End region G point creep!

Bookhead

Active Member
Messages
400
Not too hard when you could just jump in the family car ride out to the winter range in December and pick out which ever big dumb one you wanna kill standing off the side of the road at 100 yards wondering what you're doing cause there's only a handful other hunters and their all tagged out already cause the seasons been open 3 months. Yea it was tough with them 4 power scopes
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
The Wyoming Range herd was 60,000 + deer up until the 83-84 winter. It came back again and was 50,000+ at the 92-93 Winter and has never fully recovered. Since then the intense drilling on the Winter Ranges, drought and another series of bad Winters in the past decade along with predator growth and the exponential growth of the elk herd have caused the herd to never be able to reach the current objective of 40,000 deer. There are now 32,000 deer in very poor shape and the worst I have seen it in 45 years of watching those Winter ranges. Nobody wants limited quota but a small 2 area buffer core area of making 144 and 143 limited quota only and leaving everything else General would make a safe haven extending from near the Idaho border all the way to the Winter ranges. More Winter range habitat restoration needs to take place and the highway collision rate needs to have more protective bridges and fencing barriers. Elk hunting needs to dramatically be increased to increase the harvest of cow/calf elk. A shorter season only lasting 10 days will also help decrease harvest. Many of those high mountain basins all held mature bucks in the 70s and early 80s and now only hold lots of elk and hunter orange. Sad.
 
Last edited:

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
The WYGFD has done a decent job addressing 135. They’ve tweaked the season lengths a couple times. Maybe it’s not enough but maybe it is....

@jims hey I answered all your questions. Answer mine please, when was the last time you hunted region G?
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
135 is completely out of cycle as it’s the only area in the Wyoming Range with an Oct. 1st opener. There are far too many people hunting the Sept 15th opener and then head down to 135 to hunt the Oct. 1st opener. That at a minimum needs to change to align them all of the same date. It’s like G and H used to be out of whack with the Sept 10th opener in H and Sept 20th opener in G, they finally standardised that one and made them all Sept 15th but left 135 as an Oct 1st opener, I think due to the extreme down cycle of the herd move it all to an Oct. 1st opener with a 10 day season would be best and take some of the pressure off area 135.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
135 is completely out of cycle as it’s the only area in the Wyoming Range with an Oct. 1st opener. There are far too many people hunting the Sept 15th opener and then head down to 135 to hunt the Oct. 1st opener. That at a minimum needs to change to align them all of the same date. It’s like G and H used to be out of whack with the Sept 10th opener in H and Sept 20th opener in G, they finally standardised that one and made them all Sept 15th but left 135 as an Oct 1st opener, I think due to the extreme down cycle of the herd move it all to an Oct. 1st opener with a 10 day season would be best and take some of the pressure off area 135.

Is there really that many people hunting both openers? I mean yeah it sounds great but out of all the people I know I can't think of anyone hunting both the Sept 15th opener AND the oct 1 opener in 135. I'm not saying there isn't because of course there is, but how many people really are doing it? You say there is far too many? How many are? Do you know? Does WYGFD know? I think this is another perceived problem that really isn't a problem.

I'm not disagreeing with you about moving the opening day for them all to start at the same time. I think it's worth a shot. But I don't think anything needs to be done honestly. But if all the mule deer units that are OTC for residents opened at the same time it would be interesting to see how other units farther away would be affected.

My recommendation for G and H would be more detailed hunting survey questions for the next few years. In the meantime hopefully a couple nice winters come along. The deer herd will rebound, people will still cry online about how bad it is while the people in the know are hunting great bucks.

And of course when in doubt cut NR tags. ;)
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
@jims Hey I didn't see your response yet on the last time you've hunted G. You've been posting on these forums for years so I know it been a long time. I also know you're the king of not answering questions but I figure since I take the time to respond to yours its the least bit you can do for us? With much love and no respect,

Enso
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
A lot of pretty vital information could be gleaned from mandatory harvest reporting as well.
Agreed. I know they send out a survey every year. I'm not sure if everyone gets one but they should and it should be mandatory you fill it out. Don't fill it out? You can't put in for tags the following year. AK does this and I think it works pretty well. I can go to their website and look at harvest stats etc from previous years. It would be interesting to see trends in units in WY that residents can hunt OTC.
 

Chesterwyo

Active Member
Messages
951
Agreed. I know they send out a survey every year. I'm not sure if everyone gets one but they should and it should be mandatory you fill it out. Don't fill it out? You can't put in for tags the following year. AK does this and I think it works pretty well. I can go to their website and look at harvest stats etc from previous years. It would be interesting to see trends in units in WY that residents can hunt OTC.
Hard to say what percentage of people fill those out. And it's likely that only a small percentage of bucks killed in the Grey's River Drainage get checked at the station at Alpine. It's just not possible to keep it open all day and night during the season. And the number of Bucks killed in the Salt River Range, and the south end of 135? That's anybody's guess.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
Hard to say what percentage of people fill those out. And it's likely that only a small percentage of bucks killed in the Grey's River Drainage get checked at the station at Alpine. It's just not possible to keep it open all day and night during the season. And the number of Bucks killed in the Salt River Range, and the south end of 135? That's anybody's guess.

It's really sad actually that in 2021 they really do not know how many animals are harvested. You would think instead of people getting on tangents about mythical buffer zones, changing seasons, making areas limited quota, iron sights, etc they would be pushing for more reliable data. It's not that hard. I promise you if you make the reporting mandatory where there are consequences for not reporting you will see those reports turned in.

I suppose check stations still serve a purpose to get samples etc but likely its a WAG how many deer (and elk) are really harvested.

I'm going to try to find out how many of those surveys are turned back in just for curiosity sake.
 

Hunt_the_West

Active Member
Messages
345
It's really sad actually that in 2021 they really do not know how many animals are harvested. You would think instead of people getting on tangents about mythical buffer zones, changing seasons, making areas limited quota, iron sights, etc they would be pushing for more reliable data. It's not that hard. I promise you if you make the reporting mandatory where there are consequences for not reporting you will see those reports turned in.

I suppose check stations still serve a purpose to get samples etc but likely its a WAG how many deer (and elk) are really harvested.

I'm going to try to find out how many of those surveys are turned back in just for curiosity sake.
If NM can do it I’m sure WY can as well.
 

Bookhead

Active Member
Messages
400
They make everyone in every state as far as i know do an annual harvest survey for waterfowl to get your required HIP stamp to waterfowl hunt when you acquire your stamp that goes for everyone in wyoming that waterfowl hunts why in the actual hell cant they get on the same page with big game?
 

gwp4me2

Member
Messages
5
WAY MORE deer hunters back then. (Utah stats)
1965 total tags sold: 180,876
Total hunters in the field: 171,466
Number of bucks killed: 51,181
Number of does killed: 24,869

Number of special tags: 27,394
Number of deer killed: 11,993
Bucks: 2,505
Does: 9,488

By the way less than 1000 elk taken in 1965.

The definition of a 'Trophy' has also changed dramatically. A 180 4x4 was just a nice buck. Lots of bucks over 200 were thrown over a beam in the barn and didn't even merit a picture. Most people were party hunting for meat or a family vacation. Very few people would put in the effort to hunt the high, remote country.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Better data via increased Hunter surveys is always beneficial but the biologists have been doing large scale post hunt surveys along with the Wyoming Migration Initiative doing GPS Collar surveys. The results aren’t promising as the herd is well below objective and this past winter though mild will result in less green-up forage and snowpack is below average. Drought has a huge effect on stressed does and low fawn survival. Couple this with CWD moving into the herd it doesn’t bode well to just idly stand by and hope for a few mild winters. We desperately need some spring rain but it’s dry as a bone out there and nothing promising to relieve the drought.
806029C3-6112-4C47-83E0-9F4E04584609.jpeg
 

grosventrehunter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,418
Better data via increased Hunter surveys is always beneficial but the biologists have been doing large scale post hunt surveys along with the Wyoming Migration Initiative doing GPS Collar surveys. The results aren’t promising as the herd is well below objective and this past winter though mild will result in less green-up forage and snowpack is below average. Drought has a huge effect on stressed does and low fawn survival. Couple this with CWD moving into the herd it doesn’t bode well to just idly stand by and hope for a few mild winters. We desperately need some spring rain but it’s dry as a bone out there and nothing promising to relieve the drought.View attachment 38504
So with all the doom and gloom I take it you're not hunting G or H this year? Do tell...
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
So with all the doom and gloom I take it you're not hunting G or H this year? Do tell...
I haven’t harvested a deer in over a decade but kill an elk up in the Wyoming Range every year. The deer herds are in Sad shape in my 45+ years of hunting and observing this majestic resource. The next step Game and Fish will try is to lower the objective to 30,000. Sad.
 

JakeSwensen

Active Member
Messages
453
Limited quota would grow more big bucks but the area is currently growing big bucks. The guys who work hard or hire an Outfitter and the ones who just get lucky are still killing big bucks.


A few things that have had a much bigger impact on mule deer #'s than hunters shooting bucks.

- Nixon banned 1080 in the early 1970s.
"A Federal ban on 1080 was imposed after environmentalists complained that the compound was killing not only coyotes but also thousands of eagles, hawks, bears and other animals." The poison was being used to save sheep from becoming food. I would bet we have a lot more eagles, hawks, bears and coyotes on the landscape right now. I think the poison was also saving a lot of deer. I encourage mule deer hunters to hunt coyotes and harvest a black bear if they get the opportunity.

-Highways and all of the deer they kill.
Deer often winter right along busy roads and vehicles have been getting faster=more deer getting killed in vehicle accidents.
I encourage people to donate to the highway crossing and fencing projects and slow down when you're driving on winter range.

Anyone screaming limited quota for western wyoming, wants more big bucks at the cost of less opportunity for Resident hunters.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,427
JakeS, the clan jumped all over me for saying the same thing about limiting res! Do you think there are alternatives to increasing more big bucks without limiting res opportunity? How about later, shorter season dates and opening elk season the same time or earlier than muley season? Improving road crossings, shooting more coyotes, and improving habitat on winter ranges are 3 other ways.

Can you think of any other solutions? Like I've been saying all along, G definitely has the POTENTIAL for producing MORE whopper bucks. Is it worth tweaking a few things without limiting Wyo res tags to improve G?
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
Has WYGFD said we need to increase buck to doe ratios? Where is the literature that we do not have enough "big" bucks in G? Are the does not getting breed?

What's wrong with having an OTC unit for residents where they can hunt every year and have a chance at killing a big buck? Or a small buck? NOTHING.

You can make G a 5 day season and guess what all it will take is ONE bad winter to knock it down again. So let people hunt. There's been a positive trend going where a lot more people are more willing to eat their tag then settle on a smaller buck. Guys who hunt G and H every year haven't notched a tag in 10 years. They are looking for something real special. And they are not bitching. Yet Jims keeps focusing on # of bucks shot.

Pro Tip for everyone out there: There's a reason why Jims will not answer the question of when he hunted G last. Spoiler Alert: He never has.

Prove me wrong @jims
 

grosventrehunter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,418
I haven’t harvested a deer in over a decade but kill an elk up in the Wyoming Range every year. The deer herds are in Sad shape in my 45+ years of hunting and observing this majestic resource. The next step Game and Fish will try is to lower the objective to 30,000. Sad.
That wasn't the question I asked. Are you still planning to hunt G or H this year?
 

Ultimag

Active Member
Messages
413
How many res hunters will be willing to pay $200 for a deer tag when they can pay chunk change to kill a meat buck in a regular priced unit? Sounds like a great scenario to me!

Serious res hunters that currently hunt g harvest bucks regardless of how much they pay for tags. In reality how many Wyo res hunters are serious trophy deer hunters....my guess is only tiny fraction of the total Wyo res hunters!

G currently gets hammered by Wyo res hunters because it's the first season to open in Wyo in the fall. What happens if Wyo res are faced with paying a premium fee to hunt g? Do you really think the majority of Wyo res are going to pay $200 to shoot a meat buck in g when they can shoot a meat buck in other regular priced general units for chunk change? My bet is that a lot of Wyo res would suddenly quit hunting g.

I hear constant whining from Wyo res about raising tag prices even $10! Fewer res hunters willing to travel to Western Wyo and pay high fees means fewer deer harvested!
Don't care,f it cost me,$20,$200 or,$2000
First legal deer or elk I see is,dead
Haven'found a,recipe for horn soup. cost doesn't bother me charge me as much as you want I'll gladly pay it and still shoot a,meat buck ,doe cow bull or calf I don't NEED to shoot a trophy I enjoy filling my freezer much more then hanging horns on the walls,of my house
 

BrianID

Very Active Member
Messages
1,600
There are some interesting thoughts on this thread. I'm a nonresident so any residents that think what I have to say is worthless can just skip over my post.

I do think it is up to residents to decide what they want and I personally think it is great for Wyoming residents to have an opportunity to hunt every year instead of extremely limited golden tickets like the Henry's or the AZ strip. It will be a sad day for many when Western Wyoming has limited tags for residents.

Shorting the season and moving the opening to all the units to October 1st would without a doubt increase the number of mature bucks that survive the season. However, it would concentrate the hunters even more and it would seem even more crowded than it already is.

I think the best solution is to limit the guys that kill mature bucks in G on a regular basis. Make it mediatory to report every year like many other states do. This is easy data to collect with the internet now. Nonresidents that kill a buck in G would have a 5 year (or min preference points required that year) waiting period before hunting G again. Give nonresidents that turn back in their unused G tag an extra bonus point. Have residents that kill a buck in G not be allowed to hunt G the following year. This would stop guys from just shooting a buck to fill their tag. Residents that go 10 years without punching their tag are not the problem with G. Residents and nonresidents that have to put their tag on a buck every time they get a tag are the problem.
 

Ultimag

Active Member
Messages
413
There are some interesting thoughts on this thread. I'm a nonresident so any residents that think what I have to say is worthless can just skip over my post.

I do think it is up to residents to decide what they want and I personally think it is great for Wyoming residents to have an opportunity to hunt every year instead of extremely limited golden tickets like the Henry's or the AZ strip. It will be a sad day for many when Western Wyoming has limited tags for residents.

Shorting the season and moving the opening to all the units to October 1st would without a doubt increase the number of mature bucks that survive the season. However, it would concentrate the hunters even more and it would seem even more crowded than it already is.

I think the best solution is to limit the guys that kill mature bucks in G on a regular basis. Make it mediatory to report every year like many other states do. This is easy data to collect with the internet now. Nonresidents that kill a buck in G would have a 5 year (or min preference points required that year) waiting period before hunting G again. Give nonresidents that turn back in their unused G tag an extra bonus point. Have residents that kill a buck in G not be allowed to hunt G the following year. This would stop guys from just shooting a buck to fill their tag. Residents that go 10 years without punching their tag are not the problem with G. Residents and nonresidents that have to put their tag on a buck every time they get a tag are the problem.
Hmmmm so when are you going to start pushing this,same,idea for Idaho?
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
There are some interesting thoughts on this thread. I'm a nonresident so any residents that think what I have to say is worthless can just skip over my post.

I do think it is up to residents to decide what they want and I personally think it is great for Wyoming residents to have an opportunity to hunt every year instead of extremely limited golden tickets like the Henry's or the AZ strip. It will be a sad day for many when Western Wyoming has limited tags for residents.

Shorting the season and moving the opening to all the units to October 1st would without a doubt increase the number of mature bucks that survive the season. However, it would concentrate the hunters even more and it would seem even more crowded than it already is.

I think the best solution is to limit the guys that kill mature bucks in G on a regular basis. Make it mediatory to report every year like many other states do. This is easy data to collect with the internet now. Nonresidents that kill a buck in G would have a 5 year (or min preference points required that year) waiting period before hunting G again. Give nonresidents that turn back in their unused G tag an extra bonus point. Have residents that kill a buck in G not be allowed to hunt G the following year. This would stop guys from just shooting a buck to fill their tag. Residents that go 10 years without punching their tag are not the problem with G. Residents and nonresidents that have to put their tag on a buck every time they get a tag are the problem.
Having an Oct. 1st opening date actually would decrease resident hunter numbers as many deer areas in Wyoming open on Oct. 1st in many other parts of the state. The hunters from Cheyenne, Casper and Laramie would now likely stay local so as to hunt with local family and friends and hold their annual deer camp reunions closer to home. It would also decrease pressure on area 135 which doesn’t start until Oct 1st now and many hunters move from the North end of the Wyoming Range to hunt the Sept. 15th opener then head down to 135 to hunt another opener on Oct. 1st.
We have discussed before limiting residents to a one deer every other year policy but It rarely seems to gain traction with the Star Valley crowd who routinely oppose it and Game and Fish backs down from the proposal when pushed. The current problem isn’t Non-Res. as we only issue 400 licenses in all of area G, it is the 4956 resident hunters whom hunt the Wyoming Range. Full on Limited Quota will never gain traction as hardly anyone I have ever spoken with wants that but a small core buffer area in 144 and 143 would provide a safe haven if went limited quota extending from near Idaho and eastward all the way to the Winter ranges. Keep all the rest of the areas as General.
 

BrianID

Very Active Member
Messages
1,600
Hmmmm so when are you going to start pushing this,same,idea for Idaho?
I've been pushing the same idea in Idaho for 15 years. I realized guys like me that were killing a buck every year were the problem. Just like many other muley hunters I've transitioned to were many of my tags now go unfilled. It would be nice if guys who didn't fill their tag every year were rewarded and guys who have to kill a meat buck every year were penalized. Unfortunately there are too many guys that still want to kill a buck every time they get a tag.
 

BrianID

Very Active Member
Messages
1,600
The current problem isn’t Non-Res. as we only issue 400 licenses in all of area G, it is the 4956 resident hunters whom hunt the Wyoming Range.
There is a problem with the nonresident crowd. What percentage of the nonresident G tags do you think go unfilled compared the the percentage of the resident G tags that go unfilled? Very few of the nonresidents that are capable of killing a buck are choosing to go home with tag soup. Many residents that are capable of killing a buck are not taking a buck home from G every year.

Giving nonresidents who turn an unused G tag back in a bonus point wouldn't cost Wyoming anything but a little time and I'm sure it would prevent many nonresidents from settling on a last day buck. Regardless of us wanted to admit it, guys like Founder that are killing a mature buck in G more than 50% of years are a big problem. Limiting guys who punch their tag most years would be a very effective way to keep more mature bucks on the mountain. Guys that go 10 years between killing a buck are not much of a problem. I say let guys like that hunt every year.
 
Last edited:

Ultimag

Active Member
Messages
413
I've been pushing the same idea in Idaho for 15 years. I realized guys like me that were killing a buck every year were the problem. Just like many other muley hunters I've transitioned to were many of my tags now go unfilled. It would be nice if guys who didn't fill their tag every year were rewarded and guys who have to kill a meat buck every year were penalized. Unfortunately there are too many guys that still want to kill a buck every time they get a tag.
I'm one of those guys,and my wife is one of those women WE,DONT DO TAG SOUP
if its,legal it dies we,don't give 2chits,I its,a,doe ,fawn, buck ,bull cow,calf
Or if it has spots it DIES and I'm not one damn bit ashamed of it. we fill our tags,every year.
we paid,for the tags, not filling it is wasting money if we don't kill it somebody else is going to
 

Chesterwyo

Active Member
Messages
951
Don't care,f it cost me,$20,$200 or,$2000
First legal deer or elk I see is,dead
Haven'found a,recipe for horn soup. cost doesn't bother me charge me as much as you want I'll gladly
I'm one of those guys,and my wife is one of those women WE,DONT DO TAG SOUP
if its,legal it dies we,don't give 2chits,I its,a,doe ,fawn, buck ,bull cow,calf
Or if it has spots it DIES and I'm not one damn bit ashamed of it. we fill our tags,every year.
we paid,for the tags, not filling it is wasting money if we don't kill it somebody else is going to
Seem’s confounding that such a dyed in the wool indiscriminate meat hunter would spend any time on a website geared towards trophy hunting. But then again nothing you say on here ever makes any kind of sense.
 

Ultimag

Active Member
Messages
413
Seem’s confounding that such a dyed in the wool indiscriminate meat hunter would spend any time on a website geared towards trophy hunting. But then again nothing you say on here ever makes any kind of sense.
Hmmm remind me again why I should give a rats, a** about what you or anyone else,thinks about my opinion if you don't like it use the ignore feature thats what its for
Last time I looked lot more then trophy mule deer get,discussed on here
You have,a good weekend click my profile hit IGNORE its really that simple
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
if a guy wants to smoke the first buck he sees I can’t blame him. Hunting is expensive and it’s not about the trophy for everyone. I think there’s enough of a balance of both to make the current system continue to work.

@Ultimag how the hell can you say it’s not about the trophy when your profile pic has big Whitetails? Those were not the first ones to walk by...
 

Ultimag

Active Member
Messages
413
if a guy wants to smoke the first buck he sees I can’t blame him. Hunting is expensive and it’s not about the trophy for everyone. I think there’s enough of a balance of both to make the current system continue to work.

@Ultimag how the hell can you say it’s not about the trophy when your profile pic has big Whitetails? Those were not the first ones to walk by...
Everyone of those,whitetails were private land opening weekend whitetails,taken in WESTERN NYS you know,that awful state,that,doesn't have,any big bucks,
Stauben county NY is known for big whitetails and yes,they were the first ones,to walk by
 

BrianID

Very Active Member
Messages
1,600
I'm one of those guys,and my wife is one of those women WE,DONT DO TAG SOUP
if its,legal it dies we,don't give 2chits,I its,a,doe ,fawn, buck ,bull cow,calf
Or if it has spots it DIES and I'm not one damn bit ashamed of it. we fill our tags,every year.
we paid,for the tags, not filling it is wasting money if we don't kill it somebody else is going to
I agree that you have every right to bring home meat every time you get a tag. That is completely within your right to do. However, I would rather see additional restrictions targeting guys like you.

Guys like mulecreek, highfastflyer, grosventurehunter who go years between pulling the trigger have much less effect on the herd than guys that have to take a buck home every year. Giving 1000 tags to guys like mulecreek, highfastflyer, grosventurehunter would result in as many dead bucks as giving 100-200 tags for guys like you.

If hunting is restricted in the future, I would like to see guys who let bucks walk and eat tag soup on a regular basis incentivized. It is just my opinion and you don't have to like it.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
“What percentage of the nonresident G tags do you think go unfilled compared the the percentage of the resident G tags that go unfilled?” The Harvest report shows 4912 residents killed 1318 bucks, 76 does and 17 fawns. The non-residents were 419 and killed 163 bucks in the Wyoming Range. The problem isn’t the non-residents
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,427
An interesting fact:

If 1/2 the tags were stripped from nonres that would mean there would be 220 nonres killing approximately 82 bucks. If res tags are left "as is" res would still likely harvest around 1318 bucks. 82 nonres vs 1318 res bucks killed is a humungous difference! Stripping 1/2 of the tags from nonres really isn't going to impact Wyo Range bucks much but would greatly impact nonres hunters.

If season dates were shortened and opened in October when other seasons throughout Wyo open at the same time there would be a chunk fewer Wyo res hunting G since many would hunt favorite spots closer to home and have fewer days to harvest bucks. This would significantly benefit bucks in G a lot more than cutting nonres tags. If elk season opened before deer season there would likely be even fewer deer harvested.

There would be WAY fewer bucks harvested by both nonres and res throughout G with the shorter season dates in October than if 1/2 the tags are stripped from nonres.
 

grosventrehunter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,418
An interesting fact:

If 1/2 the tags were stripped from nonres that would mean there would be 220 nonres killing approximately 82 bucks. If res tags are left "as is" res would still likely harvest around 1318 bucks. 82 nonres vs 1318 res bucks killed is a humungous difference! Stripping 1/2 of the tags from nonres really isn't going to impact Wyo Range bucks much but would greatly impact nonres hunters.

If season dates were shortened and opened in October when other seasons throughout Wyo open at the same time there would be a chunk fewer Wyo res hunting G since many would hunt favorite spots closer to home and have fewer days to harvest bucks. This would significantly benefit bucks in G a lot more than cutting nonres tags. If elk season opened before deer season there would likely be even fewer deer harvested.

There would be WAY fewer bucks harvested by both nonres and res throughout G with the shorter season dates in October than if 1/2 the tags are stripped from nonres.
I'm really trying to understand why you ares so interested in changing Wyoming. Obviously you have never hunted G, yet you feel it needs changed to fit your vision. I look at other state forums on here and you only comment on Wyoming. Hell, you don't even comment on your own state forum unless you're called out over it. Then you get your feelings hurt when hunters from Wyoming tell you to butt out. Do you have another "new buddy" who you begged, borrowed and lied to so that they share their points this year in G this year? I honestly don't get it.

I hear Utah deer herds are in bad shape can you please go over to that forum and tell them what they need.
 
Last edited:

grosventrehunter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,418
“What percentage of the nonresident G tags do you think go unfilled compared the the percentage of the resident G tags that go unfilled?” The Harvest report shows 4912 residents killed 1318 bucks, 76 does and 17 fawns. The non-residents were 419 and killed 163 bucks in the Wyoming Range. The problem isn’t the non-residents
You sure are avoiding my question. So let's ask again. Are you planning on hunting the entire season this year in G, then move to 135 if you don't kill anything prior?
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
I'm really trying to understand why you ares so interested in changing Wyoming. Obviously you have never hunted G, yet you feel it needs changed to fit your vision. I look at other state forums on here and you only comment on Wyoming. Hell, you don't even comment on your own state forum unless you're called out over it. Then you get your feelings hurt when hunters from Wyoming tell you to butt out. Do you have another "new buddy" who you begged, borrowed and lied to so that they share their points this year in G this year? I honestly don't get it.

I hear Utah deer herds are in bad shape can you please go over to that forum and tell them what they need.

Nailed it.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
“What percentage of the nonresident G tags do you think go unfilled compared the the percentage of the resident G tags that go unfilled?” The Harvest report shows 4912 residents killed 1318 bucks, 76 does and 17 fawns. The non-residents were 419 and killed 163 bucks in the Wyoming Range. The problem isn’t the non-residents
How is this anywhere close to accurate without mandatory reporting? Please share. Wyoming doesn't know how many residents hunted G last year. Fact. They don't know how many deer were killed there last year either.

The problem is there is no problem. You and jims could go hold hands and maintain the buffer zone you so dearly want while you guys create solutions to problems that do not exist.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
An interesting fact:

If 1/2 the tags were stripped from nonres that would mean there would be 220 nonres killing approximately 82 bucks. If res tags are left "as is" res would still likely harvest around 1318 bucks. 82 nonres vs 1318 res bucks killed is a humungous difference! Stripping 1/2 of the tags from nonres really isn't going to impact Wyo Range bucks much but would greatly impact nonres hunters.

If season dates were shortened and opened in October when other seasons throughout Wyo open at the same time there would be a chunk fewer Wyo res hunting G since many would hunt favorite spots closer to home and have fewer days to harvest bucks. This would significantly benefit bucks in G a lot more than cutting nonres tags. If elk season opened before deer season there would likely be even fewer deer harvested.

There would be WAY fewer bucks harvested by both nonres and res throughout G with the shorter season dates in October than if 1/2 the tags are stripped from nonres.

For those that don't want to read all the word vomit. Here is it summarized:

I jims know nothing of said topic but feel like I know the answer to the questions WYGFD hasn't asked. I live in my own fantasy world and my feelers get hurt if anyone questions it. Sebastian is my christen name but if born in today's world it would be KAREN.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
How is this anywhere close to accurate without mandatory reporting? Please share. Wyoming doesn't know how many residents hunted G last year. Fact. They don't know how many deer were killed there last year either.

The problem is there is no problem. You and jims could go hold hands and maintain the buffer zone you so dearly want while you guys create solutions to problems that do not exist.
The Wyoming Game and Fish uses an accredited professional surveying agency. The numbers of useable survey returns that must be obtained is a calculated percentage of the total number of licenses sold in each area, or the number needed to realize a 90% confidence interval that is +10% of the male harvest estimate at the herd unit level.

Information and data from these surveys is used in many legal and jurisdictional processes but primarily to monitor status and trends of game populations, assess effectiveness of hunting seasons, determine future license quotas, and provide data for economic reporting.

The Game and Fish has been doing it this way for a long, long time. I asked the regional biologist why we don’t use 100% mandatory surveying and he said the data they receive is accurate enough for what they require and the added costs of 100% mandatory surveying aren’t worth the added expense, manpower and processing costs. Some species do require it and those species have 100% mandatory harvest reporting. In the meantime we’ll just use the 90% confidence level reporting system the Game and Fish has traditionally utilised.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
The Wyoming Game and Fish uses an accredited professional surveying agency. The numbers of useable survey returns that must be obtained is a calculated percentage of the total number of licenses sold in each area, or the number needed to realize a 90% confidence interval that is +10% of the male harvest estimate at the herd unit level.

Information and data from these surveys is used in many legal and jurisdictional processes but primarily to monitor status and trends of game populations, assess effectiveness of hunting seasons, determine future license quotas, and provide data for economic reporting.

The Game and Fish has been doing it this way for a long, long time. I asked the regional biologist why we don’t use 100% mandatory surveying and he said the data they receive is accurate enough for what they require and the added costs of 100% mandatory surveying aren’t worth the added expense, manpower and processing costs. Some species do require it and those species have 100% mandatory harvest reporting. In the meantime we’ll just use the 90% confidence level reporting system the Game and Fish has traditionally utilised.
Yes I'm familiar with the system the WYGFD uses. And it proves my point they don't really know how many people hunt and how many deer are killed in G.

They can't argue the cost. Make harvest reporting mandatory and make it online. The fact they are printing out all the hunter survey and mailing them out is an antiquated system and is very costly. Make an online harvest reporting and yes maybe the upfront costs will be there but will be more cost effective in the long run.

Not to mention they are using 3rd party contractors who call from odd numbers that most people do not answer when they call. You could get rid of the 3rd party and hire one or two employees full time to handle it. No problem. According to the contractor who processes the surveys the number one issue is incomplete or illegible survey's. Online would take that factor away.

There really isn't a good excuse to not have mandatory reporting for all species. I don't care if its the way WYGFD has done it for years. Until that happens you really can't use your numbers in your debate.

Have a great day, I'm done with work and am going to go pick up some moose paddles.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Why doesn’t every Hunter have to fill out a mandatory survey?
While it is very important that hunters who receive a harvest survey complete them, it is neither efficient nor necessary for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to follow up with every antelope, deer and elk hunter in order to collect good information about how many hunters were in the field and how many animals they harvested in a season.

Studies have shown that not all hunters fill out harvest reports or surveys even if they are mandatory. Many factors, such as the number of days spent hunting or the number of deer harvested, can bias which hunters are more likely to comply. That means the number of animals reported through mandatory harvest report programs doesn’t necessarily reflect the number of animals actually harvested.

Additionally, mandatory harvest survey programs often involve consequences for hunters who don’t fill out surveys that range from fines to loss of hunting privileges. These penalties are not only inconvenient to hunters, but would be expensive for our agency to enforce.

Sending out surveys to a targeted statistical sample of hunters helps us account for people who don’t fill out surveys and other biases. Our surveys are designed to produce accurate and cost-efficient estimates of big game harvest without enforcing penalties on hunters.
 

jm77

Very Active Member
Messages
2,094
Why doesn’t every Hunter have to fill out a mandatory survey?
While it is very important that hunters who receive a harvest survey complete them, it is neither efficient nor necessary for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to follow up with every antelope, deer and elk hunter in order to collect good information about how many hunters were in the field and how many animals they harvested in a season.

Studies have shown that not all hunters fill out harvest reports or surveys even if they are mandatory. Many factors, such as the number of days spent hunting or the number of deer harvested, can bias which hunters are more likely to comply. That means the number of animals reported through mandatory harvest report programs doesn’t necessarily reflect the number of animals actually harvested.

Additionally, mandatory harvest survey programs often involve consequences for hunters who don’t fill out surveys that range from fines to loss of hunting privileges. These penalties are not only inconvenient to hunters, but would be expensive for our agency to enforce.

Sending out surveys to a targeted statistical sample of hunters helps us account for people who don’t fill out surveys and other biases. Our surveys are designed to produce accurate and cost-efficient estimates of big game harvest without enforcing penalties on hunters.
Nothing like a little plagiarizing on a hunting forum to try to make it seem like you know what you are talking about?

It's obvious Flyer, you've been doing it a long time.
 

BrianID

Very Active Member
Messages
1,600
Highfastflyer,
So 26.8% of residents killed a buck and 38.8% of nonresidents killed a buck according to the G&F data. It does prove my point that a higher percentage of nonresidents are not willing to go home with tag soup. I will agree with you that nonresidents are not as much of a factor in total bucks killed in G each year. I’ve read your ideas about limiting residents in certain units and I think that is for the Wyoming residents to decide. Many residents seem like they don’t want any changes in G or H.

The online mandatory reporting would be cheaper than the current random survey they have. It may take a little effort to implement but mandatory online surveys are standard across multiple states. I would be very surprised if Wyoming doesn’t have mandatory online surveys in a few years because they have been so cheap, effective and efficient in other states.
 

BrianID

Very Active Member
Messages
1,600
Nothing like a little plagiarizing on a hunting forum to try to make it seem like you know what you are talking about?

It's obvious Flyer, you've been doing it a long time.
Plagiarizing is when you claim someone’s work as your own. He cited his source and it does give the Wyoming G&F explanation of why they continue to resist mandatory online surveys.
 

jm77

Very Active Member
Messages
2,094
Plagiarizing is when you claim someone’s work as your own. He cited his source and it does give the Wyoming G&F explanation of why they continue to resist mandatory online surveys.
I suppose just like in post #144. He frequently posts like that with no source, but using word for word material. Whatever...
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Nothing like a little plagiarizing on a hunting forum to try to make it seem like you know what you are talking about?

It's obvious Flyer, you've been doing it a long time.
Nothing like a lot of IGNORANCE on your part. It’s obvious you’ve been doing it a LONG TIME. Sometimes the Truth and the Facts get in your way. Hmmmmm............??????
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Highfastflyer,
So 26.8% of residents killed a buck and 38.8% of nonresidents killed a buck according to the G&F data. It does prove my point that a higher percentage of nonresidents are not willing to go home with tag soup. I will agree with you that nonresidents are not as much of a factor in total bucks killed in G each year. I’ve read your ideas about limiting residents in certain units and I think that is for the Wyoming residents to decide. Many residents seem like they don’t want any changes in G or H.

The online mandatory reporting would be cheaper than the current random survey they have. It may take a little effort to implement but mandatory online surveys are standard across multiple states. I would be very surprised if Wyoming doesn’t have mandatory online surveys in a few years because they have been so cheap, effective and efficient in other states.
Many factors go into Nonresidents having higher success rates. Many of those kills are guided hunters who utilise the expertise of professional Outfitters. We many times see non-residents harvesting at a higher success rate than residents. Other issues are they travel farther and hunt harder as they know how difficult the area G license is to obtain and often they are more aggressive and determined. The point is non-residents are now such a small percentage of the harvest they aren’t the primary main problem of a diminishing resource with fewer and fewer deer each year. Mr. Nelson also sees it the same way. It is the worst I have seen it in 45+ years on those Winter ranges. Sad.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
Why doesn’t every Hunter have to fill out a mandatory survey?
While it is very important that hunters who receive a harvest survey complete them, it is neither efficient nor necessary for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to follow up with every antelope, deer and elk hunter in order to collect good information about how many hunters were in the field and how many animals they harvested in a season.

Studies have shown that not all hunters fill out harvest reports or surveys even if they are mandatory. Many factors, such as the number of days spent hunting or the number of deer harvested, can bias which hunters are more likely to comply. That means the number of animals reported through mandatory harvest report programs doesn’t necessarily reflect the number of animals actually harvested.

Additionally, mandatory harvest survey programs often involve consequences for hunters who don’t fill out surveys that range from fines to loss of hunting privileges. These penalties are not only inconvenient to hunters, but would be expensive for our agency to enforce.

Sending out surveys to a targeted statistical sample of hunters helps us account for people who don’t fill out surveys and other biases. Our surveys are designed to produce accurate and cost-efficient estimates of big game harvest without enforcing penalties on hunters.

Thanks for sharing something I've already read/know. At the very least I'm sure some other people haven't read it. Thank You?

Feel free to post the research/data where less bucks would be killed with an Oct. season. I'll be here waiting.

Since you spend so much time on the WYGFD please share where too many bucks are being taken in G.

Or share an article about this magical buffer zone you speak of.

Or share research that non residents hunt "harder"

And now you are saying non residents are traveling farther than residents? Yet you say all these guys come from Cheyenne? Cheyenne is farther than where a lot of the non residents are coming from (utah/idaho). Which is it?

Final question. Do you believe what you type or is this just a really good troll?

I suppose we have as much luck seeing something like that as we do getting a straight answer out of Jims.
 

jm77

Very Active Member
Messages
2,094
Nothing like a lot of IGNORANCE on your part. It’s obvious you’ve been doing it a LONG TIME. Sometimes the Truth and the Facts get in your way. Hmmmmm............??????
Please show me one of my posts anywhere on this forum where I quoted media word for word, other than statute and regulation, like you do.

I'll wait...
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559


Thanks for sharing something I've already read/know. At the very least I'm sure some other people haven't read it. Thank You?

Feel free to post the research/data where less bucks would be killed with an Oct. season. I'll be here waiting.

Since you spend so much time on the WYGFD please share where too many bucks are being taken in G.

Or share an article about this magical buffer zone you speak of.

Or share research that non residents hunt "harder"

And now you are saying non residents are traveling farther than residents? Yet you say all these guys come from Cheyenne? Cheyenne is farther than where a lot of the non residents are coming from (utah/idaho). Which is it?

Final question. Do you believe what you type or is this just a really good troll?

I suppose we have as much luck seeing something like that as we do getting a straight answer out of Jims.
Your Slothfulness and Ignorance is becoming apparent. You can’t do any research yourself. PATHETIC.
Shorten general license mule deer season length • Advantages
o May reduce mule deer harvest pressure.
o Hunters still have the opportunity to hunt every year.
• Disadvantages
o Outfitters often strongly oppose.
o May reduce youth opportunity.
o May increase hunter crowding within a condensed timeframe.
Even in Alaska they understand how shorter seasons reduce harvest. Some of their Unschooled residents, not so much. https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Mule Deer Initiative/Mule-Deer-Mgmt-Options_07-23-18_FINAL.pdf
 
Last edited:

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Please show me one of my posts anywhere on this forum where I quoted media word for word, other than statute and regulation, like you do.

I'll wait...
Please show me any post anywhere where your IGNORANCE isn’t Apparent. Becoming the norm for you. Looks like the Truth and the Facts get in the way of your IGNORANCE. Hmmmm.....???????
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,427
The first thing someone needs to realize is there is a problem! In this case, there is a definite problem with G mule deer or there wouldn't be gobs of $ spent on research and programs designed to fix the problem!

Highfastflyer, it’s apparent that anyone that has different views than the Wyo Clan of Shame that their ideas no matter how revenant and good they are....are totally disregarded, scrambled, and ripped apart!

Highfastfliyer, you have some great suggestions that make a lot of sense! Everyone but the Clan of Shame realize there is concern about mule deer in G. They could care less about the mule deer as long as nothing changes to Wyo res hunters!

How about it Clan of Shame....do you have any solutions?
 
Last edited:

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
Your Slothfulness and Ignorance is becoming apparent. You can’t do any research yourself. PATHETIC.
Shorten general license mule deer season length • Advantages
o May reduce mule deer harvest pressure.
o Hunters still have the opportunity to hunt every year.
• Disadvantages
o Outfitters often strongly oppose.
o May reduce youth opportunity.
o May increase hunter crowding within a condensed timeframe.
Even in Alaska they understand how shorter seasons reduce harvest. Some of their Unschooled residents, not so much. https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Mule Deer Initiative/Mule-Deer-Mgmt-Options_07-23-18_FINAL.pdf
We’ve all read that. Are you trying to use that to make a point? Of course it may reduce harvest but it also may not...

Thanks for skipping over all the other points.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
The first thing someone needs to realize is there is a problem! In this case, there is a definite problem with G mule deer or there wouldn't be gobs of $ spent on research and programs designed to fix the problem!

Highfastflyer, it’s apparent that anyone that has different views than the Wyo Clan of Shame that their ideas no matter how revenant and good they are....are totally disregarded, scrambled, and ripped apart!

Highfastfliyer, you have some great suggestions that make a lot of sense! Everyone but the Clan of Shame realize there is concern about mule deer in G. They could care less about the mule deer as long as nothing changes to Wyo res hunters!

How about it Clan of Shame....do you have any solutions?
I know everyone, he’s still here right? Give the guy a couple likes. Maybe he will go away?
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,829
The first thing someone needs to realize is there is a problem! In this case, there is a definite problem with G mule deer or there wouldn't be gobs of $ spent on research and programs designed to fix the problem!

Highfastflyer, it’s apparent that anyone that has different views than the Wyo Clan of Shame that their ideas no matter how revenant and good they are....are totally disregarded, scrambled, and ripped apart!

Highfastfliyer, you have some great suggestions that make a lot of sense! Everyone but the Clan of Shame realize there is concern about mule deer in G. They could care less about the mule deer as long as nothing changes to Wyo res hunters!

How about it Clan of Shame....do you have any solutions?
Who said there's a problem?

Seems to me, the current management of G is providing opportunity for a vast majority of people who hunt it.

Your solutions are still in search of a problem...
 

Gator

Long Time Member
Messages
17,288
I think while we are at it we should charge people like you who beg and promise handicap hunters to share their points. Let's say $500.00 for guys who make promises they can't keep on a big buck in 90. By the way, how did 90 treat you and your handicap "new buddy". See it can work both ways, except we residents don't have to take advantage of people to hunt G and H every year. I will pay the $200, will you pay $500 every year you find a new buddy who shares their points with you?
$500 might not be enough, start around $750 or $1000
most wouldn't start in the point race for sure I know I wouldn't.
the hunters would soon catch up to the HUGE points it takes.
 

LIK2HNT

Active Member
Messages
950
Not to hijack this, but I am really surprised all states do not apply mandatory online harvest reporting. Data is easily obtained, stored, and manipulated to follow trends. Think this data would be very important to use especially after bad winters and droughts. As far as hunters getting penalized for not reporting, it would be a simple link to connect to the next years application process.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
Not to hijack this, but I am really surprised all states do not apply mandatory online harvest reporting. Data is easily obtained, stored, and manipulated to follow trends. Think this data would be very important to use especially after bad winters and droughts. As far as hunters getting penalized for not reporting, it would be a simple link to connect to the next years application process.
Exactly. There really is no excuse not to.

You don't fill out your harvest report? You're not eligible to put in for tags/gain preference points the following year. Proven system in other states.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
We’ve all read that. Are you trying to use that to make a point? Of course it may reduce harvest but it also may not...

Thanks for skipping over all the other points.
Are you even coherent? Maybe your avatar should be Slightly InCoherent? First you state, “Feel free to post the research/data where less bucks would be killed with an Oct. season. I'll be here waiting.” Then you try to Ignore your Ignorance by stating, “We’ve all read that. Are you trying to use that to make a point? Of course it may reduce harvest”. Even in Alaska they know by reducing season length you can reduce harvest.
“FAIRBANKS - The moose hunting season will be 25 percent shorter this ... For most of Game Management Unit 20B, the hunting season for Alaska ... so that the shortened season would cause a meaningful cut to the harvest.“

I suggest you stay off the Wyoming page, educate yourself about game management of which you are apparently Ignorant. SlightlyIncoherent.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Who said there's a problem?

Seems to me, the current management of G is providing opportunity for a vast majority of people who hunt it.

Your solutions are still in search of a problem...
It’s no secret. Even Wyoming Game and Fish recognises the Wyoming Range herd which once numbered 60,000 deer is now about 29,000 deer. They even meet and publish on the low deer population. They still recognise the problem and often hold meetings.

A statewide Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) written by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) was adopted by the WGFD Commission in July 2007. The MDI outlines factors believed to contribute to declining mule deer populations and identifies strategies intended to at least sustain current deer numbers.
The purpose of the Wyoming Range Mule Deer Initiative (WRMDI) is to apply the overarching strategies and objectives of the statewide MDI to address herd-specific issues. The WGFD undertook an intensive information gathering process to obtain a better understanding of the public’s concerns related to this herd. A series of community workshops was held throughout western Wyoming from June 2010 through February 2011. Based on public input, the WGFD tailored this management plan to address habitat, deer population, and social issues specific to the Wyoming Range mule deer herd.” https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Mule Deer Initiative/Wyoming Range/WRMD_PLANFINALDRAFT0000945.pdf
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
It’s no secret. Even Wyoming Game and Fish recognises the Wyoming Range herd which once numbered 60,000 deer is now about 29,000 deer. They even meet and publish on the low deer population. They still recognise the problem and often hold meetings.

A statewide Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) written by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) was adopted by the WGFD Commission in July 2007. The MDI outlines factors believed to contribute to declining mule deer populations and identifies strategies intended to at least sustain current deer numbers.
The purpose of the Wyoming Range Mule Deer Initiative (WRMDI) is to apply the overarching strategies and objectives of the statewide MDI to address herd-specific issues. The WGFD undertook an intensive information gathering process to obtain a better understanding of the public’s concerns related to this herd. A series of community workshops was held throughout western Wyoming from June 2010 through February 2011. Based on public input, the WGFD tailored this management plan to address habitat, deer population, and social issues specific to the Wyoming Range mule deer herd.” https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Mule Deer Initiative/Wyoming Range/WRMD_PLANFINALDRAFT0000945.pdf
Sooooo you’re saying killing 1500 BUCKS a year is the cause for this decline and it can be fixed with a buffer zone and shorter season? 😂😂😂😂
 

Ultimag

Active Member
Messages
413
Exactly. There really is no excuse not to.

You don't fill out your harvest report? You're not eligible to put in for tags/gain preference points the following year. Proven system in other states.
How would you prevent sportsman from filling out or reporting fraudulant information ?
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Sooooo you’re saying killing 1500 BUCKS a year is the cause for this decline and it can be fixed with a buffer zone and shorter season? 😂😂😂😂
Soooo you’re saying we should open it up to 5 doe tags per hunter per year as we used to have and add another 21 days to the season and have an extended season on the Winter range and year round oil and gas drilling as everything is just fine with the Wyoming Range herd. Move along, nothing to see here, all is now normal, 29,000 and decreasing..........LMAO. SlightlyIncoherent. 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
 
Last edited:

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
Soooo you’re saying we should open it up to 5 doe tags per hunter per year as we used to have and add another 21 days to the season and have an extended season on the Winter range and year round oil and gas drilling as everything is just fine with the Wyoming Range herd. Move along, nothing to see here, all is now normal, 29,000 and decreasing..........LMAO. SlightlyIncoherent. 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
You ever take the time to consider that maybe the deer herd was over the carrying capacity then? Even back then they realized a crash was going to happen. That’s how those 5 doe tags per person came to be. Probably would of been worse winterkill if they didn’t do that. Just to clarify for everyone out there the 5 doe tags was temporary and not a normal every year quota. Highfastflyer is grasping at straws to maintain his pie in the sky buffer zone idea and the idea that a few less days of killing bucks is going to bring the herd back.

You’re so close to realizing your solution to the problem you and Jims created isn’t going to work. You just need to read more on WYGFD website to spin their research into your own idea. You’re almost there, so damn close. I’m not giving up on you. Those 1500 bucks do not matter for herd health. You’re so close. Come on man!
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
You ever take the time to consider that maybe the deer herd was over the carrying capacity then? Even back then they realized a crash was going to happen. That’s how those 5 doe tags per person came to be. Probably would of been worse winterkill if they didn’t do that. Just to clarify for everyone out there the 5 doe tags was temporary and not a normal every year quota. Highfastflyer is grasping at straws to maintain his pie in the sky buffer zone idea and the idea that a few less days of killing bucks is going to bring the herd back.

You’re so close to realizing your solution to the problem you and Jims created isn’t going to work. You just need to read more on WYGFD website to spin their research into your own idea. You’re almost there, so damn close. I’m not giving up on you. Those 1500 bucks do not matter for herd health. You’re so close. Come on man!
“You ever take the time to consider that maybe the deer herd was over the carrying capacity then?” No, as the herd stayed above 50,000 even reaching almost 60,000 in the 1960s. We could kill multiple does and multiple bucks way back then and for the period of 1950-1995 the herd was always over 50,000. More than 45 years, was it over carrying capacity then, for 45 years? Now we have 29,000 and decreasing. Come on man, you must be the guy who saw the passenger pigeons decrease dramatically then said, oh just keep shooting and killing them as normal, they are doing fine, nothing to see here, move along. This is why we don’t listen to SlightlyIncoherent Ignorant Fools like you who just want to keep everything as is when it isn’t working and hasn’t been since 1992-93 winter. This is why we have active working groups and Initiatives not MM fools trying to slaughter a greatly diminishing resource. Next year when we reach 27,000 should we increase the Doe harvest and extend the season 21 days? Sad.
 
Last edited:

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
“You ever take the time to consider that maybe the deer herd was over the carrying capacity then?” No, as the herd stayed above 50,000 even reaching almost 60,000 in the 1960s. We could kill multiple does and multiple bucks way back then and for the period of 1950-1995 the herd was always over 50,000. More than 45 years, was it over carrying capacity then, for 45 years? Now we have 29,000 and decreasing. Come on man, you must be the guy who saw the passenger pigeons decrease dramatically then said, oh just keep shooting and killing them as normal, they are doing fine, nothing to see here, move along. This is why we don’t listen to SlightlyIncoherent Ignorant Fools like you who just want to keep everything as is when it isn’t working and hasn’t been since 1995-96 winter. This is why we have active working groups and Initiatives not MM fools trying to slaughter a greatly diminishing resource. Sad.
It sad you’re stuck in the 1950s and 60s. All the changes since then you’ve seen. If only you would of done something back then like a buffer zone on development on the winter ranges. You really were ahead of your time. Based on you saying you hunted and were around back then can how are you still hunting this country? You must be knocking on 90. Or are you like jims and this is all just up in that noodle of yours?
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
It sad you’re stuck in the 1950s and 60s. All the changes since then you’ve seen. If only you would of done something back then like a buffer zone on development on the winter ranges. You really were ahead of your time. Based on you saying you hunted and were around back then can how are you still hunting this country? You must be knocking on 90. Or are you like jims and this is all just up in that noodle of yours?
Again, you’re INCOHERENT. I never said I hunted in the 50s and 60s, I said the deer population from 1950-1995 was always 50,000 plus. You know they do publish those statistics. You might want to consider educating yourself SlightlyIncoherent by reading those reports. I have been hunting and observing the Wyoming Range for 45+ years and observed the upswings and down swings. I can tell you it’s the worst I have ever seen it. All those high alpine mountain basins all held significant mature mule deer up until the 1992-93 winter. Now they are only full of elk and hunter orange and an Incoherent Alaskan who wants to hunt them till extinction, increase the doe harvest and extend the season 21 days shouting all is well, nothing to see here, move along. Sad and Pathetic and Incoherent.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
Again, you’re INCOHERENT. I never said I hunted in the 50s and 60s, I said the deer population from 1950-1995 was always 50,000 plus. You know they do publish those statistics. You might want to consider educating yourself SlightlyIncoherent by reading those reports. I have been hunting and observing the Wyoming Range for 45+ years and observed the upswings and down swings. I can tell you it’s the worst I have ever seen it. All those high alpine mountain basins all held significant mature mule deer up until the 1992-93 winter. Now they are only full of elk and hunter orange and an Incoherent Alaskan who wants to hunt them till extinction, increase the doe harvest and extend the season 21 days shouting all is well, nothing to see here, move along. Sad and Pathetic and Incoherent.
How accurate do you think the population estimates were back then? Hell they can’t even tell you how many deer were killed last year in G and you expect those numbers to be accurate?

Where did I say I want to increase doe harvest or extend the season 21 days? Can’t wait to see you drum that up...

You do realize you’re arguing with yourself? The worst you’ve ever seen it? Well it’s still not that bad.

Your problem is your memory is playing tricks on you. You remember it not for the way it was back then but for the way you saw it. There’s some dude long since dead that was complaining how it was ruined during the period you thought it was best it’s ever been.

These are the good old days for someone who’s putting in the time in G. Fact. Your good old days have come and gone. You can sit here and fantasized about buffer zones, shorter seasons and restricting user groups. But you’re not going to get another round of what you once saw. I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you this. I hope you can work through it. Remember the good times, and be thankful.

Good luck out there this fall you miserable fock. 😁
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
How accurate do you think the population estimates were back then? Hell they can’t even tell you how many deer were killed last year in G and you expect those numbers to be accurate?

Where did I say I want to increase doe harvest or extend the season 21 days? Can’t wait to see you drum that up...

You do realize you’re arguing with yourself? The worst you’ve ever seen it? Well it’s still not that bad.

Your problem is your memory is playing tricks on you. You remember it not for the way it was back then but for the way you saw it. There’s some dude long since dead that was complaining how it was ruined during the period you thought it was best it’s ever been.

These are the good old days for someone who’s putting in the time in G. Fact. Your good old days have come and gone. You can sit here and fantasized about buffer zones, shorter seasons and restricting user groups. But you’re not going to get another round of what you once saw. I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you this. I hope you can work through it. Remember the good times, and be thankful.

Good luck out there this fall you miserable fock. 😁
“These are the good old days for someone who’s putting in the time in G.” If these are the good ole days, I poor pity those young hunters who never saw how great this herd was and the data and record books are well documented about the herd population remaining above 50,000 and the quality of bucks in its heyday. Your Ignorance and Incoherence to comprehend a herd which went from 60,000 to 29,000 is in great shape is apparent (The good ole days) is a great example of how Deluded and Ignorant you truly are. Are you also a history denier? The rest of your world salad vomit post is also incoherent and not worth reading let alone commenting on. I doubt there is professional help which could even professionally help your Ignorance, Delusion and Incoherent grasp of reality. I suggest you stay out of the Wyoming Range as it has gone downhill dramatically and the once every 8 years you do get to hunt next we might be below 20,000 by then. In the meantime I’ll keep trying my best to save what little remains, though it’s likely soon to reach the point of no return. Sad.
 

Bookhead

Active Member
Messages
400
I just had a conversation with a 90 year old man retired after 25 years with the game and fish hes seen it all from the "hay day" of the mule deer to now. I asked plain and simple what his opinion was in deer decline. First words out of his mouth were" its not hunters, they arent the problem"
 

rocky2track

Active Member
Messages
237
I said the deer population from 1950-1995 was always 50,000 plus.
Although I appreciate your passion, you really need to provide a few more facts before spewing untrue information, your so full of it. I've enjoyed this book for the past 30 years, published in 1978 and although the herd units were slightly different and management practices have changed, it talks about the severe winters on 1971 and 1973 which pretty much put the hurt on the deer herds, when there was way less hunting pressure. Still good info and reasons why November seasons were scaled back and the concerns of development that was happening back then. And the best information I have from attending all those WY G&F public meetings is the chart I've attached for your use. Take a good hard look.
20210503_070843.jpg


20210503_065812.jpg
 

jm77

Very Active Member
Messages
2,094
Although I appreciate your passion, you really need to provide a few more facts before spewing untrue information, your so full of it. I've enjoyed this book for the past 30 years, published in 1978 and although the herd units were slightly different and management practices have changed, it talks about the severe winters on 1971 and 1973 which pretty much put the hurt on the deer herds, when there was way less hunting pressure. Still good info and reasons why November seasons were scaled back and the concerns of development that was happening back then. And the best information I have from attending all those WY G&F public meetings is the chart I've attached for your use. Take a good hard look.
View attachment 38757

View attachment 38758
Oops, Flyer boy got caught flying with his pants down!:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

I guess this time you might want to post the facts instead of calling people "ignorant"?

It's obvious to those who are in the know, that tweeking the season to save some bucks doesn't affect the overall herd size unless there aren't enough bucks to breed the does and that is not the case in G. There is a lot of good information coming out of working groups around the state that supports this.

The big question is opportunity vs trophy quality. It seems to me management in western Wyoming is a mix of both.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
Although I appreciate your passion, you really need to provide a few more facts before spewing untrue information, your so full of it. I've enjoyed this book for the past 30 years, published in 1978 and although the herd units were slightly different and management practices have changed, it talks about the severe winters on 1971 and 1973 which pretty much put the hurt on the deer herds, when there was way less hunting pressure. Still good info and reasons why November seasons were scaled back and the concerns of development that was happening back then. And the best information I have from attending all those WY G&F public meetings is the chart I've attached for your use. Take a good hard look.
View attachment 38757

View attachment 38758
mic drop.....
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
F580C6A9-664F-4997-A1A3-F2D5FE591F42.png
Although I appreciate your passion, you really need to provide a few more facts before spewing untrue information, your so full of it. I've enjoyed this book for the past 30 years, published in 1978 and although the herd units were slightly different and management practices have changed, it talks about the severe winters on 1971 and 1973 which pretty much put the hurt on the deer herds, when there was way less hunting pressure. Still good info and reasons why November seasons were scaled back and the concerns of development that was happening back then. And the best information I have from attending all those WY G&F public meetings is the chart I've attached for your use. Take a good hard look.
Thanks for helping prove my point. The deer herds routinely in the 1960s were above 50,000 and in many years all the way up until the bad winter of 1992-93 when we rarely exceeded past 40,000 since then. As Dr. Monteith has stated in numerous conferences. “
Kevin Monteith, an assistant research professor at the University of Wyoming, pointed to the Wyoming Range herd herd that used to number 50,000.

“We’ve not got back to the 50,000 we had,” he told the summit. Deer haven’t multiplied even though Game and Fish stopped the hunting of does, a strategy employed to boost the population.”

We have tried numerous strategies like ZERO doe harvest since 1993 and still no recovery back to the 50,000 level. Now we are at 29,000 and decreasing with all time low historical fawn recruitment.

You also fail miserably when you state in the 1970s, “when there was way less hunting pressure.” There was far GREATER hunting pressure back then both by residents and non-residents. We could harvest multiple bucks, multiple does, some years even 5 doe permits and we could hunt on the winter ranges up into December back then. We were issuing over 1000 nonresident licenses in the early 2000s and nowadays we only issue 400 and the seasons are far shorter with no doe hunting allowed in over 28 years since 1993. The Game and Fish has cut back but it isn’t enough with ever decreasing numbers. They finally lowered the objective from 50,000 to 40,000. Next they will try and lower it to 30,000 when we hit 20,000 deer. Sad.
F580C6A9-664F-4997-A1A3-F2D5FE591F42.png
 
Last edited:

jm77

Very Active Member
Messages
2,094
Again, you’re INCOHERENT. I never said I hunted in the 50s and 60s, I said the deer population from 1950-1995 was always 50,000 plus. You know they do publish those statistics. You might want to consider educating yourself SlightlyIncoherent by reading those reports.
Apparently those statistics are published and you are wrong. You can't even admit that gracefully!
 

Bookhead

Active Member
Messages
400
Well that clearly shows that deer heards have never been abouve 50,000 before that either there was 4 years there where they were how do you consider that the norm? Looks like a cycle to me
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,609
Just curious, but why did they raise the objective from 30,000 to 50,000 from 1980 to 1992 before the big winter? From what I have read the 1950 and 60s were an anomaly and were by far the highest number of deer in the Wyoming Range, Wyoming and the whole Rocky Mountain west in centuries. It must have been a perfect storm with less drought, range health (changing from grasses to more forbes) and milder winters. I don't know much, but I do know it is all about fawn survival. All focus needs to be on how do we get fawns (especially female fawns) to survive to adulthood. If there are enough bucks to breed the does, buck harvest and hunting pressure doesn't matter. That is an easy fix if you want to have an older age class buck to hunt.

These slides have some decent info, especially on buck size and bucks shot. There were more than twice as many hunters in the Wyoming Range prior to the winter of 92/93 and there were over 5,000 bucks and 5,000 does shot in 91. They had to know they had too many deer on the landscape for a hard winter to be shooting that many does.

 

Deerlove

Long Time Member
Messages
5,302
There is a problem with the nonresident crowd. What percentage of the nonresident G tags do you think go unfilled compared the the percentage of the resident G tags that go unfilled? Very few of the nonresidents that are capable of killing a buck are choosing to go home with tag soup. Many residents that are capable of killing a buck are not taking a buck home from G every year.

Giving nonresidents who turn an unused G tag back in a bonus point wouldn't cost Wyoming anything but a little time and I'm sure it would prevent many nonresidents from settling on a last day buck. Regardless of us wanted to admit it, guys like Founder that are killing a mature buck in G more than 50% of years are a big problem. Limiting guys who punch their tag most years would be a very effective way to keep more mature bucks on the mountain. Guys that go 10 years between killing a buck are not much of a problem. I say let guys like that hunt every year.
Brian they do chart percentages of bucks killed by NR's compared to residents. NR kill a lot more.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Just curious, but why did they raise the objective from 30,000 to 50,000 from 1980 to 1992 before the big winter? From what I have read the 1950 and 60s were an anomaly and were by far the highest number of deer in the Wyoming Range, Wyoming and the whole Rocky Mountain west in centuries. It must have been a perfect storm with less drought, range health (changing from grasses to more forbes) and milder winters. I don't know much, but I do know it is all about fawn survival. All focus needs to be on how do we get fawns (especially female fawns) to survive to adulthood. If there are enough bucks to breed the does, buck harvest and hunting pressure doesn't matter. That is an easy fix if you want to have an older age class buck to hunt.

These slides have some decent info, especially on buck size and bucks shot. There were more than twice as many hunters in the Wyoming Range prior to the winter of 92/93 and there were over 5,000 bucks and 5,000 does shot in 91. They had to know they had too many deer on the landscape for a hard winter to be shooting that many does.

Fawn survival is at very low historical rates. Western Wyoming’s mule deer numbers continue to shrink... pregnancy rates are high, but fawn recruitment into the overall population is low. Most pregnant females in the Wyoming Range Herd deliver an average of two fawns each year, but the number of fawns alive three or four months later dropped by about half. The drought is destroying any hope for higher fawn recruitment.
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,609
Brian they do chart percentages of bucks killed by NR's compared to residents. NR kill a lot more.
They kill at a higher percentage rate, but only kill 11% of the total bucks killed. It is discussed above in detail....26.8% of residents killed a buck and 38.8% of non-residents. On average, non-residents probably hunt a bit harder than residents because they can't hunt it every year and is probably the reason their success rate is greater.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Apparently those statistics are published and you are wrong. You can't even admit that gracefully!
They prove well my point.
Wyoming’s mule deer are in trouble.

“Their numbers have dropped 36 percent since 1990. Fawn production has declined 20 percent in the last quarter century.

Mule deer habitat has been sucked dry by drought, invaded by development, cut apart by highways. Always-fatal chronic wasting disease infected 57 percent of hunter-killed deer in one area three years ago.

Parts of Wyoming were once known as a “mule deer factory,” and the state still strives for a population of more than 564,150. But they number about 374,400 today and their plight is such that advocates doubt whether the slate-hued muley can make a comeback.

“We’ll never get back to historic numbers,” Miles Moretti, president of the Mule Deer Foundation, said of a nearby herd as he addressed a gathering in Daniel Aug. 6. A group of 45 biologists, hunters, ranchers, administrators and land managers shared recent research and brainstormed how to boost the population of the beleaguered species.” https://www.wyofile.com/help-sought-ravaged-mule-deer/
 

mulecreek

Very Active Member
Messages
1,401
hff,

Some of your thoughts on herd improvement are ones most would agree with (winter range improvements, migration corridor improvements, crossings). Its when you suggest the buffer zones or limiting OTC for res hunters that you loose most residents. Neither of those two things are going to improve herd numbers in the long term. They could possibly improve average antler size but even that is circumspect. And increasing the number of elk killed so that we can make more room for MD is in my mind a fools errand. Why would we want to suppress a species that is really doing well under current conditions so that we can attempt to help a species that is declining EVERYWHERE. The time is right for elk. We should run with it because I guarantee it wont be like this forever.
 

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
Fawn survival is at very low historical rates. Western Wyoming’s mule deer numbers continue to shrink... pregnancy rates are high, but fawn recruitment into the overall population is low. Most pregnant females in the Wyoming Range Herd deliver an average of two fawns each year, but the number of fawns alive three or four months later dropped by about half. The drought is destroying any hope for higher fawn recruitment.
Can you please provide details on how your buffer zone and short season will help with the overall health of the herd? Thanks!
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
hff,

Some of your thoughts on herd improvement are ones most would agree with (winter range improvements, migration corridor improvements, crossings). Its when you suggest the buffer zones or limiting OTC for res hunters that you loose most residents. Neither of those two things are going to improve herd numbers in the long term. They could possibly improve average antler size but even that is circumspect. And increasing the number of elk killed so that we can make more room for MD is in my mind a fools errand. Why would we want to suppress a species that is really doing well under current conditions so that we can attempt to help a species that is declining EVERYWHERE. The time is right for elk. We should run with it because I guarantee it wont be like this forever.
I in no way ever want to see limited quota hunting on the Wyoming Range but creating a small buffer area or safe haven would greatly enhance the herd in several ways. I have always called for General License hunting with the exception of 144 and 143 going limited quota. This helps primarily, by a safe haven with much less hunting pressure and stress on does and fawns in a core area stretching from near the Idaho border all the way to the Winter Ranges. Less hunters will mean less stress on those deer and higher survival rates. The elk we know are growing at the direct cost of the deer herds as proven in studies in Wyoming and Oregon how elk displace the deer and eat and compete for the very same forage. You can’t have both high elk and deer herds. In the 1970s it was rare to see elk in those high Alpine mountain basins. Elk herds are now far above objective. Now all you see are hunter orange and elk. Sad. https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
 

mulecreek

Very Active Member
Messages
1,401
I in no way ever want to see limited quota hunting on the Wyoming Range but creating a small buffer area or safe haven would greatly enhance the herd in several ways. I have always called for General License hunting with the exception of 144 and 143 going limited quota. This helps primarily, by a safe haven with much less hunting pressure and stress on does and fawns in a core area stretching from near the Idaho border all the way to the Winter Ranges. Less hunters will mean less stress on those deer and higher survival rates. The elk we know are growing at the direct cost of the deer herds as proven in studies in Wyoming and Oregon how elk displace the deer and eat and compete for the very same forage. You can’t have both high elk and deer herds. In the 1970s it was rare to see elk in those high Alpine mountain basins. Elk herds are now far above objective. Now all you see are hunter orange and elk. Sad. https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
I understand your thoughts on both the buffer zones and the elk I just think you are wrong. You got any data that suggests going to limited quota on bucks improves doe and fawn winter survival? I'll take data from any state. Hell, ill take it from CA if they have it. Seems to me that most every where in the west has moved to LQ units and yet MD still decline. Everywhere! You got any data that suggests stress in the fall on does and fawns is causing higher than anticipated winter kill? Once again, Ill take it from any state.

As far as elk go, I completely agree we have more elk than what bios want in large portions of Wyoming, I just fail to see how this is a problem. Dance with the one that brought ya. If elk are thriving then be happy with that. Guarantee it wont last. Even in units without elk MD are struggling. Killing off the elk isn't going to bring back the deer herds from the past. Its just going to result in smaller elk herds and the MD are going to do what they are doing in every unit in every state, decline.
 

BrianID

Very Active Member
Messages
1,600
I in no way ever want to see limited quota hunting on the Wyoming Range but creating a small buffer area or safe haven would greatly enhance the herd in several ways. I have always called for General License hunting with the exception of 144 and 143 going limited quota. This helps primarily, by a safe haven with much less hunting pressure and stress on does and fawns in a core area stretching from near the Idaho border all the way to the Winter Ranges. Less hunters will mean less stress on those deer and higher survival rates.

Are you saying that hunters hiking around the mountains in September and October in 144 and 143 are significantly hurting the herd health (does and fawns) due to "stress"?

If you really want to reduce stress on the animals you should severely restrict human activity on the winter range. There are a couple examples of this just across the board in Idaho such as the Tex Creek and Sand Creek areas that severely limit any human activity on those winter ranges. Some of the elk and probably some of the deer on the Tex Creek and Sand Creek winter ranges spend the summer in Wyoming.

You could also aerial gun coyotes off the winter range, which would significantly reduce the stress on deer. Many hunters don't realize how much coyotes and lions are holding back mule deer populations across the west. The data is there but it isn't politically popular to kill a bunch of coyotes and lions to help deer.
 
Last edited:

Slightlysober

Very Active Member
Messages
2,150
I in no way ever want to see limited quota hunting on the Wyoming Range but creating a small buffer area or safe haven would greatly enhance the herd in several ways. I have always called for General License hunting with the exception of 144 and 143 going limited quota. This helps primarily, by a safe haven with much less hunting pressure and stress on does and fawns in a core area stretching from near the Idaho border all the way to the Winter Ranges. Less hunters will mean less stress on those deer and higher survival rates. The elk we know are growing at the direct cost of the deer herds as proven in studies in Wyoming and Oregon how elk displace the deer and eat and compete for the very same forage. You can’t have both high elk and deer herds. In the 1970s it was rare to see elk in those high Alpine mountain basins. Elk herds are now far above objective. Now all you see are hunter orange and elk. Sad. https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
Says he doesn't want limited quota then next line mentions limited quota :ROFLMAO: :unsure: :love: :p :D ;)
 

rocky2track

Active Member
Messages
237
Says he doesn't want limited quota then next line mentions limited quota :ROFLMAO: :unsure: :love: :p :D ;)
Yeah. I'll make the proclamation that only having limited quota tags in 143 and 144 will adversely effect the whole point of your thread...:rolleyes::oops: Think the general hunting pressure is bad now...holy smokes, um...with that kind of proposal, what we talking about, an additional 4000-5000 hunters being displaced into the surrounding units. No thank you. (n)(n)
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
Yeah. I'll make the proclamation that only having limited quota tags in 143 and 144 will adversely effect the whole point of your thread...:rolleyes::oops: Think the general hunting pressure is bad now...holy smokes, um...with that kind of proposal, what we talking about, an additional 4000-5000 hunters being displaced into the surrounding units. No thank you. (n)(n)
Again........Displaying your Ignorance on how many hunters actually hunt the Wyoming Range. There are only 400 non residents in all of G. The residents are 4912 using last years data in ALL of the Wyoming Range. In 143 there were 917 resident hunters and in 144 there were 885 hunters. Some of these hunters hunt overlapping areas so of these 1700 hunters there were another 400 who also hunted in another area ie Afton hunters hunt 145 near town on opening weekend then they know some good mid season areas where big bucks go when pressured and hunt 144 so there is definitely overlap of hunters. In order to decrease Hunter crowding as we discussed earlier the way to soften this would be to shorten and standardise the deer seasons with many of the other Wyoming resident general deer areas. If another 1000 hunters from Cheyenne, Laramie, Casper and Gillette had to drive across state and miss their local family reunion and deer camp hunt which opens on Oct. 1st they likely would just stay local and hunt with family and not drive across the state for a short 10 day season which opens on Oct. 1st now instead of the past Sept. 15th deer opener. Wyoming Game and Fish has already studied this and researched it. The advantages are as follows:
Advantages
o Could reduce crowding by compelling hunters to select one hunt area to hunt on
opening day within a given region of the state.
o Compatible with our current regulatory authority, already practiced in large areas of
the state.
o Only requires changes at the local level (season setting) without sweeping statewide
changes to hunting season structure.
o Reduces complexity of regulations.
o Threeorfouropeningdateswitheachinstitutedonaregionalbasiswouldstillenable
those willing to travel longer distances the option of hunting on multiple opening
dates.
o Standardized opening dates are a strategy that can maintain the general license
structure, thereby preserving flexibility for hunters to select from among multiple
hunt areas.
o May reduce the perception of hunter crowding by making it harder for hunters to hunt
multiple opening dates within a given region.
o A segment of the resident hunting community that continuously lobbies for more
restrictive seasons may support this proposal.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
559
I understand your thoughts on both the buffer zones and the elk I just think you are wrong. You got any data that suggests going to limited quota on bucks improves doe and fawn winter survival? I'll take data from any state. Hell, ill take it from CA if they have it. Seems to me that most every where in the west has moved to LQ units and yet MD still decline. Everywhere! You got any data that suggests stress in the fall on does and fawns is causing higher than anticipated winter kill? Once again, Ill take it from any state.

As far as elk go, I completely agree we have more elk than what bios want in large portions of Wyoming, I just fail to see how this is a problem. Dance with the one that brought ya. If elk are thriving then be happy with that. Guarantee it wont last. Even in units without elk MD are struggling. Killing off the elk isn't going to bring back the deer herds from the past. Its just going to result in smaller elk herds and the MD are going to do what they are doing in every unit in every state, decline.
All of the research and data displays how human disturbance can negatively affect mule deer herds. I don’t think we need to discuss how increased motorised traffic increases deer stress as the literature is quite evident on that. High human use and disturbance on recreation trails and human activity is also negatively affecting and causing stress on mule deer does and fawns.
“Human caused disturbance increases stress on mule deer and if the disturbance is great enough it will displace them from important habitats. (Freddy eat al 1986, Sawyer et al 2009). When undisturbed mule deer select habitats they do so to optimise food availability, nutrition and escape cover. This ensures they are able to minimise energy expenditures and body weight loss and increase their chances of survival. The needs of the mule deer population need to be considered to reduce human disturbance impacts on fawn rearing areas.” I think we can agree having far fewer hunters in an area would greatly decrease human disturbance and stress on wildlife, especially does and young fawns being reared. https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Mule Deer Initiative/Platte Valley/PVMD_PLAN_FINAL0003248.pdf#page44
 

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.

French Creek Outfitters

Quality mule deer, antelope and whitetail hunts on a 100k acre ranch.

J & J Outfitters

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

Twisted Horn Outfitters

Offering public land mule deer, antelope and sheep hunts in multiple units and regions.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses

High Uinta Pack Goats for Utah and Wyoming
Top Bottom