tasted like it.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

DallanC said:


> LOL
> 
> -DallanC


I feel good that I'm beating the average, and yet still very happy that my wife is content to be below average.

Not to get all technical and stuff, but, since there are more women than men in the world, wouldn't the average adult have less than one testicle?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

willfish4food said:


> I feel good that I'm beating the average, and yet still very happy that my wife is content to be below average.
> 
> Not to get all technical and stuff, but, since there are more women than men in the world, wouldn't the average adult have less than one testicle?


You're forgetting the side effect of spraying pesticides. The number of dudes with malformed 3rd testicles has skyrocketed in the areas that I watch. I'm working on a beef jerky supplement to counter it but the malformation of the triballer's jaws is complicating the uptake of the cure.


----------



## muleymadness (Jan 23, 2008)

That's a HUGE increase IMO and I don't like it at all.


----------

