Platte Valley Mule Deer Plan

chipc

chipc

Very Active Member
Messages
1,061
As a member of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation I received an e-mail from Courtney Amerine with a link to the just-released Platte Valley Mule Deer Plan Draft. It is very comprehensive and quite interesting. The Wyo. G&F has taken a lot of heat regarding their Mule Deer management - or lack thereof. However, it looks to me like they might have gotten this one right. They have spent 4 years working with a wide variety of stakeholders to formulate an all -inclusive plan that looks too me to have the possibility of making a real difference in the Mule Deer population in South Central Wyoming.For some reason I can't attach the link but you can find it on the Wyoming Game and Fish Website. Enjoy ! Chip
 
Thanks for posting the link Mike. My computer and I aren't getting along today. Hopefully WGF will develope similar plans for all areas of the state. Cross your fingers that the plan works !
 
Assuming I read which areas will be going LQ, it will be interesting to see how this plan negatively impacts the surrounding general areas. I think once those areas in the initative go limited quota, your going to see a whole bunch of guys who don't draw just move over to adjacent areas. According to the G&F, 1300 guys currently hunt 80 & 81. Who knows what they'll set the quota's at, but let say its 600 tags. Now you have 700 more guys pounding 82 which already has somewhere around 2700 hunters. 3300 plus hunters in 82 for 3 - 4 years is going to really hurt that herd. Same as on the east side of the Snowy's. Just over 2000 guys currently hunt 78 & 79. Now let's set the tag quota at 800. That means 1200 more guys could end up in 75 & 76 possibly bringing the total to 2700 hunters. Would think that'll wipe out most of the bucks in the Nat'l forest on the east side. I think unless you go limited quota in all of those areas, the G&F is just going to be chasing its tail. And if you do go all LQ, how are they going to make up that much lost revenue.
 
I just got back from the working group meeting in Laramie...I dont know where to even start.

I guess with the positives, and about the biggest positive I can see is that the intent of the PVMDI is to focus on habitat. They want to get collaboration with the agencies, landowners, hunters, etc. etc. etc.

With the habitat issues I see 2 major stumbling blocks:

1. Funding. The G&F claims it has adequate funding, but I'd venture a guess that may be some real positive thinking more than reality. I know that the Gov. Agencies are having a tough time coming up with money to covery pay roll. That leaves habitat funding from the agencies in serious question. They claim the commission is going to throw a good sized chunk of money at this plan...we'll see.

2. Even if the funding is present, the land management agencies may not agree with most of the needed habitat management that the mule deer need. At the end of the day, neither the working group, nor the G&F have jack diddly to say about how the FS, BLM, etc. manage their lands.

Another big huge dead elephant in the room was the lack of base-line data in regard to that deer herd. The G&F flat admitted their data on populations estimates was wayyyyyy off, 5,000+ over-estimating that herd most years. They claim they used an "old model" to come up with herd estimates, but now are using a different model that is showing significantly less deer. Further, they lack data on what the limiting factors on deer...is it winter range? Is it predators? If it is predators, which one? Is it over hunting? Is it summer range? They largely dont know and right now they seem all over the map.

I questioned why they set the mule deer objective at 20,000, what they based that number on. It was scarey...the answer I got was, "well, we dont know...back in the 70's and 80's when we had 20,000 deer (based on flawed counts remember) everyone was happy". Holy $hit! So, we arent basing it on carrying capacity or biology, but rather we didnt hear a lot of complaints. Also, they talked about trying to provide more trophy bucks, with the definition of trophy bucks being 24 inches wide or wider. I busted some balls on that one...WTF does width have to do with age or trophy potential? Seems to me like they should be basing management on something other than antler spread...like maybe age classes?

There was no mention at this time of how many tags will be issued, or even if the tags will be unit specific or good for all 5 of the units?

One big concern was also how the LQ will impact surrounding areas. I suspect, and fear the same that triple_BB mentioned above. It will just be a huge snowball effect and it wont be long and state-wide LQ will be implemented.

I also asked if the areas would ever go back to general if they were put into LQ status...no answers.

The take home for me is that they are largely putting the cart in front of the horse. I think a better approach would be to identify the problems FIRST, then put your money into fixing what truly is limiting the mule deer population. I like public involvment, but not many of the public are trained biologists and many are only guessing on what truly is limiting the Platte Valley mule deer herd.

My 2 cents.
 
Your points are well taken Buzz - and obviously you have a much better handle on the situation in Wyoming than I ever will. We have similar "management" challenges here in Wisconsin. In fact, our DNR has initiated a comprehensive deer tagging and electronic monitoring program to get a better handle on fawn mortality and some of the other factors that go into their population estimates. The Wisconsin DNR has also been WAY off in their population estimates - a fact that they now grudgingly admit. The encouraging thing to me about the Platte Valley plan is that its a plan. They have at least gotten the ball rolling and seem to be trying to do something positive. Yes, there are many questions left to be answered but it sure seems to me that their plan has a good chance to do what most sportsman have been asking for. The whole LQ situation is another can of worms. You and BBB raise good points there as well. I agree, in my first post I mentioned that these regional plans are a good start but they need to come up with a statewide plan sooner rather than later. Again, the current plan is far from perfect but hopefully it will continue to evolve and help adress one of the most troubling wildlife management challenges in Wyoming.
 
BuzzH,

I have many of the same concerns that you do, especially the approach which seems to be "we know we have a problem, let's throw a bunch of money at it, and after that, we'll figure out the specifics of the problem and come up with some actions." It is definitely putting the cart in front of the horse.

Specific to some of the points you raised, it has actually been my experience in the last 10 to 15 years especially, that funding has not been the major stumbling block in getting habitat management on the ground. Between WLCI, WWNRT, RMEF, MDF, etc., there are many outlets that are BEGGING for good habitat projects to support and fund. The opportunities for leveraging funds are limitless, and I believe that the formation of the Habitat Partnership is a fantastic vehicle to leverage these funds, if it is a focused, "on the ground" management oriented group. I am much more concerned with the regulatory roadblocks that we are now dealing with. Over 70% of the crucial winter range in the Platte Valley is considered sage grouse core area, and in spite of the assurances otherwise, this is a HUGE impediment to managing vegetation in these areas. Unfortunately, it has resulted in a mindset that "every sagebrush is sacred" in many circles, especially in Cheyenne with the various agencies' state management.

Like you stated, the various land management agencies are not bound by what the working group recommends. I think that the "on the ground" types are very receptive to being a part of the Habitat Partnership, but upper management is most likely more swayed by political and especially industrial concerns, and these agencies are, after all, bound to a multiple use mandate, which sometimes may be at odds with habitat needs. From what I'm hearing, the WGFD, at the director level, considers the Platte Valley issue to be huge, so we may see pressure at the state level for the fed land management agencies to get on board. I think that this will be what it takes to make the initiative a priority, especially with the current atmosphere pushing industrial development which monopolizes the time and resources in some of these agencies.

Limiting factors and baseline data - you're correct, we need to establish exactly what the problem is. Furthermore, it needs to be clearly stated in the plan, along with black and white goals and objectives for the plan, which are lacking in the current draft version. IMO, if our goals are to emphasize and improve the hunting experience, we need to state it up front and emphasize the parts of the plan which will address these issues, i.e. limited quota management structures. If the goals are to enhance the overall population of the herd, then it needs to be emphasized that fawn recruitment and the dependence on habitat improvement are the objectives. I think the draft plan addresses both of these issues, but doesn't lay it out right out of the gates which can confuse and mislead the public.

The intro to the Population Management section includes a quick and dirty description of the history of the population objective. One of the highlights IMO is that the number is based more on what was "popular" with the public and WGFD personnel, and did not represent what the habitat could or could not support. The draft plan does specify that the department would evaluate the current population objective as to its sustainability. What worries me is that the current wintering populations in the valley (which are below objective) continually hammer the crucial winter range forage, year after year. What does that tell us?

I have heard some discussion of the way that the quotas would be managed, partially by specific unit, and partially via more of a regional approach, but nothing in concrete, I believe until they get comments on the draft and move toward the season setting meetings in March.

Again IMO, once the Platte valley goes to a limited quota management system, area 82 and 100 west of the Sierras will follow, and the rest of the state shortly after. Also IMHO, we will never see limited quota management return to general licenses, whether justified or not. The WGFD seems to be moving more towards management base on public opinion rather than science. If that is a good direction to go or not, time will tell.

I agree with your last paragraph 100%.

As I'm sure you know, the department is taking written comments until the 1st of March. I have a bundle, as I'm sure you do also, I would encourage the public (that has actually read the draft plan) to comment as well.
 
Good comments. I had planned to make the trip, but the roads were so bad I opted to use discretion and stay home. Not a good week for travel here in SE Wyoming.

I agree with much of what has been said, but I appreicate the fact G&F is taking what I feel is positive action and moving forward. They have to try something and this looks like a good start to me. But as we know "the devil is in the details." Like Buzz, I'm concerned about license numbers and whether it will be managed as one large unit (I'll bet it is) or whether they do it better and manage each of the five units separately.

And if they make license quotas too high like they do in 101 and 102, there's no need to go limited quota. Those quotas are way too high to have much impact. They really need to limit harvest for a year or two.

I have lots of unanswered questions and am not certain this is the perfect course, but I think they are trying and I commend them. They have really reached out and have spent countless hours getting input, have admitted some mistakes and are genuinely trying. I hope they stay open-minded and I really hope it helps the mule deer. But it has to be dynamic and they need to adapt as needed, on a year-to-year basis.

I also ran into a G&F employee and I volunteered to help with habitat work if I can. I hope many of you do the same.

One other point is that if this does become a trend and becomes prevalent in more areas of Wyoming, we'd better get preference points or some sort of equitable system for licenses for residents. Otherwise, I know a few people who will get 10 licenses before others ever get one. (Sorry to open this can of worms here.)
 
SouthernWyo,

I cant find anything in your comments that I disagree with.

The one thing I really agree with you on is that the WYGF is going way overboard with this public involvement. I hate to see the WYG&F manage strictly on public opinion, which they are absolutely doing with the Platte herd.

The reasons for my concerns with the public opinion management are:

1. There were less than 250 members of the public involved in the discussion involving the draft of this plan. There is one part of me that thinks, "well, if more people cant get off the couch and make the meetings, you get what you deserve". But, theres also the reality that I know its flat wrong for the comments of the vocal minority to ride herd on the majority. I've also typically found that the vocal minority are most interested in their agenda (in this case its obvious that trophy potential is that agenda) and not really interested in the majority of hunters or even doing whats best for the deer herds. In other words, they are leaving out the thoughts of the majority when it comes to what the public really wants regarding the platte deer herd.

2. If we're going to rely on public opinion to guide management why are we wasting money with hiring biologists? I feel that the biologists should have a very active role in the decision making process. They should be looking at the health of the herd first and be above the fray of the local politics guiding management. I've no problem with collaborative approaches, but the G&F seems to be pulling a 180 degree turn on this one. Its as if they dont want any culpability if this plan fails, and are already laying the framework for using the excuse that they did exactly what the public wants.

I dont know, I really like the collabarative approach, I like the public involvement, and I like the fact they are focusing on the habitat issues and are trying to increase the herd.

But, there are still some very fundamental flaws in how they are going about it. The "throw the spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks" management plan is a major one.

I guess we will see...I'm in the middle of drafting my comments and I also encourage others to do the same.
 
If they do go limited quota, I think I would try a more liberal tag limit in a couple of those areas and conservative in a few others and see if you can draw any correlations after a few years to see if fewer tags really improves the herd. The main benefit I see from limited quota is you'll get rid of a bunch of non rezi hunters. Look at 79 for example. In 2010, they had 850 hunters. 350 of those were non rezi's. Even though there was 500 resident hunters, the non rezi's shot 138 deer compared to the resident total of 112. Don't non rezi's get 20% of the available tags. What if we set the quota at 500 tags. Assuming similar numbers, you'd get rid of 250 non rezi's and yer total harvest would drop almost 50%. If you look at the other areas that are being proposed as LQ areas, they're all top heavy with non rezi's. I've been arguing the same in 66 for the past 6 - 7 years at the spring meetings.
 
I dont know how the are coming up with the hunter numbers...with a few thousand NR tags for Region D, I cant see any way for them to know who is hunting which unit.

Same goes for resident hunters.

I also question their harvest statistics as well...how do they get those? Theres been years where I shot deer in the Platte and never got a card from them to report the harvest.

I think thats my biggest problem right now with the way game is "managed" across the West. Largely, the G&F uses sample surveys and models to come up with harvest stats, hunter numbers, population estimates, etc. We have the capability to get data that is much more concrete.

I believe we/they could do a much better job of gathering base line data. Mandatory reporting of hunt activity and harvest data would go a long way toward addressing many of the management woes.

Good management decisions are typically made by acquiring good data from the get-go...at least in my experience.
 
I agree Buzz. Can't imagine why they don't get better data. The old adage "garbage in, garbage out" surely applies. I have always wondered if they felt they'd have to justify their decisions more clearly if there was good data. Right now, it's a lot of smoke and mirrors with greater discretion.

I'd like to see more detailed information collected from all hunters.

I still take the incisors out of every deer and elk we harvest and make a power point that I send to the wardens and biologists. Any info they can get is helpful.
 
Well, I'd say if their data is wrong, you might as well throw this whole plan in the toilet and start over. Same as for the areas on the western side of the state. You can't formulate a solution to anything without reliable information.
 
The plan has quality and it could be a good start.

I liked the idea of increasing the quota on the lion and more aggressive aproach to the predator.

I liked the idea of letting the yearling bucks grow to maturity

This plan needs some work , but it does have the basics to get things moving in the right direction.

Why can't they just make a phone call to tag holders after the season and ask the 5 to 10 questions on harvest and general hunt info needed.

In past years hunting in Colorado, I would get a phone call from the DOW and they would ask the questions. THUMBS UP on that simple fix.
 
I really like the idea of mandatory reporting. We would need to make it as cost effective and easy as possible. Although I'm sure the mailings get to many that may not have internet access, the multiple, multiple postcards are surely a huge expense that could be eliminated. How about one mailing, making it clear that response is mandatory prior to being allowed to apply for a license the following year. Additionally, with the huge surge in applying through the internet, build a check into the system that does not allow the application process to proceed until the harvest report is completed for the prior year's season. It could even be made an actual step in the application process.

I may well be mistaken, but it seems that with the expense of contracting a survey company already in place, the process could be much more effective and rely less on modeling. In my uneducated opinion, it is one of the few management "variables" that we could begin to move towards actual concrete data rather than models or educated guesses.
 
Muley204,

I dont disagree with you on the predator issue...if it really is an issue.

Again, the data is so lacking that when I asked for population estimates on bears and lions...I got the standard, "well, we fill the quotas so there must be a bunch" response.

Its just flat ridiculous to be spending a bunch of money on predator control when they dont even know if predators are the limiting factor. If it is predators...which are causing the greatest impact? The Saratoga biologist flat said they dont know whats causing the low fawn recruitment for sure, but they THOUGHT it has way more to do with range conditions and low protein content in the forage. I tend to agree, but again, there is no hard data to support it. For Petes sake, they have only FOUR (4) shrub transect inventory sights in the entire valley. The data I collect, in a different inventory project, probably has 10-12 at least.

I'm not against any solution...but I'm not in favor of throwing money at problems that arent there.

Also, the idea of letting yearling mature to trophy bucks is a joke, in particular when the guideline they're using for a mature deer is based on an antler width of 24 inches. I've seen a lot of buck deer that were 6-8 years old that never were, and never would be over 20-22 inches wide.

Thats the problem with the plan in general...not enough good baseline data, no clear agenda on what they're trying to produce, and many of the things they want to measure are based on arbitrary numbers that the public (all 244 of them that commented) came up with.

I would like to see this deer herd expand and provide more opportunity across the board...but I'd like to see it done right and with quantifiable results.
 
24 inches is just a definition for an older mature buck, dont take it literally, without tooth aging there needs to be some general yardstick for age, Nevada does it by counting points, thats not perfect either, but much cheaper than aging the teeth from every deer harvested. Cutting hunter pressure is key to more mature animals , especially with todays technology. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to have older age bucks in the deer herds and better quality hunting. Im sure there will be a domino effect with more pressure being put on adjacent areas, thats why the whole state needs to go limited quota, and tag prices need to be raised, not only to provide funds but to encourage hunters to switch over and take advantage of the robust elk herds.
 
The one thing I keep hearing is that the G&F lacks correct kill data. If that is correct, then IMHO it's partly the fault of the hunters because every animal you kill has a coupon attached to the license that is suppose to be sent into G&F if it's killed on public land or to the rancher to submit to the G&F if it's killed on private property. It's not the best system because if it's an either sex tag it doesn't even have a place to indicate what you killed. I mentioned in another thread recently that all they would need to do is tweak that coupon a little for more data and make it mandatory that it must be turned in. However, a cheaper, faster easier way to get kill data, time in the field, etc. would be to copy the New Mexico system where it's mandatory to go on the G&F website and report regardless of whether you filled the tag or not and if you don't you can't apply for any tags the following year. That seems like an awfully simple way in this age of computer to do that and take a big thing right out of the equation and that's how hunting is affecting any particular animal in a give area.
 
BUZZH,

I AGREE WITH YOU ON MOST ISSUES, THIS PLAN HAS SOME GOOD AND SOME WEAK LIKE YOU POINTED OUT. THE 24" SPREAD IS ONE THEY MISSED, I HAVE SEEN BEAUTIFUL MATURE BUCKS THAT WHERE TALL HEAVY AND DEEP FORKED WITH EXTRAS INSIDE 24" WE ALL HAVE...HOWEVER I LIKE THE DIRECTION THERE GOING WITH IT . THEY WANT MORE MATURE BUCKS. I LIKE THE IDEA OF PASSING ON THE YEARLING BUCKS, I THINK THIS PUTS MORE BUCKS IN THE POOL THE NEXT YEAR AND THEY WILL BE A LITTLE SMARTER. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A 4 POINT OR BETTER SO MUCH , JUST PASS ON THE YEARLING BUCKS.

THE FAWN SURVIVAL IS KEY, THE HABITAT NEEDS IMPROVEMENT AND THE PREDATORS NEED TO BE REDUCED. THE LION AND THE COYOTE REDUCTION IS KEY TO ANY MULE DEER RECOVERY. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW BAD THE PREDATORS ARE IN THAT AREA. BUT THAT SHOULD BE AN EASY FIX. OPEN UP SOME GROUND TO A BIG COYOTE TOURNEMENT AND SEE WHAT THE RESULTS ARE, IF THERE POSITIVE HAVE ANOTHER ONE NEXT WEEK. THE LONG TAILS ALWAYS NEED TO BE REDUCED. A DEER A WEEK IS WHAT THEY SAY AND IF IT'S ONLY A DEER A MONTH ITS TO MANY IN A RECOVERY. HERE IN SOUTHEAST IDAHO THE F & G HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY CATS THEY HAVE . THE HOUND HUNTERS I TALK WITH, SAY THERE ARE ALOT OF CATS. TO MANY CATS AND DOGS WILL SLOW A RECOVERY. A LONG TAIL TOURNEMENT WOULD BE INTERESTING AS WELL. ENTRY FEE AND A BIG PAYOUT TO THE WINNER. OPEN UP SOME GROUND AND LET'S SEE WHAT WE GOT. ITS SIMPLE.....AND INEXPENSIVE...REMOVING AN EXTRA 50 CATS IN ONE YEAR IN THIS AREA YOU WILL SEE A DIFFERENCE. 50 CATS X 1 DEER A WEEK = 2,600 DEER A YEAR AND IF 1/2 OF THE DEER KILLED ARE BREEDING FEMALES, THE CAT IS REMOVING A LARGE NUMBER OF MULE DEER OVER A 5 YEAR PERIOD. WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE AMOUNT OF OFFSPRING LOST TO THESE PREDATORS ITS STAGGERING AND I REALLY THINK THIS IS THE NUMBER #1 THING THAT IS CAUSING DECLINE AND OUR RECOVERY OF MULE DEER . THIS IS MAGNIFIED COMING OFF A BAD WINTER,
THE LONG TAIL TOURNAMENT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING STUDY THAT COULD BE DONE ON A WEEKEND , ALL VOLUNTER, NO OUT OF POCKET MONEY FOR THE F&G WITH GOOD INFO. F&G COULD SET UP 10 DIFFERENT TOURNEMENT LOCATIONS ACROSS THIS REGION AND GET A VERY GOOD FEEL FOR THE POPULATION OF CATS....

I LIKE THE IDEA OF ACTUALLY COUNTING DEER , IF YOU DON'T SEE THEM YOU DON'T COUNT THEM. I LIKE THE IDEA OF TALKING TO EACH TAG HOLDER AND FINDING OUT HOW THERE HUNT WAS.

1) EXACTLY WHAT WAS HARVESTED.
2) WHERE AND WHEN AND HOW WAS IT HARVESTED
3) HOW MANY DAYS HUNTED
4) WHAT TYPE OF HUNTING ( FOOT,HORSE OR ROAD HUNTING )
5) WHAT GAME DID YOU SEE AND MISSED OPPURTUNITY, OVERALL QUALITY

MY 2 CENTS
 
It would be pretty easy to get the info on deer harvest, days afield, size of animal, etc etc. Manditory reporting, could have it, call in or report via internet with a simpy report, if fail to do so could make it where the person loses somekind of hunting privldges or somesort of fine for example purposes.... Dont need any further personal causing more expenses as it could be all telematic or internet based.
 
I know New Mexico enforces the mandatory computer reporting after your hunt with a failure to report resulting in your loss of priviledges the following year. The reason I know this is becasue I was on a website and a guy was whining that he didn't report in 2010 and the computer flagged him when he tried to apply for the 2011 draw and it wouldn't let him.
 
Theres a few states out there that has somekind of reporting, I dont disagree with it. Actually I am for it. It helps the state know what is going on with the animals and hunters, exactly in a example like this with Wyoming on this thread. They could have data from years already compiled to use to better manage the resource.

Some states do a random survey to collect data, thats better than nothing but still doesnt reflect exactly what is going on. It gives a projected trend but not exact.

Common sence lacks in many departments.
 
We have to report in Oregon on all big-game tags, we have only had it maybe a year or 2 so I guess we will see what good if any it does, Oregon's Fish & Game department isn't the best though so we will see.
 
I was only able to attend the meeting in Cheyenne. I thought the plan is better than the one developed for the Wyoming Range Deer Herd and complimented them for its development. I believe these guys are really sticking their necks out on this one. They are attempting to make significant changes. Somethings were very vague and I believe they will work to better develop them in the future. One thing that continues to puzzle me is the complete omission of collecting average age of harvest data. I know that all wildlife biologists received a similar basic training. I was taught that if you can only collect one piece of data, the average age of harvest was the most important to collect. I also suggested that Wyoming should implement a mandatory harvest reporting process. I believe most would agree that mule deer are in trouble and that something needs to change. I believe the days of macro-managing mule deer need to stop. Mule deer need to be micro-managed in order to better understand the complexities which are impacting and effecting mule deer populations. Clearly, mule deer are struggling throughout the entire range. I am certain there is a correlation between mule deer & sage grouse populations. Habitat is one factor but so are predation rates, auto/wildlife collisions and misunderstanding behavioral habits and impacts from not knowing how behavior plays into overall health of populations.
 
I agree completely with the average age of harvested animals and also the need for mandatory harvest reporting.

I asked about the age structure of the herd in regard to does...they dont know if the majority of the does are 2 years old or 15 years old.

I know they hate it when I ask those kinds of questions, but, again, before you can fix a problem, you have to identify the problem to start with.

I'd bet with very low doe harvests in that herd, the average age of the does is probably much older than the biologists realize. That could also explain the low doe/fawn ratios to some extent.

I just really think they're lacking important data and really dont know why mule deer are not doing as well as they could be.

Smokestick, I may give you a shout on the phone some time this week...purely about this deer plan.
 
Smokestick, I agree that the draft plan is a great step in the right direction, and the feedback that I picked up at the last meeting encouraged me that the adjustments that will go into the final plan will address many, if not all concerns. Let's face it; they're never going to make everyone happy.

I do have a couple of questions. When you mention ?macro? vs. ?micro? management, to what degree are you thinking. I ask this because presently, the department manages big game on a herd unit basis, determined by a variety of factors, but mostly interchange or lack thereof between various geographical areas. Although the general hunt harvest strategy may indicate macro-management, the overall management strategy could be considered micro-management based on the herd unit concept. When we're talking micro-management are we focused entirely on the harvest strategy or are you thinking that the herd units should be increasingly broken into smaller units? As a note, the interchange of the Platte valley herd across the state line may actually indicate a more ?macro? type management strategy, in concert with the North Park units in Colorado. Also could you expound a little on your thinking concerning behavioral habits and traits and impacts? Are you talking about breeding behavior and trends based on buck/doe ratios and age class structure and the resulting fawning/survival/recruitment trends?

I too would like to see some better data (or at least baseline) regarding age class structure. I don't think the funding is presently at the level to implement this type of data collection (unless we're talking the ?educated guess? type of aging that can be collected at a check station.) I think we're going to have to take a hard look at raising resident license costs in the future to start funding some of the wish-list.

IMO many of the factors that you mention, specifically predation, auto/wildlife collisions, behavioral habits, etc., could be correlated directly or indirectly to habitat conditions ? for both mule deer and sage grouse. Ironically, the sage grouse management strategy may limit the habitat improvement that is allowed to occur for both species.
 
The big game department draws up individual units on the map but they don't really manage that way very effectively, thats the problem with OTC general season tags for residents and region wide hunts for the nonresidents. There no way to effectively control hunter pressure.
In Nevada you report on every big game hunt, how many days hunted, how many points on the animal harvested, when and where it was harvested, if you fail to report you cannot apply the following year without paying a fine, (50$ I believe) Thats not an expensive or hard rule to implement, just takes a little guts from WGF.
 
SouthernWyo,

I am mainly concerned about the harvest data. From that, it would determine how well some areas are managed and how much closer other units need to be assessed. I believe I asked a lot of similar questions as did BuzzH and the answers I received made it apparent that there are holes in the data currently being collected or it is not being collected. The most important thing I got from the message was confirmation that the WGFD is serious about fixing the problem, even if they might not know exactly what that problem may be.

As for behavioral issues, yes I am referring to things that we seldom consider when we talk about wildlife management. How important are older age class bucks, especially when it comes to synchronization of does to reduce the window when fawning occurs? What will it do to fawn weights if older age class bucks are better represented throughout the buck population? Will fawns actually hit the ground sooner? There are a lot of assumptions made but I believe too many are being overlooked or poo-pooed without consideration.
 
IMO Nevada has the best harvest reporting program out there. If you don't report by, I think 21 days after the season ends,you can't apply the following year BUT if you report late AND pay a $50.00 fine, you can apply.

After reading the comments by you guys that know, it seems Wyoming wants to address a problem, they just aren't sure how to do so.

I talked to a biologist before the elk draw and was told to call back with maps in hand after the draw. It's in the general area of D that you guys are talking about. Today the receptionist said the biologist was in a meeting. I asked to leave a voice message. The answering machine basically said "I'll be very busy this week but I will return your call next monday or tuesday."

Seems they are taking this seriously.
 

Similar threads

Founder
Mule Deer, Elk, Antelope and Whitetail Hunts in Idaho
Replies
0
Views
499
Founder
Founder
Founder
Montana Mule Deer, Whitetail, Antelope, Archery Elk
Replies
0
Views
595
Founder
Founder

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

SkyRose1.jpg
7B17C62C-FC6D-432D-A454-30B55C66DD1C.jpeg
08DB5482-BCBB-4A8D-92C3-612BB2A39A2D.jpeg
vlcsnap-2022-03-30-15h34m23s570.png
0D1AA7E9-DF2A-4FC1-90C3-5EBA77FA609E.jpeg
1703775631240.png
IMG_6736.JPG
SkyRose3.png
DSCN2599.JPG
IMG_0978.jpeg
3FD8D7A2-5D76-408B-ADBA-DF8925173BF4.png
948D4392-725F-40E3-B3DF-A311E6D5D7F7.jpeg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

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

Urge 2 Hunt

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

J & J Outfitters

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


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom