High country or Low Country for Big Bucks?

[Rizzy]

Have you harvested more of your biggest Bucks in the High country or low country?
Lets say High country are the migratory Bucks and Low country are the Resident Bucks. I would say for this poll, November rut hunts don't count because most of the time these hunts already happen on the winter range or transitional range.

 

[bbrown]

I voted high country because that is where I typically hunt for myself however I get to do a bit of guiding for BIG desert mulies in some lower country. That is a blast and the bucks can be unreal - its all private of course.

 

[Ridge Ghost]

I voted low country because there is much more opportunity for hunting low country mulies in Montana. I'm sure it's different in other states. Besides, some of those low country bucks benefit from raiding alfalfa fields at night, helping antler growth.

 

[robby denning]

Great poll!
I had to vote High Country because of your November restriction. However, throw out that rule, and I'm right around 50/50.

 

[brettb]

Man what a great question. I have seen the same caliber of bucks in both and between. Great big bucks in the hay field early while seeing great big bucks above timberline during the same time. Big bucks are going to be where you find them. and can be anywhere at anytime.

 

[Rizzy]

Great poll!
I had to vote High Country because of your November restriction. However, throw out that rule, and I'm right around 50/50.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to work the November High country hunts in without skewing the results by including the migratory Bucks that are hunted on the winter range.

It's interesting because I bet the ratio of time spent in the high country to big high country bucks harvested is way different then time spent in the low country to big low country bucks harvested. The high country is more fun to hunt and we spend more time there, but I think the low country is more efficient to hunt.

 

[robby denning]

Ron, I'd probably agree. Most (not all) high country buck hunting quality has declined, leveling the difference between high and low. In the 80's, the high country was was way better than it is now, on average, so it was a different story then. A few places in Idaho were producing B&C bucks almost yearly from the high country. Now they just produce tents

 

[MesaHorseCo.]

Good topic!

 

[brettb]

Lol,aint that the truth Robby. between everyone and ther brothers now wanting to hunt the high country and the amount of the civilian backpackers, yes you are more than likely to see more tents. I know I have personally seen it over the years. Imo, high country is almost an easier hunt as per the country and availability to glass for miles and to beable to pick and choose. Unlike the low or midland, if you dont have access to the private or the time to scout with all the cover they inhabit daily it makes it a lot harder to hunt. or you just get lucky on a monster which happens every year. i think it all depends on, (1)- are you up for the challenge and comiment of being in physical shape to hunt the high country back pack hunts with the physical mind set. its not an easy hunt or for the average hunter, I dont care what you read. (2) what type of hunt are you looing to do? every day, easy access, drive to close proximity? I personally know there are big deer at about every elevation where the mule deer roam. If you would like to do a grueling high mountain back pack hunt, DO YOUR RESEARCH and get in the absolute best physical shape you can for yourself. if tahts not what you want, do a bit of research and enjoy yourself. You will find big deer at all elevations, but yes early season high country they are easier to locate due to the glassing capabilities. low land and mid land is almost a get lucky

 

[Slim Jim]

I think terrain (cover) has a lot to do with it. Some of the better trophy units in NV produce huge bucks in the lower elevations under dense juniper cover.
I would still rather hunt high country mulies that I can glass up and then devise a plan of attack. There isn't much glassing in the dense cover just a lot of trail cams. Not my style of hunting

 

[spdcrazy]

in my old honey hole in az. if you wanted to road hunt a nice 4x4 24-26in, you took your truck up the mtn, and on top you'd see a number of them. all morning day and evening. but if you wanted a big ol' 30in, youd wait for a weather change and glass down low. worked three times running for me. only once had a tag, and that was the year my scope went bad, came home with some great pictures and memories tho.

 

[jdmdavey]

low lands are crawling with hunters east of the Cascades..They flood in from the Westside like ants....but thats what happens during a 10 day rifle season. Gotta out climb jethro and his drunk brothers. They tend to just drive around all day in cummins powered pickups with 4" straight pipes scratching their heads wondering why they dont see anything. Solution...I switched to archery

 

[Sierra stalker]

As much as I like hunting the high country, and I do, I see much better bucks down low, and I'm not talking private land. I try to mix it up on my hunts between the two. If I don't know an area very well ill mainly hunt high, hunting low country bucks can take z lot of time to figure out.

 

[2rocky]

Riz, I voted HC because that is where all my Mule deer success has been, despite my biggest buck being well under the B&C award level.

In that case we are talking 8-9000 feet elevation below timberline with dominant vegetation being Douglas Fir, Lodgepole Pine and open meadows in Late September and Early October.

 

[robby denning]

glad you resurrected this thread, 2rocky. Love the discussion.

 

[Buster]

Interesting to hear results and opinions from different areas. My 2 main areas to compare and contrast are the cropland and coulee country of southern Alberta, and the high basins of southeastern BC along the continental divide. Hands down, the prairies win. As someone mentioned in an earlier post, the prairie bucks tend to have the feed advantage, and winter life can be very tough on critters up high in my area of the rockies. In terms of numbers, I am lucky to spot 1-2 bucks that would gross over 175 in the basins, but when I go back over to Alberta, it's disappointing to not see a couple of that caliber every day. I try to keep the area I hunt in perspective when O look for a quality animal
.

The best buck I found up high this year (170ish typical 4 point).

One of 3 bucks we found in the prairies in just a few days that would push the 200 inch gross mark.

 

[Rizzy]

I scouted an area below the winter range one morning on my way up to the high country and I saw more Deer down there that morning than I do in 3 days in the high country. I only saw one Buck though, he was a small 3x3, and he fed out in the open on a north slope until 11 AM. There was about 7 does in that canyon and I'm sure there is a bigger Buck around with that many Does available. It's hot, thick, and buggy down low, but I am going to scout more low areas this year. It gets more pressure, but I think the pressure is more predictable.

 

[Bar]

Personally, I prefer the high country no matter what the odds are. Hunting should be fun, and I have no fun at lower altitudes.

 

[Rizzy]

Ttt
A few more seasons under our belts and more members to hear from.

 

[Bubblehide]

In the areas I hunt, I have noticed that the bucks that migrate have narrower racks. While the resident bucks (non migratory) in the same zone/unit have wider racks. Granted the migratory bucks can have some very nice racks. But frankly I think there is a good reason that the bucks in the lower country tend to grow wider racks in the country I hunt. From my perspective, it's pretty simple. The migratory bucks must traverse some pretty thick country with tons of dense vegetation. I believe the environment dictates the genetics on the width or antler growth. Or better said, the environment will cull the wider spread antlered bucks, either eliminating them at an age when they attain such width, and or eliminating them from the genetic pool. Frankly I think it is the first, in that those bucks that don't switch to more open country (usually but not always lower country) will be culled due to environmental conditions that are not conducive to their survival. What I mean is that those wide racks are more likely to get hung up in that thick brush, thus leading to more successful predation on those wide antlered bucks, while the narrower antlered buck can still slide between the brush.

There are of course high altitude areas in which deer do not need to migrate through thick country, including environmental changes that transform country from think to open, such as in the case of fire, and those that revert back to being thick, years after a fire. But in short, I seriously doubt that your going to find wide antlered bucks in an overall area of dense vegetation, as they simply must be able to move about it with relative ease to survive, and a wide rack would be a handicapping condition that would surely lead to their death if they continued to stay in such an area.