Idaho or Colorado

[Bubba19]

Ok, so I'm at a stand still! This will be my first elk hunting trip EVER!!! I need some help? I'm putting in for Idaho and have to buy a licence to apply. I going to put in for the controlled hunts. I'm still trying to find some hunts that give me the best odds. Not trying to get a huge elk just want to be able to be in elk everyday. If i don't draw a controlled hunt due i hunt OTC idaho or go to colorado ( has more elk). I have already purchased a licience in idaho.

My question is.... What would you do!!!!

And if you have any info on good hunt area's in idaho that would be great. I love archery hunting but would'nt mind hunting with a rifle specially in griz country...
I have no issues with back packing thats what i live for.....

Thanks,

Bubba19

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

welcome to hunt talk,,,If you already have bought the non-res idaho licence then i would apply for the easyer to draw controled hunts and if you dont draw you can get elk otc for a little over $400 i think,,,also be aware that idaho has a 2nd controled draw for tags that were not bought on the first draw,,,1st draw deadline is june 5th for apps.

 

[Elkmagnet]

F.Y.I. Being in elk every day on you're first elk hunt the first time in a new area is not a realistic goal even in a hard to draw area in Idaho.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Colorado

 

[IdahoHombre]

For Idaho - once you decide what part of the state you want to hunt in (terrain changes a lot from north to south) then look at the controlled hunts for that area, and see which ones gave a non-resident a decent chance of actually drawing the tag.

If you've already purchased your Idaho license, you're already invested with half the money it costs to hunt elk. I would apply for a hunt with good trophy potential that allows for the best number of non-residents to be drawn. Then if not drawn, make sure you have plan B in place to hunt OTC. Plenty of opportunities there.

 

[putm2sleep]

If you bought your tag for ID, why are you wasting time asking what would I do? ....start planning what you will do in ID to ensure you have a great hunt!, and good luck.And good luck being in elk everyday. Who doesn't want that?

 

[Bubba19]

Thanks for the replies. I ended up applying for ( elk- 66A-1 and archery unit 18) ( Deer Unit 40 late and unit 44. I don't expect to be in elk every day ( i should have put it differently). I just want to be in a unit that held good elk numbers. I have been training all year to put myself in the best shape to increase my chances of coming home with something to be proud of.I do plan on backpacking in but most likely will be by myself. Thanks again for the info and replies. Good luck in the up coming hunting season.

 

[John A]

I would avoid Idaho. If you are not seeing wolves you soon will be. I used to hunt 29 &30 but the killers moved in. Now I hunt in Colorado and have yet to see a wolf. Good luck with whatever it is you decide.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I would avoid Idaho. If you are not seeing wolves you soon will be. I used to hunt 29 &30 but the killers moved in. Now I hunt in Colorado and have yet to see a wolf. Good luck with whatever it is you decide.

At least one person doesn't believe the B.S. Idaho fish and profit is selling in the regs. Anytime you are being told everything is (ok) over and over beware. They keep cutting cow and bull tags every year all the while saying look at all of these units that are meeting cow/bull objectives- why cut tags then?
If you want the true story from an Idaho game biologist(marketing representative) then ask how the last 5 years of calf recruitment was in your chosen unit and compare with any unit in Colorado! We are in trouble in Idaho and f&gs policy seems to be lie to out of staters and cash the paychecks until they stop coming in. Call and get real numbers then compair.

 

[IdahoHombre]

Elkmagnet, I gotta respectfully disagree. We all know that wolves are taking their toll. But that doesn't mean that there aren't vast areas of the state that aren't hunting quite well. Look at the harvest stats and population surveys for (and I'll just throw in two very different parts of the state) Tex Creek and Elk City.

The Middle Fork is full of wolves, right? Have you ever met a person who has hunted back in there that said, "Gosh, what a waste of time." Just doesn't happen. The landscape is too overwhelming. The back country experience is worth the money, and having a shot at an elk ain't horrible. Isn't what it once was, for sure, but still not horrible.

I don't think any non-resident should plan on drawing any tag in Idaho. And actually, some of the "trophy" hunts provide half way decent drawing odds for non-residents. So I encourage them to try for a trophy unit. If they don't draw, then they still have some pretty decent general season opportunities.

I don't care if folks choose CO over ID. But I think it is highly misrepresentative to suggest that IF&G's data is B.S. I think you're being hastily insulting to biologists who are doing a damn good job, generally speaking. If anything, they are understaffed, and don't have the resources to perform all of the studies that would give us precise numbers on how many elk are in the woods, and why.

To bring it all down - there are some elk zones that are hunting horrible right now due to wolves. There are others that are hunting horrible due to habitat decline. There are some that are hunting horrible due to wolves and habitat decline. And there are plenty that are hunting quite nicely. The stats are easy to find (and I doubt the stats are being toyed with).

Weigh your priorities out. If you're looking at elk/square mile, sure, you might find it best in CO. But perhaps you're willing to give up a little success % for a little bit of space. In which case you might look at ID.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Idahoman the whole point on my past was to pos wast that the recruitment of calves is getting lower and lower. Look at the tag # in 37/37a/36a1/36a2 and many more have drooped dramatically yet thy put up a map in the regs saying the populations are above objectives why would the tags get cut then? In a few other units you can no longer hunt cows with over the counter archery tags. The reason is because there are no calves to replace cows that are taken. The herd is getting older on average but you don't see that printed in the regs. Oh and my group left the middle fork for greener elk hunting grounds a few years ago. Their is great hunting in Idaho but give it 5 more years when the rest of the old cows become sterile or die and there's no young calves to replace them. Call the Bio and ask. The bottom line is that they need out of state hunters and will leave out whatever might scare off the investers. I would bet I get 75 hr a year doing my own researh and I kill elk regularly buy see less calves/calf tracks every year. The only reason that map showd up in the regs is to lie to those that don't know to do the research them self. Just look at the map and look how many draw tags have been cut in the last 5 years. Not a coincidence. Don't get me started on over the counter quota's that keep dropping. Call and ask why the reasonfor reducing tag #s is not in the regs. $$$$$$$$$

 

[IdahoHombre]

Elkmagnet,

I agree with some of what you say. But I don't think "the" elk herd in Idaho is that desperate. Calf recruitment can be great in one part of the state, and horrible in the next. In fact, it can be good in one drainage, and poor in the neighboring one. As you know, we've had some killer winters in the last five years, and yet this last one was extremely mild. There's too many factors to declare doom statewide.

I think you are right about the marketing. I can see how you might see it as deceiving for those who don't do their due diligent research. IF&G needs the out-of-state money. No question. And all of this comes full circle in this way. Look at the objectives set for each unit or zone. And then look at the most recent population surveys. Some places haven't seen an aerial survey since 2005-2006. So there's a lot of old data being utilized to compare to the objectives.

You might say that's another example of the deception. But believe me, if IF&G could perform surveys every year, and everywhere, they would. And I think they would be transparent about the findings. They publish those reports on their website.

Anyway, I get your point. I guess I just find that when I communicate with the biologists in the field, I get very frank and honest answers. I know this because they are scientists, not marketers. They're just doing their job the best they can. They tell me the bad news, and the good news as they see it, and they can give you numbers to back it up either way. Because they are so cooperative, I'm not hesitant to stand up for the job they're doing. What gets printed out of Boise, I don't know.

 

[brymoore]

I saw great calf survival going into last fall and I'm seeing a lot of yearing elk running around this spring.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I do believe as individuals the bios I have talked to have been good people but at the end of the day fish and game has enough info to cut tages but not enough info to come out and say that unit( ) is declining? I will use 36a-2 cow hunts as an example because I'm worried about elk population in the 2007 regulations I see 650 cow tags listed in three different hunts. Now in the 2012 regs I see 0 cow tags listed and they put a map in saying the cows in 36a-2 are meeting objectives. Really? Now either there objective is to not have enough cows to have a hunt for cows or they are misleading people. This is only one example of many. I have ten years of regs and all the available hunt/harvest data. I have spreadsheets and graphs I have made for predicting where I want to apply for the next few years and they tell a story that is hard to ignore.
I am in no way saying Idaho will have no elk in 5 or 10 years what I am saying is the trend is a downward spiral and good luck getting a tag in 10 years.
They will say we are meeting objectives until they can no longer deny what is happening. I agree that their are units that the elk are doing great but the generaly have no wolves and are very hard to draw. They will continue to get harder to draw as they cut more and more tags in the units with high wolf populations. F&g is going to say what is best for business that's what people who run a business do plain and simple.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I saw great calf survival going into last fall and I'm seeing a lot of yearing elk running around this spring.

I really hope so. This has been a good year for survival. But really who would pick Idaho over Colorado if it will cost about the same?

 

[brymoore]

My wolf sign sightings is also way down from the peak around 2008.

 

[1_pointer]

I will use 36a-2 cow hunts as an example because I'm worried about elk population in the 2007 regulations I see 650 cow tags listed in three different hunts. Now in the 2012 regs I see 0 cow tags listed and they put a map in saying the cows in 36a-2 are meeting objectives. Really? Now either there objective is to not have enough cows to have a hunt for cows or they are misleading people.

In this case, I assume (yes I know, I know) objective to mean total population objective. If you are at or under this, there is no need to issue cow tags. If you are over objective, which is my assumption that was the case in 2007, you issue cow tags. YMMV...

I don't have the documents in front of me, but I'd guess that every unit over objective has cow tags and every unit under either has very few or none. It'd be a quick way to test it...

 

[Elkmagnet]

In this case, I assume (yes I know, I know) objective to mean total population objective. If you are at or under this, there is no need to issue cow tags. If you are over objective, which is my assumption that was the case in 2007, you issue cow tags. YMMV...

I don't have the documents in front of me, but I'd guess that every unit over objective has cow tags and every unit under either has very few or none. It'd be a quick way to test it...

i would think your logic would be true but f&g dosent. what I am saying is 36a2 had 650 tags in 2007 now in 2012 they still claim 36a2 is at or above population objectives but have cut the tags to 0. If it is currently at objective I would think it would support some cow hunt wouldn't you?

 

[1_pointer]

Not neccessarily. Depends on the rate and direction of change of total population; which is not something that can be gotten from an objective meeting or not meeting map.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Not neccessarily. Depends on the rate and direction of change of total population; which is not something that can be gotten from an objective meeting or not meeting map.

I don't know about any of you guys but I want my states objective to be to maintain a healthy huntable population.
I think when the average hunter reads that a unit is at or above objectives they are going to assume that means there should be a huntable population.