Thriving elk, struggling deer: Coincidence? New research suggests not
- Thread starter marksjeep
- Start date
appaloosa
Well-known member
Smoke a pack a day!
TX Trophy Hunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2023
- Messages
- 169
We need to just pick one large animal that everyone can agree they would like to hunt and kill off every other animal in North America so it can thrive. My vote is javalina.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Monteith is kill happy and the Department and Commission thinks he walks on water.
So, lets kill off elk to minimal numbers, so that then, the deer and ELK hunting can both suck.
Same thing he recommended for pronghorn in unit 73, kill them all down to minimal numbers so that the ones that are left have more to eat and thus bigger horns.
He also believes that there's "too many" 4+ year old pronghorn on the landscape and that by issuing more buck tags, hunters will kill those 12-13 inch 4+ year old bucks. Never mind that 99% of pronghorn hunters wouldn't know the difference between a 13 inch 4+ year old from a prairie dog. Plus, there's also the common sense part, that if there's a 2-3 year old 15 inch buck standing beside a 13 inch 6 year old buck, the young buck gets pounded...every...single....time.
Finally on the pronghorn, why does he get to decide which bucks live and which bucks get to die? Why is there "too many" old bucks and why does it matter to him if there's more or less B&C bucks?
Another gem he stated is that 90% of a pronghorn's horn growth is expressed by age 3 and that letting them live longer doesn't mean much. Really? So a 3 year old pronghorn that scores 78 inches and has 10% to go would be a mid-80's buck at age 4. So, his theory, kill them off at 3 rather than 4, because they're 90% done with horn growth.
In this house 7/7 bucks that gross scored over 80 were all 4+. I talked with another very serious pronghorn hunter who has 14 bucks that net over 80 B&C all 14 are 4+. So, IMO, 21/21 pronghorn from 3 hunters that know how to age pronghorn is not a coincidence.
This BS that pronghorn reach their potential by 2-3 years old is pure crap, at least in Wyoming.
Monteith should stick to what everyone knows, the better shape an ungulate goes into winter, the better the habitat is, the more likely they are to survive.
Let the Department manage, but the department buying his gospel, hook line and sinker, is cratering herds here.
Not a fan of this killing them to save them nonsense.
So, lets kill off elk to minimal numbers, so that then, the deer and ELK hunting can both suck.
Same thing he recommended for pronghorn in unit 73, kill them all down to minimal numbers so that the ones that are left have more to eat and thus bigger horns.
He also believes that there's "too many" 4+ year old pronghorn on the landscape and that by issuing more buck tags, hunters will kill those 12-13 inch 4+ year old bucks. Never mind that 99% of pronghorn hunters wouldn't know the difference between a 13 inch 4+ year old from a prairie dog. Plus, there's also the common sense part, that if there's a 2-3 year old 15 inch buck standing beside a 13 inch 6 year old buck, the young buck gets pounded...every...single....time.
Finally on the pronghorn, why does he get to decide which bucks live and which bucks get to die? Why is there "too many" old bucks and why does it matter to him if there's more or less B&C bucks?
Another gem he stated is that 90% of a pronghorn's horn growth is expressed by age 3 and that letting them live longer doesn't mean much. Really? So a 3 year old pronghorn that scores 78 inches and has 10% to go would be a mid-80's buck at age 4. So, his theory, kill them off at 3 rather than 4, because they're 90% done with horn growth.
In this house 7/7 bucks that gross scored over 80 were all 4+. I talked with another very serious pronghorn hunter who has 14 bucks that net over 80 B&C all 14 are 4+. So, IMO, 21/21 pronghorn from 3 hunters that know how to age pronghorn is not a coincidence.
This BS that pronghorn reach their potential by 2-3 years old is pure crap, at least in Wyoming.
Monteith should stick to what everyone knows, the better shape an ungulate goes into winter, the better the habitat is, the more likely they are to survive.
Let the Department manage, but the department buying his gospel, hook line and sinker, is cratering herds here.
Not a fan of this killing them to save them nonsense.
Last edited:
JM77
Well-known member
This is just one more excuse to slaughter elk. I'm afraid once it begins, there will be no stopping it. It's hard to say the outcome of all this, sportsman that favor hunting elk might speak out against, but they will most likely be ignored.
That is something the G&F does well these days under the current administration, that being ignoring the wishes of sportsman. I don't say that lightly.
That is something the G&F does well these days under the current administration, that being ignoring the wishes of sportsman. I don't say that lightly.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Totally agree, Monteith could do some research in several million acres of Western/Northwest Montana where elk are essentially gone from those areas, or most certainly in way lower numbers than 30-50 years ago. The Bob Marshall/Scapegoat is a prime example, hardly any elk left and mule deer numbers are still horrible.
Its just an excuse to kill, same as the dumb idea to increase pronghorn tags because we just have "too many" bucks.
Sadly, there's been a recent shift in Wyoming to head down the path of Montana...to the point I have told a couple biologists if I wanted to have crap hunting, I'd move back to Montana.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I too worry that this will be used as justification to kill more elk. Doing this with OTC mule deer tags will not end well for mule deer.
antlerradar
Well-known member
One only has to look at Diamond Cross. Until the recent drought Diamond Cross was loaded with both deer and elk. Likely more deer and elk on Diamond Cross than on the Custer a few miles to the north and maybe a third of the size.
Last edited:
antlerradar
Well-known member
I can not speech for SW WY. But on the Custer near me since the mid 90's livestock AUM's have been cut by 30 thousand and there was an additional temporary cut of 40% during the recent drought. The range conditions have never looked better. During the same time mule deer hunting has seen a steady decline from pretty good to down right. poor. Livestock grazing is a rabbit hole that will only draw attention from the real issue. Too many people shooting deer.
marksjeep
Well-known member
I'm not a fan of management actions prior to publication or peer review, no matter how strong the conclusions seem to be. It circumvent the process, which is a key to strong science.
This sounds like a good study area. Including the horses and also including livestock affects would have made it a more robust approach. I'd really like to see the horse affects.
Thought the article was worth posting.
Back to my scheduled backpacking weekend.
This sounds like a good study area. Including the horses and also including livestock affects would have made it a more robust approach. I'd really like to see the horse affects.
Thought the article was worth posting.
Back to my scheduled backpacking weekend.
TX Trophy Hunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2023
- Messages
- 169
At this point I’d be fine if elk disappeared, just to get the shed hunters out of the woods.
Isn't your avatar a set of sheds? mtmuley
shoots-straight
Well-known member
You have to kill em to save em mentality at work.
TX Trophy Hunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2023
- Messages
- 169
Yep. And I’d give it up if it meant fewer people would be running around out there.
Great. mtmuley
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
One less is fewer. Lead by example…
TX Trophy Hunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2023
- Messages
- 169
I am. That’s why I’m sitting here talking shit online on a beautiful Saturday morning in late April.
