Eastmans predictions deceptive or wrong

B

buncoboy

Guest
After reading Eastmans and noticing so many conflicting statements regarding blue chip areas, some of which were marginal units recently, I decided to do my own research. I learned the units have not changed from when they were rated marginal or good. Are consumers of these magazines really being mislead? Why would Eastman's ruin their good name by giving this kind of information. Is this to lead us away from the better units or for another reason? We hunters invest a lot of our money and time and deserve better. Does the Huntin Fool do the same? Do you have any similar research conclusions?
 
Some people, including many here consider their publications and that of the Carters the closest thing to the bible.
 
Follow who you want, I just like accurate information, so the last few years I looked up game departments data and called regional offices to confirm the information as well as many things never listed. I obtained information from other hunters on some of the units. I went to other units for first hand observations. I compared this with private publications and it was easy to see the misleadings. Although some of it was accurate, there was enough for me to believe there was misleadings or errors. Just wondering if anyone else has taken the time to do similar and obtained results. I have been collecting this type of data nearly 40 years as I like research. This post is not meant to hurt feelings, just like to know what others know.
 
so show us what you are talking about. edumacate us!!

4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg


The harder you work the luckier you get!!
 
SW, that is a fair request and question. One of those highly loved publications in their 2009 jan. issues rates Wyoming elk unit 32 as "Marginal" yet 2011 Jan. issue it is now "Excellent". Now common sense tells you elk do not change that much in two seasons, unless it is in the opposite direction. An in state research will show you it has not changed except needs some cow thinning and I do not think that rates an excellent now. There are others, but maybe some day these publications will realize we are not all puppets. Look for your self!
 
You have to understand what a "blue chip" or "premier" area means to whoever is doing the ratings. It is not about misleading folks, but rather understanding expectations.

Many people would think a mule deer area teeming with 26", 170 B+C bucks would be a great area. If you were seeing 5 or more bucks of this quality everyday you might think you had found nirvana.

Another area might have low deer densities, and you would see few deer on any given day, but about every third day you would see one buck grossing 190+. Sounds like a fantastic unit to me, but some guys would think they weren't seeing enough deer.
Which is the "blue chip" unit?

You really have to dig into the game dept info as well. Some have very high harvest (success) rates on mostly forked horn bucks. 80% success sounds great until you find out only 1 deer in 100 was even a four point buck. Unfortunately there really aren't that many units out there where you will see 50+ bucks a day and they will almost all carry 200"+ racks. And for the very few units that might have a herd structure with this quality, you can expect tougher drawing odds than the lottery , a price tag in the $20K range, or a good 20 preference points required. Good luck finding a "sleeper" unit with this quality.

Following the recommendations of "the Fool", Eastmans, or any other of the ratings available without doing your own research is silly. This is precisely why so many people are unsuccessful with their premium tag. They have no idea what to expect in the area where they applied, and have unrealistic expectations.

Bill
 
Bill, I agree with you and believe the same about the ratings and hunter expectations, but when a unit changes ratings so quickly like the example I gave, what is the publication really trying to do? Is it to get people to put into drawing that unit to take pressure off other units, is it just to give people other choices, is it just over sight, a mistake, keep people out of that so precious honey hole, or any of the so many more reasons I have heard. Thanks for your above response, it was good!
 
I'm a research nut and subscribe to both Huntin Fool and Eastmans. Frankly, I will not be renewing Eastmans for reasons similir to all of this. They get stuff wrong all of the time, omit units and flat "miss things". They live in Wyoming yet totally bomb all the time on their home state, don't even start on other ones. For example, several elk hunts this year they list aren't even open Wyoming closed the unit!! Wouldn't someone in Wyo know this?

Huntin Fool IMO is worth it and they get stuff right. People may not always agree with their top picks but what truly seperates them is their service and passion for it. Eastmans prints crap and then sits back and does nothing. Huntin Fool prints it, then lets you call them and go over it. They will go over everything in detail with you and tell you why they list something or what they know about it. They have the balls to at least to talk to every guy that calls about their picks and units in general.

As a research guy I appreciate what Huntin Fool offers and talk to them all of the time. They know their crap versus Eastmans isn't even close IMO. You get what you pay for and I've been following these types of inaccurate things for years. When it's all said and done Huntin Fool is usually pretty dang close in the end and if you ever wonder why or what's up with something you can call them.
 
It's a resource guys. That's it. If you just rely on one source to make your decision you're nuts. Take it for what it is. They don't hunt every single area. They are getting their information the same way we get ours. I think they do a good job at producing a "hunters" magazine.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
I do alot of reaserch on my own as well, I view the "missed" or "inacurate" info as my ace in the hole when forming my game plan.

Most people stop thier reseach at HF and Eastmans and think they have what they need. when all the sheep are following along with thier nose up the other ones butt it isnt hard to think around them.

That said, I follow both publications very close because IMO you have to know what info is being laid out to the masses.
 
' I obtained information from other hunters on some of the units. I went to other units for first hand observations. I compared this with private publications and it was easy to see the misleadings'

If you can do this and cover so many units to say that EBJ is mis-leading then why do you even subscribe?

Many years the average bull taken is just that average, then one season alot more bigger bulls are harvested and then the unit goes from marginal to good or exceptional.

Maybe the tags allocated are changed and it should represent a better hunt the next year....

Maybe winter snow reports or drought conditions can change a unit from marginal--good--exceptional....

Maybe you wanted to draw 32 and now you feel they have screwed up your odds by saying that for 32?

It might not hurt for you handfull of guys (always seeming to be from wyoming) to just run over to Powell and sit down and 'challenge' Mike and Guy face to face------

Maybe end up with a good job from them?? as you seem to know more than them??

Robb
 
They sift through and provide some data that really is a regurgitation of what is available to the general public via game and fish websites. Then, the give you their "professional" opinion. This does not mean that they have ever set foot in the area.
 
Robb, you must have misread some of the post, try again! Never said I covered every unit, or just one state, but several I know about do have some wrong or misleading information. I just used a current edition that I thought most subscribers would have. Could have used other examples, but not everyone wants to go through alot of old issues. SW was just asking for an example. Robb, apparently you know zero about elk. It would be near impossible for an elk herd to go from "marginal" to a blue chipper in two seasons, if so, every biologist in the world would be running to Wyoming unit 32 to find out how to do the same in some of their units. After what I learned, there was no change since two years in unit 32, so was this a misprint or another reason for this. I did call Eastman's, and if I told you the response, you would not believe it anyways. I am currently looking at 60-70 elk units in various states, trying to make decisions like most everyone else. There are alot of elk areas to hunt, but I just find it interesting how incorrect or misleading can be published. I am not anti Eastmans, infact will always be a Gordy lover. If you take the time to research some of the info. instead of being a sheep, you will find errors, but I believe todays hunters deserve better.
 
Anybody with any hint of perceptiveness can see that Eastmans' staff are kids. Kids with BIG titles and wannabe, hero desires. This is pretty comical, actually. Kids are not qualified to give professional level advice to anybody for anything. I don't believe they are being deceptive......just honest and not qualified.

The piss poor level of effort they put into their mag, books and films says a great deal about the entire Eastman's org. This has been the case since the 1980's. Clue in dudes.....nothin' new here these days. Mr. Michael started his mag making $$$ from other hunter's successes.....not his own........with free written donations from them.......what do you expect???

One more thing. They cater best to hunters who are less than they are. Just take it for what it is.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-11 AT 08:43PM (MST)[p]WOW!! Maybe Whiskey and Bunco should start there own publication so they can enlighten us poor blind souls.

As stated before - Use it as another source of info.
Research things on your own, compare it with other information and come to your own conclusions.
 
Apparently Robb, you don't know jack about elk? Oh boy, here we go. Eastmans' are now kids? Sounds like some resident experts are really....experts?
 
Take Eastmans and Carters advice with a grain of salt, Hell try covering all the states these mags do! I'm sure you'll have predicted some unit to be great and it ends up being a dud because of mother nature, over predation, over hunted the fall before. For instance Wyoming Unit 130 Deer, generally a hell of a good unit, but this past season didn't get the early snow to move the deer down, so everyone settled on lesser deer, We see this time and time again, PREDICTIONS(forecast, projection) are just that, Look at the NEPA, EPA, hell even the weatherman they make predictions all the time and never get it right. I like both these mags and the guys that confer the data to us, use it as a baseline and then do extended research on top of that, Local Game Wardens and Biologists are very aware of those hidden variables that can make or break a unit.
GOOD LUCK IN THE UPCOMING DRAWS!!


TICK
TALL, WIDE, AND HANDSOME
 
>Baa-Baa
>
>I saw a photo once of
>an elk........I think it was
>an elk?
>
>Robb

I got my first Elk last year. It didn't have horns so it must be a girl Elk.


6463lama.jpg
 
From reading these post it seems everyone has some valid comments, except, wapiti who cut off those antlers. I was just trying to figure out if information was misleading , by mistake, or lack of real knowledge. Hope everyone gets the tag they want this year, good hunting!!!!
 
I personally hate what eastman's and hunting fool... their information has nearly ruined some units in my home state of Colorado. Take unit 21 Deer for instance....
 
This line is pretty funny to me....
"Robb, apparently you know zero about elk."
After talking with Robb multiple times over the years I'm pretty convinced he knows a thing or two about elk!! Thanks for all the times you've helped me out in the past Robb - Brian
 
I have noticed that a change in season dates can also turn a hunt into a "blue chip" area. A rifle hunt that was once in October,in an area that has awesome genetics but few deer and lots of trees, but is now in late November, would deserve a step up the ladder IMO...
 
I have subscribed to Huntin Fool and Eastmans off and on over the last decade. Both are nice publications, but I guarentee you I don't get them for the "top picks" info.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you are not privy to any information that thousands of others are not privy too.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

150186DE-CA34-4764-9989-8135BC089631.jpeg
The Hunt for a $310k Antelope Island Buck Donated to Army Veteran
2015-11-14 18.20.02.png
Big Eyeguards
2015-12-11 21.11.36.png
Dandy Bull Elk
IMG_5888.jpeg
FullSizeRender.jpeg
Big Bull
DD1BB06F-A08D-4066-9FBE-E2EAFC23CC10.jpeg
IMG_20201014_183555109.jpg
54543.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom