102 mule deer follow up...

Loads of information... Still, tag numbers should be cut way down until we get a handle on what localized factors are effecting the drastic decline of our mule deer. One more study to prove the biology is behind. Budgets or not the over hunting is like throwing gas on the fire!! Instead the WYGF is writing checks our mule deer can NOT cash!!

IT IS TIME FOR WYOMING TO GO TO LIMITED QUOTA!!!!
 
wolfhunter,

When Wyoming goes statewide LQ (I think it will), I'm going to push for a 90-10 split between resident and non-resident permit numbers.

Wyoming residents should be getting no less than 90% of the deer tags if we go LQ.

I've talked to a lot of residents and they're all on board and preparing now to change the law to 90-10. Neither the legislature nor WYG&F will be able to stop it...same with WYOGA.

I'll always look out for residents first, every time.
 
How ever we reduce the pressure....I am in!! So should anyone who cares about mule deer.

The NR, WGF bean counters and the outfitters will scream like mashed cats!!! BUT!! DRAMATIC TAG REDUCTION NEEDS TO HAPPEN!! THEN, we can hammer out the details. I just hope when and if LQ with huge tag reduction happens, it's not to late like most of Idaho's mule deer herds.
 
I have no problem with that and I think it's only fair if it's decided that's what is needed. The only question I have is if the residents will be up to paying the large increase in fees that will be needed to go that route. It will either be that or find another way to fund the G&F.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-13 AT 02:50PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-13 AT 02:45?PM (MST)

Topgun,

With all the whining people do about quality...and considering 99% of the same whiners claim that LQ will solve all our mule deer woes and increase quality...

Shouldnt they in turn expect to pay double the NR fees for the great quality increase?

Thats one of the main gripes...paying more for less. Give them more quality, they better expect to pay a lot more.

Plus, it will average out long-term since instead of hunting every year or two...they'll be lucky to hunt once every 3-5 years.

No such thing as a free lunch and I'll also ask for 75-100% fee increases across the board for mule deer permits, both R and NR.

We'll find out real quick who puts their money where their mouths are...real quick.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-13 AT 03:24PM (MST)[p]How ever we reduce the pressure....I am in!! So should anyone who cares about mule deer.

Depends what your goals are...

If all people are interested in is older age class bucks, then I agree.

If increasing total deer populations is the goal...simply reducing pressure on bucks wont do anything.

More does...and more fawns increase total deer numbers. You dont do that by reducing buck harvest, or simply shifting the harvest age.

You increase doe/fawn counts by providing better habitat that can support more deer. Back in the 50's and 60's allowing hunters 2 or more buck deer each, per year, didnt do anything to decrease the population. In particular when doe to fawn ratios were 100-100.

Managing whats left wont ever increase the deer herd...ever.

Habitat is still the answer.
 
Buzz, I disagree that a herd cannot be damaged by over hunting.

When you have buck to doe ratios below 20 bucks per hundred doe's your going to hurt the herd with dry doe's and low fawn birth weights. Lot's of doe's getting bred on second cycles, longer rut for the mature bucks left to die in the spring. Idaho has mastered this... If IDFG has a herd that ratio's over 20 bucks per 100 doe's they conduct a late hunt to kill off the rest. If a private party destroyed the mule deer herd like the IDFG they would be thrown in JAIL!!

Wether the WGF will admit it publicly or not; their method of counting herd numbers and buck to doe ratio's is severely flawed. They include 50 percent of the fawns in their next years ratio to achieve the 28-32 bucks per hundred doe's currently. So the real antlered buck ratio numbers would reflect below 20 bucks per hundred if we are being truthful....

Buzz I agree LQ is not the answer to all the problems. It will address the over harvest of bucks that is happening in most units in western Wyoming. Mandatory harvest reporting needed. Currently in the general units the known harvest is nothing more than a wild ass guess.

Maybe we should also issue 2 types of tags like Utah's Henry Mountains... For those who want just opportunity give them a 3x3 or 3x4 hunt. Unlimited for our youth. Then grow some big deer for those that want it. Let's have a few of those old bucks even die of old age.

Habitat improvement is essential too!!!
 
wolfhunter,

I cant find anything I'd disagree with you on in that post.

With the exception of using the Henry mountains herd as a model for anything other than mismanagement.

The one constant with mule deer...fixing the problems arent going to be cheap.

It will take intensive management, and that comes with a price tag.

Whether its decreasing elk numbers, habitat enhancement, purchasing critical habitat, etc. We better get ready to break out the check books.
 
Agreed...

PS. I too do not think the model for the Henry's is what Wyoming should adopt, other than the management tag for 3 point deer in an area your trying to grow better bucks.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-13 AT 06:49PM (MST)[p]I think the madatory reporting of harvest would go a long way in helping to manage, as well as more accurate counts.

I also like the idea of making more country harder to access. It's sucks to see so many good drainages with a road going up the middle of it, or a great ridge with a road running down it . . . 102 is a great example of this. We'd see how those guys like carrying their 10 lb land canon more than a few miles!
 
...more good points.

Limiting access makes a lot of sense, for all kinds of good reasons.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-13 AT 07:01PM (MST)[p]
Anyone can hunt Colorado deer every year if they wish, I hunted Nevada deer last year with a leftover nonresident tag.
I won't elaborate on those facts but the point is that Buzz is overly dramatic, and that's putting it mildly.

Every resident could hunt deer every year in Wyoming under a limited draw system, maybe not the Salt River range or unit 102 every year , but with a little creative management hunt quality could be improved, and the quality of the bucks also.
Sometimes a hunter may have to hunt an area where deer numbers need trimming, or go where the access is tough, but that's the beauty of limited entry hunting.
 
For me personally, it will be a sad day when wyoming goes to an all LQ deer hunt. I am fine with not shooting a buck I like every year but I love having that opportunity every year. I know others will disagree but that is what I would want if I want. Since I dont expect the G&F to manage the herd for me I will accept any change that comes along. It would appear to me that the majority of Western Wyo is population limited due to suitable winter range and not a shortage of bucks to do the breeding. LQ is only going to increase the size of bucks but not hte overall herd so I dont think my selfishness in this matter is at a detrament to the deer herd. If I am wrong I will gladly endorse the LQ tag scheme.

I look at so many other western states and see that they have gone to LQ and it seems to have no disernable difference. Colorado appears to have the best handle on it, but as they have seen all it takes is one bad winter and your back to square one. It all comes back to habitat.

I would like to see a few small LQ areas in the Wyoming Range, Greys River and Salt River ranges to give those that dont mind the wait but really want a trophy hunt what they are looking for. Keep the seasons the same as they are for the rest but severly limit the competition. Those bucks are so teritorial I would think you could isolate a few basins and see if it makes the difference people are looking for.
 
A few years ago in Colorado a teenager hunting with his family killed an amazing buck that scored over 300 B+C points, that's the kind of stuff that I think is great.

Compare that with the stories if who often kills the biggest bucks in Wyoming,( governors tags and guided big money hunts) that's an indication of decline and what I call not so great.
 
I am not a fan of the statewide lq for the fact that I am one of the people who hunt a rather large portion of the state every year. I generally hunt around Casper on the weekends mainly unit 66, and 97 during the archery season. Unless I don't draw a lq elk tag then I take a week in the serria madres archery hunting elk and deer if given the chance. But due to the madres going lq I can't combine my hunt anymore. Then I rifle hunt 66, and 97 if I haven't found a deer that isn't a minamum of a 150 buck I go to the black hills and harvest a whitetail deer because I believe they are part of the problem with the decline in mule deer. Every year I see more whitetail on areas where I've never seen them in the past. Another issue is wyoming has they have managed for elk for so many years many areas the elk have over ran many areas. In area 66 a land owner basically has a private elk refuge that in the last 15 years the elk herd has grown greatly over herd objectives, meanwhile the deer herd has gone from seein 12-15 bucks a day that where 130+ to seeing maby 12 deer a season. There is so many reasons the deer are reducing there is no one quick fix to solve our problems.


I know a land owner who has roughly 14 sections north of Casper that has roughly 3 hunters a year and they only take mature bucks and the help the deer through the hard times of the winter, they still have very low fawn survival each year. Less than 20% so if all these out of state geniuses that say they have a quick fix for my state, please apply for all open biologist positions, but if you want wyoming to become the next Utah please take your whining elsewhere. You all can't draw a tag in your home state and cry because you have to go out of state to hunt but want to change it to where it's 20 years between tags can kiss off we don't want that here.


I've hunted hard for a 180 deer , I've put in for several lq units for 10 years and yet to draw one. I still wouldn't trade the way I hunt for Utahans style of hunting in a 100 years, where its all about inches of horn and not quality of the time in the field. Just my 2 cents
Moseley Middleton
 
Mulecreek,

I dont want the LQ route either, but I'm just preparing for the very likely chance it will.

The one way to see that it is delayed, or stopped, is to get to the meetings, get to the legislature, and get your voice heard over those that want to sacrifice everything for quality. Right now they're the most vocal and the vocal get their way over other hunters, and even over biology.

The tradition of hunting, as well as the over-all health of the wildlife, isnt a concern to many...its all about antlers/horns and has been for the last 10-15 years.

Look at the most vocal:

Outfitters...(most) dont really care about hunters unless they pay. R and NR DIY hunters are competition, period. They care about wildlife populations being high enough so they can sell hunts.

Landowners(most)...if they lease, they care about wildlife. Otherwise, wildlife is simply competition for their livestock.

Trophy Hunters (most of them) only care about getting another head for the wall. Their priorities lie in management for trophy quality animals...meat hunters, or those that want to maintain the tradition of hunting, are competition to them. They're "those" guys that would dare to shoot any deer/elk/pronghorn that isnt 8 years old and wall-worthy. How dare anyone enjoy a hunt and take an average animal for meat.

If you want to maintain the current regs, you're going to have to fight for it, no other way around it.

Thats exactly why I spent a ton of time at the Capital this last session, why I belong to several sportsmens groups, and why I've stepped up into some leadership roles. I'd rather steer the ship than rig sails...

You can make a difference, no doubt about it.
 
102 is already LE. It is still overharvested. There is only two things wrong with 102. No big bucks and too many hunters afield. The solution to the problem has the same solution; reduce tags by at least 100.
There were big bucks every year until we increased the tags to 400 after 5 short years we've shot the top end out of the unit. Hunters that can't find a 170" buck don't shoot a big 3 point. They kill 3 yr old 150" 4 pts. When there is no 150"bucks they shoot 140" inch bucks.
We were killing very nice bucks from 2000-2007 (many of which were extreme drought years).
The G&F also had a opportunity to decrease any deer permits and give out the same amount of tags in a 3pt or under tag. It was proposed that these permits would go to youth/seniors. Some thought that it may help improve genetics. I question the genetic argument but I think it would have provided the same opportunity without continuing the overharvest of any deer with the resemblance of quality. It also could have reduced the inferior bucks (that no one kills) that are eating all the food for the does and fawns.
The G&F may have helped with hunter overcrowding by closing the elk seasons after 14days. For the first time in many years elk hunters will not be afield with deer hunters. Who cares really like I said at this point we should just make it a general unit.
I believe there is less deer in 102 now than there was 5 yrs ago. I believe that there was significant winter kill in 2007-2008 and 2010-2011. There are less deer on the east side of the unit. It seems there are less deer everywhere in the unit but the G&f thinks they have the same amount of deer? I can't argue because I've never done counts but I do drive through the unit 4 days a week and it sure seems like there are far less deer, especially on the 430 side of the unit.

I'm opposed to statewide limited quota but am in favor of ending 45 day rifle hunts for resident hunters. This could be accomplished by forcing hunters to pick regions. I'm also in favor of exploring ways to shift hunters to elk instead of continuing the destruction of any quality mule deer hunting in Wyoming for the sake of funding the G&F.
One thing is for sure it is time that we insist that something be done as quality deer hunting is gone in what used to be a premier hunt area in Wyoming.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-13 AT 10:10PM (MST)[p]Just a difference of opinion. So Im not going to get dramatic and make any far fetched claims.

I like big mature bucks, just seeing one or having the chance for one and dreaming about getting one means a lot to me and is the exciting part of the hunt.
I have seen a decline in mature bucks and quality hunts over the last several decades, there are many reasons and its not just about lower overall deer numbers.

Personally If I want a meat hunt I will cow/calf elk or hunt whitetails or where deer are over abundant.

Hunting, dreaming or even just thinking about big mature bucks has been a great part of the overall experience for me, and that's why I want younger folks to have some quality hunts to enjoy, to stay up all night before the opener dreaming about those big antlers, just like I did 40 years ago, you see its been a tradition for many of us for far longer than 10 or 15 years.

That's why I encourage young hunters to meat hunt the prolific and abundant animals and appreciate, enjoy and take care of all our wildlife.

I wouldn't get discouraged Buzz, I'm betting that you guys will win and the current regs will be maintained for years to come, there are too many people who think as you do and change is much harder than just maintaining the status quo.

Kind of sad for some of us and good for others I guess.
 
Mule deer cannot survive as the meat hunters go to animal. We have got to change the mentality of, that's the way it has always been. Mule are loosing this battle across the west because hunters are too F'n selfish to sacrifice and mangers will not manage because it is what is best for deer.

HOW ABOUT WE TAKE CARE OF OUR DEER BECAUSE IT IS JUST RIGHT!!!!

Mossley if we do nothing you had better get use to nothing! Take a good long hard look at Idaho. My Wyoming town boarders Idaho and mule deer are GONE and you sound just like the Idaho resident 10 years ago.... Think about it!!
 
Buzz H If you think you can get the non res quota cut to 10% you must have one giant ego. Colorado is at 20% with 5 million people. Have you ran any numbers on the economic impact to your proposal? How much money does the average non res spend in the state on a hunt?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-13 AT 10:02AM (MST)[p]I wonder what the quotas are in AZ, UT, NM, MT, ID, OR, on LQ hunts?

Stretch?

I dont think so.

Obviously you havent spent much time with the Legislature...monkey see, monkey do is alive and well. Constant comparisons of other states is business as usual.

You think it would be tough to get Residents to rally behind limiting NR and keeping more tags for ourselves?

Really?

You think State Senators worry about getting reelected or the economic impact of NR's?

Laffin'...
 
>Mule deer cannot survive as the
>meat hunters go to animal.
> We have got to
>change the mentality of, that's
>the way it has always
>been. Mule are loosing this
>battle across the west because
>hunters are too F'n selfish
>to sacrifice and mangers will
>not manage because it is
>what is best for deer.
>
>
>HOW ABOUT WE TAKE CARE OF
>OUR DEER BECAUSE IT IS
>JUST RIGHT!!!!
>
>Mossley if we do nothing you
>had better get use to
>nothing! Take a good
>long hard look at Idaho.
> My Wyoming town boarders
>Idaho and mule deer are
>GONE and you sound just
>like the Idaho resident 10
>years ago.... Think about it!!
>

i also live on the idaho/wyoming border idaho side and continue to harvest mature mule deer in idaho,the mule deer are not gone,they are there you just have to work a little harder.
 
You don't think the people of Wyoming like the money brought into the state by non res hunters? seriously?
Res drawing odds unit 102 with 20% quota 302/4012= 7.5%
Res drawing odds unit 102 with 10% quota 342/4012= 8.5%
Game and Fish deer tag income:
Non res special $552x9939= $5,486,659
" " regular $312x14,939=$4,661,092
Total Non Res tag fees = $10,147,751

Res tag fees= 55,789x$38.00=$2,119,982

You want to cut ($10,147,751x.5) $5,073,875 from the Game and fish budget and more than double the tags fees to residents to make up the differance. For what? A 1% better chance to draw unit 102 and the like. Dreaming. BTW the the odds of Buzz H being a Wyoming native is .0001%.
 
>Mule deer cannot survive as the
>meat hunters go to animal.
> We have got to
>change the mentality of, that's
>the way it has always
>been. Mule are loosing this
>battle across the west because
>hunters are too F'n selfish
>to sacrifice and mangers will
>not manage because it is
>what is best for deer.
>
>
>HOW ABOUT WE TAKE CARE OF
>OUR DEER BECAUSE IT IS
>JUST RIGHT!!!!
>
>Mossley if we do nothing you
>had better get use to
>nothing! Take a good
>long hard look at Idaho.
> My Wyoming town boarders
>Idaho and mule deer are
>GONE and you sound just
>like the Idaho resident 10
>years ago.... Think about it!!
>
Wolfhunter,

Dont assume that those who are opposed to LQ areas are not willing to make changes for the betterment of the deer herds. I just happen to feel that it will not make a difference in herd sizes. I think it will provide a greater likelyhood of seeing a 180"+ buck but little more. Look at all the other wetsern states that have gone to LQ areas. Have the herds increased? Are they doing significantly better than they were before? There is so much more to it than how many bucks get killed in a year. If I felt that a switch to LQ would be beneficial to the herd then I would support it in a heartbeat. If it's just so that we can have an increased chance of seeing a 180" buck then no way.

Look at the elk herds in western wyoming. The state cant kill them fast enough. Very liberal seasons, shoot any bull you want, bust cows for months on end, shoot multiple animals and still the herds are over objective in many areas. 2012 was the highest elk harvest ever in Wyoming. Northwestern Colorado is even more extreme. Since the tags are OTC why are the herds not declining? The answer is the current habitat structure is benficial to elk.
 
I would gladly switch to limited quota because it would make the quality of the hunt better, a better chance at a 180 buck is important, less crowded hunting conditions and longer seasons are nice also, but that's just my opinion.

Two dry years in a row now, a fairly tough winter next year and things won't be looking so good.
That's the other bad thing about unlimited OCT tags, there is no way to let bucks recover, after a bad winter kill we beat them down with pressure and keep them down.

I wish there were half as many good bucks in the greys river country as there were in the eighties, there are about half as many deer as back then, ever wonder why there aren't half as many big mature bucks?
 
"The current habitat structure is beneficial to elk."Says mulecreek.That is a great statement.This obviously creates more elk.This;in turn;creates more competition between elk and mule deer;especially in fawning/calving areas.Both species like to bear their young in quaking aspen groves.Elk are the bigger,more dominant species,so they push the mule deer does into less desirable areas to bear their young,creating an easier dinner situation for predators.Easy solution?KILL MORE ELK.

Another not so easy solution is to create more quakie groves.Quaking aspen habitats across the west have declined more than 50% over the past few decades.

Kill more coyotes?We will find out how much good that does within the next few years.Between WGF projects and local sportsmen's groups,there are a few coyote control projects that began last year and are still ongoing.Previous studies on coyote control have yielded mixed results.

I am one of those guys that want to see more older age class bucks in the overall population.Good or bad?I personally don't see how having more older age class bucks can create bad hunting for the meat hunters.I also don't think that LQ is the answer there,either.Who's to say WGF won't give out too many tags for a given unit,keeping age class the same?102 is a perfect example.If used in the right way,statewide LQ could be a good thing as far as controlling hunter numbers in a given unit.I question whether G&F would use LQ to limit hunter numbers;especially during times of agency financial despair,thus defeating the intended purpose of going LQ in the first place;whether that be for limiting hunters or raising buck age.


No doubt habitat is the key.But as we improve habitat,more of it disappears.In the meantime,deer herds continue to suffer.And habitat projects don't yield results for many years.Sadly,we'll never see deer numbers like they once were,because by the time any meaningful habitat projects make a difference,habitat encroachment will have overtaken much more mule deer range.

WGF has a philosophy that comes straight from Cheyenne,and employees best not deviate from the plan.Next to bighorn sheep,mulies are the biggest pussies(as a species)in the big game community.Yet we continue to hammer them every season.They are WGF's cash cow.
 
Bern,

You said you too live next to Idaho and find mature bucks left in Idaho. To argue the good fortune of current mule deer hunting I immediately question the length of time you have hunted Idaho. Did you just move here dude? Because you either have no persecutive to judge the destruction of ID mule deer by or you work for the IDFG. Or maybe your simply a fool...
 
Bern stated:"I also live on the idaho/wyoming border idaho side and continue to harvest mature mule deer in idaho,the mule deer are not gone,they are there you just have to work a little harder."

Wolfhunter the states:
"You said you too live next to Idaho and find mature bucks left in Idaho. To argue the good fortune of current mule deer hunting I immediately question the length of time you have hunted Idaho. Did you just move here dude? Because you either have no persecutive to judge the destruction of ID mule deer by or you work for the IDFG. Or maybe your simply a fool..."

***What was a very nice discussion by all on a very difficult and complex subject has now been taken into the toilet by guess who and he wasn't even addressing me this time, LOL! When Bern says the deer aren't gone and he takes some mature bucks is a far cry from saying they are in great shape and there's a big buck behind every tree, but that's what it sounds like he's being chastized for saying and the way you spoke to him sucks! Why can't we all get along even when we disagree on something because all it takes is one post like that and then it seems as if it snowballs and things go right downhill. I've been caught in this before and am now trying my best to behave better to Smokestick and others. If everyone would behave like adults, we might get somewhere in discussions like this.
 
>Bern,
>
>You said you too live next
>to Idaho and find mature
>bucks left in Idaho.
>To argue the good fortune
>of current mule deer hunting
>I immediately question the length
>of time you have hunted
>Idaho. Did you just
>move here dude? Because
>you either have no persecutive
>to judge the destruction of
>ID mule deer by or
>you work for the IDFG.
> Or maybe your simply
>a fool...

wolfhunter sorry you cant find any mature deer in idaho do you need help,i have been hunting se idaho for 25 years,i work my butt off finding mature deer,maybe you should scout more,and no i dont work for idaho fish and game.

but i do question your ability to locate or harvest mature bucks dude.

bern
 
Here are a couple thoughts concerning mule deer management.

Just like any other addiction or problem, we must first be able to admit there is a problem.

One of our biggest problems is that mule deer are managed throughout the west much as they have been for decades, even though they have been in a continual downward spiral over that same period of time.

A new appraoch needs to be crafted as we strive to recover mule deer populations while we maintain some level of hunting opportunity.

Limited quota management can be avoided if we push more towards educating hunters as to why it is important that we have greater representation of all age classes of bucks within any given population.

One reason to establish mandatory harvest reporting for mule deer is so that we can obtain the average age of harvested animals in any particular mule deer herd unit.

Management decisions can be based upon data that can be both measured and quantified. Furthermore, the data is not subjective to interpretation. It is whatever it is.

Mule deer hunt areas can be managed for a particular average age of harvest. Areas managed for an older average age of harvested animals would require that hunters understand that if you harvest animals significantly younger than the goal for that particular hunt area will lead to a reduction in the overall average age of harvest, thus allowing for less deer to be harvested in that area or possibly forcing it into a limited quota hunt area.

Perhaps if our license fees were tied to the management of the specific herd units it would also be more likely that hunters would be more selective in the class of mule deer a hunter is willing to take. For example, if a particular hunt area was mangaged for an average age of harvest of 5.5 years bucks a hunter would be required to pay more for that license than if he/she were to hunt in an area managed for 3.5 year old bucks. Would hunters still be inclined to shoot the younger, up and coming bucks or would they show more restraint? I don't know tha answer but I do think our biggest problem is that too many people continue to claim that nothing is wrong with our mule deer herds

It has been said before that hunters are very good at taking the best available bucks every year. Under our current management approach, hunters seldom take inferior (poor antler quality) bucks that are more likely to be older bucks, as they have been passed over for multiple years, leaving them to continue the introduction of their genes into the population. Instead, hunters tend to take the younger deer which has a nice rack, usually a smaller 4x4, and remove him from the population. This perpetuates a gradual but constant race towards the bottom.


Some hunt areas which have been or are critical for mule deer but are now being encroached by elk and/or whitetails also need to be addressed.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-13 AT 02:09PM (MST)[p]>Limited quota management can be avoided
>

Do you believe G&F would actually push for LQ statewide given they're on the verge of bankruptcy? I don't see how we'll get to LQ if it means a significant reduction in revenue. Also, how do you know the majority of deer hunters in this state want LQ. I've never seen any survey data or documentation to support the majority of hunters favor LQ.

>
>One reason to establish mandatory harvest
>reporting for mule deer is
>so that we can obtain
>the average age of harvested
>animals in any particular mule
>deer herd unit.
>

Since the G&F is broke, is your group gonna fund this?

>
>It has been said before that
>hunters are very good at
>taking the best available bucks
>every year. Under our
>current management approach, hunters seldom
>take inferior (poor antler quality)
>bucks that are more likely
>to be older bucks, >
>

You have any data to support this? I've seen a lot more spikes, two's & three points go through check stations than small fours or better. Watched a group of does and four two points come out of a large draw a few years ago in 66. It sounded like a war when guys cut loose on those two points...
 
I would definitely have to agree with Triple_BB regarding the animals being taken, at least where I hunt. Whenever I've been in the one campground that probably has the biggest concentration of NRs for the region, I never see a buck that would touch 140". It's all does and fawns and little dink bucks that I don't even look at twice when I'm out hunting. What I can't understand is that guys are paying a fortune for license fees, gas, etc. and are shooting these little deer the first few days of the season without even waiting to try for a mature buck. It's bango at the first antlered deer they see the first morning and back to camp to drink, play cards, etc. If it's that way all over the state it's no wonder we're in the shape we are for age structure, etc. just from that standpoint alone.
 
I understand completely with you triple bb, I think I know where you where hunting in your story. There needs to be a change in the mentality of filling a tag and eliminate doe harvest. But lq is not the answer look at 87 yes mature deer are there but this year the g&f is cutting tags from I believe 100 or 150 to 50 licenses. It doesn't seem that it's helping that unit.
 
"Perhaps if our license fees were tied to the management of the specific herd units it would also be more likely that hunters would be more selective in the class of mule deer a hunter is willing to take. For example, if a particular hunt area was mangaged for an average age of harvest of 5.5 years bucks a hunter would be required to pay more for that license than if he/she were to hunt in an area managed for 3.5 year old bucks. Would hunters still be inclined to shoot the younger, up and coming bucks or would they show more restraint? I don't know tha answer but I do think our biggest problem is that too many people continue to claim that nothing is wrong with our mule deer herds."


So Bob how much would you propose that these 5.5 year old buck tags cost? This is a slippery slope. Maybe we should just add a trophy fee on every animal, and then we could eliminate all of the hunters that don't have the $.
 
Bern,

I see no need to get into a d!ck measuring contest about how big of bucks we can find. I have found a few big deer myself....

I do still question your sticking up for Idaho, that is if you have spent the time you say you have hunting SE Idaho. Maybe you hunted it from California... Because 25 years ago it was common place to see 220-240 class bucks yearly in Idaho. I can think of 2 Idaho bucks in that timeframe that went over 40 inches wide that friends or family of mine killed. One was big enough that it made the BC book both typical and nontypical. Those same areas today are mule deer ghost towns...

During that same time frame (25 years ago) Wyoming had so many good bucks every 10 foot mountain peak in western Wyoming had several bucks that went over 200 inches, but almost nobody hunted them very hard. They were either looking for 30 inch'ers or hunting elk. Most of those bucks never got shot. So I am not sure what you were smoking for the last 25 years to miss that things have taken some huge negative turns for the worst for mule deer in both states. But I think it is time to start demanding some changes from your beloved game managers instead of getting comfortable with the new normal for mule deer in the west. That is if you want the next generation of hunters to even hunt mule deer...

Topgun stick to topics you can understand. Like pickup style hunts in areas you were showed by outfitters you hired....
 
dz---I'm glad you brought that point up because i didn't want to touch it since it came from Bob. I would also like to know where he is talking to all these people that he says don't think there is anything wrong with the mule deer herds. I've found just the opposite in that there are plenty of complaints from people that are saying there aren't enough deer and they never see any good bucks. It's rather ironic that they're the same ones I mentioned shooting all the does, fawns, and dink bucks!
 
If enough hunters demand LQ,G&F will establish LQ.One only needs to look at the Platte Valley units to see that.Those units went LQ due to public pressure-no other reason.

Whether you think he's selfish or not-Piper speaks much truth.Deer numbers are down and mature buck numbers are down.

Hunters that shoot yearling bucks and does don't give a damn what they shoot-they just need to kill something so they can say they filled their tag.Some of them might even like the meat,but mostly it's because they feel the need to fill that tag!

Like Bob says-there IS a problem with people passing an older age class buck because the buck does not have what they consider to be desirable antlers.Then they shoot the 18" 2 yr old 4x4.I've witnessed this first-hand.Maybe that problem is more confined to an LQ unit because people tend to be more picky due to the perception that an LQ unit is more of a trophy area;but that behavior occurs in general areas as well.

The only thing that G&F controls is hunters.They don't control drought,winter,disease,encroachment,predation,poaching,etc.They control when we hunt;how many of us hunt;how long we hunt;which weapons we hunt with;how many points;yada,yada,yada.
They(G&F)choose status quo over change;and it's not helping our mule deer hunting or the species.

Hunters will do what G&F allows us to do.It's really very simple when you think about it.It's all about public relations with G&F.It's not about the deer anymore.
 
dz,

Not exactly sure what it should costs, just throwing out some new ideas. Perhaps if the G&F charged more for mule deer hunt areas managed for older age class animals, they might have an incentive to manage more for older age class bucks.

The problem I see is that the G&F charges the same thing for every mule deer. Most on here would agree that a yearling buck is not as desired as is an older age class buck.

No one would pay Cadillac prices for a Hyundia.
 
The biologists out west always claim habitat, habitat, habitat. No doubt in some areas it is having an effect. IMO they always preach habitat because it is the one thing they can't really change. So they really don't have to get out in the field and find out the real problems. In some of the places I hunt, there are miles and miles and miles of great habitat, summer and winter range, devoid of deer. I guess it must be the lack of habitat keeping the numbers down :)
 
>dz,
>
>Not exactly sure what it should
>costs, just throwing out some
>new ideas. Perhaps if
>the G&F charged more for
>mule deer hunt areas managed
>for older age class animals,
>they might have an incentive
>to manage more for older
>age class bucks.
>
>The problem I see is that
>the G&F charges the same
>thing for every mule deer.
> Most on here would
>agree that a yearling buck
>is not as desired as
>is an older age class
>buck.
>
>No one would pay Cadillac prices
>for a Hyundia.

***Bob---That is sounding like the UTSFW philosophy and I beg to differ with you, but the latter is exactly what is going on out there every season! The NRs are paying Cadillac prices for compacts when they shoot all those dink bucks so fast on their hunts with that license costing $326 right now.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-13 AT 10:50PM (MST)[p]Bob your ideas always point to more money for bigger bucks. I hope that the average tag holder can have a shot at the biggest bucks and not just the highest paying guy that you seem to always be pushing for. My 28 year old son hunted Wyoming when he was 14. He shot a forky and was as happy as could be. I think that he felt like he got a Cadillac of a buck. Then we went back home to Idaho and he shot a 28 inch with a drop tine. But it was a cheaper compact, I think the tag was $8.00. It is always some ones choice when they pull the trigger. If Joe wants to pay for the special deer hunt price and shoot a spike, I think that is great. Others like me still have my last Wyoming deer tag without a notch on it. I looked over a lot of bucks and didn't see what I was looking for. I can afford to pay the higher cost you are talking about, I just remember the days when I couldn't and hope to preserve the opportunity for all not just the those that have the $'s to outbid the next guy. How do you feel about auctioning off tags? Just a guess but you think it will solve all of the budget problems Wyoming is having. Sorry Buzz for the Hijacking of your thread.

DZ
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-03-13 AT 08:40AM (MST)[p]DZ---Good luck on getting an answer on your auctioning of tags question! I've asked him for a statement several times as the Ex. Dir. of WYSFW that they would not try to go the way of Utah and I'd join the group if that was the case. All I have received back is that he didn't want me in the organization because I'm always criticizing them! Hmm, I wonder why that's the case! Heck, he won't even give an accurate account of the total membership. I even emailed the WYSFW Treasurer two weeks ago with that question and have received nada, zippo, zilch, from him either. Why would anyone want to join a group that won't even be open as to how many members it has? Opps,there I go again with more criticism!
 
As mentioned by many, 102 is already a LQ area. The area is big and has great habitat. At least in my mind, if that area was well managed, it should easily support the harvest of 400 deer. Contrary to logical thought, I believe the issue is over buck harvest and no doe/fawn. The bucks harvested in 102 may average 5.5 years old (2011 data), but many of the mature bucks now only sport a dinky 3 point frame. I believe this unit's easy access and high kill rate prior to the rut has ruined the trophy potential. So here is a unit, with a controlled quota that has proven results against what most are proposing in this thread.

Up to the late '80s early '90s the G&F only allowed general elk tag holders in Southwest Wyoming to harvest bulls. During that time, one was lucky to harvest a spike, and if really lucky a rag horn bull. The public was very upset about the low elk numbers and the poor quailty of the bulls. The G&F did issue some LQ cow tags back then, but I couldn't tell you how many.

Then in '89ish they decided to let you shoot any elk the first 4 days of the season. The public threw a fit. This idea was going to ruin an elk herd that was already hurting. Well a couple years went by and the elk didn't seam to be doing to bad. So the G&F made the season open for any elk the first 10 days than bulls only after that. After a tough winter in '93/94 the elk herd seamed to be thriving. In fact they had to have an extended season to get the elk numbers down in '96ish.

For about a decade plus now, those crazy bastards at the G&F let you shoot any elk the first ten days then a cow or calf only after that. In addition, you can buy a second cow/calf elk tag if you want too. To top it off, there is a pretty good chance you are going to be able to get yourself a 280+ bull if you actually hunt for one.

During the same time frame SW Wyoming's deer herd began to decline to the point that the G&F eliminated extra tags first, then cut the season length, then stopped shooting does, to now the herd really sucks.

I think there might be a lesson, or a least some theories, that can be drawn from this mini-case study.
1) If killing more cow elk resulted in better elk numbers does the same logic hold true for deer? I think harvesting cow allowed bulls to live longer. In doing so mature bulls started breeding the cows rather than spikes. I think that promoted better genetics in the herd.

2) Is the boom in elk numbers directly related to the decline in deer numbers? I don't know. I do think they compete for habitat more then G&F used to admit.

I don't know the answer, and I'm sure it is a combination of ideas. That said, in my mind, 102 is a prime example why the answer is not LQ nor is it bucks only. I would believe a season that says 2 points only and some does/fawns to allow mature bucks to start winning the hearts of the does is a better answer. Having hunted the area a number of times I think you could harvest 200 fork horns and 200 does/fawns for a couple years and have a positive outcome. General areas in SW Wy need to promote more doe fawn harvest and let some bucks grow up.
 
BUZZ.....WYOMING IS A BEAUTIFUL STATE, AND GREAT TO HUNT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME A ECONOMIC POVERTY STATE WITH VERY FEW $$$$ RESOURCES. THE NON RESIDENT $$$$ IS BIG IN WYOMING, THE OUTFITTER INTEREST IN THE NON RES. HUNTER IS EVEN BIGGER. I DOUBT YOU PUSHING FOR A 90-10 SPLIT (IF ANYBODY EVEN KNOWS YOUR ALIVE) WILL EVEN BE NOTICED. SO GOOD LUCK WITH THAT PUSHIN EFFORT, IT GOT ME "LAFFIN" THOUGH........THANKS FOR THAT.......................YD.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-13 AT 10:48AM (MST)[p]Buzz is just making noise because he doesn't want limited quota to go statewide, by telling nonresidents that he is hoping they won't make any effort to push for a higher quality hunting experience, and about the only way to do that is some kind of a limited quota scenario.

Wyoming has a relatively low resident population and a strong tradition of outfitters and businesses that cater to nonresident hunters, I agree that there is no way a 90%-10% is going to happen in the foreseeable future.
 
YD,

Wyoming runs on oil, nat gas and coal. The most recent information I could find shows that income in the form of salary and wages derived from hunting in wyoming accounted for less than 0.5% of Wyomings total Income from wages and salary. Retail sales, lodging and fuel revenue from hunting accounted for a little less than 3% of the total in Wyoming. Not sure changing the tag allocation to 10% is going to impact the state all that much but it would certainly get the local chambers of commerce in an uproar.
 
YD---I had to laugh at your Wyoming poverty statement. Wyoming has so many natural resources that it doesn't even need an income tax on it residents to prosper. They are also one of the big reasons IMHO that deer and other wildlife face an unsure future. The only comment I will make on the 90/10 tag split is that if it did happen my guess is that it would be strictly on mule deer licenses, but you never know what will happen nowadays.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-13 AT 01:39PM (MST)[p]YD and Piper,

Think what you want...many didnt think that the Resident Preference Point bill would fail either.

I wonder how that got flushed and who the key players were in getting that done?

Same with the 10% archery set-aside bill...wonder who testified against that?

Transfer of preference points bill? Wonder who testified against that?

Didnt see many there, but those that showed up were heard, and no question made a difference in getting those bills killed.

The beauty of not many sportsmen taking the time to testify is that you get to know the Legislature, the G&F, and other groups that are there to testify. All you have to do is bother to show up. They also recognize the very few who take the time testify as well.

When most of the surrounding States have LQ tag caps on NR's of 10% (or less), I dont think it would be too difficult to get. I know of several Sportsmens groups that would testify in support of capping NR's to 10% of LQ tags.

That proposal has already been in a questionaire sent to Resident Hunters and has been discussed in meetings I've attended.

Its also fair to note that the WYOGA has lost a lot of credibility in the last 6 months with Wyoming Sportsmen. The WY and MT OGA's have made it a point to throw average sportsmen under the bus on many issues. News travels fast these days, and credibility can be gained and lost over a single email or stance on an issue.

WYOGA and MTOGA, both strapped on the velcro pants and showed the world their azz...

I'm not worried about WYOGA and its handful of members stopping legislation that is brought forward to support increased Resident tag quotas. Resident hunters severely outnumber WYOGA membership...many thousands to one.

Plus, Sportsmen in Wyoming are dying for leadership and someone to step up in support of their hunting and fishing heritage. Many great WY sportsmen are stepping up to the plate...and they arent playing for second place, and they are great leaders.

Think what you want...change is inevitable and WY Sportsmen are gearing up to deal with it.
 
I say "up to 10%" like AZ and MT. I would also support the Utah model where if there isn't at least 10 tags none go to non residents. I would not support any changes in quotas to general season elk and leftover tags which makes up the majority of the G&F budget.
I'm so frustrated with the G&F refusal to address HA102 declining quality and state wide mule deer problems I don't care if the G&F budget goes to zero and we get volunteers and Temps to run the G&F department. Temps couldn't do a worse job.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-13 AT 08:53PM (MST)[p]A 90% 10% split is not going to happen anytime soon, like Buzz says, most sportsmen don't show up, most outfitters do though.

During the first season setting meeting, I pushed ( sounds like someone?) to get the dept. to cut nonresident tag numbers in G and H last year, G and F proposed 1200 to 800 in region H and from 800 to 600 in region G.
During the meeting WGF had with outfitters later that week they successfully persuaded the dept to lessen the cuts and it took even more public pressure and letters to get them to hold to the original cuts, it wasn't an easy change.
Businesses, including outfitters have a place at the table down here in SW Wyoming and they still have a voice and a say in what happens.
We all know what the splits are in other states are whether its Colorados 20% and 35% split, Utahs flat 10%, Idaho and Arizonas no more than 10% or Nevadas demand indexing, there are going to be many other things to consider and Buzz will find out that there are many other voices that will be heard if such a proposal ever comes up.

Like I said before, those that like Wyomings deer hunting as it is now really don't have much to worry about, Im pretty sure it ain't gonna change for quite some time.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-13 AT 09:20PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-13 AT 09:07?PM (MST)

Piper,

Businesses shouldnt have a very big seat at the table...neither should outfitters.

They dont have any flesh in the game...they just carve flesh from the bones of the publics wildlife resources like vultures.

When they start paying their own freight, maybe they'll have a more significant seat at the table.

Hunters are waking up to the facts regarding who is, and more importantly, who isnt, funding the publics Wildlife Resources.

These boards have opened up the eyes of many.

BTW, you under-estimate the amount of influence that average sportsmen have the potential to unleash on the Legislature.

Been there, done that...

And for the record, I didnt see a single outfitter show up to testify in the many trips I made to Cheyenne this year.

There was ONE lobbyist that represented WYOGA, and barely spoke on the bills. Its also fair to note that a WYOGA lobbyist only speaks for the outfitters that belong to WYOGA. Many outfitters dont want anything to do with WYOGA.
 
Buzz,

I applaud your passion. But all of the real political conversations occur behind closed doors with the lobbyists. The public testimony is just part of the process.

Rich
 
I can agree with the fact that outfitters shouldn't have much to say , but they do, and so do many of these rural towns with motels and stores.

This town has 5 or 6 outfitters that I can think of, and the population isn't much over 2000 people in total,
my good friend owns a motel in another tiny town, he does his best business during hunting season, and its how he makes it through the winter.

A bill restricting nonresidents from bringing money to businesses and even WGF is going to draw a lot more attention from certain groups than a resident preference point bill or an archery set aside.

Its relatively easy to push to maintain the status quo, its when you try to change things that it becomes much more difficult.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-13 AT 11:12AM (MST)[p]Buzz,

I applaud your passion. But all of the real political conversations occur behind closed doors with the lobbyists. The public testimony is just part of the process.

Rich

Good advice for any beginnner...learned that lobbying D.C. quite some time ago.

I saw more deals take place at the Hawk'n'Dove and our banquet hall watering holes, than at the capital.

Just sayin'...

But for those without lobbying skills, contacts, etc. the best approach is committee hearings.
 
How is reducing the non res quota to 10% going to improve the management of our herds? Won't the reduced revenue to the Game and Fish result in pressure to increase tag quotas to make up the revenue short fall? Is it going to greatly increase resident drawing odds? What am I missing?
 
Resident general tags are sold over the counter, there is no limit.
So about the only way to control hunter pressure is to cut nonresident tag numbers and or shorten the season.
The other thing is that it would open up more resident tags in the draw areas if nonresidents received only 10% of all tags.
 
I guess my question is why should I vote yes (if there was a ballot measure to reduce the non res quota to 10%) BTW I my first inclination is to vote no on anything that changes the status quo. Case in point if there was a ballot measure to cut the state sales tax from 4% to 2% I would vote no even though it would be great for my personal bank accounts. I want to know why and how reducing the non res quota to 10% will benefit the state of Wyoming and it's residents. I feel you should be careful what you wish for-- unintended consequences.
 
"I want to know why and how reducing the non res quota to 10% will benefit the state of Wyoming and it's residents. I feel you should be careful what you wish for-- unintended consequences."


*** The very simple answer is that it frees up tags that the residents currently can't draw because they go to NRs. The drawback is that for every NR tag that is lost the residents will have to pay quite a bit more when you figure the buck tags for a NR cost 10x what they do for a resident. That may be what you consider an unintended consequence, but I'm sure if that is proposed everyone will know before it is voted on.
 
By itself, reducing the nr quota to 10% will do nothing for the Deer herds. I believe the 10% initially mentioned was part of a total redo which included eliminating the "unlimited" resident OTC gen tags and going to 100% draw, res and nr. In that context the Dept could better regulate harvest and the payback for the residents going LE, would be gaining half of the current nr Deer tags (or half of the new nr allocation).
 
Cutting the non resident tags to 10 percent sounds like a recipe for WAY to many resident tags to pay the bills. The WGF would have to sell way more residents tags to generate the same revenue . Not surprising Buzz supports this idea; Buzz works for the forest service, the forest service can not even harvest their own timber and make a profit...

Lets remember to manage deer not people. If we do whats RIGHT for deer we all win. The managers just need the sack to do their job and take care of what deer are left!!!
 
wolfhunter,

Heres what I know.

A bunch of NR's, as well as some R's are pushing for statewide LQ for deer, in particular mule deer.

I believe that the reason the R's are willing to give wayyy more deer permits to NR's than practically every other state in the West is simply due to the Residents being able to buy general deer tags OTC.

For every action that is pushed with regard to deer, elk, pronghorn, etc. there is a reaction by the Resident hunters.

When things get to the point that all mule deer are LQ tags, the fact is that there will be a drastic reduction in over-all mule deer tags. When that happens, the WYGF is going to see drastically reduced funding via deer tag sales. There will also be a lot of Wyoming Resident hunters that are going to be sitting on the sidelines when general OTC tags are no longer available.

One of the first questions that is going to be asked by Resident hunters...why are we sitting out, while giving away 20 percent of our available(and now greatly reduced deer tag numbers) to NR???

The next question will be, "why arent we capping LQ NR deer tags to 10 percent like MT, AZ, NM, OR, ID, etc. etc.???"

At that point, it wont be hard to get a majority of Resident hunters to look out for themselves. Frankly, when tag numbers are dropped, the first cuts should be to NR's. I'll always look out for Resident opportunities first...always. I've talked to NOT one resident that sees things any differently.

Its also pretty apparent that the WYGF is going to have to come up with non traditional funding sources. Over selling tags to either R's or NR's isnt going to get them out of the red, and will only harm wildlife populations.

I believe at the same time you pitch a cap of 10 percent on NR's for all LQ tags, you also pitch new funding sources.

However, I wont be pushing for a 10 percent cap as long as Wyoming maintains general OTC tags for residents. But the day that we see statewide LQ...the gloves are off and I'm looking out for Resident opportunities.

Just the way it is...and I'll not apologize to anyone for doing so.

As to the FS comments...I've had zip to do with timber sales for more than 15 years and even when I did, I couldnt control markets, housing starts, or economics. I also couldnt find a way to get out of EA, EIS, and adhering to various Acts, and environmental regulations that were mandated by Congressional Authority.

If you want to address those things, I suggest you write your Congressmen and Senators, they pass the laws. They're responsible for that, not the local FS office.
 
What state has the best management for mule deer? Colorado with 20% plus of tags going to non res. What state has the best management for antelope? Wyoming with 20% plus of tags going to non res. I feel Wyoming antelope management and Colorado mule deer management are the PROVEN shining examples of successful game management. I would urge emulating PROVEN tactics over theory any day. HOW MUCH IMPROVEMENT IN RESIDENT DRAWING ODDS WILL THERE BE BY GOING TO A 90/10 vs 80/20 SPLIT?
 
I would credit the success of CO deer and WY antelope more to habitat than management. CO's deer aren't what they used to be, either . . .
 
ArrowheadWy,

How do tags splits for R's and NR's create more deer and create more habitat?

The facts are that CO with regard to deer...and WY with regard to antelope, largely manage themselves.

I've looked around WY and CO for a long, long time and I dont see major habitat work taking place for deer and antelope in either state.

As to your last question...depends on how many tags are issued and what the demand is for the tags. But, take an area with 200 tags...20% given to NR's is 40 tags.

Applying third grade math...reduce that to 10%, I'd guess that 20 more residents will be holding tags.

I can tell you that residents will become increasingly stingy with deer tags when things are statewide LQ...FACT.

Common sense.
 
I just don't see the cost benifit.
500 res applicants
200 tags/90 = 180/500= 36% odds
200 tags/80 = 160/500= 32% odds
For this slight increase in drawing odds resident fees would have to more than double to make up the revenue short fall. What percent of residents would vote for that? Maybe some genius figured why don't we see if can charge non residents 10 times more than residents in order to pay over half the costs to manage wildlife in return for a small decrease in drawing odds!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-13 AT 10:09AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-13 AT 10:08?AM (MST)

ArrowheadWy,

If we find non-traditional funding sources, why would we have to double Resident Fees?

If LQ increases deer quality, like many are claiming and assuring us will happen, Wyoming will be able to charge more for both R and NR deer tags. Yes?

I'd have no problem shelling out $75-$80for a resident deer tag...none.

Plus, when over-all deer tags are reduced via LQ statewide, the supply of deer tags will decrease, creating more demand for the remaining tags. Increased demand will make those tags more valuable to NR's, as well as R's.

The only thing I'll have to "prove" to Residents is who they think should be receiving 90% of the available deer tags in a LQ situation.

That wont be tough to do.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-13 AT 11:25AM (MST)[p]>I just don't see the cost
>benifit.
>500 res applicants
>200 tags/90 = 180/500= 36% odds
>200 tags/80 = 160/500= 32% odds
>For this slight increase in drawing
>odds resident fees would have
>to more than double to
>make up the revenue short
>fall. What percent of residents
>would vote for that? Maybe
>some genius figured why don't
>we see if can charge
>non residents 10 times more
>than residents in order to
>pay over half the costs
>to manage wildlife in return
>for a small decrease in
>drawing odds!

***There would be no cost benefit when cutting NR tags to 10% and that's a completely separate, but important, discussion compared to the small increase in draw odds the resident might achieve by doing so. NRs already pay many times more than what the resident fees are and that is what has always paid the bulk of the G&F budget. Simple math says that for every NR adult buck deer tag taken away they lose $312, plus the $14 application fee and the $12.50 Conservation Stamp fee. The resident tag and application fee is now $43, so simple math says they would have to raise that tag fee by almost 8 times that much to come close to breaking even monetarily. There is no way that will ever fly, so to do what is being discussed would mean the G&F budget would have to go down accordingly or another source of revenue found to pay for that loss in income. The latter is what we keep coming back to, regardless of whether this tag cut ever happens or not, because the G&F can't keep relying on 80% of their budget being paid for by license fees. The reductions and cuts now taking place would only be exacerbated by cutting NR tags unless another source of funding is found.
I believe BuzzH is making at least one assumption that I don't think will fly. Even if another source of funding could be found that would help the monetary loss of NR tags, I don't believe he will ever see the day when the majority of residents would agree to pay double what they are now when they presently don't even want a $10 per license increase. I think there are a lot of folks, especially with families, that are just happy to pay the going price to get out and shoot anything they can and are not interested in quality. Whether increasing the quantity of animals would change that is also doubtful. IMHO the first thing that needs to be addressed and taken care of is a different funding mechanism for the G&F so it is no longer dependent on license sales to keep running. Until that is accomplished I don't think these other discussions are going to get very far because it still all comes down to the money needed to run the G&F and to do the habitat work, etc., to better the quantity and quality of the herds.
 
I don't understand what you saying here? You say that you want to help the quality and quantity of mule deer. How is taking 10% of the tags from NR and giving them to R going to change anything? Besides R getting more tags and paying more for them?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-13 AT 12:17PM (MST)[p]DZ,

I agree with your above post (#43). I was not talking about an auction tag, I was stating that if the WY G&F is managing more restrictively, such as managing for an average age of 5 1/2 years of age, they should be able to charge more for the product being offered under that scenario versus only charging a flat fee for mule deer. It seems only logical that the G&F should be able to charge more for areas which require more management. I was only thinking about our current model which has differing prices. We allow nonresidents to pay more for the exact same licenses only to see (supposedly) better odds at drawing that license. This option is not available for resident hunters. Why is that? Is there a possible solution there? All I am trying to do is stimulate conversation.

Under the current management system, guys desiring to see more mule deer managed for trophy characteristics are being frustrated by the fact that some simply want to fill their license with any legal animal.

I do not disagree that some one possessing a valid license should be able to take any animal which their license allows them to take. However, the current system appears to favor one hunter (the meat hunter) over the other hunter (the trophy hunter) as more mule deer hunt areas are managed for recreational opportunities than are under special management (what the WY G&F uses instead of trophy).

It comes back to the same arguement I made earlier; there are some that DO NOT believe mule deer are in trouble. Because they DO NOT see mule deer in trouble, they are content to see them managed as they have been for decades, even though the species as a whole continues to be in decline.

I DO NOT desire to see a quota established statewide in Wyoming; however, I also DO NOT want to continue down the same path we seem unwilling to depart from today. Something needs to change if we are to save our mule deer. If you are one of those guys that DO NOT see them being in trouble, than we will most definitely disagree with potential solutions.

I too have looked over many mule deer in the state. In fact, since moving here in 2000, I have not killed one mule deer. That has been my choice. I too have passed on yearling bucks only to see them run out in front of other hunters and be taken. That is their right as they are legal animals for them to harvest; however, by their own action one more mule deer was removed from the population. Will mule deer ever recover so long as they are continually managed under our current system?

I see this as more of an educational process than anything else. People need to understand there are consequences to their actions/choices. If hunters were taught of the importance of managing for all age classes of mule deer to be represented within a population that might help. To me it is all about maintaining choices and opportunity. Mule deer populations use to be strong enough that they could sustain any sex hunting. Our culture changed in the 70's to a buck only culture. Perhaps we need to explore swithcing our culture once again to protect mule deer. There is plenty of opportuntiy for hunting other species. I now choose to kill a whitetail if I cannot find the mule deer I want to take. Elk are also readily available and both sexes are huntable in most places. Some areas even allow for multiple cows to be taken.

I want to also state that I do not think that all mule deer areas should be managed only for trophy hunting. I will go on record that more people are looking for trophy mule deer hunting opportunities that Wyoming currently maintains.
 
I beelieve I would agree with just about everything Bob stated in that post, other than possibly having a different fee structure for various units depending on what the G&F was calling each of them. I'd have to give that more thought and might even agree with it based on the Reg and Special fees NRs already can choose from to get a better shot at what is perceived as better quality units.
 
After reading the rest of the posts on this thread, I can reiterate what I believe BuzzH is saying.

Should Wyoming implement limited quota statewide for mule deer there would definitely be a push from resident sportsmen to change the split to a 90/10 (res/nonres) rather than maintain the current 80/20 split.

This is exactly what I told WYOGA last year when they told me that they thought we needed to move towards limited quota statewide for mule deer.

BuzzH is corrent when he says that resident hunters will not sit idle on the sidelines when 20% of the mule deer tags are given to nonresident hunters. There is no economic assessment required, it will come down to who the legislators will listen too. Since they are elected by residents, it is easy to see the outcome of any action which seeks to establish a limited quota statewide for mule deer. The residents which benefit from nonresident hunters will also weigh in on this topic; however, their numbers will not be significant enough to overcome the resident sportsmen which would no longer be able to buy an otc license.

It has nothing to do with the health of mule deer populations, their habitat or the amount of money raised via hunting mule deer. It will come down to state legislators listening to their constituents and their constituents alone.
 
I don't think any NR that really knows what's going on in Wyoming would argue to any great extent that the tags may well eventually go to a 90/10 split. What needs to come out is that before it ever goes that way the G&F will need to be funded to a great extent by something other than tag fees so it will even be feasible to go that 90/10 route. If that is not the case and they keep losing even more money, they are going to end up with nothing left but a few people in the draw section to do their 90/10 thingy!
 
This 90%-10% thing is something Buzz congered up to put fear in nonresidents because he wants to keep the resident OTC tags in Wyoming for deer, nothing more.

I don't hear a huge public outcry to change antelope tag quotas to a 90%-!0% split? they are under a total limited quota system and have been for years, or sheep or goats and moose, they are really hard to draw and are completely limited in quota also.

I have been told several times by higher ups in WGF that the dept wants to keep away from outside funding as much as possible.
Good for them, they have reasons and I agree that they are valid.

I really wish we could manage mule deer like we do antelope, but its not going to happen all at once, only slowly and in areas where its really bad, I don't mean the normal bad either, it has to get really bad.

For the most part good quality muley hunting is pretty well gone, those of us that experienced it when it was different bemoan that fact, but many hunters don't know any better, and you don't miss what you never had.
 
Piper,

We'll see what happens when we see statewide LQ deer tags. I've a pretty good pulse for the average Resident Hunters.

People will be missing what they had, they'll know better...and they'll "adjust" quotas accordingly.

Count on it.
 
piper---I really think BuzzH is correct in his thinking that if deer went the way of all LQ like antelope that something would have to give to allow more residents a chance to hunt. The only way that could happen would be to drop the number of NR tags issued like we're talking about. Being a NR I wouldn't like it, but I have to agree with him that it would only be fair for the resident to have a better shot at the limited tags.

I have a question as far as your comment on higher ups in the G&F telling you they want to stay away from outside funding as much as possible. Do you know exactly what type of funding they would be talking about? What are their reasons such that you would agree with them and say they are valid? I could possibly see their point if they were referring to General Funds that the Legislature would have to appropriate. However, if they don't want to entertain the idea of a small fraction of a % on energy, gasoline, motel rooms, etc., to compensate for higher tags fees to run the Department, I'm afraid they may be the only ones left when no funds are available to run anything else in a few more years.
 
I don't look for LQ deer for a long time.
But when or if it does happen I certainly hope we don't miss what we had? heck, that would be like missing solitary confinement when you were let back out in the yard.
 
So what is their reasoning? A small fraction of a cent on energy of some sort wouldn't give the industry any say over how the G&F is run just like a small tax on a motel room wouldn't give the motel owners any say either.
 
It sounded to me like there is pretty universal agreement on not taking special interest money.
At that time there was millions of dollars flowing in from the energy corporations and a well documented decline (40%) in deer using the Pinedale mesa , so I asked several people about WGF getting some as mitigation or whatever.
I was kind of told not only no, but H### no.
Wildlife dept employees know a lot more about their internal politics and the political lobby than I do.
 
Not surprising the WYG&F wouldnt get any form of mitigation for habitat loss...they dont own the land.

It would be the State DNRC, BLM, or FS that would seek and get mitigation for habitat loss.

Its always going to be a tough row to hoe proving that extractive uses are even causing animal populations to decline, even more tricky to get them to compensate the State for those declines.

Resource Policy 101...

Huge misconception that the WYG&F has any control over BLM, FS, Park Service, Private, Tribal, or even most State Lands.

Their scope of controlling habitat is very narrow, at best.
 
BuzzH---That's exactly right and with that being the case and so many different organizations being involved with the habitat issues, how are we ever going to get much of anything positive accomplished to help the overall habitat problems? I think this is where most people get really ticked at the G&F biologists when they have no say or control over most things that may be the major reasons why deer are going downhill.
 
Smokestick... Replying to your post number 71, I tend to support some of what you are writing (saying). In your post you touch on the meat hunter and trophy hunter. This thread draws attention by referencing the historically managed trophy area 102. I challenge everyone who is in the LQ camp to really look at the history of this area. In the 80s and 90s this LQ area was a prototype for trophy deer management. Having explored, played in, and hunted this area a number of times in the last decade, I can say with a high level of confidence that most hunters will have a better chance finding a trophy deer in general tag areas then this one. Tooth data alone only tells you the average age of the bucks killed. The assumption is that 5.5 year old deer means trophy deer. Having seen the racks on deer ranging from 4.5 to 9.5 years old, the quality is not there. That said there are a few trophy bucks in the area, but they are few and far between.

I believe that the trophy hunter needs the meat hunter in order to preserve hunting. You mention that Wyoming favors the meat hunter. For deer to be trophy class that means they are above and beyond the average. When you create an area with the intent of giving hunters easy access to the upper class deer, you end up with crap after 2.5 decades.

I do propose change in management techniques for the deer. That said I don't think it necessarily means LQ. It needs balanced management. Maybe it simply means you have to pick an area to hunt rather than bounce around from one open area to the next. Maybe it means harvesting does. Maybe it means that you have to pick either a firearm or a bow but not both. I don't think it has to be LQ to build herd strength. To really make a change for the better we need to evaluate the good management techniques from our current and historical practices, than incorporate those into the best technique we can.
 
That said, I wonder what Wyomings antelope herds would be like if they went to an OTC system like Wyomings deer hunts? and what would Colorados deer herds look like if they went back to the OTC system? any guesses?

I mention that because earlier someone pointed out that those are the best major animal herds of their species in the west, and then someone said it was only true because of the condition of the habitat.

Im guessing that the quality of Colorados deer herds and Wyoming antelope herds is based on more that just habitat.
I would say its good solid limited quota hunt management based on how the animals are doing, and good habitat.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-13 AT 09:28PM (MST)[p]Great point Piper

Back in the "good old days" of the mule deer in Wyoming, weren't antelope limited quota?

Up to around '93 wasn't it pretty much impossible to not draw a tag?

Prior to that same time couldn't people get six, seven, even nine antelope in the same year.

After a little tougher then average winter...didn't the probability to draw a tag go below 50% in almost every area of the state, with the exception of high private land areas.

What is the probability today for a speed goat tag? 50% in the vast majority of the areas.

Antelope, specifically SW Wyoming are a LQ managed herd and they have experienced the same recovery as a general area mule deer.

I thought you were pro LQ?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-13 AT 09:39PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-09-13 AT 09:37?PM (MST)

deerfanatic - Actually you can still draw an antelope tag or two if you care to, in fact doe fawn antelope tags are pretty numerous, they
(antelope) must be doing quite well as one of our biologists said he wished that mule deer would do as well.
I think you must have gotten some bad information somewhere.
 
Each hunter in Wyoming can have a total of 6 pronghorn tags. You can either buy 6 after the intial draw (only 2 buck tags), or you can apply for and draw a total of 3 (1 buck 2 does) and then purchase another 3 after the draw (1 buck, 2 does).

You can also have a total of 6 deer tags in Wyoming as well...same deal, except that no more than 1 of your 2 buck tags can be valid for mule deer.

You can also have up to 3 elk tags as well...1 bull and 2 cows, or 3 cow tags.

Its also fair to note that in a lot of areas of WY, pronghorn numbers are about at objective and many areas are seeing reductions in both buck and doe tags for 2013.

Its the habitat...or lack there-of, as per always.
 
since deerfanatic mentioned SW Wyoming, I will note that there are few if any doe mule deer tags available in regions G or H, yet in these same areas there are numerous doe fawn antelope tags available.

There is no doubt its about habitat, there is also no doubt that overall antelope are doing better and recover better the muleys do.
 
Antelope numbers are also down from historic levels-by a long ways.The antelope area that I prefer to hunt has draw odds below 15% nowdays.

Back in the early 90's(before the winter of '92-'93)a person could take as many as 13(yes,you read correctly)antelope and 9(that's right-9)mule deer in many areas in sw Wy.

Limited Quota will only make for bigger bucks(older age class)if the number of licenses issued prevents too much harvest on the older age class bucks.Apparently,G&F prefers to overlook this scenario.Case in point:unit 102.G&f claims an age class of bucks in years past at 5.5 yrs of age.Last season this number dropped to 4.5.That tells me we are getting into that older age class too much.Oh,and by the way,they garner this information from having a check station set up on the first day of season.Which,incidentally,is when many older age class bucks get whacked because they are still in their late summer patterns and not aware that hunting season is underway.In my opinion,the info gathering is as flawed as the management for this unit.At the local season setting meeting in Green River,there were many attendees who addressed the issue,contending that maybe too many tags were being given out in the unit,thus lowering the age class.Basically they(we) were told that they had no idea and that current management practices were fine.I am of the opinion that G&F would issue too many tags for most units if we were to go LQ statewide,thusly defeating the purpose.I am with you on the pick a region or unit,deerfanatic.

Good luck trying to get Wy G&F to consider any other options besides the status quo.
 
What are the drawing odds for an any antelope license in SW wyoming?

While herds may be at objective level...objectives are primarily political driven rather than biological.

I support change. I don't support knee jerk change. What is the downside to making residents pick an area? Why not pick a weapon? I do believe LQ can work, but the current Wyoming LQ model needs changed in my mind too.
 
They could change trophy areas MO to 35 to 45 buck to doe ratio instead of the current 30 to 40 - with the low 30's being 102's typical number. A big part of the problem is the huge increaese in the desire to by the public to kill big bucks. Coupled with a far better equipment than ever. Then add how the great genitics are often poached if they are lucky enough to survive the season. It is amazing that an average buck age in 102 of 5.5yrs doesn't yield more 180 class deer.
 
non-typical,

If the G&F were collecting tooth samples from ALL mule deer bucks taken by hunters and they had a management objective to maintain an average age of harvest at 5.5 years of age and it came in as you are saying (that the average was 4.5), they would be required to lower the harvest be restricting buck harvest in future years. This would mandate the G&F to lower the number of tags available for that unit.

What I am floating out as an idea is the concept that otc licenses can be maintained so long as hunters do not harvest too many bucks that it reduces the overall average age of harvest. This would require that our culture change and that we pay more attention to the mule deer bucks being killed by hunters.

Without a doubt, some natural mortality will always occur within yearling bucks/does annually produced, so we cannot stop some annual losses from each cohort or age class represented within any given population of mule deer; however, if we as hunters understood how our harvest impacted future hunting opportunities maybe some hunters would be less inclined to shoot anything with an antler on its head.

If hunters over harvest mule deer bucks and the average age of harvest is reduced then the G&F would be faced to address harvest and the unit could become a limited quota (unit if hunters continue to over harvest mule deer bucks). If hunters could leave more deer on the mountain, in younger age classes, over time, we would see more older age class bucks being represented within that population. It has been theorized that having more older age class bucks available for reproduction would cause does to tighten their cycle and drop fawns in a tighter window, thus saturating and hopefully overwhelming predators. This could help recover mule reproductive cycles thus increasing overall herd health.

I really do not like the idea of archery or rifle hunting as it limits opportunity. I would much rather see opportunities preserved. As long as we are only able to harvest one mule deer buck annually, I do not see any benefit obtained by limiting opportunity. In fact, I believe it is an area where we could increase funding for the G&F. How many people would hunt with a traditional muzzleloader if a season were available for them? Perhaps we should be looking at increasing the cost for additional opportunities provided by allowing hunters to hunt multiple seasons (archery/rifle/muzzleloader).

Ultimately, I believe we need to be doing something different in regards to mule deer management. I do think it is time for us to demand more intensive management of mule deer populations throughout Wyoming (and perhaps the west). As BuzzH pointed out, the G&F doesn't have control in how a lot of lands (federal, state and private lands) are managed; however, the G&F could be pushing for increasing mule deer carrying capacity on those lands. Wyoming has gone out of its way to elevate management and protections for sage grouse populations but has done little if anything to tie recovery of mule deer populations into that conversation as well.
 
Smokestick,

I really like the Muzzleloader option...

Speaking for region G&H (mountain units) we could save a huge number of upper age class bucks if we limited the long range obsession. I would assume statewide we could save a bunch of older deer as well. Shooting a 1000 yards might be cool for some; But the more hunters who go to the mountains with this technology, our opportunities are going to be limited. It's a simple cause and effect. Here in western Wyoming I see way more big bucks being killed or wounded because of these long range shooters. I have addressed it with the G&F and they do not understand how much of it is going on. Most of our younger aggressive hunters in Star Valley are starting to carry Long Range Systems. And with "some of them", they have no moral fortitude to NOT take the shot when the big deer presents in a less then optimal shot opportunity. Also a local fat guy killed a 200 inch deer at 900 yards and had to shoot it 11 times. WITH HIS HUNTING ABILITIES THAT "FAT GUY" COULD NOT HAVE KILLED THAT 200 INCH DEER ON THE WINTER RANGE WITH A MUZZLELOADER!!! THIS SH!T NEEDS TO END!! HOW ABOUT A LITTLE MORE HUNT IN THE HUNTER. OR WE ALL(MULE DEER INCLUDED) ARE GOING TO PAY THE PRICE!!!!!
 
I love hunting with a rifle but I think the long range thing more than anything else may have been the straw that broke the camel's back when comes to trophy mule deer. The buck to doe and age class numbers are really pretty good. Less and less big bucks are escaping these long range shooters. It is a huge problem!
 
Bob-Don't know if you could sell most public hunters on it,but those are good points that could hold some merit.Problem is,there are lots of other factors affecting mule deer;not withstanding the public hunter's attitude of needing to be able to hunt deer every year.

As far as educating the public as to what they should shoot,good luck with that!Most folks don't have a clue what's really going on with mule deer and the many problems associated with their downturn.Further,many of those don't care.Those that do are largely already here discussing the problem,and attending meetings and getting involved.We both know it's the same faces at every meeting and getting involved.Not to mention WG&F would be opposed to any such nonsense(sarcasm).

It comes as no big surprise to me that G&F is more worried about sage grouse than mule deer.After all,mule deer are not close to being declared threatened(yet).Sure seems like the agency would be more concerned about their "cash cow".

ArrowheadWy-You nailed it.With the genetics that were in 102 25 yrs ago,180 class bucks should make up a much higher percentage of those 5.5 yr old bucks coming from 102-and they did 25 yrs ago.Too many folks wanting to kill a big buck.I'm in that group.Definition of a "big buck" differs depending on who you are talking to.I'm willing to eat tag soup if I don't find the buck I want to kill.

5.5 age class would imply that there are as many 2.5 yr old bucks as there are 8.5 yr old bucks.In many cases,an 8 yr old buck is regressing;and may be in his 2nd yr of regressing.A high percentage of those bucks may have gone from a sweet 4x4 to a gnarly horned old 3x4 with no tine length.Many hunters would rather kill the future 180 class buck as a 140-160 class 2 or 3 yr old than that old bruiser.It's all about score anymore.When you take into consideration that most bucks don't have the genetic potential to ever hit the 180 mark in the first place,it's no wonder there aren't as many 180 class bucks killed anymore.Too many hunters kill that future trophy in frustration after a few days of hunting.I'm of the opinion that this is the major reason behind what many see as the genetic downturn in 102.

Nothing against that hunter-they should be able to kill what they want;after all,it's their tag.Trying to change that attitude would be a tough row to hoe(Bob).

It has been suggested numerous times to local G&F officials that perhaps 50-75 of the 400 tags allotted to hunters for unit 102 could be put in a separate draw pool for 3-pt or less on one antler.This would reduce pressure on the trophy 4x4 or better class of buck that many prefer to hunt for,while at the same time have a possible reversal in the genetic downturn(over a period of decades);with no reduction in opportunity.G&F scoffs at this idea.Utah does this in the Henrie's and Paunsagaunt units presently.I wonder if WG&F scoff at their fellow game managers from another state,too.

You may gather from my posts that I don't like G&F.Let's just say I'm frustrated with them.I personally know most of the local wardens and biologists.Some of them are also frustrated,but they are not in a position to speak out.Their philosophy comes from Cheyenne.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-13 AT 02:18PM (MST)[p]"You may gather from my posts that I don't like G&F.Let's just say I'm frustrated with them.I personally know most of the local wardens and biologists.Some of them are also frustrated,but they are not in a position to speak out.Their philosophy comes from Cheyenne."


***Therein, I believe, lies the biggest problem with the G&F! People are mostly, if not always, only in contact with the field staff. That may be the local Biologist or Warden/Biologist in this scenario. Being retired as a field staff level employee with a MI state agency, I can tell you it's very difficult to address problems from the field level when the higher ups either are telling you what to say to the masses or don't believe anything you say will accomplish anything. I think it's mostly the former in the case of what we're talking about and it's really exacerbated when the Department is mostly dependent on sales of big game tags. In their hearts they may well know that tags need to be cut across the board in a lot of areas, but those tags are all that's keeping them on the payroll in the management positions. What decision would most of us make if we knew that tag cuts may influence greatly on whether we still have a job next year or not? Redo how they get a big share of the money that's keeping them afloat so they don't have to rely on tag sales and I'd bet there would be immediate changes in the management philosophy of the game animals that they work with ona day to day basis. IMHO if you first take care of this funding issue once and for all, you will take care of how the herds are managed to better them. Why don't some of you guys get together with Bob/SFW and the other Wyoming sportsmans groups and get something going to address this. It's obvious the top G&F brass won't/can't do it themselves! Finding other funding mechanisms may be easier than what were are talking about on the game biology end of it. Then once that's accomplished and they aren't tag sale dependent, I believe better game management will follow closely behind.
 
I think the NR hunters all should be thrown out and all the NF/BLM lands should be gated off and the residents should only be able to hunt on private, state, school on there resident license and pay a fee to park and hunt/fish/hike/camp on the NF/BLM lands in their State with a NF/BLM license issued by Uncle frigging Sam.
I bet you will like that 90-10 split then.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 

Similar threads

ELKOHOLIC
Antelope recommendation
Replies
17
Views
2k
Traveler
T
J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
Founder
Mule Deer, Elk, Antelope and Whitetail Hunts in Idaho
Replies
0
Views
445
Founder
Founder

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_1043.jpeg
unit 1 bull 3.JPG
F2D3938E-A828-482E-B240-0D931F350AC5.jpeg
25DF3B78-E3B6-4EDC-AEAF-20FF67D040F9.jpeg
E39A8F70-06A8-497F-A8EA-79863FF3E8B9.jpeg
Gotta' Love Mass
268A8E03-7F56-4B2B-90D8-614523DC731B.jpeg
4F40160E-A09C-4175-9B64-A5734F7295C3.jpeg
9119DB9D-5708-48EE-97FF-2AED24C8BBAA.jpeg
116 copy copy.jpg
Heavy Trophy Buck
7B688F2B-9365-4F26-BF19-2D2A57E01BD5.jpeg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom