Post by: tman24 on December 06, 2011, 09:32:48 PM
Post by: buck man on December 06, 2011, 09:44:07 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 06, 2011, 09:46:16 PM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on December 06, 2011, 09:54:35 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on December 06, 2011, 10:51:54 PM
Most will survive but, there are a few who don't.
Post by: Instinct on December 06, 2011, 10:52:06 PM
Post by: PolarBear on December 06, 2011, 11:08:11 PM
Id pass up too:yeah:
Post by: buglebuster on December 06, 2011, 11:10:43 PM
Post by: Sneekee23 on December 07, 2011, 01:11:07 AM
Post by: JLS on December 07, 2011, 04:16:03 AM
Post by: plugger on December 07, 2011, 05:25:31 AM
Post by: jackmaster on December 07, 2011, 07:04:14 AM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on December 07, 2011, 07:15:45 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 07, 2011, 07:23:24 AM
I'd shoot the calf. If you shoot the cow, the calf will be fine.This time of year most calves can survive on their own. A calf is good eating and less to pack. I would not pass on the cow for the sake of a calf in a late season, however.
Post by: Rick on December 07, 2011, 07:58:28 AM
IIRC it was about 175lbs hanging. Thats only 25lbs less that the spike bull my other brother shot this year.
Post by: funkster on December 07, 2011, 08:07:32 AM
I just got back from my late season archery elk hunt with nothing. I did have a chance to shoot a cow that had a smaller looking calf, but just couldn't bring myself to do it. I felt if I got the cow the calf would not be able to survive the rest of the winter. Morally I'm fine with my decision, but I still replay the whole thing in my mind. Just out of curiosity, can/do small calves make it without a mother/herd to follow?
It sounds like you are a true sportsman, looking to conservation, rather than worring about "tag soup". To me it is not always about filling the tag in your pocket and IMPO you did the right thing :tup:. I am kinda shocked by some of the post on this thread, archery has definitely changed over the years.
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 07, 2011, 09:31:16 AM
I just got back from my late season archery elk hunt with nothing. I did have a chance to shoot a cow that had a smaller looking calf, but just couldn't bring myself to do it. I felt if I got the cow the calf would not be able to survive the rest of the winter. Morally I'm fine with my decision, but I still replay the whole thing in my mind. Just out of curiosity, can/do small calves make it without a mother/herd to follow?
It sounds like you are a true sportsman, looking to conservation, rather than worring about "tag soup". To me it is not always about filling the tag in your pocket and IMPO you did the right thing :tup:. I am kinda shocked by some of the post on this thread, archery has definitely changed over the years.
:yeah:
And more. I think its BS that someone wants to shoot a calf. Its like shooting a milk cow calf. Not much of a hunt if you ask me.
Post by: sirmissalot on December 07, 2011, 09:36:08 AM
Post by: woodswalker on December 07, 2011, 10:07:20 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 07, 2011, 10:08:42 AM
I just got back from my late season archery elk hunt with nothing. I did have a chance to shoot a cow that had a smaller looking calf, but just couldn't bring myself to do it. I felt if I got the cow the calf would not be able to survive the rest of the winter. Morally I'm fine with my decision, but I still replay the whole thing in my mind. Just out of curiosity, can/do small calves make it without a mother/herd to follow?
It sounds like you are a true sportsman, looking to conservation, rather than worring about "tag soup". To me it is not always about filling the tag in your pocket and IMPO you did the right thing :tup:. I am kinda shocked by some of the post on this thread, archery has definitely changed over the years.
:yeah:
And more. I think its BS that someone wants to shoot a calf. Its like shooting a milk cow calf. Not much of a hunt if you ask me.
there are plenty of people that would be more than thrilled to shoot any elk... even a calf. who are you to say that it is BS if someone wants to shoot a legal animal?
Post by: ANDERWAGON on December 07, 2011, 10:15:50 AM
I wouldn’t look down on anyone's decision to take the cow or calf but looking back I would pass every time.
Post by: YellowDog on December 07, 2011, 10:19:31 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 07, 2011, 10:26:29 AM
About five years ago I passed an opportunity on a cow with a calf at 40 yards along side a FS Road. A few reason I didn’t take the cow, one being that I would rather give the calf the best chance to survive as it might turn out to a great bull someday or a barring cow. Another reason was we just drove up on them and I didn’t feel like I was hunting the animal. About 4 days later I got a cow 3 mile back in the timber. My dad was with me when we had seen the cow and calf and helped me pack out the cow I did harvested. He never asked any question as to why, I think that would have been his choice also.
I wouldn’t look down on anyone's decision to take the cow or calf but looking back I would pass every time.
:yeah: Thats a good way to put it. I still think its BS.
And yes I can say what I want to, BULLBLASTER, I may not agree with your opinion just as much as you won't agree with me. I find it hard to believe that shooting a calf (legal) is really hunting. Just like ANDERWAGON said, if you shoot a cow calf, she would likely produce 5-8 elk on the ground in her lifetime. I not against taking a cow, I have shot them. But I never did with a calf standing next to the cow or just looking to shoot a calf.
Many years ago my dad and grandfather hunted in Canada for moose, with Indian guides in Indian country. If you ever shot a calf with a mother or not, you were never allowed to hunt with them again. I think that is conservation. :twocents:
Post by: tmike on December 07, 2011, 10:27:05 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 10:29:52 AM
:yeah:I just got back from my late season archery elk hunt with nothing. I did have a chance to shoot a cow that had a smaller looking calf, but just couldn't bring myself to do it. I felt if I got the cow the calf would not be able to survive the rest of the winter. Morally I'm fine with my decision, but I still replay the whole thing in my mind. Just out of curiosity, can/do small calves make it without a mother/herd to follow?
It sounds like you are a true sportsman, looking to conservation, rather than worring about "tag soup". To me it is not always about filling the tag in your pocket and IMPO you did the right thing :tup:. I am kinda shocked by some of the post on this thread, archery has definitely changed over the years.
Post by: engelwood on December 07, 2011, 10:38:17 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 07, 2011, 10:42:11 AM
if you shot a 2 year old cow, by anderwagons math she could still put 3-7 more new elk into the herd.
shoot what you want to and pass on what you want to, but i will be the first to congratulate anyone on any legal animal that they shot. be it cow, calf, or bull. that calf is almost a year old at this point and is plenty capable of making it on its own if the cow was shot.
also, to the OP, you made a desicion for yourself and i commend you fir that. if you regret the decision now that it is passed, you will know for next time.
Post by: funkster on December 07, 2011, 11:03:19 AM
Post by: JLS on December 07, 2011, 11:24:53 AM
More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".
Like shooting a milk cow calf? Get real.
Post by: sirmissalot on December 07, 2011, 11:27:13 AM
I see the elitist crowd is doing well, and are fully willing to castigate people for saying they would shoot a legal animal.
More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".
Like shooting a milk cow calf? Get real.
You took the words right out of my mouth. :tup:
Post by: bobcat on December 07, 2011, 11:28:09 AM
A 1-2 year old calf would most likely make it through the winter
If an elk is that old, it is no longer a calf. :dunno:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 07, 2011, 11:33:10 AM
I see the elitist crowd is doing well, and are fully willing to castigate people for saying they would shoot a legal animal.:yeah:
More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".
Like shooting a milk cow calf? Get real.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 07, 2011, 11:34:56 AM
Only you can feel good or bad about your decision.
I know I have passed on plenty of animals, for a variety of reasons, but in an antlerless hunt, the only real criticism that matters is your own.
Others can say what they want, but any Elk on the ground by ethical means (good shot, clean kill) is just that.
It does not matter which one you shot, survival is a game of numbers, the calf would have been fine no matter what you might have heard, not only do they have the ability to survive on their own, but Elk are by nature herd animals.
The calf would have found other Elk in the area to hang out with. I have seen "nursery" groups where there were a whole lot of calves together with only a few cows, the other cows were off doing :dunno:
But with other predators, winter, disease, vehicles, etc. whether or not you take one animal out of the herd is immaterial, it is only the WDFW handing out hundreds of antlerless permits that has any impact on herd numbers, not one here, or there.
But in the end, it all comes down to you, do what feels right, your the one who has to live with it.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 07, 2011, 11:36:33 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 07, 2011, 11:47:29 AM
I see the elitist crowd is doing well, and are fully willing to castigate people for saying they would shoot a legal animal.:yeah:
More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".
Like shooting a milk cow calf? Get real.
Agree to disagree. If you feel that you need a calf elk that bad, than take it. After all its legal as you said. The OP was just stating that he/she was morally debating the issue of taking the elk and possibly regrating not shooting the calf, there was nothing mentioned in the OP about if it was legal. You are way off the issue..
Post by: JLS on December 07, 2011, 11:55:55 AM
I see the elitist crowd is doing well, and are fully willing to castigate people for saying they would shoot a legal animal.:yeah:
More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".
Like shooting a milk cow calf? Get real.
Agree to disagree. If you feel that you need a calf elk that bad, than take it. After all its legal as you said. The OP was just stating that he/she was morally debating the issue of taking the elk and possibly regrating not shooting the calf, there was nothing mentioned in the OP about if it was legal. You are way off the issue..
I'll agree to disagree too. Re read my post, I never said the OP mentioned anything about the legality. I did. I did so to point out that I am legally harvesting an animal that I have a license for. You can moral police this all you want. It would be no different than me moral policing you for shooting a trophy buck instead of letting it go to pass on its genes. After all if you feel you need a trophy buck that bad, take it.
So now we are all so in touch with our inner wildlife managers that an instance of a legal harvest is now a moral issue? Wow.
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 07, 2011, 12:11:36 PM
After all the OP never stating anything about legal harvest of the calf elk, like I said before. No, I am not policing you, I dont really care if you shoot a calf elk and it legal. I said that it was a moral issue that a person would have to deal with, and that I wouldn't shoot one.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 07, 2011, 12:14:40 PM
I see the elitist crowd is doing well, and are fully willing to castigate people for saying they would shoot a legal animal.:yeah:
More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".
Like shooting a milk cow calf? Get real.
Agree to disagree. If you feel that you need a calf elk that bad, than take it. After all its legal as you said. The OP was just stating that he/she was morally debating the issue of taking the elk and possibly regrating not shooting the calf, there was nothing mentioned in the OP about if it was legal. You are way off the issue..
I'll agree to disagree too. Re read my post, I never said the OP mentioned anything about the legality. I did. I did so to point out that I am legally harvesting an animal that I have a license for. You can moral police this all you want. It would be no different than me moral policing you for shooting a trophy buck instead of letting it go to pass on its genes. After all if you feel you need a trophy buck that bad, take it.So now we are all so in touch with our inner wildlife managers that an instance of a legal harvest is now a moral issue? Wow.
Two great points.
There is nothing wrong with shooting a legal animal.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 07, 2011, 12:16:21 PM
JLS-Wow, what about the trophy buck? would you shoot it? I am assuming you would. I would just as you have said. Does that mean that I ruined the gene pool? no. It is a complete different theory .
After all the OP never stating anything about legal harvest of the calf elk, like I said before. No, I am not policing you, I dont really care if you shoot a calf elk and it legal. I said that it was a moral issue that a person would have to deal with, and that I wouldn't shoot one.
sounded like you do care if a calf was shot... when you said that you think it is BS that people will think about shooting a calf.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 07, 2011, 12:17:29 PM
my last post refers to this
And more. I think its BS that someone wants to shoot a calf. Its like shooting a milk cow calf. Not much of a hunt if you ask me.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 07, 2011, 12:22:46 PM
Post by: JLS on December 07, 2011, 12:24:46 PM
my last post refers to this
And more. I think its BS that someone wants to shoot a calf. Its like shooting a milk cow calf. Not much of a hunt if you ask me.
Because rifling a spike is a much bigger accomplishment than shooting a calf with a bow?
Post by: tmike on December 07, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 07, 2011, 01:21:49 PM
my last post refers to this
And more. I think its BS that someone wants to shoot a calf. Its like shooting a milk cow calf. Not much of a hunt if you ask me.
Because rifling a spike is a much bigger accomplishment than shooting a calf with a bow?
Yep, much bigger accomplishement, are you kidding me? We went from someone stating their choice of shooting a calf versus not shooting a calf, legal issue, moral issue, personal choice, use a camera, moral dilemma, to shooting it with a camera. I guess the topic should be split.
I have no problem shooting an elk cow or bull, just a calf and thats my issue or moral issue that I can deal with, so you mind your issue and I will mind mine-deal?
Post by: Smithandsonstaxidermy on December 07, 2011, 02:44:03 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 07, 2011, 02:58:36 PM
PETA, loves you.
I love PETA-People Eating Tasty Animals. :tup:
Post by: spikehunter on December 07, 2011, 03:19:24 PM
Post by: mulehunter on December 07, 2011, 03:33:47 PM
Post by: big wood on December 07, 2011, 03:38:38 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 03:43:36 PM
let the pregnant cows and calfs go. kill a bull.Pregnant calfs? Just kidding I know what you meant.
Post by: big wood on December 07, 2011, 03:53:34 PM
Post by: Glockster on December 07, 2011, 04:07:49 PM
Don't want to shoot cow with calf...been watching too many bambi kissing shows on the animal planet?
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 07, 2011, 04:13:51 PM
Some of you guys crack me up. :chuckle:
Don't want to shoot cow with calf...been watching too many bambi kissing shows on the animal planet?
Good argument is always good for the blood flow.
Post by: big wood on December 07, 2011, 04:16:09 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 04:18:40 PM
no I just want the herd populations to explode. doesn't seem to me like it will if we keep shooting the femalesThe only problem is that if the population is open to cow harvest, then WDFW is probably trying to reduce the population and it likely will never explode.
Post by: Glockster on December 07, 2011, 04:24:46 PM
Post by: big wood on December 07, 2011, 04:40:00 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 07, 2011, 04:41:45 PM
You armchair biologists crack me up :chuckle: Please, more!!! Make those populations explode!! LOL :chuckle:
Armchair Biologist, LOL
So what if I don't shoot calves, just more for you then.
Post by: rasbo on December 07, 2011, 04:49:40 PM
Post by: 44 Flattop on December 07, 2011, 06:53:37 PM
I hope that anyone with moral or ethical issues when shooting a LEGAL calf also does not eat chicken or pork from the store. Chicken are on average 5 WEEKS old when killed. Hogs are on average about 6 months old.
Just don't put in for an antlerless unit if you have a problem with it. Hunt for and hopefully shoot an older legal bull.
44
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 07:04:21 PM
I just finished dinner. Calf elk steaks that I killed 10 days ago. Tender as a ....babies butt..... :rolleyes:Not sure what to think about a comment referring to the tenderness of a babies butt?????? :yike: However, I hope I never find myself in a situation where I feel the need to shoot a calf. I like the idea of letting them grow up a bit and put on some weight to fill a freezer. But then again, if I truly needed the meat for my family I would have no trouble doing it. Fortunatly I haven't had to go down that road. I can still buy my baby chickens, adolescent pigs and unborn chicken eggs to keep me and my family fed while I keep searching for that bull or buck. People should do what they feel is right and not try to sway others unless it is illegal.
I hope that anyone with moral or ethical issues when shooting a LEGAL calf also does not eat chicken or pork from the store. Chicken are on average 5 WEEKS old when killed. Hogs are on average about 6 months old.
Just don't put in for an antlerless unit if you have a problem with it. Hunt for and hopefully shoot an older legal bull.
44
:twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on December 07, 2011, 07:25:45 PM
Post by: Seabeckian on December 07, 2011, 07:31:30 PM
Moral issues for shooting a calf? Really? So is it ok to shoot a 1 1/2 year old? Or a 2 1/2 year old? Or does it need to be over 5 1/2 years old before you shoot it? When is it not a moral issue any more? If you have moral issues for shooting a legal calf elk, you really should think about why you are hunting.
Even with all the slamming of both sides, this still surprised me the most (Just caught up on the whole thread.) I wouldn't shoot one personally, but as said... that is my personal choice. But to say that maybe I should reconsider my hunting career because I would rather continue my hunt and pass on an animal that doesn't meet my personal standards... not sure I agree with your logic.
Post by: deerslyr on December 07, 2011, 07:42:07 PM
Post by: longknife on December 07, 2011, 07:48:15 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on December 07, 2011, 07:59:45 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 08:06:52 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 07, 2011, 08:16:14 PM
Bull calf is not illegal, in antlerless areas.
:yeah: An antlerless elk is an antlerless elk, simple as that. Doesn't make a difference what sex it is.
Post by: longknife on December 07, 2011, 08:21:55 PM
Bull calf is not illegal, in antlerless areas.
Was under the impression the bull calves were not legal by the definition in the big game rules, but understand it now
Any buck/bull, ilegal to posses bull /buck calves
Post by: longknife on December 07, 2011, 08:23:46 PM
Bull calf is not illegal, in antlerless areas.
Was under the impression the bull calves were not legal by the definition in the big game rules, but understand it now
Any buck/bull, ilegal to posses bull /buck calves
Calm down there bobcat, just thought it written the wrong way!
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 07, 2011, 08:24:48 PM
I pack in the wilderness 11 miles for my elk hunt and on the average see about 20 cows and 2 or 3 bulls (1 usually dies) in 9 days. when I got home there was a herd of 42 cows and 7 bulls in my lower pasture. I would like to see those numbers or more in the mountains thats all i'm sayingMan, if you pack in that far, and that is all you are seeing, you need to quit looking at your feet.
all I am saying.
Post by: funkster on December 07, 2011, 08:47:48 PM
JLS-Wow, what about the trophy buck? would you shoot it? I am assuming you would. I would just as you have said. Does that mean that I ruined the gene pool? no. It is a complete different theory .
A MATURE buck has already passed his genes, shoot away!
I hope that anyone with moral or ethical issues when shooting a LEGAL calf also does not eat chicken or pork from the store. Chicken are on average 5 WEEKS old when killed. Hogs are on average about 6 months old.
Just don't put in for an antlerless unit if you have a problem with it. Hunt for and hopefully shoot an older legal bull.
44
Again, lets compare apples with apples. Chickens and hogs are breed for the sole purpose of mass consumption,elk are not. You cannot compare wild elk with farm raised chickens and hogs. Antlerless hunts are a big part of conservation, this is a must to keep the bull/cow ratio in check.
Post by: bobcat on December 07, 2011, 08:55:15 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 08:57:51 PM
Well, if a person wants to "conserve" elk, the logical choice would be to shoot a calf rather than a cow. Kill a calf and you have only taken one elk, kill a cow and you've taken out two.I agree, not to mention the likelyhood of a calf survinving the winter is lower anyway.
Post by: funkster on December 07, 2011, 09:05:43 PM
Well, if a person wants to "conserve" elk, the logical choice would be to shoot a calf rather than a cow. Kill a calf and you have only taken one elk, kill a cow and you've taken out two.
IMPO taking out an old mature cow is conservation, she has served her purpose and has reproduce more than 1 calf.
Post by: big wood on December 07, 2011, 09:13:28 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 09:17:47 PM
Wow. That is puttin some pressure on folks. It is kind of tough to pick out an old cow that has already at the end of her reproductive cycle. They can reproduce well into their teens and live into their 20's. Now not only do I look for three point or better, but I need to ask the cows for their AARP cards.Well, if a person wants to "conserve" elk, the logical choice would be to shoot a calf rather than a cow. Kill a calf and you have only taken one elk, kill a cow and you've taken out two.
IMPO taking out an old mature cow is conservation, she has served her purpose and has reproduce more than 1 calf.
Post by: big wood on December 07, 2011, 09:21:23 PM
Post by: funkster on December 07, 2011, 09:40:25 PM
Wow. That is puttin some pressure on folks. It is kind of tough to pick out an old cow that has already at the end of her reproductive cycle. They can reproduce well into their teens and live into their 20's. Now not only do I look for three point or better, but I need to ask the cows for their AARP cards.Well, if a person wants to "conserve" elk, the logical choice would be to shoot a calf rather than a cow. Kill a calf and you have only taken one elk, kill a cow and you've taken out two.
IMPO taking out an old mature cow is conservation, she has served her purpose and has reproduce more than 1 calf.
ha ha ha...ROLFLMAO ,loved the AARP comment!
If you have done any research on elk, you would know how to tell a mature animal,it is not really that hard.
I am not saying everyone should only take mature animals. All I am saying is if more hunters where educated on how to make healthier herds they might not shoot immature animals so often and complain "I didn't see many elk this year". It has been already proven that mature animals passing genes combined with a good bull/cow ratio make for stronger herds.
Post by: buck man on December 07, 2011, 11:52:02 PM
Post by: huntnnw on December 08, 2011, 09:34:16 AM
Post by: Glockster on December 08, 2011, 11:24:05 AM
Please more armchair biology!!!! Keep it up.....please...this has the potential to be one of the more entertaining threads of the year. Only 3 more weeks left in the year> You can do it!!!
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 08, 2011, 11:45:57 AM
Post by: Glockster on December 08, 2011, 12:04:16 PM
Glockster-So, if you shoot the Cow with the Calf. How do you know the Calf will make it, do we find the Calf and put a collar around its neck? I mean every one says, by august the calf will make, but we don't have any eveidence will support that. I think we need more Armchair Biologist to comment, don't you. Just trying to keep it going.
That's an easy one. Carry a little baby bottle with you. If the calf trots up to suckle off the teeet you need to call Pasado Safe Haven ,PETA or the local wildlife rescue folks immediately and turn yourself in. KIRO will do a story about your superior ethics and the sacrafice you're making to "make the herds explode". Quality deer / elk management at its finest moment. LOL
Post by: YellowDog on December 08, 2011, 12:07:34 PM
I'll say it again, an antlerless elk is an antlerless elk and as long as it is legal to shoot an antlerless elk it is STUPID for anyone to bash or try to convice another hunter that they are completely right when arguing that we shouldn't shoot a calf or a cow.
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 08, 2011, 12:43:44 PM
Glockster-So, if you shoot the Cow with the Calf. How do you know the Calf will make it, do we find the Calf and put a collar around its neck? I mean every one says, by august the calf will make, but we don't have any eveidence will support that. I think we need more Armchair Biologist to comment, don't you. Just trying to keep it going.
That's an easy one. Carry a little baby bottle with you. If the calf trots up to suckle off the teeet you need to call Pasado Safe Haven ,PETA or the local wildlife rescue folks immediately and turn yourself in. KIRO will do a story about your superior ethics and the sacrafice you're making to "make the herds explode". Quality deer / elk management at its finest moment. LOL
This is even easier, I never mentioned "make the herds explode." Does that make me a PETA lover, or should I call KIRO and mentioned that I am saving the animals, heck no. I would definitely not want KIRO around regardless if you hunt or dislike hunting. In my own opinion, at least give a calf a chance. Do I care that you shoot one or someone else does, no. I may not like it, but it sure doesn't make me an animal lover.
If the calf is walking up to you, seeking your teeet as you suggested then there is something definitely wrong.
All some of us are saying is we have our opinions and you do too. Doesn't mean we are against hunting, just conservation.
Post by: Glockster on December 08, 2011, 12:56:42 PM
Elk herds in this state are weak and are getting weaker every year due to this mentality of "shoot anything that moves". Shooting a cow with a calf or shooting a calf to me is greed and the "I have to get something" syndrom. I could understand if you where living off the land and that was your sole means of survival, however, no modern hunter in this day and age fits that bill. Instead of buying tags, weapons and gas spend that money at costco,you will get way more meat for the dollar. :twocents:
FUNNY stuff there!!! This is exactly verbatim what birkenstock wearing peta smoking tatoo'd and pierced up chicks say at Seattle cocktail parties when they find out I'm a hunter. If you're that concerned about the "health" of the WA elk herds, don't kill them.
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 08, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
Elk herds in this state are weak and are getting weaker every year due to this mentality of "shoot anything that moves". Shooting a cow with a calf or shooting a calf to me is greed and the "I have to get something" syndrom. I could understand if you where living off the land and that was your sole means of survival, however, no modern hunter in this day and age fits that bill. Instead of buying tags, weapons and gas spend that money at costco,you will get way more meat for the dollar. :twocents:
FUNNY stuff there!!! This is exactly verbatim what birkenstock wearing peta smoking tatoo'd and pierced up chicks say at Seattle cocktail parties when they find out I'm a hunter. If you're that concerned about the "health" of the WA elk herds, don't kill them.
Hey, if she eats elk meat who cares then, right? just don't tell her about the little calf sucking the teet story.
I knew a lady once that worked for paws, absolutely hated hunters, but she would sure eat a cow meat (not elk) if it was still mooing. Made me sick, the meat was still quivering no joke. Now that is having it both ways.
Post by: buck man on December 08, 2011, 01:24:34 PM
Try this link. Calves do and will survive without mom by fall.!
Post by: igotbigbulls on December 08, 2011, 07:31:43 PM
Post by: PolarBear on December 08, 2011, 08:17:42 PM
Post by: funkster on December 08, 2011, 08:53:39 PM
Elk herds in this state are weak and are getting weaker every year due to this mentality of "shoot anything that moves". Shooting a cow with a calf or shooting a calf to me is greed and the "I have to get something" syndrom. I could understand if you where living off the land and that was your sole means of survival, however, no modern hunter in this day and age fits that bill. Instead of buying tags, weapons and gas spend that money at costco,you will get way more meat for the dollar. :twocents:
If you're that concerned about the "health" of the WA elk herds, don't kill them.
Not killing elk at all will do more damage than anything, that statement proves you are not educated on elk management. Do a little research about the deer on Anderson Island in california and see how your suggestion of "don't kill them" worked out! The issue is not about killing animals, I have no problem doing so, and have done it more than once, however, I am now selective on what I do shoot. We all should be concerned about the "health" of the elk herds in washington. Our elk herds are not in good shape compared to other states the manage elk.
Post by: Lcl 66 Tinner on December 08, 2011, 09:44:24 PM
Post by: big wood on December 09, 2011, 06:39:57 AM
Post by: Glockster on December 09, 2011, 07:14:28 AM
I'm not concerned about our herds' health...trained biologists say there's enough for a season and there's enough antlerless for permits.... so I'd kill a calf any day if I had the permit. You guys who are concerned about 'herd health' (whatever that means to you); don't kill elk if it bothers you that bad. Pretty simple. More for the rest of us predators.
Post by: funkster on December 09, 2011, 08:28:35 AM
If you ever took any basic college level wildlife biology course; one of the first things they teach is that you cannot stockpile wildlife. Meaning a certain % of babies will die....whether it's me or the coyote down the canyon does not matter. It's all the same in the calculation.
I'm not concerned about our herds' health...trained biologists say there's enough for a season and there's enough antlerless for permits.... so I'd kill a calf any day if I had the permit. You guys who are concerned about 'herd health' (whatever that means to you); don't kill elk if it bothers you that bad. Pretty simple. More for the rest of us predators.
I never said anything about "stockpiling" animals, I am talking about balance. Trained bilogists said that Idoho could support a wolf plan, how did that turn out? Trained biologists are starting to plant wovles here now, how do you think it is going to turn out? Trained biologists said that the elk herds in soutwest washington need to be reduce. I can tell you first hand that just 3 short years ago I could easily be with in bow range of over 20 elk a day, now you are lucky if you see 5 in a week. Ask anyone that has hunted down there if they have witnessed the dramtic decrease in elk. Now lets throw this in the pot, 5 months of hunting elk, over 800 special permits,wolves and winter kill. And you put your trust on what a "trained biologists" calculated? Yeah, they never make mistakes :dunno:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 09, 2011, 08:32:48 AM
If you ever took any basic college level wildlife biology course; one of the first things they teach is that you cannot stockpile wildlife. Meaning a certain % of babies will die....whether it's me or the coyote down the canyon does not matter. It's all the same in the calculation.That was part of the point I was trying to make.
I'm not concerned about our herds' health...trained biologists say there's enough for a season and there's enough antlerless for permits.... so I'd kill a calf any day if I had the permit. You guys who are concerned about 'herd health' (whatever that means to you); don't kill elk if it bothers you that bad. Pretty simple. More for the rest of us predators.
ONE cow or calf , has no impact on overall herd numbers, but like they did in Yakima, and are doing in St Helens, 100's of cows/calves will result in herd reduction.
I used to see herds of OVER 200 elk during the summer in the manastash, now... :dunno:
When you talk about herd health, are you talking about the actual health of the herd, or just number of animals in the herd ?
Washington State has the most hunters per Elk than any other state that has Elk, and yet there are areas that have need of winter feeding to avoid winter kill.
And areas that have the spread of disease.
If you were really concerned about the health of these herds, you would hunt in the areas that need reduction, instead of the areas that are the most popular.
Areas open to antlerless harvest, are open for a variety of reasons, either the WDFW wants to severely limit the Elk population, reduce the population, or increase bull/cow ratios.
Passing on a legal animal, for whatever reason you have, is only your reason, and not a management tool, power to you for your decisions, but making statements about it having an influence on the overall health off the herd is just ridonculous ( :chuckle:) and makes you sound like one of those self promoting yahoo's on TV.
These are not "High Fence" Elk, and you by yourself have no impact on the herd, Only season structure, timing, (decided by the WDFW) and escapement (closed roads or cover) has an effect.
Post by: doyourtime89 on December 09, 2011, 08:38:35 AM
what ever it takes to legally fill said freezer..... :drool:
:yeah:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 09, 2011, 08:41:04 AM
Quote
Trained biologists said that the elk herds in soutwest washington need to be reduce. I can tell you first hand that just 3 short years ago I could easily be with in bow range of over 20 elk a day, now you are lucky if you see 5 in a week. Ask anyone that has hunted down there if they have witnessed the dramtic decrease in elk. Now lets throw this in the pot, 5 months of hunting elk, over 800 special permits,wolves and winter kill. And you put your trust on what a "trained biologists" calculated? Yeah, they never make mistakesI always get a little confused with my Map, I think you are talking about their reduction in the St Helens herd...
As I stated in my previous post, I do not agree with the reduction, of that herd or what they did to the Yakima herd, but that was more (In my opinion) a result of complaints by the private timber companies, and Elk hunters who thought it was too hard to get an Elk (Bull) so in order to try to make them happy (the complainers) they issue 500+ MORE antlerless permits, and people are happy to get them, but wait until they get the herd down to their "objective" and you will see even less Elk than you do now, and hear a lot more complaining.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 09, 2011, 08:56:04 AM
I find Elk throughout the area, in herds of 15-20, but I walk in behind gates. (not saying you dont) If I do not find good sign in one area, I go to another..
Post by: Hi-Liter on December 09, 2011, 08:59:45 AM
Post by: YellowDog on December 09, 2011, 09:11:06 AM
I'M NOT SAYING DONT EVER KILL COWS OR CALVES, WE NEED TO SLOW IT DOWN (MY OPINION). i FEEL IN TEN YEARS HUNTING OUR STATE IS GOING TO DRASTICALLY CHANGE AGAINST THE HUNTERS FAVOR DUE TO THE WOLF SITUATION. I HAVE SEEN IT FIRST HAND IN IDAHO WHEN THE HUNTING WAS EXCELLENT AND EVERY YEAR IT GOT PROGRESSIVELY WORSE TO WHAT WE HAVE OVER THERE NOW. THE GREENIE/LIBS ARE TRYING TO WIN. I SAY BUILD THE ELK HERDS UP STRONG SO THEY CAN SURVIVE LONG ENOUGH WE CAN WIN SOME KIND OF WOLF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.No offense but I think that is exactly the wrong way to look at this. If we hunters and conservationists work our asses off and spend our dollars to build herds up while the wolf lovers are spending their (and our) money to build the wolf populations they will use our efforts against us. How you say? Well, they will use the fact that the elk populations are stable or increasing as wolf populations are increasing exponentially as proof that wolves don't have a negative impact on elk/deer herd populations. Before you know it the tides will turn and there will be so many damn wolves that the herd numbers will drop quickly anyway. We will have sacrificed our time, money, etc. on building the herds AND stopped hunting antlerless deer and elk which is part of good wildlife management and it will blow up in our face anyway. The only way to beat the wolf lovers is to fight them head on and try to limit the number of wolves we have before we can start hunting them. Either way it is probably a losing battle but I don't want my efforts to go toward supporting their cause. :bdid:
Post by: funkster on December 09, 2011, 09:24:42 AM
Do these herds really need reduction? or is the only driving factor loss revenue to tree farms?
FYI, I am usually the first one to the gates around the area we hunt and 10 miles back before the sun comes up!
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 09, 2011, 09:48:50 AM
Quote
Do these herds really need reduction? or is the only driving factor loss revenue to tree farms?I was not directly criticizing you, but the majority of other hunters I see, they also never heard of this forum, so I suspect the majority of hunters on here also put out an "extra" effort.
FYI, I am usually the first one to the gates around the area we hunt and 10 miles back before the sun comes up!
I also feel that these herds do not need reduction the way the WDFW is going about it, but they are dealing with all hunters, not just the ones that are willing to earn an animal.
I also feel that $$$ is ALWAYS the driving factor behind what the WDFW does, period.
Post by: funkster on December 09, 2011, 10:16:30 AM
Post by: Bigshooter on December 09, 2011, 10:23:19 AM
Elk herds in this state are weak and are getting weaker every year due to this mentality of "shoot anything that moves". Shooting a cow with a calf or shooting a calf to me is greed and the "I have to get something" syndrom. I could understand if you where living off the land and that was your sole means of survival, however, no modern hunter in this day and age fits that bill. Instead of buying tags, weapons and gas spend that money at costco,you will get way more meat for the dollar. :twocents:
FUNNY stuff there!!! This is exactly verbatim what birkenstock wearing peta smoking tatoo'd and pierced up chicks say at Seattle cocktail parties when they find out I'm a hunter. If you're that concerned about the "health" of the WA elk herds, don't kill them.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
I love it. Because it's so true.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 09, 2011, 10:26:39 AM
Elk herds in this state are weak and are getting weaker every year due to this mentality of "shoot anything that moves". Shooting a cow with a calf or shooting a calf to me is greed and the "I have to get something" syndrom. I could understand if you where living off the land and that was your sole means of survival, however, no modern hunter in this day and age fits that bill. Instead of buying tags, weapons and gas spend that money at costco,you will get way more meat for the dollar. :twocents:
If you're that concerned about the "health" of the WA elk herds, don't kill them.
Not killing elk at all will do more damage than anything, that statement proves you are not educated on elk management. Do a little research about the deer on Anderson Island in california and see how your suggestion of "don't kill them" worked out! The issue is not about killing animals, I have no problem doing so, and have done it more than once, however, I am now selective on what I do shoot. We all should be concerned about the "health" of the elk herds in washington. Our elk herds are not in good shape compared to other states the manage elk.
The game department wants to reduce the size of the St. Helens herd. Because they are starving to death down there because the herd is to big and there is not good wintering grounds. I don't think they care if you kill a calf or a cow. They just want the herd reduced so we don't have a bunch of people bitching about all the dead elk after each winter. They figure this will make the herd more healthy.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 09, 2011, 10:41:55 AM
Moral issues for shooting a calf? Really? So is it ok to shoot a 1 1/2 year old? Or a 2 1/2 year old? Or does it need to be over 5 1/2 years old before you shoot it? When is it not a moral issue any more? If you have moral issues for shooting a legal calf elk, you really should think about why you are hunting.
Even with all the slamming of both sides, this still surprised me the most (Just caught up on the whole thread.) I wouldn't shoot one personally, but as said... that is my personal choice. But to say that maybe I should reconsider my hunting career because I would rather continue my hunt and pass on an animal that doesn't meet my personal standards... not sure I agree with your logic.
I did not say that you should reconsider your hunting career because you passed. I said if you had moral issues for shooting a legal calf elk you should reconsider why you are hunting. You should not feel bad for shooting a legal animal. If you do maybe hunting is not for you. I have no problem with someone passing up a cow, calf or bull because they want to continue hunting.
Post by: Glockster on December 09, 2011, 11:43:04 AM
Biologists are used to support agenda driven wildlife management in every state. If the agenda is to provide the most possible deer and elk for human hunters that's a great thing! If the agenda is to provide the least possible for human hunters and the most for predators, that's what you see here in WA. The feds told the states to "recover" wolves....USFWS biologists did the planting. You have pictures of state biologists involved in this we'd all love to see it.