# thoughts on killing a cow elk on archery spike hunt



## bowhuntnfool (Mar 14, 2013)

Personally think it needs to come to a end specially when there having so many tags on cow elk rifle hunts. If the unit is at objective or above I feel it should be allowed but if the unit is not at objective u shouldn't be able to kill a cow the tag says spike bull..... I wish dwr would wake up and smell the coffee and make our herds larger we need the cows to keep the herd growing I know they wont stop letting people shoot a cow on archery hunt but it really should not be allowed or maby have a harvest report that's has to be turned in maby then they would relize archery guys are not as bad of shots as they think ill sit back eat o-|| and watch our elk herds take a decrease its sad they care more about money then the herd


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

If they keep giving extra cow rifle tags there is no need to stop the archery tags. With archery elk success around 5% that is around 700 bow killed elk. even if 50% are cows that isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the rifle tags.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Screw that!! Get a sniff

As it sits right now the cows taken on these units by bows are negligible. Most units are over objective or close to objective. If they kill too many one year they just cut the rifle tags back the next year.

Elk are the easiest thing to manage in this state.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Bow harvest is taken into account when determining cow elk tag numbers. As was mentioned, it's almost a non issue and we have elk coming out our wazzooo in some units. In a good portion of our state we need to reduce the elk population not "make our herds larger".

Bullets and arrows are about the only thing that kills an elk in our state. Pretty easy critter to manage with only one variable to consider.


----------



## Chuck (Mar 28, 2012)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Bow harvest is taken into account when determining cow elk tag numbers. As was mentioned, it's almost a non issue and we have elk coming out our wazzooo in some units. In a good portion of our state we need to reduce the elk population not "make our herds larger".
> 
> Bullets and arrows are about the only thing that kills an elk in our state. Pretty easy critter to manage with only one variable to consider.


Bingo! I think we should thin a few more out.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Bow harvest is taken into account when determining cow elk tag numbers. As was mentioned, it's almost a non issue and we have elk coming out our wazzooo in some units. In a good portion of our state we need to reduce the elk population not "make our herds larger".
> 
> Bullets and arrows are about the only thing that kills an elk in our state. Pretty easy critter to manage with only one variable to consider.


+1


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I can't wait to take a cow on the archery spike hunt.



What everyone fails to keep in mind is that the DWR is mandated BY LAW to keep elk herds at or under objective. If they go over objective, they are breaking the law. So we have cow hunts to assure that numbers stay at or below objective.


If you don't like the cow hunts, and you feel that elk herd objectives should be raised, then you need to fight to raise the objective! The objectives are set in cooperation with the UDWR, Forest Service, and ranching communities.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> If you don't like the cow hunts, and you feel that elk herd objectives should be raised, then you need to fight to raise the objective! The objectives are set in cooperation with the UDWR, Forest Service, and ranching communities.


And good luck slipping that one by the ranching community!

Archery hunts are never going to kill off a herd. This provision doesn't bother me at all. And I'm not an archer.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> I wish dwr would wake up and smell the coffee and make our herds larger


The herds on most units are WAY too big as it is! They need to thin the herd, not make it bigger. I truly think part of our deer problem is way too many elk on the same range competing with the deer for usable habitat. Nobody will EVER convince me that too many elk in an area doesn't displace deer. When the elk move in, the deer move out. Whack em and stack em!!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> > I wish dwr would wake up and smell the coffee and make our herds larger
> 
> 
> The herds on most units are WAY too big as it is! They need to thin the herd, not make it bigger. I truly think part of our deer problem is way too many elk on the same range competing with the deer for usable habitat. Nobody will EVER convince me that too many elk in an area doesn't displace deer. When the elk move in, the deer move out. Whack em and stack em!!!


The elk are eating themselves out of house and home in some of the areas i hunt. The winter range is so bad every year the winter kills keep racking up. The sage, mahogany and even scrub oak look like someone has taken a power saw to them.

Here are a few casualties this year. I didnt take photos of the cows or deer i found. 















By the way the dwr sawed the horns off.


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

I kill a cow elk every year with my bow...there hasn't been a shortage of targets for me...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

When elk numbers go up the deer numbers go down on the front because there isn't much winter range to begin with. As much as i like elk id rather have three times the deer to hunt then a few elk.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

It's amazing that states like Colorado have any deer at all with their incredibly high elk population. :roll: Maybe we need to introduce the elk subspecies that doesn't eat deer  

I appreciate the frustrations with our deer herd numbers, but just because elk numbers rise and deer numbers fall over the last 20-30 years doesn't mean elk are the responsible party. Correlation does not equal causation. Our trusted forum experts can wax all they want about the elk eating deer BUT until they post up a scientific, peer reviewed study stating as much then it is just a bunch of coffee shop forum arm chair quarterback talk that means squat (aside from the time wasting entertainment we all come here to enjoy). That goes for me too--I simply don't know if elk have a substantially negative effect on deer numbers. Overpopulation of any ungulate species concerning carrying capacity is going to have negative consequences. Again I refer to science, maybe some of you arm chair quarterbacks could find such a study. 

And for the record, the archery cow/spike hunt is pretty much awesome. It has little affect on the elk population and remains one of the few tags a guy can buy at any time and have a wonderful hunt. Why would anyone want to screw up the one unlimited, OTC big game tag in the state that has a completely marginal affect on the elk herd. Just nuts


----------



## Chuck (Mar 28, 2012)

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf here's a research paper I found in 5 seconds of looking referring specifically to Colorado elk/mule deer relationship just for you. Check out pages 12, 13
I don't think you can debate that elk don't have an effect on deer.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Airborn
To say deer dont compete with elk is assine! Thats like saying cows dont compete with elk or sheep dont compete with elk. Take any pasture fence it off and see what you can keep alive in it. The pasture can only support so many animals and then the all starve. If you cant comprehend that then i dont know what to tell you.

Utah has decent summer range, its the winter range where we run into problems. Have you looked at the winter range on the front airborn? There aint any! So when you get a bunch of land carp eating whats left to the ground everything starves.

A deer will eat about 2/3 less than an elk so you can have more deer on the same piece of ground then you can have elk. 

There is a difference in vegetation from Colorado and Utah. There's a difference in availability in water so colorado can simply hold more game. I dont know how many times people have to say we cant compare Colorado to utah.
More habitat = more animals… thats why Colorado can have more game
.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

chuck thanks for that link. that was pretty good read there.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Thanks for your 5 seconds Chuck, your intellectual prowess in google mastery is unmatched. Did you read the last paragraph on pg 14 where it says that the evidence is inconclusive and they could not find correlation with elk harvest and faun recruitment? I guess not.

Swbuckmaster,

I have met you at the range before, found you to be a nice guy, but please read my post before commenting on it. Let me quote myself below so you can hopefully read an important portion of my paragraph:



Airborne said:


> I simply don't know if elk have a substantially negative effect on deer numbers. Overpopulation of any ungulate species concerning carrying capacity is going to have negative consequences. Again I refer to science


Substantially being the key word above.

So lets not use words like 'asinine' which is how you spell it by the way. I am confident that elk have an impact on deer, I don't know how much of an effect it is. I think it may be a little more complicated of an issue than some have made it out to be.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How about lowering the objectives would that make anyone feel better about killing cows? How about if the DWR inflated there numbers to be closer to objectives. 

When the DWR has an objective of 1500 elk but counts 1200 who can tell what that means. I'm willing to bet no single person has any clue how many elk are in any given unit. So IMO the concern is on paper and nowhere else. 

Tree made a comment that bullets and arrows are just about the only thing killing elk in Utah. Well just wait for wolves to show up. Then habitat loss and weather will start killing tons of elk here. :lol:


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Do wolves bring habitat loss and bad weather with them? Jeez Louise! The are like the horsemen of the apocalypse!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Airborn i shouldn't have used that word. I apologize!

People do come across different in person then on these forums. I read things differently then maybe you meant it. I bet it goes both ways. This is how i broke what you said down.



Airborne said:


> It's amazing that states like Colorado have any deer at all with their incredibly high elk population. :roll: Maybe we need to introduce the elk subspecies that doesn't eat deer


 Sarcastic shot at my post??



Airborne said:


> I appreciate the frustrations with our deer herd numbers, but just because elk numbers rise and deer numbers fall over the last 20-30 years doesn't mean elk are the responsible party. Correlation does not equal causation.


 It does correlate in my areas.



Airborne said:


> Our trusted forum experts can wax all they want about the elk eating deer BUT until they post up a scientific, peer reviewed study stating as much then it is just a bunch of coffee shop forum arm chair quarterback talk that means squat (aside from the time wasting entertainment we all come here to enjoy).


 Sarcasm again?? Or another shot saying i think elk eat deer??



Airborne said:


> That goes for me too--I simply don't know if elk have a substantially negative effect on deer numbers.


They do in the areas i hunt



Airborne said:


> Overpopulation of any ungulate species concerning carrying capacity is going to have negative consequences.


 Agree!!! Caring capacity affects everything



Airborne said:


> Again I refer to science, maybe some of you arm chair quarterbacks could find such a study.
> 
> And for the record, the archery cow/spike hunt is pretty much awesome. It has little affect on the elk population and remains one of the few tags a guy can buy at any time and have a wonderful hunt. Why would anyone want to screw up the one unlimited, OTC big game tag in the state that has a completely marginal affect on the elk herd. Just nuts


Thats how i took it. Maybe its not how you meant it. Sorry if i read it wrong. All these post every other day complaining or wanting to change how game is managed,whos wright or whos wrong have about the same effect to me as listening to a democrat on any political issue.

I apologize to all above!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I harvested my first cow with a bow last year. As soon as she was down and before I could get out of my stand, the elk were back and feeding underneath me. I love that hunt and being able to buy that tag without having to wait three months before knowing if I get to hunt in Utah or not from year to year.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

bowhuntnfool said:


> its sad they care more about money then the herd


Who is this guy? Creates the post, then doesn't back it up with any real data.

Killing cows is all about caring for the herd. You won't have a healthy heard by exploding the cow elk population. They have to be managed, hence the purpose of the DWR. Ever taken biology my friend? Were not dealing with an exponential growth model here. There are limited resources available. On top of that, as already mentioned, the amount of cows killed by bow hunters is accounted for and negligible. :roll:


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

No need to apologize swbuckmaster!

I am a smart azzz! and I do come off snippy, I like to be a little provocative here and there, I feel like I have to match some of the bombastic stuff I read here--all part of the fun!


----------



## Chuck (Mar 28, 2012)

Airborne said:


> Thanks for your 5 seconds Chuck, your intellectual prowess in google mastery is unmatched. Did you read the last paragraph on pg 14 where it says that the evidence is inconclusive and they could not find correlation with elk harvest and faun recruitment? I guess not.
> 
> Substantially being the key word above.
> 
> So lets not use words like 'asinine' which is how you spell it by the way. I am confident that elk have an impact on deer, I don't know how much of an effect it is. I think it may be a little more complicated of an issue than some have made it out to be.


This is the most bombastical post I've read on here.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> When the DWR has an objective of 1500 elk but counts 1200 who can tell what that means. I'm willing to bet no single person has any clue how many elk are in any given unit. So IMO the concern is on paper and nowhere else.


Well, so......then.....huh?

What do we do? Just throw our hands in the air and have a free-for-all? At some point, don't we have to rely on some kind of counting system that ends up on paper? If nobody knows, then why restrict anything?

I'm willing to bet that numerous biologists have a pretty good idea of how many elk are in any given unit. What should we bet? How will we determine who's right? Should we use your counting system? How do I know you aren't fudging your numbers?

good. We'll use my system. I win. pay up.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

So in the last 30 years, the explosion of elk numbers and loss of habitat cannot be considered a "substantial" effect on deer? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around such an idea. Everywhere I hunt where elk numbers have increased, deer numbers have done the exact opposite, and in UTAH, this seems to be the case. Colorado is a completely different animal with different variables.

It's no secret that elk are a more hardy species. Put more and more of them in a specific area and they WILL outcompete deer. Carrying capacity is science-based. More elk equal less deer. More habitat occupied by elk equals less habitat occupied by deer.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Since folks here enjoy anecdotal evidence and what they 'see' out in the field during the one week they hunt I will throw some out.

How come the Henry mountains are not exploding with deer since that range has a very very few elk on it? If the elk are responsible for killing the deer throughout the state how come we are not issuing doe deer permits on the Henrys in order to contain that exploding deer population? Since this would be considered solid enough evidence for most of you to **** the elk if the opposite were true.

My truthful opinion is that in certain areas--probably more localized than we think, during the winter, elk are having a negative affect on the deer. Couple this with several other major factors and yes deer are not reproducing at levels that we would like to see. How much of an impact, I don't know and you don't either. That is all I am saying--I just want a few of the folks on this forum to take a step back, realize they don't know all of the facts and quit calling for the elk herds to be mass slaughtered. Call me extreme, I know :roll: 

oh and keep the OTC archery cow hunt going, it makes sense and is a great opportunity to hunt each year


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Airborne said:


> How come the Henry mountains are not exploding with deer since that range has a very very few elk on it? If the elk are responsible for killing the deer throughout the state how come we are not issuing doe deer permits on the Henrys in order to contain that exploding deer population? Since this would be considered solid enough evidence for most of you to **** the elk if the opposite were true.


They have buffalo andthe beef cows
Buffalo and beef cows eat more than elk
Its all about carrying capacity.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> So in the last 30 years, the explosion of elk numbers and loss of habitat cannot be considered a "substantial" effect on deer? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around such an idea. Everywhere I hunt where elk numbers have increased, deer numbers have done the exact opposite, and in UTAH, this seems to be the case. Colorado is a completely different animal with different variables.
> 
> It's no secret that elk are a more hardy species. Put more and more of them in a specific area and they WILL outcompete deer. Carrying capacity is science-based. More elk equal less deer. More habitat occupied by elk equals less habitat occupied by deer.


Anecdotal and speculative are probably good words to describe the elk/deer correlation. Just because one population increased and another decreased really doesn't validate that one caused the other. May speculation be correct? Sure. But until there are substantial evidences that point to direct causes, it is just all speculation.

With that said, we have a few trophy deer units that the division has put 0 elk objectives on. To me this would mean that they are either furthering study and looking at the effects of having no elk competing with deer, suspect that they do have an effect, or know that there is an effect, or all 3. Probably all 3.

I'm inclined to think that as humans we want to believe that we can control everything and so we strive to know every single facet of every single detail regarding managing animals. I sincerely doubt that we will ever know all of the reasoning behind what happens. With that said, it seems we take the best information out there and let the most informed and knowledgeable people manage according to that information. And that takes trust, not just from the public, but from everyone who influences decisions on a social level.

I'd guess quite a few division employees would do well as street performers, cause they've surely had to learn how to juggle.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Airborne said:
> 
> 
> > How come the Henry mountains are not exploding with deer since that range has a very very few elk on it? If the elk are responsible for killing the deer throughout the state how come we are not issuing doe deer permits on the Henrys in order to contain that exploding deer population? Since this would be considered solid enough evidence for most of you to **** the elk if the opposite were true.
> ...


Hmmm....in the area I hunt there are sheep, beef cows, elk, deer, and antelope. And, for the past 5-7 years, I have seen more mature bucks in this area than any other stretch of my life.

I would agree that it is all about carrying capacity, but people have to remember that deer and elk (and also sheep and beef cows) utilize different types of forage...browsers versus grazers.


----------



## Chuck (Mar 28, 2012)

Yeah it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy when I see elk and deer eating side by side next to the cows and sheep, all of them living in harmony with each other on the mountain. Come on
That is a bunch of hot air used by the range land folks to get the number of cows and sheep up on a limited area of land. There is a great book by a local rancher named George Wuerthner called Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction Of The American West you should check it out.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Agree on the book.

Samples here: http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Wtu deserves another denver bronco award. :roll:


----------

