Who thinks Eastman's have a clue about Wyoming elk?

[WYOExport]

I was just reviewing the Dec 2010/ Jan 2011 copy of Eastman's hunting journal, and found a lot of their elk advice laughable. Aren't these guys supposed to be from Wyoming? While I will never claim to be an expert on every area of Wyoming, they are clearly off the mark on several areas I am very familiar with. A couple of pertinent examples:

1. They said the Ferris Mnts (22) are "very moderate" country. Anyone who has hunted there, hiked there, looked at a map of there, or even driven by there knows that "moderate" will never describe the ruggedness of this wilderness study area. In the absence of weather, you will earn your bull here!

2. Same thing for area 111 on the Seminoes. "Mild terrain"? Ha. They also say it is "an up and coming area". Hell, it has been a great area for years, but it is probable on the decline. The only thing that has changed is that access is getting much more difficult, with several properties closed the last several years. At the same time, the WY G&F has been trying to reduce the population, placing a tremendous amount of pressure on the segments of the herd that are accessible. Those populations are way down.

3. They failed to mention any access issues for area 7, where much of the best hunting is on gaurded private properties. Likewise, they did not mention that the entire population of elk on area 118 spends most of their time on the checkerboarded land to the south, with very little access. They claim this herd has similar terrain and trophy quality as area 111. Maybe it was a typo, because these are desert elk like the Steamboat herd to the west, not mountain elk like 111. The 360 bulls they claim to be seeing come off this area are either like Mike Eastmans 16" antelope that look like 13" to me; or they were coming off of area 108.

I suppose I could go on and on, but I urge you to interpret Eastmans recommendations with extreme caution; and I would be interested in anyone elses thoughts or experiences.

 

[SouthernWyo]

I've noticed some of the exact same things, not just this last year, but for the last several. Some of the write-ups on these and other areas seemed very familiar, likely warmed-over "members-only research" from years previous.

As you said, anyone that has taken an even casual look at the Ferris or Seminoe ranges will realize that the "moderate" terrain is consists of 50%+ average slopes, with dense stands of timber where bulls can make themselves scarce about a week prior to the rifle opener. There?s a reason that the WGFD is supplementally transplanting bighorn sheep into these areas, it is tough, steep, rocky sheep country. Even so, you'd be surprised at the sheer number of people that pick these tags up and then proceed to spend all day driving pickups or their ATVs endlessly around the mountain(s) or up and down the Morgan Creek unit and then expect to pop a 350+ bull. To be sure, there are some great bulls come out of all of these units, but the vast majority of branch bulls that get harvested every year will run around 260 to 290, with maybe a few running up to 340ish. I've seen some dandy?s come off these units by folks (locals) that are in shape, know what they are doing, have busted their balls and put in mucho scouting time, and to be honest, I can't remember any that grossed over 345. I've also got buddies that put in 25+ days and have ended up taking 5 points late in the season because ?the one? has made himself invisible after mid September (BTW, they've still had to earn even these smaller bulls!) Of course there are the endless stories of bulls that are taken each year that supposedly score ?around 370? and end up 310 to 320 or less. Like any other unit in the state, the bulls are there, but you will have to work your butt off to take a big, mature bull in his own backyard. Agree with your assessment of 118 also, not sure what they are thinking.

In the Eastmans? defense, I'm sure they feel the pressure to put out some new "hot tips" every year, and they can't possibly hunt or even visit the majority of areas they recommend, and I think that much of their advise is based on success rates, days per harvest, bull/cow ratios, etc., all of which is available from the WGFD. Also, from their point of view, they are recommending areas to guided hunters in addition to the DIY type guys, which would alleviate the very real access issues which you noted. Maybe their definition of moderate terrain means that you don't have to put a pack train together for a 20 mile ride to base camp.

To be fair, these units can be a heck of a lot of fun to hunt. I, like you, feel that they are being represented as something they are not. Like the saying goes, Let the buyer beware?

 

[chipc]

Funny you should post that wyo. I got my new Eastman's today and thought exactly the same thing. prior to drawing my max points tag last year i did a TON of research on the units you mentioned. I spoke with the GFD Bio, the BLM Bio, local sport shops, the game warden, guys who hunted the units, and a couple of guys here on MM that were really helpful. Their comments on those units were MUCH different than Eastman's and the info I got turned out to be correct. I'm not trying to knock Eastmans. I really think they do the best they can to evaluate a lot of units. Or, maybe they have honey holes in those units. However, based upon what I've seen I'd be very cautious about considering the info in Eastman's to be gospel. In fact Eastman's themselves strongly advise to do your own reasearch. Good advice. Chip

 

[Triple_BB]

What do they say about area 62. That's the area that Mike Eastman drew this year.

 

[Wiszard]

They probably said there is no elk in 62 then! He doesnt want the competition. LOL!

Steve
"Get that corn out of my face"

 

[Cornhusker]

I used to be a big fan of Eastman's. Things have changed over the last 5 to 10 years. I think they are more commercialized with people that really aren't as interested in accurate scouting on their MRS editions. I also didn't appreciate the way I was treated when I contacted them several times. I think I will drop my subscription. I'm just trying to decide what to pick up to replace them with.

 

[WYOExport]

You guys have offered some interesting perspectives. Both SouthernWyo and chipc both offered a cordial defense for Eastman's, which I appreciate. However, to play the devil's advocate, don't these guys do this for a living? Shouldn't they be able to take a cursory look at a map, or read the readily available biologists reports? It is clear they didn't do either. It's not like a guy offering free advice on a forum like this. They bill themselves as "The Authority on Western Big Game Hunting." By whose standard, by what measure? I'd have to agree with Cornhusker when he says they are more interested in marketing than providing accurate information. Relentless self promoters, they would do well to spend more time researching their information and less time talking about how great they feel they are.

Triple_BB: They din't write much about 62, as they ranked it as only a "good" area (green chip, whatever that is supposed to mean), not as one of the ~18 "Best" areas.

Cornhusker: It has been my impression that Carter's service does a much more in-depth job of researching areas, probably because he was a professional wildlife biologist and knows how to access the information, analyze it, who to talk to, ect. I have some reservations about offering a glowing recommendation for them, but their methods (at least for WY) are more sound than Eastmans'.

 

[brdhuntr]

Boy lots of BAD on Eastmanns. I still think its the best one out there for a western hunter. I live in Idaho,and even though our Elk hunting has taken a drastic hit from our cuddly wolves, i appreciate their articles and stance on the predator problem.

 

[chipc]

Despite my ''cordial defense'' I would agree somewhat with Wyo. When you bill yourself as the authority you have a responsibiltity to live up to that. However, Eastman's has been cordial and did their best to be helpful when I've talked to them electronically or by telephone.

I'm a subscriber of the Huntin' fool too. I think that their situation and advice is very similar to Eastmans. They are trying to give in depth info on what ? - 12 or 15 states and hundreds and hundreds of units. C'mon, there is no way that they can do justice to that. I've found their information to be substantially different from reality in several units I've hunted in Wyoming. Both services offer a good summary of the application / draw process and some places to START your search for a good unit. One of the state biologists told me that he was always happy to talk to and help out individual sportsmen. He wasn't nearly as happy to share information with someone who was going to turn around and sell it. I think there is a lot of that sentiment out there.

 

[marburg]

The telling thing about both these services is the guys that run them are not putting in for the units the rank high.....

 

[Willy_P]

>1. They said the Ferris Mnts
>(22) are "very moderate" country.
> Anyone who has hunted
>there, hiked there, looked at
>a map of there, or
>even driven by there knows
>that "moderate" will never describe
>the ruggedness of this wilderness
>study area. In the absence
>of weather, you will earn
>your bull here!
>

Amen!
It's kicked my a$$ several times over the last 30 some years. I have been in the Wind River, Gros Ventre Range and it is much easier country than the washboards of the Ferris chain. Unless you just want to walk back and forth east and west. Try and find water in some section of that range and you can be pretty dry at times and above about 8700' I don't recall a singe drop that wasn't falling out of the sky at 60 mph as the wind drove it.