My buddy and I were hunting for a spike Sunday in the Utah general season elk hunt. We watched a cow and her two young calves run across a sage brush flat and after about 30 shots all three were dead. We were upset that someone would shoot although it was legal to do so. I am perplexed as to the ethics of shooting these elk and the long term effects of such actions on the elk herd. Is it ethical (reagrdless of legality) for hunters to shoot a cow with two young calves? Does it make sense for the health of the herd in the long run? While I would not shoot a cow, I understand that managment of the herd may require that cows be removed. But I was always understood that you shoot the dry cows not the mothers.

the calves will make it on a normal winter

Like most ethics questions, if it makes you uncomfortable, by all means pass.

Orphan calves pretty much have death sentence around here. Winters are just too tough and too many predators for them to do well on their own. So we take calves or dry cows when we have antlerless tags.

I've noticed that many folks, especially with elk, subscribe to the "if it's brown, it's down" philosophy.

I'm no expert by any means, but I've always heard that orphaned calves are quickly adopted in most elk country (cold places).
(Where I live it is a little different. One study says that orphan elk in warm climes often become loners much more so than previously thought. Especially in places where they don't need to herd up for survival).

Anyway, the reason calf calls are said to be popular is because cows will respond to rescue an orphan.

Twin elk are said to be very rare, much more so than twin deer. I suspect you may have seen a calf that had already been adopted by a wet cow.

The rule of thumb I've always heard when facing the calf/cow dilemma is take the sure shot - whichever it is. Orphans will be adopted and calves are often as big as deer.

One has to be really really close (like underneath), or watch a group for a long time to sort out wet and dry cows.

I don't get to watch elk near as often as deer, but I think an orphaned fawn might fare a little better without mom as long as it has some company to learn from and help a bit with defense. Does are by no means kind to their kids when winter shows and groceries get thin. If junior finds an obviously good morsel, mom will run him off in most cases and take it for herself.

I'd have shot one of the calves, best eating out there.

Not sure about mulies, but it's nature's way for a whitetail to have twins. Buck and a doe.

Here in Colorado with an abundance of elk, killing cows is the bestway to either reduce the herd size or at least keep it to a healthy level.No reason at all not to shoot cows.fact is , inCO more cows are shot than bulls. The 20% kill success would be closer to 10-12 if not. By rifle season,most calfs are weaned.Once the elk herd up, they are going to get what ever food all the rest are. A hard winter will take it's toll,mama around or not.

I think people are missing that the OP said that all three were killed. As long as there were three tags, this was good to go.

If the tags said antlerless, it doesn't make much difference on the age.The whole point is to reduce the number of elk on antlerless tags.
Actually, shooting spikes is worse if you are looking to get a better bull to cow ratio and shoot mature bulls.Until Colorado instituted the 4 pt or better rule, almost all bull elk shot were spikes or two yr old bulls. Very few made it thru the 2nd year to become branch antlered bulls.The spikes have not learned about hunters yet and are easy prey.

I would consider it less ethical to shoot the spikes than a cow or calfs. Those spikes need time to grow into mature bulls.

If a cow/calf come buy me with a spike bull or two, and I have an either sex tag,I'd probably shoot the cow or maybe even the calf if I didn't need much meat.

I'd think states that have spike only hunts are trying to build the herd up, but if so,why are there cow tags then as this seemed to be the case. Doesn't make much sense.

Not true. The drys are usuallya slightly different color, most times. It don't take much looking, if you know what to look for.....and I don't mean 'like underneath'.

IMO, in Utah it's the DWRs way of giving folks a chance to go elk hunting while managing those same units for limited entry (ie big bulls) hunts.

I've not heard this before. Any hints about the differences? What part of the animal is different? Lighter, darker, browner?
Thanks!

I don't care of its legal or not. Its wrong in my opinion. I'm not going to shoot a whitetail with a young fawn. I don't need to eat venison that bad. Same goes for Elk as far as I'm concerned. Just my opinion.

Yes. I'd like a little schooling on the color disparities too.

In many instances dry cow/does etc may be in slightly better condition, since they've avoided the nutritional stresses of feeding Jr over the spring and summer months. In really good years (like 2011 for us) and with ample groceries though, I find it a tough call, and I've dropped a few early season elk that could still leak milk that I thought were dry.

Being somewhat more social than deer, I've heard reports of cow elk nursing unrelated calves. but I have no solid observations myself. By the time most hunting seasons are in session though the kids are weaned and on hard groceries.

The mule deer fawns around our home are still makeing some nursing attempts, but moms are not standing for it.

These situations are personal deals IMO and not something other hunters with different beliefs should be criticized about.

There are plenty of big issues I suspect most experienced hunters have witnessed at some point that are blatantly unethical, usually illegal and extremely poor sportsmanship at a minimum to be concerned about.

Next time you are near a herd, try to concentrate on color only. Don't watch for calves following. First, the bulls bodies are always the lightest. Some even appear to be white, compared to the rest of the bunch. You can really pick the bulls out at distance. The slab-sided old bulls especially stand out. Even bull calves of the year will be slightly lighter than heifer calves. Now pay attention to the color on the cows, they are not all the same. Most wets will have a brown/tan tint, and the drys will be slightly more gray. Now, I'm talking main body color, not neck color. Ignore the neck. it'll be anything from washed-out red, to near black. The differences are slight, but more apparent in sunshine. After you pick one as a dry, study her. After a little watching, you'll rarely see a calf near her. It is tuff to tell, unless there are a few to compare too. Singles are impossible, as there is nothing to guage difference. And it's tuff to see diff's when they are travelling fast.

Thanks! I never even thought to look at those differences. Should be an interesting exercise next time I'm elk hunting.

I've been hunting elk for 45 years & I don't think I've ever seen twin calves. It its legal there shouldn't be any debate, an antlerless tag is meant to be.......an antlerless tag for a reason.

Dick

Good lord, unless someone is truly hurting financially and desperate for meat, I cannot see gunning down calves.

Calves, in my book are the finest of elk table fare. If one could only take about 3 per year.... Near any cut is a breakfast steak that can be cut with a fork.

Elk are social animals, and orphaned elk calves do better than orphaned mule deer fawns because they still have the herd to watch over them. As mentioned, twin calves are rare in elk so in most instances one of the calves is likely adopted.

As far as color differences between wet and dry cows? I'll admit that sometimes heifer cows appear lighter in color, but I don't know if any color variation is enough to distinctively tell them apart from wet cows......there are too many variables such as sunlight angles and cleanliness of hide to make it a reliable indicator. If you're bothered shooting wet cows, watch the herd for a few minutes until you find a heifer, they are likely better eating anyway.

+1

+2...those poor little things.

I'd feel like shidt.

Gees- I dont see why the need to shoot a calf let alone a couple in the same breath. I hunted with a group that shot anything that ran by them in the past. Then they would complain when the population didnt recover. i dont hunt with them anymore but they still complain that they dont see any animals or animals of size. Maybe i lean more twords trophy animals now than in the past but still dont see the reason for calf hunting. Especially now that calf recruitment is so difficult in many areas because of predatation. To each his own- Thats what makes this country tick.

as dry as this summer was, our (Utah's) winter range is in terrible shape. UT DWR has increased the number of cow/calf tags by many thousands to try to reduce the burden on range.

IMO, those calves were lucky to be shot, the fate that awaited them this winter was / is much, much more gruesome....

I can not understand 30 shots to kill 3 elk! That in itself tells you a lot about the hunters.

The number of shots isn't uncommon in elk country when a few of the boys get into a herd. That's far more disgusting to me than shooting calves.

Elk populations in most states and provinces are on the rise, and in many areas the winter ranges are taking a beating. By far the highest natural mortality is to calves, with at least half never making it to a year old, and in a drought year (like this is over much of the West) the rate will be much higher, especially if the winter is anywhere near normal.

Not shooting calf elk due to an aversion to shooting "babies" is an understandable reaction among many hunters, but it doesn't make any sense biologically with the general high elk populations these days. In fact some biologists argue for primarily killing elk calves (or fawn deer) because that more closely mimics natural mortality.

JB: Oh, I understand all the biological reasons for shooting them...and that it's part of sound game management.And I have no objection to it being done by anyone........it's just that I would feel bad.....I must just be getting soft in my old age...LOL!

Having shot a few yearling elk calves I agree on the delicious nature of yearling elk meat.

I do find it harder to drop the hammer on a yearling but I have never regretted it when it came to dinner time.

If there are 2 antlerless tags then it seems a cow calf pair makes a lot of sense as the orphaned calf will have a tougher time. My guess is that the trio in the OP was a cow calf pair and an orphaned calf.

Not to mention that when you do kill a cow elk, most are pregnant. So, in fact, two elk are being killed. And that is what the biologist want.

Dinner time would go a long ways to assuaging my guilt...

I guess I'm misunderstanding the information that nearly everyone has been given over the last couple of years.
All we have heard is Elk populations are way down. Pert near everywhere.
Gunning down 2 calves doesn't help a bit.

With the stresses put on many of the populations by fuzzy things. I can't imagine the cow calf ratios are at an acceptable levels.

I could be wrong.

Utah and Montana are in different boats concerning elk populations because we don't have wolves as of yet. Antlerless tags are still an active part of elk management in almost every unit to keep elk herds within management objectives. The inevitable arrival of wolves here in Utah will likely bring an end to the widespread issuance of antlerless tags and we'll soon be facing the same problems Montana and other wolf states have in dealing with declining elk populations.

Elk populations aren't even down in all parts of Montana. In some areas they're high, if not climbing.

I'm more perplexed on the shooting of a perfectly healthy raghorn when there's a cow or calf standing next to it... when the antlerless is legal and the hunter is dying to pull the trigger.

the op's question centers around ones ethics, not legality or right vs wrong. we all have different ethics to some degree or another. since the op has issues regarding shooting the calves, from an ethical standpoint he believes it is wrong. others who have already posted see no ethical problem with shooting the calves (or shooting mom and letting the calves walk). clearly, their ethics allow for the shooting of a calf. using ones ethics alone as a measuring rod, both made the right call.

I would love to hear how ethics are different from deciding what's right and wrong.

What the OP is basically talking about is his personal emotional reaction to killing "baby elk." This is often a holdover from the days when game departments discouraged killing any anterless animals, because populations were really low. For a long time there ws a taboo about killing "mommy deer," for instance.

Nature doesn't make such fine distinctions, and neither did humans who really did hunt to survive before "game management" showed up in so-called civilization.

Ethics? If numbers were down round here I would have a different opinion on shooting a calf. I do however have an opinion, maybe a questions of ethics on bulls that are shot and disagree with the four point on one side restriction here in Colorado. My opinion is the restriction should be six on both sides.

At the risk of wandering somewhere I don't belong I'll share this:

I once heard a Philosopher/Apologist describe Ethos or Ethics as the "imperative", in other words right and wrong as defined by God or Natural Law. Morality, on the other hand, is the "indicative", reflecting what society has concluded as acceptable. What may seem perfectly moral to one person can be seen as amoral or even immoral to another, especially if we look across different societies.

I don't know that I see the dilemma presented as necessarily an ethical question as much as a moral decision. I can certainly see where under some circumstances, shooting an orphaned calf that wanders around the trail head for two days could rub against my idea of fair chase and good sportsmanship. On the other hand, I wouldn't say it is wrong to harvest said calf either.

I don't know this clears anything up but makes for good mental calisthenics.

What I had hoped for was a discussion of hunting ethics from not only from a game management perspective, but also from reality check of changing hunter�s attitudes and the current times. There is not right or wrong opinion as the shooting was legal. Unlike so many, my thoughts and opinions can be changed with a reasonable argument. I hope others will also consider the arguments. Thirty shots to maim and then slaughter the three elk was one issue. I watched in my binoculars in disgust. A great way to help build a case for anti-hunting advocates. Another was an issue of game management. Killing breeding elk and future breeding elk versus older ones. Survival through the year was another. Speculation over weather conditions in the future is not easy and often wrong. What happens to young orphans was another. I appreciate everyone�s input and the discussion.

There were some good and reasonable arguments from many. I am persuaded by a number of reasonable arguments for shooting cows with calves including from a management and weather situation. I doubt that I will cow hunt, but I will be much more understanding of those so inclined and even reconsider my situations. From others, I worry that the future of hunting cannot be �brown and down� or based on some pre-historic hunting basis. This is now and there are so many hunters in the field to take so many animals with modern weapons on reliance of the �Fish and Game�s� determination of the unpredictable future across the entire state that I worry about the elk populations and I am scared by those attitudes. It would not take much to devastate the population considering the numbers being killed and a hard winter.

Best answer ever!

I am always perplexed why some people feel that killing of a young being is somehow more despised than that of a mature one, be it a hunted animal or a human. It is taking of a life one way or another. Somehow people transfer the "cute baby " concept into baby's life being more precious than that of an adult. I personally find this unnatural.
I am a hunter and feel sadness when I take a life of an animal. But I still do it and need no justification, be it a bull, cow or a calf.

I completely understand killing an animal to fill a larder,regardless of age;and that it makes sense from a management perspective. I relish game meat myself and am not fussy about the age and gender of the animal that provides it.If I were so inclined,I would kill one myself.And I won't throw stones at someone who takes a young animal.

OTOH if there is a reasonable expectation that I can kill an older animal,a dry cow,say,I will pass the younger stuff and look for that instead.Part of the hunting experience for me is trying to be a bit selective in what I shoot,and this does not always restrict itself to antler size or anything like that....but "age" is a criteria,and I'll always look for the older animal because,frankly, killing immature animals in some hunting areas is just too damned easy.

When hunting for the pot,I like older animals with bigger bodies that are "on the mend"..they taste really good(like aged beef from older cattle),and provide more steaks.Plus, such animals have already made their contributions to the herd.

I agree with Greenhorn on the issue of killing sub-mature males when a perfectly good cow is available for the taking,and would provide just as much meat.

But this is a personal thing,and in most cases F&G biologists know what they are doing and why they earmark certain types of animals for sustained yield of a species...assuming of course meddling sportsmen and others leave them alone to do their job.

The fusilade is a completely different subject.Killing isn't always pretty and some are better at it than others.

Back in September my hunting partner and I got in on a herd after a week of hard hunting up around timberline. We each had either sex tags. The first good opportunity for a shot was a raghorn. I'd have taken it if he was legal, but he wasn't (point restrictions). If it had been the first couple days of the season, I wouldn't have. A little later, the herd bull fired up and we were chasing them up as they were headed to their beds. As we were cow calling, a yearling cow peeled off and came over to check us out at 15 yards and 5 yards. We had the herd bull up ahead and a couple more days to hunt, so didn't even think about it. If it had been the last day of the hunt with no bugling bulls nearby, that would have been a different story. Would have been perfect for the five mile pack out. The way I see it, the DOW wouldn't have given me an ES tag if killing a cow was bad for the herd.

Yea, it is taking of a life, but only the older critters got a chance to experience that life. I don't want to take a fish that hasn't had a chance to spawn. JMO, and I have on occasion taken young deer. To me, they are tender but best cooked in bacon grease to lend some flavor.

Personally, I think that's a very slippery slope; if we need to let the animals "experience life" then at what age is it OK to whack 'em? After all, a three year-old bull may have bred more than once but he's still young and filled with so much promise......

I do agree on the bacon grease though

Pretty much sums it up. Antlerless tags are for antlerless elk, and you never know someone else's situation. 30 shots for 3 elk is inexcusable.

I helped a guy find and finish the cow he'd wounded out in NM a few years back. Wondering the whole time about the details of his situation... seemed like he wanted an elk BAD. When we got it all taken care of he tried to donate half of it to us for helping him. We politely refused.

Turned out he'd been laid off and out of work for several months, had kids to feed, and was down to his last couple packages of burger in the freezer. This guy needed an elk more than I ever have.

Personally I won't shoot the cow with a calf if I can tell, if it's between the two I will shoot the calf. Usually I'll try to take a youngish cow preferably 1 1/2 yrs old with no calf.

Most of my cow hunting is taking out youths and family, so I will go over the scenarios and ultimately it's up to them what they pull the trigger on.

There's no ethics involved at ending a life at 7 months or 10 years... foods food and young is better than old. When bird hunting, this years hatch are always better than the old birds, but I can't tell the difference when they flush.

Kent

What sucks is when a local elk herd is made up of entirely cows, calves, spikes and 2X3 bulls. Regardless of what a guy wants to shoot.. that [bleep] sucks and isn't natural.

Killing cows/calves is great.. let those dink ass easy come raghorns grow up and screw a couple cows. Who wants a 25" elk rack on their wall.

10 or 11 months out of the year, that's completely natural.