Originally Posted by
justhuntitall
LOl you watch to much TV , its not like that at all . Kinda of like sitting on a logging road blow my bugle once and have a 300" bull run into clearing for a 20 yards broad side shot but pass because we will get a bigger one here in a bit.
I do agree its about the experience to each his own. With that said I love to chase elk cant get enough of it . Its like a drug and I guess the states know this and that's why they can charge what they want .
AK Jeff Why do you prefer MT over AK just curious, I would assume AK would have everything to offer that MT does?
Obviously my previous scenario isn't an all encompassing description of hunting Illinois, but you have to admit that treestand hunting a small area is pretty much the norm for midwest hunting. My point is you can't ride a mule through miles of mountainous country, and spot and stalk numerous species of big game in your neck of the woods. If you like treestand hunting whitetails then more power to you. I've done it, but if that's all I had to do I'd probably give up hunting.
As far as comparing MT and AK each have their own perks and pitfalls. I don't know that I really prefer one completely over the other. Alaska wins hands down for the wilderness quality and the unique species that are available. The problem with Alaska is game densities are generally very, very low, and access is often difficult and expensive. Montana generally has cheap access, but competition is usually greater, and you can't get a moose, sheep, and goat tag over the counter there like you can in Alaska. In Montana it's a lot easier to be a weekend warrior type, where in Alaska you have to dedicate more time and resources and to getting out. But in Alaska you can go spring caribou hunting in the Brooks Range, and you can trap and shoot wolves so it's all a game of give and take. Alaska by no means has everything that Montana has to offer and vice versa.