Becker

Man you can get a pretty nice Kelty for half the cost of the hunting packs. Plus shave off 4+ lbs. since you don't carry a lot until you kill. Been using one for a lot of years now. Built by backpackers not hunters. Do a little search and buy last years model and save big. My 2 cents.

Stop by the millers elk processing place that's set up behind the post office in alpine. They have contact numbers for a guy that will do it. I also believe there's a number on a big sign just as you pull out of alpine towards springerville for another pack outfit.

That sheep. Oh my

I could believe that one trphyhntr especially since you have the phone angled so bad compared to computer screen it makes the antlers look way bigger than normal. Hense the short legs. Not my first rodeo. Lmao.

Dang dude!!!! Way to get it done.

I have a Kodiak also but it's in morenci. Let me know if needed. I had two but lost one can't remember the exact demensions but it's the smaller one. Also have cots for it if needed.

I have a hard time believing that is a Coues.

No I don't think he would have survived. He had multiple vertebrae exposed. Maggots were in the wound. I peeled the skin off his entire body was green and yellow with infection. You could smell him from 10 yards away. Nastiest thing I've seen in a long time.

Well my wife was 7 months on her coues hunt this year!!! We took it pretty easy until we relocated the buck we were after. All said and done she hiked a little over 6 miles that day. But I didn't make her carry anything and took everything super slow. She was defiantly wore out by the time she got back to the truck but she's tough!!!!! If you got the ok from the doc I say go for it just don't push it 😜

Yeah in 2012

Yup climbing up into a tree stand isn't an unfair advantage to remain undetected. Sitting on a water hole that deer depend on for survival in a concealed ground blind. It's the entire goal to remain undetected. Why do we wear camouflage then. Isn't that an unfair advantage. Sorry but It's all unfair regardless of distance. We have weapons for crying out load. IMO it has everything to do with how proficient you are with your desired method. The guy with an old 30-30 with no scope that never practices blasting at running deer he just jumped at 100 yards is less ethical than me shooting at 700 yards. You can argue both ways for the rest of eternity. The bottom line is there are guys who can't shoot no matter the distance. There are guys that can shoot close but not far. There are guys that can shoot close and far. It will always be that way. The guys that can't shoot will always be shooting at deer. No matter what. To single out one group of long range guys and not the other though doesn't make sense to me. Because it's not long range vs short range. It's people who can't shoot vs those that can.

Best Coues

LOL

Maybe

Was thinking about starting a new post about the short range guys. I think it was mulepacker post "packing just becoues?" who shot his deer jumping over a log with an ancient rifle and actually shot it through the head. Nobody said anything????? Is that any better than the long range guys??? I think not. He got lucky. The buck I killed this year was actually shot on the first day of the hunt. Short range 200 yards or less. I actually questioned the guy day 3 about what he shot at because I watched him but couldn't see the deer the whole thing through. Guy shot and missed than shot again while he was running away. Was sure he hit the deer but couldn't find any blood. He left the next day. Got lucky I caught up to the deer on day 6 before he died from the wound. Nastiest thing I've seen yet. Long or short range comes down to practice and being proficient with your weapon no matter the range. IMO it's just as bad with the short range guys as the long range guys. Only problem is long range gets the bad rap.

^^^ who?

^^^^^^ that's an awesome pic

Hypothetically.........which doesn't happen here but does on say Texas private ranches growing big deer. If you only shoot the older age class it replenishes. It's renewable. If you put the age class in a pyramid diagram the bottom of the pyramid is 1 year olds the top portion are the oldest ones. If you wipe off the top it replenishes every year. If you wipe out the bottom it doesn't. If everyone trophy hunted and only shot the oldest animals you will be able to hunt old animals every year. So saying that people with trail cameras that are actually trophy hunting are hurting the amount of trophy animals doesn't make sense. Yes they kill them but they get replaced. In reality it's the other way around. The people shooting the first thing with antlers meat hunting are hurting your high quality animals in a sense. Although some of those are irrelevant because they wouldn't have made it up to the top anyway. If you want to complain about trophy caliber animals you should be harping on the people who don't shoot old animals. That's my point I guess. Game cameras help take the top tier that gets replaced. Again hypothetical because we all know all the other stuff in the middle. Too many tags. To many wolves. Etc etc. but perfect trophy world cameras don't hurt. 😜

I actuay agree with trphyhntr that cameras have nothing to do with it. In fact I would rather guys be more successful at killing the older age class animals every year. That's part of the idea of a renewable resource. Taking out the older age classes. They replenish. Granted it's the smallest part of the population.....but if we all actually took out "OLD" animals it would make for some awesome trophy hunting. Regardless of score. Motion cameras aid in that by allowing people to know what is actually there and say "hey....I know this big old nasty bull is there and I'm not going to shoot the 340 youngster because I know 380 grandpa is out there." Another entire topic. The fact of the matter though is that Game and Fish is counting on most people to take the animals that won't ever reach that "OLD" age class. If you do any research or know anything about population management and having a healthy herd you know that a large percentage of animals actually don't servive to reach "OLD". Between predation, simple survival of the fittest, etc., lots of animals won't make it. And let's face it human activity has a huge part of populations. Our ability to reduce predetors, provide water, and aid in population growth. They are really no different than cattle. We raise them in order to harvest them. It doesn't really hurt to take out a percentage of the animals that would naturally get killed or die before they even got there. Especially if we remove the predators. If you talk with anyone serious about big "OLD" animals I think they would tell you you the exact same. Trophy hunting doesn't negatively effect the herd. Especially when "trophy" hunting is about age. Now if everyone is strictly chasing those old animals and our Game and Fish is issueing too many tags it becomes a problem. I completely agree there. I have yet to see valuable information on actual population numbers vs harvest data for elk in unit 27. I've seen the harvest data but not the other. AND I am not going to go the extra mile to dig it up because I could give two shits about elk. My ultimate guess and knowing what I see about elk being places they have never been when I was a 10 year old kid, and having a few elk tags over the years is that the elk population has become higher than what Game and Fish wants. Regardless of what anyone says on what they see today vs 20 years ago. Things change. What is the "ACTUAL" population of elk? Thusly I think G and F have put out more tags because the population has or had increased. With trophy hunting being more popular than ever people have been holding out. Older age class Bulls have taken a slight hit. People who want "big" but don't scout are suffering in finding the "OLD" Bulls resulting in less success. People meat hunting don't care so lots of elk are getting killed regardless of size. But that probably is G and F's goal. Reducing the population. Granted I am doing some generalizations and not knowing the actual truths. But I know G and F would not survive if they didn't have animals to hunt. Everyone says they are about $ and maybe they are. They are a business in the end and wouldn't exist if they didn't have money coming in. I don't think they do an excellent job in managing wildlife but I don't think they are the worst that could be. I have had or been on elk hunts in unit 27 and unit 1 over the last 7 or 8 years and have not struggled in finding 350 plus bull elk and have had multiple friends that have had the tags and said the same. Sooooooo?

"Best Non-Coues" #2 But I guess it could go into Coues category since it has a Coues in it????........I hate Dang Coyotes. This one caught my future B and C buck before he even had a chance.

All you non-coues entries are in trouble as I have one of Amandas favorite critters I am entering for "Best Non-Coues" ;p

Well I have seen it both ways. Don't get me wrong the closer the better IMO. I shot my buck at 260 yards this year. I was set up on him at just over 1000 but the buck just wouldn't give me the "right" shot. Sooo I snuck over there and dumped him close. Back to my first statement. Just because people get close doesn't mean that it is any better. I've seen people miss from close distances as bad or worse than I've seen people miss at long distances. Close or far people just don't practice with their equipment. At the end of the day I think it's a problem with people having the wherewithal and restraint to know when the shots should be taken and when they shouldn't. I can't chastise anyone for trying to hunt deer or anything however they see fit. Guys blasting at 8-900 yards or guys lining up the firing line across the desert flats and blasting at running bucks as they blow out. It's really all the same no? If they can't already shoot them close putting a long range gun in their hands isn't going to really change anything. There will always been wounded and lost animals no matter what. I would think everyone would be really surprised if they held a proficiency test for hunters. I bet the percentage that fail would be astounding. Lol

I'd like to see the population numbers for the last ten years or so to follow up KWP's info.

Thx KWP. How about some survey numbers for numbers of elk in the units?