Question for Wyoming Residents

Man aspen you are making me go back on my word. I hate that but I will answer you question.

Please do not quote me on these exact dates because I do not have them in front of me right now.

Historically the objective deer heard form around the mid 70's till the early 2000's were 30,000 deer. ( I would think that some where in those years is where some people would call the good old days).

In the early 2000's they raised it to 50,000 because of public in western Wyoming wanting more deer there. At the time it was thought that this number was not a realistic goal by the biologists but to try and please the public they went ahead with it.

About 2014 I believe that number was lowered to 40,000 deer

Now see above for some of the rest of the info you would like to know
 
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-17
>AT 12:30?PM (MST)
>
>Growing deer population in an area
>with a healthy buck to
>doe ratio (like G and
>H have) will always be
>about decreasing doe mortality and
>increasing fawn recruitment. Going limited
>quota would not accomplish either
>of these things, so if
>your real desire is to
>save the deer herd, why
>in the world are you
>fighting so hard for limited
>quota?
>
>The answer is cause you are
>really just sad you can't
>find the big bucks you
>used to and limited quota
>would mean more big deer.
>
>
>Buck to doe ratios don't tell
>us much, but they do
>tell us that with a
>healthy buck to doe ratio
>there are plenty of bucks
>to go around and all
>the does get bred. If
>you are accomplishing this without
>limiting how many bucks residents
>are killing, then how is
>limiting them going to suddenly
>help? Limiting resident hunters will
>only accomplish 3 things:
>
>1. Displace A LOT of hunters
>to other parts of the
>state that can't support increased
>pressure.
>2. Increase the amount of bucks
>on the winter range competing
>for feed with pregnant does
>
>3. And finally it will increase
>the amount of big bucks,
>but at what cost???
>
>Limited quota will give you bigger
>bucks, but it doesn't always
>help the deer herd, especially
>if the buck to doe
>ratio is already healthy.
>
>Decreasing doe mortality and increasing fawn
>recruitment will ALWAYS give you
>more deer, which results in
>more bucks, which results in
>more BIG bucks. The whole
>deer herd grows instead of
>just the percentage of big
>bucks.
>
>So if you REALLY want to
>"save the deer herd" start
>pushing for measures that are
>going to save your does
>and fawns! And stop disguising
>your push for limited quota
>as concern for the deer
>herd, because it's not. Or
>at the very least its
>a very ill informed way
>of trying to save the
>deer herd.
>

^^^+1000 This is what I have tried to say but said much better. Excellent post IdahoHntr!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-17 AT 10:50PM (MST)[p]>Lets cut to the chase....
>
>WHAT IS THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF
>THE WYOMING HERD. OR
>in lay mans terms... what
>is the max mule deer
>population?
>
>Also, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT
>OF HUNTERS THAT SHOULD BE
>ON THE WYOMING RANGE?
>
>Without these numbers we can not
>have a meaningful conversation.
> We may be talking
>about the same numbers.
>You may think it is
>higher...I may think it is
>higher than you.....
>
>So how many deer...how many hunters.
>
>
>If you have no opinion on
>these two numbers then you
>have no idea if there
>are enough deer or if
>there are too many hunters.
>
>
>That is a fact.
>
>
>"The penalty good men pay for
>indifference to public affairs is
>to be ruled by evil
>men." - Plato

Lord Business please go back to designing purses. Its clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

《《《《《《AWESOME》》》》》》
 
AWESOMELESS SAYS

"Lord Business please go back to designing purses. Its clear you have no idea what you're talking about."

....Then he says nothing.....

Please do educate us Ball less...I mean Awesomless ... I dare you to say one educated word...it would be the first in your history.


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Tknez,

So we can start with 40,000 deer is our objective?

And it looks like there were about 3000 deer harvested. At your request I went back and looked at the harvest comments. So, I still am not sure you have made a claim about the ideal population.

The carrying capacity of they Wyoming Range is ____?________.
The ideal amount of hunters is ____?_______.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Great, I agree we should save the does and fawns. What are your suggestions?

Build bridges for deer to cross under the road? I agree but WDOT has done one or two by Pinedale but nothing by LaBarge or Big Piney, which is where all the deer are getting hit.

Stop all doe tags. I believe this has already been done.

Oil and Gas are not an issue. I have seen many private lands with Oil and Gas and the animals are thriving. We can debate this if you like but digging up 5% of the sagebrush and blaming it for 80% of the issue is absurd. Add to that the FACT that the population has actually been increasing over the last decade....precisely when the majority of the Oil and Gas development was happening.

I personally believe the sheep hunters play a key role in predator management and as long as they graze correctly they increase the carrying capacity of the land at the same time they decrease the predator population.

The weather caused a huge problem. The population was rising before the winter of last year. So perhaps there is nothing wrong? If so, great.


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Thanks for trying Aspen. I don't know what to make of folks that wont give an inch for something so important. I only know of 1 really big Deer killed in region G last year. And those guys did a really good job of keeping it under the radar. (Good job for that) 1 Big Buck out of 7000+ Hunters that's really doing good. Even if the Bucks are 3 year olds with piss poor genetics, that Buck to Doe ratio means everything. Buck to Hunter ratio means nothing. Tkenez I will be trying to film a buck in ID this weekend, he is the best one I know of right now. What about new years weekend for a road trip?
 
Tkenez

You seem to think that 40k deer is ideal for the Wyoming Range.

I have no reason to disagree...lets go with 40k deer.

So we have about 3000 deer harvested. You were happy with last year so lets go with 3000 deer harvested as your ideal number.

Another number needed is buck to doe ratio. I believe I saw a number of 30 bucks per 100 does in the feed here but I can not find it. If you have the exact estimate from the state then correct me.

40k deer population objective
3k deer harvested last year
30 bucks per 100 does
26,000 deer before the hunt of 2017
23,000 deer after the hunt of 2017

So 30% of the deer are or should be bucks.

You estimate we had 26,000 deer before the winter last year right?

So, 26,000 x 0.30 = 7,800 bucks

So we had 7800 bucks and 3000 were killed.

You harvested 30% of the bucks in the unit last year?

Does that sound right? If so then the situation is worse than I thought.

If you want a decent amount of 5 year old bucks you can not harvest more than 1/5th of the bucks each year. So that would be 20% or 5200 bucks harvested. That means we need to reduce harvest by 1500 bucks. There are only 400 non resident tags. You need to eliminate 1100 resident tags. You cant do that with the honor system.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
You are right Aspen I haven't made a claim to the ideal number. I let the biologist's do that as I am not educated in the area that they are. they have set the number at 40,000.
So now I in your words use my "gut feeling" I would think it is more like using my eyes and legs and get out and scout in the summer. I typically see somewhere around 50 bucks in a pretty small area. Usually about 10 percent of those bucks are over 170" in my estimation. Out of those there is almost always at least one that is 180" or better. Sometimes I get lucky and 1 or more are in that 190"-200" and above range. To me that is not only a great hunting ( I disagree with you on when the hunting experience starts, it starts in July or August for me you said it starts when you see the buck with a rifle in your hands) experience but more importantly seems to back up what the biologist's seem to think what a healthy heard is.

I have tons of hours of video just like founder it is just not put out for public viewing. As I have told you somewhere else more then a the few people you know about scout and video this area.

So now to try and answer your question the best I can.

It seems to me that 40,000 is a good number for the objective. As far as how many hunters. It seems to me that at around 7,000 that objective can be met based on the numbers I posted above.

How many more can the area hold and keep that objective I am not sure. I would guess some more but how many more I don't know.

Basically the bottom line to me is this.

The way it is now is a great experience for me and my son. I want it to stay that way if it can. So far it is every year including last year after the horrible winter. Do I wish I could find a 220" slob every year? Hmmm i don't know maybe, but seems like that would be to easy to me. I kind of like the challenge. I don't want AI.

Now maybe some people have way higher standards then I do and I don't begrudge them one bit, but show me a nother area in the WORLD that could produce those type of results year after year while allowing residents 100 percent access to the area and by the way letting non residents unheard of access also for that type of a hunt.
No where even compares.

Some things I think most everyone should agree on is "mandatory" harvest reports. That would yet be a nother good tool for the biologist. I would set it like this. For residents if you do not report your tag is double the price the next year. For non residents if you do not report you are ineligible to put in for any species in Wyoming for 5 years.

By the way where did you get you numbers of harvest being around 3,000 this year. I have not been able to find those yet. The only thing I have seen is expected harvest was to be around 1,000.
 
You and I were posting at the same time. Again I ask you where are you getting that there were 3,000 deer killed?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-17 AT 08:34AM (MST)[p]the buck to doe ratio observed in 2013 was 42 bucks : 100 does. That was the highest observed sense 1991

Sense 2009 buck to doe ratios have exceeded 40:100 in 2 of those years

The highest ratio achieved in the last 20 years was on the la Barge winter range in 2013 with 46:100.

I think it is pretty safe to say that range has had a at or just a shade under 40:100 for the past 10 years

Anyone can make up numbers to fit an agenda, I deal with it all the time with engineers at work...

But the true data shows that for the past 10 years the population has been on a steady moderate increase while keeping about a 40:100 buck to doe ratio. All the while producing some of the biggest bucks in the world. While giving resident and non residents alike unbelievable hunting opportunity.

Now once again if this argument is back to it isn't what it used to be as far as top end bucks... You will get no argument from me there. It NEVER will be, but I won't exaggerate what it used to be to prove that point either. The downward turn in that began long ago with the original sell out. Mike Eastman.

There are without a doubt more of the population of big bucks being killed by more hunters because more people do it. I personally would rather see a happy hunter kill his first 190" plus buck then see it get hit by a car, killed by a lion, or just die on the winter range.

If you are so concerned about me hunting that region every year why is it you are going to be hunting it the first chance you get with your 5 points and "help us out the nail in the coffin".

At least do as letm did and don't hunt it. Do your part to help the deer.
 
Tknez

You have some great points.

40k sounds good. I know that number comes from the biologists...i was the one that provided you with the link above to the report. I agree with you it is a good number to have as a goal.

In post 24 and 25 above we see 3k .... actually about 3.1k deer were harvested in 2016. I assume 2017 was similiar since in your estimate the hunting was about as good as it was in 2016.

So we also agree the population is around 26k right now... correct?

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
>Tknez
>
>You have some great points.
>
>40k sounds good. I know
>that number comes from the
>biologists...i was the one that
>provided you with the link
>above to the report.
>I agree with you it
>is a good number to
>have as a goal.
>
>In post 24 and 25 above
>we see 3k .... actually
>about 3.1k deer were harvested
>in 2016. I
>assume 2017 was similiar since
>in your estimate the hunting
>was about as good as
>it was in 2016.
>
>So we also agree the population
>is around 26k right now...
>correct?
>
>"The penalty good men pay for
>indifference to public affairs is
>to be ruled by evil
>men." - Plato





You did post links of a few different reports of which I told you I had already read. Not even sure if you can find that number in those links you posted I have not seen it in there but as I stated above I only skim read those long ago.

I have said on here that I had a great hunt in 2017 and seen a good amount of bucks. Although the yearly bucks I did see was way down. Usually I would say I see 12 to 16 yearlings per 100 bucks. That was to be expected but not good at all. Now you might very well be wrong in using the same harves data just because I still seen and could have killed many deer.

1. Most of the 7,000 hunters there do not hunt it as hard as the ones like my self do.

2. I bought a tag last year with 99 percent intention on not filling it. Yes believe it or not many residents self regulate.

So I don't know what the harvest numbers will show, but I don't want to speculate either. What I do know is GnF did speculate and they thought harvest will be down by about 2/3's. I will assume because of antler restrictions, change of season dates, and of less deer.

I do agree with you that the population based on last years winter kill data from GnF and also their estimation on harvest should be around 26,000. As I stated above. Same as 2006.

By the way that was also a great hunt for me that year, and as pointed out before the heard grew from those numbers to almost 40,000 before last winter all the while while having general hunting for residents, off the chart hunter satisfaction, and some of the biggest deer killed each and every year anywhere in those mountains
 
Lord Business,
To say the oil and gas industry had a small impact is laughable at best. It really shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

The boom tapered off hard in 09. Deer started coming back strong in 2011. All with unlimited resident pressure?

If we want to know where to find used clothes we will hit you up!

Sincerely,

Wyoming


《《《《《《AWESOME》》》》》》
 
Not to get to far off topic but here is something I feel is a little relevant to this discussion.

Area 102 for deer in Wyoming is pretty well known by most trophy hunters I would think.

It has been limited quota for about 30 or so years I believe.

I my house is within a small walk of the boundary.

I stopped putting in for that area over about 10 years ago.

I don't even put my son in there.

I wouldn't hunt it next year if it became general this year for the first time in all of those years.

Just something to think about is all. ?

Funny story that goes along with that. I was on a caribou hunt about 10 years ago. As we were getting ready to leave some hunters from California were getting there. We talked and I found out they did have that tag that very year and were heading there as soon as the caribou hunt was done. I told them congrats and if they wanted to look me up when they were here I would love to tag along with them a little and show them the area a bit. At some point one gentleman asked me if I thought he should pass if he were to see a 200" deer early in the hunt. I didn't mean to be rude but I laughed historically and told him he better drop the Hammer on the first 180"deer he found. They were not impressed with me after that and we didn't talk much more.

Perception is the killer of the truth.

I didn't get a call from them that year when they came to hunt. I sure hope they found the 220" slobs they were looking for!
 
>Thanks for trying Aspen. I don't
>know what to make of
>folks that wont give an
>inch for something so important.
>I only know of 1
>really big Deer killed in
>region G last year. And
>those guys did a really
>good job of keeping it
>under the radar. (Good job
>for that) 1 Big Buck
>out of 7000+ Hunters that's
>really doing good. Even if
>the Bucks are 3 year
>olds with piss poor genetics,
>that Buck to Doe ratio
>means everything. Buck to Hunter
>ratio means nothing. Tkenez I
>will be trying to film
>a buck in ID this
>weekend, he is the best
>one I know of right
>now. What about new years
>weekend for a road trip?
>
Letm unfortunately I will have to decline that offer as I stated above we are also a huge wrestling family and I wouldn't give up watching my son wrestle to video the new world record. Maybe another time for sure.

I know of a few more huge bucks that were taken but maybe our definition of huge is very different.

I kind of sounds to me you are much more worried about the size of the deer in the Wyoming range them the actuall heard quality as far as objective numbers and total numbers.

We just somply agree to disagree with one another on that but you are right it would take a much more aggressive management plan to achieve that. I used to think a little that way myself but I have changed in my thinking.

I would just ask you to think if you would really want to only maybe hunt that area about say every 5 years or so when you might be lucky enough to draw the tag or know somebody who did. In my estimation that is what it would take to get back to the good old days before Eastman became rich off the backs of those high country deer.

About a 3 percent chance draw is what I figure you would be looking at to get back to when you would go 3 days up there and not see a nother person.

Then what of all the other deer in the state, I know I am not ready to stop hunting them and I will find somewhere else to go. We would need to displace about 6500 or so hunters. What will happen to those deer heards?

Not to mention could you imagine if say only 40 or so non residents were able to hunt up there. We would have the $hit show Utah has with the Doyle Moss's of the world.

Believe me I am not trying to tell you that loving BIG bucks is wrong, I have and do as much as anyone I know my whole life but at what cost? Antelope island, Henrys, the joke that is the Strip?

Those deer are still there
Magnum, Scar, Drama, The buck Rob was after last year that a local guy shot(so glad to see that by the way) to name a few. If you really want to see more 220" and above deer, get rid of all outfitters on public land. You and I both know they are the hardest on those bucks that are in the 170" to 180" range. They have to it is for money to them. Will the outfitters ever be gone, I doubt that completely but there IMO is where a ton of your hi potential great genetic bucks are going. Take a look at their pages it says it all.

What we would give up to have a few more like that is a real bad trade off IMO
 
Tk,

So we agree on the population of 26k and we agree the harvest in 2016 was 3k.

So, perhaps you are right. We should do nothing

The hunt is as good as it is going to get. The population is about half of what it was, but we are good...?

There are roughly 8k bucks and we usually shoot 3k. That seems like a rough way to go but I am just a regular Joe so I will have to trust that shooting just under half of the bucks on a normal year is a good idea.

But, if at best you were at 42 bucks per 100 does then you shoot 30% of the bucks....how do you expect the same 42 bucks per 100 does the next year?

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Awesomeless...

I started a new thread for you. Your personal attacks, lack of statistics, and careless opinions base on nothing were too distracting. I will now disregard any further comments from you on this thread unless you attempt to discuss population, statistics, or something remotely based on fact.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-17 AT 01:19PM (MST)[p]>Tk,
>
>So we agree on the population
>of 26k and we agree
>the harvest in 2016 was
>3k.
>
>So, perhaps you are right.
>We should do nothing
>
>The hunt is as good as
>it is going to get.
> The population is about
>half of what it was,
>but we are good...?

Again Aspen I am not sure where you get some of your numbers. With the population being at about 38,000 before last winter and now let's use the 26,000 estimate we keep throughing out that is not even close to half the size. Half would be 19,000 thousand and if that is the number that comes back this year then I would for sure expect not only the game and fish but the public to call for more to be done this year as we did last year in anticipation of how hard the deer were going to be hit due to the winter. This seems like a real good spot to through out there we the public and the game and fish both called for more strict hunting seasons to the commission then did Rob and also muley fanatic. The commission went with WYOGA and muley fanatic instead of the public and the game and fish. Please do not try and sway some people that might be on here looking at this with false math as I can tell you are pretty good with numbers. 38,000 to 26,000 is just shy of 33 percent not close to 50 percent.
>
>There are roughly 8k bucks and
>we usually shoot 3k.
>That seems like a rough
>way to go but I
>am just a regular Joe
>so I will have to
>trust that shooting just under
>half of the bucks on
>a normal year is a
>good idea.
>

Again not sure about you numbers once again... If there are 38,000 deer with a buck to doe ratio of 40:100 that means there are just over 15,000 bucks and we shoot 3,000. That is the math.

>But, if at best you were
>at 42 bucks per 100
>does then you shoot 30%
>of the bucks....how do you
>expect the same 42 bucks
>per 100 does the next
>year?

I believe I addressed this with the math above.

I feel you are trying to compare historic data with data from this year that hasn't been collected yet and make it fit your agenda at best. At worst you are just making up numbers to fit your agenda.

In your hypothetical numbers if this year all of the sudden the buck to doe ratio is say at 15 or 20 per 100 and the harvest reports come back that 3,000 bucks were killed last year, and the herd is at 26,000 I will be the first to lobby for more change. Not LQ but more change for sure to help the deer out. Because at that point we would be out of the plus or minus 20 percent threshold of the heard size and also be below the target buck to doe ratio. I sure hope those numbers do not come in that way, but if they do some more changes may need to be made especially if we have a nother bad winter which so far it looks good for them.


>
>"The penalty good men pay for
>indifference to public affairs is
>to be ruled by evil
>men." - Plato
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-17 AT 01:15PM (MST)[p]Here is just a little something to ponder on this subject...

The deer herd did grow and the buck to doe ratio stayed consistent to going up a little from 2006 to 2016. How did that happen?
If we take all the variables out of the equation and focus only on hunting like is what many would like to do to prove the point it needs to be LQ. The only major changes are that there were more resident hunters and less non resident hunters.

See how cherry picking some data could be used to drive an agenda.
 
I respect your opinions. Good work.

I am being swayed...which actually benefits me. Up the tags for nonresidents.

Once we started talking math I think we have had a meaningful discussion.

So, 26k deer last fall and bucks of 40:100. That is 10,400 bucks. I would really question 40:100 but I have no data to back it up. On the winter range, I see more around 30:100. But, I have not data officially so lets do 40:100 since you seem to have a source.

10,400 bucks ... they offered the same tags as the previous years with a few restrictions....so close to the same harvest of 3000.

Thats still over 25% so even if they had 2500 they are in trouble. The harvest this year will need to be below 2000 and if the buck to doe ratio is actually 30:100 then we had 7800 bucks so we would need to see a reported harvest of 1/5th of that or around 1500. If the harvest is over 2000 you have a problem.

I would love to keep things the same so I hope you are right.

But, as Wyoming gets more and more popular for whatever reason. As you guys have more kids. As more industry comes. You will eventually exceed the ability for the Wyoming Range to survive over the counter residents. When you get upwards of 10000 hunters in the range you will have to go to a limited draw....

or open sights only
or something

We have been blessed....well actually just you...to live in a time with such great hunting over the counter and right out the door in September in the high country. So, lets hope, for all our sakes, it continues.

Thanks for the debate.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Aspen. Lower the success rate. Wiley suggested open sights to "put the hunter back in the hunt".

You don't have to cut a single tag if you cut the success rate.

But.....you can't stockpile deer either. Winter kills. And I'm sure the data backs it, but those big bucks, screw themselves nearly to death and aren't ready to face winter.

Our deer numbers were better in Utah also, then they got buried in snow.

Tnez. I'm with you. The second biggest problem in this discussion is how guys throw around scores. 99.9% of us couldnt correctly score a deer to save us, let alone on the hoof hundreds of yards away.

Your right to not want the Heneries. AI isn't really even a hunt. Fun to see them, but basically high fence.

Forgot all about Eastman ratting you guys out. Guess I better apologize to Founder?(still can't believe THAT GUY is selling it).


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
>I respect your opinions. Good
>work.
>
>I am being swayed...which actually benefits
>me. Up the tags
>for nonresidents.
>
>Once we started talking math I
>think we have had a
>meaningful discussion.
>
>So, 26k deer last fall and
>bucks of 40:100. That
>is 10,400 bucks. I
>would really question 40:100 but
>I have no data to
>back it up.
>On the winter range, I
>see more around 30:100.
>But, I have not data
>officially so lets do 40:100
>since you seem to have
>a source.
>
The 26,000 number would actually be what is projected post last years hunt that shows up on the winter range this year as that is where those numbers come from every year. My source is the Wyoming game and fish biologists report.

>10,400 bucks ... they offered the
>same tags as the previous
>years with a few restrictions....so
>close to the same harvest
>of 3000.

There were less tags offered to non residents not the same as before. Again I will not agree that the harvest will be the same. Less deer, less tags, point restrictions, and less time to hunt, and self regulation which I know many of us do and did last year would to me all seem to point to less harvest. At least that was the hope when these were all put into place. Maybe 2,000 maybe a little over 1,000 as the game and fish speculated. I don't know.
>
>Thats still over 25% so even
>if they had 2500 they
>are in trouble. The
>harvest this year will need
>to be below 2000 and
>if the buck to doe
>ratio is actually 30:100 then
>we had 7800 bucks so
>we would need to see
>a reported harvest of 1/5th
>of that or around 1500.
> If the harvest is
>over 2000 you have a
>problem.
>
These are for sure things that will be looked at when the data is available.
>I would love to keep things
>the same so I hope
>you are right.
>
>But, as Wyoming gets more and
>more popular for whatever reason.
> As you guys have
>more kids. As
>more industry comes. You
>will eventually exceed the ability
>for the Wyoming Range to
>survive over the counter residents.
> When you get upwards
>of 10000 hunters in the
>range you will have to
>go to a limited draw....
>
I hope that time will never come, but you are right if that time does come something will have to change if the herd is affected negatively, and I will be the first in line to champion that movement!
>
>or open sights only
>or something
>
>We have been blessed....well actually just
>you...to live in a time
>with such great hunting over
>the counter and right out
>the door in September in
>the high country. So,
>lets hope, for all our
>sakes, it continues.
>
We agree right here 100 percent. I have been very lucky to have the opertunities I have had, and I want the same for my children. To me that means quality, access, and also availability. If any of those three things start to dramatically go down hill I will be there to try and do what I can to stop it.
>Thanks for the debate.
>
Thank you
>"The penalty good men pay for
>indifference to public affairs is
>to be ruled by evil
>men." - Plato
 
>Aspen. Lower the success rate.
> Wiley suggested open sights
>to "put the hunter back
>in the hunt".
>
I wouldn't trust anything that guys says. He is a snake and if he told me the sky was blue I would probably have to argue with him!?
>You don't have to cut a
>single tag if you cut
>the success rate.
>
>But.....you can't stockpile deer either.
>Winter kills. And I'm
>sure the data backs it,
>but those big bucks, screw
>themselves nearly to death and
>aren't ready to face winter.
>
There is much truth here. You can only have so many. Remember we also have to coexist with them.
>
>Our deer numbers were better in
>Utah also, then they got
>buried in snow.
>
>Tnez. I'm with you.
>The second biggest problem in
>this discussion is how guys
>throw around scores. 99.9%
>of us couldnt correctly score
>a deer to save us,
>let alone on the hoof
>hundreds of yards away.
>
Haha man I am sure glad someone said it, but I will for sure agree with it!?
>Your right to not want the
>Heneries. AI isn't really
>even a hunt. Fun
>to see them, but basically
>high fence.
>
>Forgot all about Eastman ratting you
>guys out. Guess I
>better apologize to Founder?(still can't
>believe THAT GUY is selling
>it).

Me neither. I think he got very offended when I called him a sell out but I really ment no disrespect there. To be honest more sad and disappointed on my part then anything. Now please don't start jumping all over me on this post everyone for saying that. Let's keep this thread about important matters. Feel free to go over to flat country's post and hammer on me. ??
>
>
>"The only thing that stops a
>bad guy with a gun
>is a good guy with
>a gun"


Hoss sounds like you and I would get along pretty good. One of these days when I am down there or you are in my parts maybe we could have a rootBEER together!?
 
>I liked your video. And it
>did look successful to me.
>We are going to have
>to accept and support a
>LQ in G & H.
>We are past the point
>of what we want as
>Hunters, we need to save
>the Deer. I don't think
>some people get how bad
>this is. This is not
>just because of last winter,
>the Deer have been declining
>for 25 years. And WY
>is at least 10 years
>late for a resident LQ
>in G & H.

I went back through a lot of posts on here from the beginning. I think overall this thread has been a good one and very informative to many. That is how things get changed or not changed in some cases.

WYOGA IMO has worked behind the senses for far to long and was able to get most of the things they have wanted. They do not look out for resident hunters, non resident hunters or the animals. They look out for their pockets.

The reason I quote the post above is because I am sorry to say this is just another WYOGA tactic. Every topic in this post is stated as fact when in reality every one of those sentences after the first 2 are either opinion and or most are actually lies. This coming from someone that does seem to have good knowledge of the deer in G is a huge disservice to everyone. SMH
 
).

Me neither. I think he got very offended when I called him a sell out but I really ment no disrespect there. To be honest more sad and disappointed on my part then anything. Now please don't start jumping all over me on this post everyone for saying that. Let's keep this thread about important matters. Feel free to go over to flat country's post and hammer on me. ??

I was a little slow to the party on him obviously. But I think that's more my reaction. All the stuff in print he always talked about the difference in him and the rest was committment and effort, then you hear what he's doing.

My sister married and moved to Wyoming. My family is all from central Utah. I hear all about Utards all the time. In the 80's and 90's central Utah (Manti) was under assault by California plates. I am sensitive to us assaulting you fellers.

My deer camp is the same guys that brought me up. Bunch of 70yr olds, luckily we keep drawing gen season but them boys ain't got many hunts left, losing them so we can have "trophy" deer ain't worth it to me. I hope u guys get to keep resident tags the way it is.

As for Wiley, I looked up his statement. I never trust a business that injects god and scriptures into their business. He seems like an azz. But, we used to have a November muzzy hunt here, before in lines, I would gladly give up my scopes, rifles for that back.

I drink KEYSTONE. Most guys would rather have a root beer?


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Riley selling long range shooting classes and then telling us that we need to take off the scopes to save the deer?? What gives?
 
Sounds like your sister is one smart cookie!? It also sounds like that deer camp you have going would be a great place to share a campfire!

Your first impression of good old Rob is the correct one IMO.

Ones of these days I hope to be able to buy you a beer, but keystone... Come on man..!??
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-17 AT 04:13PM (MST)[p]Oh and by the way we're those shooting classes free to his clients so they would have a better chance to kill the bucks his guides put them on?
 
While we are bagging on Rob.

I have always wondered where his camp is.

I know Star Valley Outfitters is up the Little Greys.

Trefren is also up there and pushes over the Grey Back.

There was a guy I met up Swift Creek...I think they were Swift Creek outfiters by Mt Fitzpatrick.

Then there's Double Diamond up Strawberry.

But where is Rob? I have never found his camp in all the hiking and riding I do. However, word is Magnum was shot just behind where I usually camp. So, I think I know his area but I cant find him for the life of me.

PM if ya like. Thanks again guys for the debate.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Hahaha this is a whole nother can of worms....

Old Rob's area is pretty much where ever the wings on the plane will take him. Although he claims he doesn't fly anymore?
 
So, time for me to take a quick flight for a few hundred bucks.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 

Similar threads

tmbr_hntr
Have to use 14 deer points this year
Replies
26
Views
2k
SS!
SS!
M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
719
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
highsierra
The most underrated deer hunt in CA?
Replies
42
Views
2k
Skykarp
Skykarp

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Big buck
8F2C0601-111C-445F-ABCC-C13EF663FE05.jpeg
2014 elk hunt_NV-UT - Copy.jpg
FB_IMG_1699375096085.jpg
20230927_101852.jpg
FB_IMG_1632923194074.jpg
20221031_122029.jpg
Happy Youngster with His Buck
45.jpg
20181013_151959.jpg
2012.JPG
20230818_075651.jpg
Back
Top Bottom