Nameless Range
Well-known member
Great write-up and congrats! Enjoyed that one.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As always great work @wllm1313 both with the trip and the post adventure thread. Second, I appreciate your thoughts on llamas. But I'm a little surprised you don't fawn over them more.
I must be a weenie, all I can think about, no matter the packout... is gawdamn there must be a better way. And right now that better way is shaped like a llama.
Elk this year was only like 3.5 miles, mostly on trail. I wanted a llama
Deer this year was similar distance, but up and down steep canyons and talus. I wanted a llama.
If I had antelope tag I might be saying, I want a llama (though I admit they're pretty damn packable).
Hell, I'm to the point where if I'm so far I couldn't shoot the truck I want a llama.
For me it's not about finding and killing anything, I can handle that. It's just getting it out. I still can't figure out how anyone even gets a buck and a backpack camp out in a single load. I have weighed two bucks, post processing and came up with 93 and 108 lbs. Yes, each of those include 12-20 lbs of extra fat, but they also don't include at least 20-30 lbs of trim that got tossed. Add that to my 53 lbs of camp (which included food and water, so maybe a little less coming out) and there's just no freakin' chance at 148lbs I'm packing my body weight out of anywhere. So now we're at two trips, unless we're talking elk, then we're talking at least four. The entire point of llamas would be to keep it one trip, maybe two max (for an elk).If I'm being completely honest I've used llamas because I wanted to hunt a couple of specific areas. I didn't really care what I got, but they are kinda iconic CO spots and I wanted to get back in there. (Moving to the east coast and all that)
I know we walked past a bunch of much bigger bulls, and the llamas certainly didn't help us escape any pressure.
2 miles down trail from our camp was a drop camp with 4 hunters, 1.5 miles down trail were 2 guys that were dropped off by friends, 1 mile below us was a camp of 8 guys from Texas with 12 horses, immediately next to us was a great guy and his wife hunting who had been dropped off with horses, up the trail 3/4 of a mile from us was another wall tent camp of hunters... 4? So including us 22 hunters + 18 stock in a relatively small area.
The husband-wife pair were super nice and we chatted a bit, glassing for 2 days they came up with 1 4x5 bull and a single cow, night before the opener we saw 1 small 5x5 and 5 cows. We got up high on a nob on Friday with the spotter and glassed till dark. No deer/sheep/bears/ etc just 6 elk in one group.
Point being llamas are not some panacea, at least in CO.
It's not like all of a sudden you get in 10+ miles and suddenly the clouds part, a ray of sun flashes down on some monster 380 bull.
You didn't kill a bull this year in CO without llamas, I'm gonna be honest you aren't going to kill elk with llamas.
That view though...
View attachment 158439
Rent llamas in the summer, go check out some trophy country with your family, drink some coffee with your wife in front of a that stunning view, tell her it's pretty great but she's the most beautiful thing you've seen, then go into some oak brush/timber hell hole that no llama or horse will enter and find some elk.
I grok this completely.
For me it's not about finding and killing anything, I can handle that. It's just getting it out. I still can't figure out how anyone even gets a buck and a backpack camp out in a single load. I have weighed two bucks, post processing and came up with 93 and 108 lbs. Yes, each of those include 12-20 lbs of extra fat, but they also don't include at least 20-30 lbs of trim that got tossed. Add that to my 53 lbs of camp (which included food and water, so maybe a little less coming out) and there's just no freakin' chance at 148lbs I'm packing my body weight out of anywhere. So now we're at two trips, unless we're talking elk, then we're talking at least four. The entire point of llamas would be to keep it one trip, maybe two max (for an elk).
For me, even 100 lbs is not going to happen anymore. I can feel my life shortening with every step. I still want to be doing this in my 60s. I don't want to have back and hip issues in my 50s.I've only weighed on buck so N=1 but I think we can agree @SnowyMountaineer buck's are above average and if I am remembering correctly his median weight seems to be around 65 lbs boned out?
I'm assuming your talking boned in?
That said yeah I agree 148 stupid. I did 100lbs last year one trip and it sucked but was doable.
We did the elk this year in one trip, to the trail. I had 140ish, I weigh like 143 right now. Dumb, I had the head and fell a couple times, got pinned in a bush once, and tripped and slid down a slope about 25 yards. Came out none the worse for wear... but it was really stupid.
At first I was thrown off, by:Nah I don't think you are a wimp in the least.
Here's Wyoming's studies based on a huge sample size (all things consider). I'm sure there are lots of regional/time of year variations, pressure/rut activity/feed quality that come into play.
The hind quarters on this bull were ~50 my BILs bull in the same unit were ~80. I possibly take the backstrap too far into the hindquarter and get a bunch of rump
I think also male ungulates are going to be at their heaviest just before the rut and lightest just after peak rut.
So a august elk is going to be max for that animal, a first season bull will be at it's lightest.
Mule deer a buck will be heaviest in late Oct-mid Nov. Snowy is hunting them 2 months before they hit peak weight, whereas you are hunting them at their heaviest.
View attachment 158452
View attachment 158453
The 6 and 6, I believe were just to show percentage of cut breakdown, ie skin head, versus boned out meat.At first I was thrown off, by:
View attachment 158468
But like your tables show, they have results for 8 different age categories for each gender.
Then I went back through and they are using ratios form those 6 and extrapolating them to the larger whole weight study from 1961.
I guess I'm not sold only 6 bulls, 4 of which were basically the same age, to be representative of "elk" in the west.
Also, like you mentioned they collected these bulls at the end of the rut.
Same general comments about the mule deer, though I strongly disagree with there field dressed weights. 113lbs for a buck with his head and hide still on?
View attachment 158470
I just weighed the smallest mule deer I've ever shot, like literally 2 min ago as it's hanging in my shed, it's maybe 3.5 years old, but probably 2.5. It's at 98 pounds, no head or hide. And this thing is a fraction of a mature buck weight.
240# w/ snow shoes?