You need to go back, and read the posts again. Not just this thread, but the others about the mule deer.

I said more than one time. Mule deer were hard in my area, the way that I hunt them. That's a simple statement that's not hard to understand. When i first brought this up on another thread. Someone mentioned they could get tags for 10-12 deer, and had months to get it done. I said that sounds kind of easy. At least it sounded easy to me, but i was only comparing it to what I face here. I struggle to a tag for one deer, and normally can't do it every year. As you know. Once you get the tag here they take all your points. Elk is much easier.

So, i'll say it one more time slowly. FOR ME....mule deer are harder to hunt here than elk. They are also harder to hunt than deer were in Mass, and all of New England when I lived there. Also harder than in California that I lived and hunted for 30 years. This is not just my opinion. All my hunting buddies agree. I hunt elk for meat. I hunt muley bucks for the challenge. I can call in elk. I can't call in mule deer. I can hunt elk in the timber where I do best. Muley bucks in muzzy season are above timberline. Elk are in the rut. Deer are not. My shots are close for elk in the timber. My shots are long for deer, and i'm using open sights. My vision is so bad that I have a license to use a scope in muzzy season, but I consider it unfair to other hunters, and won't use it. So, the long shots I have on bucks aren't taken. I have to get close, but i'm trying to do it in open country.

Altitude is also a challenge. No matter what shape I get into. 12,000ft will beat me up. I would be much happier hunting whitetails at lower altitudes in the timber. I've done both, and the whitetails were easier.

I repeat so there's no misunderstanding again. They're harder FOR ME!

You keep ragging on me for reading comprehension. Try to slow down, and read what i'm saying. I've also said so many times that I can't even count them. I don't push my methods on anybody else.