Montana · Antelope · District 321
Montana antelope licence 321-00
How many people put this antelope licencefirst and how many of them drew it — year by year, separately for each of the four pools Montana draws, and separately at every bonus point level. Every figure comes from a Fish, Wildlife & Parks report linked at the foot of this page.
What the 2013 drawing did
Montana set a quota of 225 on 321-00 in 2013 and drew 225 — the quota filled. Across the four pools FWP draws separately, no nonresident landowner applicant put it first; 10 resident landowner applicants put it first and 10 drew, 100.00%; 60 nonresident applicants put it first and 17 drew, 28.33%; 790 resident applicants put it first and 198 drew, 25.06%.
This licence code stops appearing after 2013. FWP's 2026 reports do not carry it, and this site does not map a retired code onto a current one — the department renumbered its licence-type suffixes and has published nothing saying which old code became which new one. What is below is the record of the 8 years it was drawn.
First-choice success rate, by pool and year
| Year | Pool | Pool cap | Put it first | Drew on first choice | First-choice success rate | Put it 2nd or 3rd | Drew on 2nd or 3rd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | Nonresident | 22 | 60 | 17 | 28.33% | 54 | 0 |
| 2013 | Resident | 225 | 790 | 198 | 25.06% | 488 | 0 |
| 2013 | Nonresident landowner | 22 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2013 | Resident landowner | 34 | 10 | 10 | 100.00% | — | — |
| 2012 | Nonresident | 22 | 64 | 22 | 34.38% | 40 | 0 |
| 2012 | Resident | 225 | 752 | 190 | 25.27% | 414 | 0 |
| 2012 | Nonresident landowner | 22 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2012 | Resident landowner | 34 | 13 | 13 | 100.00% | — | — |
| 2011 | Nonresident | 22 | 43 | 9 | 20.93% | 42 | 0 |
| 2011 | Resident | 224 | 672 | 203 | 30.21% | 462 | 0 |
| 2011 | Nonresident landowner | 22 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2011 | Resident landowner | 34 | 12 | 12 | 100.00% | — | — |
| 2010 | Nonresident | 22 | 61 | 15 | 24.59% | 33 | 0 |
| 2010 | Resident | 225 | 584 | 194 | 33.22% | 286 | 0 |
| 2010 | Nonresident landowner | 22 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2010 | Resident landowner | 34 | 16 | 16 | 100.00% | — | — |
| 2009 | Nonresident | 15 | 39 | 7 | 17.95% | 37 | 0 |
| 2009 | Resident | 150 | 626 | 137 | 21.88% | 300 | 0 |
| 2009 | Nonresident landowner | 15 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2009 | Resident landowner | 23 | 5 | 5 | 100.00% | — | — |
| 2008 | Nonresident | 15 | 71 | 11 | 15.49% | 48 | 0 |
| 2008 | Resident | 150 | 653 | 132 | 20.21% | 276 | 0 |
| 2008 | Nonresident landowner | 15 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2008 | Resident landowner | 23 | 7 | 7 | 100.00% | — | — |
| 2007 | Nonresident | 15 | 59 | 14 | 23.73% | 26 | 0 |
| 2007 | Resident | 150 | 634 | 125 | 19.72% | 219 | 0 |
| 2007 | Nonresident landowner | 15 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2007 | Resident landowner | 22 | 11 | 11 | 100.00% | — | — |
| 2006 | Nonresident | 15 | 46 | 15 | 32.61% | 13 | 0 |
| 2006 | Resident | 150 | 589 | 124 | 21.05% | 200 | 0 |
| 2006 | Nonresident landowner | 15 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2006 | Resident landowner | 22 | 11 | 11 | 100.00% | — | — |
Pool cap is FWP's own QTA column, and it is a ceiling rather than an allocation. The resident regular cap equals the overall quota; the nonresident caps are ten per cent of it and cover landowner and regular nonresidents together; the resident landowner cap is fifteen per cent. The department states plainly that the ceiling is not a floor: "although the nonresident quotas are set at 10%, that entire quota may not be drawn by nonresidents", and that if every resident applicant draws, nonresidents may go over ten per cent.
Landowner rows are a different drawing, not a subset of the one below them.Landowner preference is the first stage, worth up to fifteen per cent of the quota to resident landowners, and its applicants are counted apart from the regular pool throughout. FWP publishes the landowner pools at first choice only, which is why their second and third columns are dashes rather than noughts.
Draw rate at each bonus point level
| Year | Pool | Bonus points | Applied | Drew | Drew at this level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | Nonresident | 0 | 21 | 3 | 14.29% |
| 2013 | Nonresident | 1 | 15 | 8 | 53.33% |
| 2013 | Nonresident | 3 | 3 | 2 | 66.67% |
| 2013 | Nonresident | 4 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2013 | Nonresident | 5 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2013 | Nonresident | not stated | 19 | 2 | 10.53% |
| 2013 | Resident | 0 | 267 | 46 | 17.23% |
| 2013 | Resident | 1 | 146 | 49 | 33.56% |
| 2013 | Resident | 2 | 67 | 33 | 49.25% |
| 2013 | Resident | 3 | 26 | 16 | 61.54% |
| 2013 | Resident | 4 | 13 | 11 | 84.62% |
| 2013 | Resident | 5 | 3 | 2 | 66.67% |
| 2013 | Resident | not stated | 268 | 41 | 15.30% |
| 2013 | Resident landowner | 0 | 2 | 2 | 100.00% |
| 2013 | Resident landowner | not stated | 8 | 8 | 100.00% |
| 2012 | Nonresident | 0 | 22 | 7 | 31.82% |
| 2012 | Nonresident | 1 | 2 | 1 | 50.00% |
| 2012 | Nonresident | 2 | 8 | 4 | 50.00% |
| 2012 | Nonresident | 3 | 2 | 1 | 50.00% |
| 2012 | Nonresident | 4 | 2 | 2 | 100.00% |
| 2012 | Nonresident | 5 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2012 | Nonresident | not stated | 27 | 6 | 22.22% |
| 2012 | Resident | 0 | 286 | 58 | 20.28% |
| 2012 | Resident | 1 | 133 | 44 | 33.08% |
| 2012 | Resident | 2 | 65 | 28 | 43.08% |
| 2012 | Resident | 3 | 27 | 11 | 40.74% |
| 2012 | Resident | 4 | 5 | 1 | 20.00% |
| 2012 | Resident | 5 | 4 | 3 | 75.00% |
| 2012 | Resident | not stated | 232 | 45 | 19.40% |
| 2012 | Resident landowner | 0 | 2 | 2 | 100.00% |
| 2012 | Resident landowner | not stated | 11 | 11 | 100.00% |
| 2011 | Nonresident | 0 | 11 | 3 | 27.27% |
| 2011 | Nonresident | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 2011 | Nonresident | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 2011 | Nonresident | 3 | 3 | 1 | 33.33% |
| 2011 | Nonresident | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 2011 | Nonresident | not stated | 22 | 5 | 22.73% |
| 2011 | Resident | 0 | 255 | 76 | 29.80% |
| 2011 | Resident | 1 | 102 | 38 | 37.25% |
| 2011 | Resident | 2 | 48 | 22 | 45.83% |
| 2011 | Resident | 3 | 13 | 6 | 46.15% |
| 2011 | Resident | 4 | 5 | 2 | 40.00% |
| 2011 | Resident | 5 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2011 | Resident | 6 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2011 | Resident | not stated | 247 | 57 | 23.08% |
| 2011 | Resident landowner | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2011 | Resident landowner | not stated | 11 | 11 | 100.00% |
| 2010 | Nonresident | 0 | 16 | 2 | 12.50% |
| 2010 | Nonresident | 1 | 12 | 3 | 25.00% |
| 2010 | Nonresident | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 2010 | Nonresident | 3 | 3 | 1 | 33.33% |
| 2010 | Nonresident | not stated | 28 | 9 | 32.14% |
| 2010 | Resident | 0 | 185 | 44 | 23.78% |
| 2010 | Resident | 1 | 109 | 41 | 37.61% |
| 2010 | Resident | 2 | 31 | 23 | 74.19% |
| 2010 | Resident | 3 | 22 | 17 | 77.27% |
| 2010 | Resident | 4 | 7 | 7 | 100.00% |
| 2010 | Resident | 5 | 5 | 4 | 80.00% |
| 2010 | Resident | not stated | 225 | 58 | 25.78% |
| 2010 | Resident landowner | 0 | 5 | 5 | 100.00% |
| 2010 | Resident landowner | not stated | 11 | 11 | 100.00% |
| 2009 | Nonresident | 0 | 13 | 1 | 7.69% |
| 2009 | Nonresident | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 2009 | Nonresident | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 2009 | Nonresident | 3 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2009 | Nonresident | 4 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2009 | Nonresident | 5 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2009 | Nonresident | not stated | 17 | 3 | 17.65% |
| 2009 | Resident | 0 | 240 | 46 | 19.17% |
| 2009 | Resident | 1 | 72 | 19 | 26.39% |
| 2009 | Resident | 2 | 58 | 21 | 36.21% |
| 2009 | Resident | 3 | 19 | 11 | 57.89% |
| 2009 | Resident | 4 | 8 | 2 | 25.00% |
| 2009 | Resident | 5 | 3 | 3 | 100.00% |
| 2009 | Resident | not stated | 227 | 36 | 15.86% |
| 2009 | Resident landowner | 0 | 2 | 2 | 100.00% |
| 2009 | Resident landowner | not stated | 3 | 3 | 100.00% |
| 2008 | Nonresident | 0 | 27 | 2 | 7.41% |
| 2008 | Nonresident | 1 | 8 | 1 | 12.50% |
| 2008 | Nonresident | 2 | 5 | 4 | 80.00% |
| 2008 | Nonresident | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 2008 | Nonresident | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 2008 | Nonresident | not stated | 29 | 4 | 13.79% |
| 2008 | Resident | 0 | 196 | 36 | 18.37% |
| 2008 | Resident | 1 | 124 | 30 | 24.19% |
| 2008 | Resident | 2 | 48 | 17 | 35.42% |
| 2008 | Resident | 3 | 23 | 11 | 47.83% |
| 2008 | Resident | 4 | 7 | 4 | 57.14% |
| 2008 | Resident | 5 | 4 | 4 | 100.00% |
| 2008 | Resident | not stated | 251 | 30 | 11.95% |
| 2008 | Resident landowner | 0 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2008 | Resident landowner | not stated | 6 | 6 | 100.00% |
| 2007 | Nonresident | 0 | 26 | 6 | 23.08% |
| 2007 | Nonresident | 1 | 10 | 4 | 40.00% |
| 2007 | Nonresident | 2 | 2 | 1 | 50.00% |
| 2007 | Nonresident | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% |
| 2007 | Nonresident | not stated | 20 | 3 | 15.00% |
| 2007 | Resident | 0 | 225 | 32 | 14.22% |
| 2007 | Resident | 1 | 91 | 27 | 29.67% |
| 2007 | Resident | 2 | 51 | 17 | 33.33% |
| 2007 | Resident | 3 | 19 | 10 | 52.63% |
| 2007 | Resident | 4 | 8 | 3 | 37.50% |
| 2007 | Resident | not stated | 240 | 36 | 15.00% |
| 2007 | Resident landowner | not stated | 11 | 11 | 100.00% |
| 2006 | Nonresident | 0 | 22 | 9 | 40.91% |
| 2006 | Nonresident | 1 | 3 | 1 | 33.33% |
| 2006 | Nonresident | 2 | 4 | 3 | 75.00% |
| 2006 | Nonresident | not stated | 17 | 2 | 11.76% |
| 2006 | Resident | 0 | 202 | 30 | 14.85% |
| 2006 | Resident | 1 | 114 | 31 | 27.19% |
| 2006 | Resident | 2 | 49 | 20 | 40.82% |
| 2006 | Resident | 3 | 14 | 5 | 35.71% |
| 2006 | Resident | not stated | 210 | 38 | 18.10% |
| 2006 | Resident landowner | 0 | 2 | 2 | 100.00% |
| 2006 | Resident landowner | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100.00% |
| 2006 | Resident landowner | not stated | 8 | 8 | 100.00% |
No bonus point level guarantees a licence in Montana, and this page does not publish one. FWP squares your bonus points and adds them to your current application as extra chances — three points give ten chances, ten points give a hundred and one — so the drawing is a weighted lottery and not a queue. More points is better odds every time, and a place in line never.
Not stated is FWP's own blank cell, and it is not the same as nought. The department's reports frequently carry both a nought-point row and a blank one for the same pool in the same year, with different application counts, and both are inside the district total it prints. FWP does not say what separates them, so they are shown apart rather than added together into a "no points" figure it never published.
Sources for this licence
- 2013 antelope stats.pdf — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2013-07-16, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2012 antelope stats.pdf — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2012-07-20, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2011 antelope stats.pdf — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2011-07-20, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2010 antelope stats.pdf — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2010-07-21, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2009 antelope stats.pdf — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2009-07-22, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2008 ANTELOPE_stats.pdf — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2008-07-28, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2007 ANTELOPE_stats.pdf — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2007-08-06, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2006 ANTELOPE_stats.pdf — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2006-08-07, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2013 dea detailed bonus point stats.xlsx — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2013-08-12, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2012 dea detailed stats1.pdf — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2012-10-26, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2011 dea detailed statistics.xls — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2011-08-09, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2010 dea detailed statistics.xls — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2010-07-23, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2009 dea detailed statistics.xls — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2009-07-23, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2008 dea detailed statistics.xls — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2008-07-31, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2007 dea detailed statistics.xls — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2007-10-30, fetched 2026-09-03
- 2006 dea detailed statistics.xls — Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, dated 2006-09-11, fetched 2026-09-03