What if they had hunted on a HF place that was a canned hunt and based their opinion on it...does that make their opinion valid or is it still wrong because you disagree?

Since you said outfitter I assume you'll be using a guide, in that case hi or low makes little difference. If the outfitter is worth his salt he and the guides have pretty well done their homework, they spent the pre season glassing and watching bulls throughout that whole area and can pretty well put you in the right area's. I said that to say this! With that kind of an advantage before you go in it makes no difference whether it's high or low your not going to hunt the whole place. My place is only 3 sections but I know where most of my bucks are, where they bed and the paths they're most likely to take. Does that turn my low fence into a high fence? Well it will certainly seem like it you'll certainly have a better chance and I'll keep you out of area's that are non productive. My father in-law was an outfitter in Wyoming and knew this very well. He didn't have his clients running all over the place, he had them where the bulls were which may have been a 10th of the area available. You might as well have hi-fenced it because the elk pretty well treated it like it was.

Have hunted elk a few times, a lot of their range has to do with Terrain, cover, Food sources and water. On one 50,000+ acre ranch there were always elk in an area less than 10,000 acres. We never went into the dark timber after them but could count on them being in the fields along the creek pretty much every day and doubt that group of elk ranged over 3000 acres. On the other side of the ranch we had 7 sections bordered by NF on 2 sides with 6 "creek" drainages there would be a few elk on that 7 sections during the day but mostly they were in the NF during day. Those elk would travel 7 miles+ to the grain fields along the river daily. Killed 3 bulls as they crossed that part of the property. All that in just saying even in big country low fence places elk have different range preferences and range size.

For the OP, enjoy your hunt. Do not worry about what any of us think, if you are happy we should be. Elk are majestic animals and fun to hunt. There is no other sound that I have ever heard that gets the blood flowing like a bull elk bugle while I am hunting the mountains especially when he is responding and coming to my calling.

Yeah, and none of them ever wonder off, huh? I thought we were talking about Idaho.

It would add validity to an opinion. Without having experienced something you can't have a valid opinion. You can only be speculating.

For it to be a comparative opinion you would have to experience a similar hunt, in this case on approximately 10,000 acres.

So, does this moderator status cause comprehension decay? Or were you that way before your "promotion"?

I was that way before my "promotion"...but you knew that

I don't necessary agree. Common sense tells you that 10k acres stocked with a larger herd than the LF place of 30k acres and bigger bulls would have a higher success rate of a bull of specific caliber. You wouldn't have to hunt a comparative place to understand that.

Granted, there are LF places that are easier to hunt, have a higher success rate and would be closer to hunting a "canned hunt", such as some of the IR in New Mexico. But I have never hunted those, so this statement is irrelevant

The "you can't have an opinion on something if you haven't done it" is a crock of .

I have opinions on theft, soliciting a prostitute, shooting heroin, exceeding bag limits, texting while driving, ISIS, and about a million other things. So does everyone on this forum. So that's just stupid.

The majority of folks who opine on HF elk hunting on this thread have never been on a HF elk hunt. Does that argument apply to them? Not for the supporters. Again, a crock. Just another ridiculous thing to say.

There is room for legitimate debate about whether HF hunting should be allowed under a "to each their own" philosophy. But once that crosses into the "it makes no difference", "it has no effect", or "it's all the same" (which is the topic of this thread), the arguments become stretched to the point of laughability.

HF operations exist to change the game-to make animals easier to kill and/or grow artificially bigger animals to hunt. Anyone without skin in the game and a modicum of common sense knows this. Arguments trying to deny or ignore this quickly spiral into the nonsensical.

For the umpteenth time: The fence is there for a reason. There is no getting around that plain fact.

I bear no ill will towards the OP. He asked for opinions and he got them. From his posts, I can pretty much discern by now where he is coming from. He wants an elk-preferably a big elk. That is his primary focus. He has made a rational decision (for him) that will certainly fulfill his goal.

So your definition of artificially bigger deer are deer that are bigger due to proper management?

The "you can't have an opinion on something if you haven't done it" is a crock of .

I have opinions on theft, soliciting a prostitute, shooting heroin, exceeding bag limits, texting while driving, ISIS, and about a million other things. So does everyone on this forum. So that's just stupid.

The majority of folks who opine on HF elk hunting on this thread have never been on a HF elk hunt. Does that argument apply to them? Not for the supporters. Again, a crock. Just another ridiculous thing to say.

There is room for legitimate debate about whether HF hunting should be allowed under a "to each their own" philosophy. But once that crosses into the "it makes no difference", "it has no effect", or "it's all the same" (which is the topic of this thread), the arguments become stretched to the point of laughability.

HF operations exist to change the game-to make animals easier to kill and/or grow artificially bigger animals to hunt. Anyone without skin in the game and a modicum of common sense knows this. Arguments trying to deny or ignore this quickly spiral into the nonsensical.

For the umpteenth time: The fence is there for a reason. There is no getting around that plain fact.

I bear no ill will towards the OP. He asked for opinions and he got them. From his posts, I can pretty much discern by now where he is coming from. He wants an elk-preferably a big elk. That is his primary focus. He has made a rational decision (for him) that will certainly fulfill his goal.

Nope. I do not define artificially confining animals for the purpose of replacing and/or enhancing genetics as "management". It's raising livestock.

Very true Bobo. And the main reason HF elk ranches exist-to get around that problem.

Not if it's a higher density like the OP mentioned. Chances are they'll be targeting the satellite bulls that are still good bulls, but just can't hang.

Ya they just ran them off a cliff.

Like trying to kill a spike on one of STX previous managed ranches

More like trying to find a decent middle aged buck..


Density is meaning less when you have a set number of animals being managed via age. Especially when you don't have new animals every snow fall.

The high fence has genetically superior bulls and there are more bulls than on the private land.

If the place is big enough then I don't have a problem with it its those places where they high fence in tons of animals in a few hundred acres or less that are just lame' I've hunted on a 20,000 acre high fence in NM and it was quite a challenge and I would definately go again.