Deer or Elk? Discovered an animal in photos, after the hunt.

[FrankenMauser]

Yesterday, I was showing my wife the pictures from my Elk hunt. As I was telling her that I hadn't seen a Bull Elk on the entire trip, I ran across these photos. (It's a "Trophy Bull" unit -- there are big ole bulls all over the place. Not seeing a single bull was very odd.)

I can't tell you why I took these photos, other than them being in the middle of a few shots I snapped to show my wife what the conditions and terrain looked like (and how dark a little stand of pines can be in the middle of the day). Because I had been zooming in on many other photos to show her some details, I just happened to zoom in on these. ...And there was an animal staring at me.

...But I can't convince myself of two things:
1. It's an Elk. (I'm 90% certain... but there's still that 10%.)
2. It's a Bull. (I can't decide if I'm really seeing antlers, or just weeds blending in with the obscured head.)

What do you think?

(Ignore the dramatic change in light levels. The extra snow in the second image made the camera have a fit, and screwed up its light balance. If you look carefully, you can verify that both photos were taken in the same place.)



I kept telling my hunting buddies that the Elk were all in the pines, just watching us go by. ...I may have been more correct than I want to admit.

[huntinaz]

Yeah that's an elk

[SHNOMIDO]

im a total amateur, but i would say 99% elk, and 60% bull.

my two cents.

hope you had a nice trip! looks fun

[black mamba]

Definitely an elk, but I'd say a cow-- I think all the lighter stuff are branches in the foreground.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Looks like an Elk, but the head is obscured too much to tell if it's a bull.

[ligonierbill]

Yeah, elk. Look at the rump. But I cannot tell bull or cow. Amazing how a critter this big can just blend in, but they certainly do. And that's why it's fun!

[twins]

Franken,
At what distance were those photos taken?
Stalking or still hunting?
Just curious.

Others,
How many would have taken the shot if you had a bull elk license?

[30-30remchester]

I live with elk. Around 500 winter within 1/2 mile of my house, so I have seen a few. My guess is a cow. Bulls in general are considerablly lighter in color than cows. When the herd is feed below the house I can easily tell the bulls from the cows just by the color.

[JWT]

Definitely not a mammoth.

[DRice.72]

Amazing.
I have been reading articles on stalking. It says one very important piece of equipment is a good pair of field glasses. The reason is to see into the dense brush. I never really thought about why until I saw those pictures. I'd bet if one had scanned that with good glass, that animal would have been much easier to spot.

[tahunua001]

100% elk, about 70% sure it's a cow, if it is a bull it's a spike. you have a weed in the way that kind of looks like antlers

[FrankenMauser]

At what distance were those photos taken?
Stalking or still hunting?
Just curious.

Others,
How many would have taken the shot if you had a bull elk license?

I'd say the Elk is about 125 to 150 yards from the camera (based on my experience with this camera, and where the photos would have been taken).

At the point that those photos were taken, we weren't really doing either. It was more of a casual stroll down a logging road (coming down off a 10040 ft peak, just barely back into the pines).

And, the shot? Not me. Positive ID, only.
I had a "Spike-only" tag. The Bull must have at least one antler with no branching above the ears. If the spike isn't there, or it has any points greater than 1"... it ain't legal (for that particular tag).

I'd bet if one had scanned that with good glass, that animal would have been much easier to spot.

I carry 10x binoculars while hunting. At that distance, they wouldn't have done any good. And... given the situation, there was no point in scanning with magnification. Most areas where we were hunting only provided about 40 to 100 yards of visibility. If you can't see it with the naked eye, it's just going to blend into the magnified jumble of vegetation, with field glasses. The only reason there is a longer line of sight here, is because we had just dropped back into the trees. The top of the tree line is right behind the animal.

I missed it with the naked eye, and wouldn't have been using magnification. So, I just missed it.

I have been reading articles on stalking.

The best way to stalk: Just do it.
The terrain, local conditions, and demeanor of the animals is unique everywhere you go. And, every hunter has their own preferences. The best way to figure out how to stalk, is to try what feels right. Adapt, improvise, and press on, from there.

[doofus47]

probably an elk cow

[huntinaz]

I carry 10x binoculars while hunting. At that distance, they wouldn't have done any good

Why not? That's some thick stuff. I hunt that stuff, and I use my binoculars a lot. You can see legs, ears, and other elk parts that you would never see with the naked eye. You didn't see that elk with your naked eye...but I guarantee you would have seen it with 10x binos at 150 yards!

[Crankylove]

You didn't see that elk with your naked eye...but I guarantee you would have seen it with 10x binos at 150 yards!

Maybe.....maybe not.

That photo was taken at about mile number 5 of 10. The trail we were on rises in elevation about 1,200 feet, and travels through valleys, over ridges, through and over creek beds, and snakes back and forth for 4-5 miles each way (up and back down). All of it lined with thick oakbrush, pines, quakies, willows, sagebrush, falllen logs, beaver dams, old logging slash piles, as well as 4-5 acre meadows thrown in here and there. Sometimes visibility is 20 feet, walk around a bend and you can see half a mile.

I scan with the eyes while moving through the terrain, following up with the glasses if something catches my eye. While it is possible to scan every single square foot of area we hiked through, the amount of ground covered would most likely be far less.

I happened to be standing next to Frankenmauser (with my "Spike" tag as well) as he took this picture, and neither of us saw the Elk (which is what I think it is). We did however see Moose, other elk, deer, coyotes, grouse, bear and cat tracks, and a few little fishies, so the hike wasn't a total waste.

[huntinaz]

You really think you guys wouldn't have seen that elk at ~150 yards, standing at the edge of a clearing, thru 10x binoculars??

I agree, you are giving up ground covered by moving slowly and glassing more. I'm just pointing out that if you had that particular spot instead of taking pictures, you would have seen that particular elk. And, perhaps not the ones you saw further down the trail since you wouldn't have made it as far.

I'm not trying to say I disagree with your methods. I'm just saying that I tend to move slower thru thick stuff and watch a lot. And I have glassed up elk in thick, nasty crap at 80-100 yards that I never would have seen with a naked eye. My point is that binoculars are nowhere near useless in thick stuff.

[DRice.72]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

The best way to stalk: Just do it.
The terrain, local conditions, and demeanor of the animals is unique everywhere you go. And, every hunter has their own preferences. The best way to figure out how to stalk, is to try what feels right. Adapt, improvise, and press on, from there.

I agree, and I go out and look. I like to learn about techniques other people use. Sometimes, I pick up some useful ideas. That is one reason I joined TFL, to learn.