???? Region G Hype

Utards hammer all the bucks when they are spikes or two points. Wyoming tards in region G hammer all the three points and small 4 points. Neither one gives the little fellers a chance to grow up ans show what they've got, which is Roadless's point.

This is not something that can be easily regulated by complex and unfriutful laws. It would be nice if more hunters would voluntarily let the little fellers grow up a little.

The other point Roadless made is that Region G is being touted as better than any of the limited entry units this year. That brings on excessive pressure and doesn't help.

I paid the big bucks and got one of the high dog priced NR tags last year for Region G. I was over 150 bucks and not one was big enough to even put a shell in the chamber. That is pretty sad, but the scenery was great. This year I will not have a tag, but save my money and hunt with my Resident son. I won't have the excess weight of packing a gun and can still enjoy the scenery and kill just as many bucks as I did last year.
 
When people say that G is better than any LQ tag it is not because G is great it is because the LQ areas are less than stellar.

G and H is simply a fun place to hunt, decent number of deer to look at, beautiful country, few if any ATV hunters to deal with, possibility of a good buck and residents get to hunt it every year if we want. What is not to love?
 
What's not to love? You love crowds of people in the high country? Like competition on your hunts?
Such potential as far as nice antlers go, such potential as far as a real quality hunt goes.

It could be a once in a decade experience, like a Canadian moose hunt or something cool.
Instead it's usually a crowded high country backpacking adventure, with added weight and extra disappointment.

I wish it were so simple as giving everyone a tag and hoping they won't shoot the young deer, it doesn't work that way, never has.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-15 AT 07:44AM (MST)[p]No I don't love crowds but I do accept that as a trade off of being able to hunt it every year. I don't mind the competition at all. Whether that competition is from other people, wolves, bears or lions. I had a friend, who has taken some awesome bucks from this country, tell me that once he stopped complaining about all the competition, and started dealing with it he started having a more enjoyable time and started taking better bucks. I tend to think more like him.

For me, if I want a once a decade experience I will go to Canada or some other out of the way place. I don't want my hunts in my backyard to be a once a decade experience.

I also don't expect everyone to see the world the same way I do. I understand your view point I just don't happen to agree so I am not interested in changing the game. If you are successful in changing how Western Wyo is managed then I will deal with that as well. Until then I am going to enjoy what I believe is a good hunt.
 
Did anyone else notice an over abundance of motorcycle traffic in the high country last hunting season. I am not talking about hunters. We had a couple motorcyclist at 10,000 ft spook a couple bucks that we were trying to slip in on them and size them up. I like the idea of shutting down those motorcycle trail in the high country on Sept. 14.
 
>
>It could be a once in
>a decade experience, like a
>Canadian moose hunt or something
>cool.
>Instead it's usually a crowded high
>country backpacking adventure, with added
>weight and extra disappointment.

For non residents it is almost to the point of a once in a decade!
Careful what you wish for, I remember hearing the Henry mountains and paunsagaunt in Utah touted as a once in a decade hunt too...my kids will NEVER experience a hunt there in their lifetimes!
 
No easy answers, I think Colorado management is the best compromise of all though.

And think the record books bear that out, not only that but in Colorado a larger percentage of record book bucks are taken by regular hunters, like the 292 point buck taken by a cow elk hunter or the 306 pointer taken by the 16 year old several years ago, cool way to manage deer.

What do we have on Wyoming?

Airplanes and highpriced outfitter killed bucks, not all but more than a healthy percentage,IMO
 
Region G has a huge network of 1 track trails that only close when the snow flies. Last your people flying up and down them the entire hunt. The midday bikers aren't as bad as the prime time 30 minutes before shooting light is up crowd. We are talking 4 to 5 miles and the tops of the mwin ridges.
 
It would be nice if residents had to at least choose a region, instead of just jumping all over the place. That seems fairly reasonable to me. It seems like most states are managed in a way that sucks every bit of quality out of an area before they see reason to change and by them its too late the quality is never the same. Then it just becomes an ongoing battle to keep a units head above water. Kinda funny so many dudes get on here and say what about our youth? We need to manage for there hunting future. Please... We better start walking the walk instead of talking the talk. Everybody talk's a big game, but few are willing to sacrifice. We probably ought to start being a little more proactive if we want anything decent for the future.
 
Wyoming doesn't manage any area in the state for quality, that I'm aware of. The reasons a few bucks get big in G and H are simple, 1)not a lot of roads. 2)steep rugged country. 3)some mule deer are smart. Just my opinion.
[font face="verdana" color="green"] Jake
 
I have a 9 year old and a 7 year old. They have gone with me every year for the last 2 years and I cannot remember a day that has gone by that they could not have had a makeable shot at a buck far better than anything I ever took in my teenage years. Don't even get me started on the elk and antelope hunting opportunities they have in Wyoming. My last concern is poor youth opportunities. These kids will be spoiled compared to what I had in Utah in the early 90's. Youth hunting in Wyoming is as good as it gets.
 
That's true, same way in Idaho, and I don't see Wyoming changing, like Idaho won't.


Not the end of the world, but in my opinion it could be a lot better. I guess if your comparing it to Gen Utah deer in the 90s I see, but I remember the 80s and even the 70s, pretty neat back then.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-15 AT 05:28PM (MST)[p]I have never hunted G or H but have been doing a lot of research as I'm contemplating to burn my max points either this year or next year in G. Since I have never stepped foot in the unit I can only comment on what I have seen posted here, but I see two glaring issues about this debate:

1. There is a lot of debate about too many Res or too many NR hunters and one of these two classes needs to be cut back. when I look at huntfishall1's numbers of 4517 res and 646 NR hunters, I see ratios that are much more in favor of the Res than any limited unit in the state. Based on those numbers 87.5% of the hunters are res and only 12.5% are NR. The quota for limited quota areas is 20% NR so G is actually a lot better for Res than a limited unit. I think if everyone feels that there are too many hunters in G, then shouldn't BOTH R and NR hunters be reduced somehow but keeping with the 80/20 ratio?

2. There is a claim that NR hunters will shoot any legal buck to fill a tag while R hunters only shoot mature bucks. I think this will continue to happen if G remains general for Res and limited for NR. "Most" people want to harvest a deer for the tag they purchased. The NR hunter has only one option and that is to harvest their deer in unit G. The Res hunter can hunt G for a couple weeks ahead of all the other general seasons and "hold out" for a big one, then if they don't get a trophy, they can go hunt another general area later and shoot a meat buck in an area that is easier to pack them out of.

How about this as a solution? I think if G opened on the same date as the other general units there would be fewer resident hunters, as some of them would hunt their other general areas the first couple weeks. Therefore if the number of resident hunters went down, then the number of NR hunters could be justified in an equivalent reduction of tag numbers to keep close to the 80/20 ratio.

Am I way off base?
 
Limit the number of tags for G/H is the only way to grow more deer, as the word spreads that there is big bucks to be had, More hunters move to that unit. Upping the amount of resident tags will not help those units.
Maybe change G/H to a draw like Baggs.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-15 AT 08:36AM (MST)[p]A statewide opener and shorter seasons in G and H would help. The seasons runs entirely too long in both units.

It always makes me laugh when I hear NR dictate what residents should, or shouldn't do in wyoming. Yet those same people don't feel wyoming should cut any NR tags. Make the NR hunt better at the expense of cutting resident tags. Hyprocrisy!
 
Gator, the Baggs hunt areas (82, 100) haven't gone to a draw or limited quota system as far as I know. At the last Baggs mule deer initiative meeting about a month ago, the WGFD was very clear that they are not going to implement a limited quota system for deer in the Baggs area.
 
SDBugler- Unified opening dates have been suggested to WGF in many public meetings by myself and others. As important to me( and others) is to also have unified CLOSING dates. Overcrowding is the issue here, IMO. Many residents like the ability to bounce around from unit to unit. It's a hard sell to unify those openers.

Gator- Since regions G and H are OTC units for residents, there is really no way of "upping" resident tags for these regions. Resident hunter numbers can vary from year to year. This is why NR numbers have been cut the last few years...that's the only way to cut hunting pressure in these regions since resident hunters are basically unlimited.

WGF are totally against going to any more LQ areas if it can be avoided. As Rambo pointed out in his earlier post, WGF is all about "opportunity". They will be quick to tell you that they have zero "trophy" hunting units. They don't like that terminology. :)
 
Season lengths have zero to do with numbers of bucks harvested. Longer seasons promotel hunters in being selective. Short seasons actually kill more bucks, sometimes smaller ones, guys will shoot the questionable one rather than not getting one. This has been proven over and over in other states. Not to mention the destruction of the quality of experience because every hunter who has a tag will be hunting the unit with you at the same time. You think the opener is busy and a joke currently... cut the season in half and see how much fun it is.


Antelope have been managed quite well for some time in Wyoming. Why can't deer be managed the same? Long seasons, tag quotas for each unit to be adjusted as needed. I guess it's the change that is so hard...
 
And in which states has this been proven over and over again? Facts please as I've never heard of shorter seasons resulting in what you speak of.
 
4500 res hunters is crowded? please, that is childs play. unit 39 outside of boise gets almost 9000 rifle hunters annually, and that is just one unit. sure the open ridges near the roads are the apocalypse for forked horns, but somehow the same few people manage to find 190-200" bucks every other year or so. once a buck learns all he has to do is stay nocturnal to stay alive, they can grow old right under hunter's noses. If they can survive mountain lions, grizzlies, wolves...humans really arent that hard to avoid.
 
Actually trophy mule deer are pretty susceptible to Hunter pressure, that was shown when the state of Colorado decided to manage and limit deer Hunter pressure statewide. Check record book entries if you are sceptical.

Also I believe the reason resident hunters in Wyoming won't get behind area by area limited quota hunting is because hunters believe it will be a long wait to get a tag.
Nevada was smart when they implemented statewide limited quota hunting, they did it all at once, and for many years after tags were easy to obtain, the simply gave lots of tags out where there was plenty of deer, and cut back when there wasn't, not rocket science by any means.
 
Pot Belly,

Lip curl is giving you some hints... Idaho could write a book of FACTS on how to destroy the the finest mule deer herd in the west. One of the many chapters in that book is how short seasons are not the solution. I can't keep track of how many different screw ups Idaho has tried...
 
this same thread has played out in the idaho section more than once. at one point or another, an armchair biologist has tabled and analyzed every possible management model to date. at the end of the day, under any management model you want, if you kill fewer small bucks, you will end up w/ more mature bucks period. Predators and winter kill will inevitably throw a wrench into the mix. if you want region g to have more big bucks. shoot fewer small ones. In theory, we could accomplish this without any government intervention, all we would have to do is pass on young deer and eat our tags the majority of the time. Unfortunately that is not the mentality of most of the hunters in the field. After 3 or 4 tough days on the mountain, with vacation coming to an end, most guys will elect to take a 150 class buck instead of coming home empty handed. turn 5000 of us loose in a general area and it will take its toll. If you want an example of what not to do, look at MT for instance, most of the land is private and managed to sell as many tags as possible. seasons are from sept to thanksgiving (through the rut). i grew up hunting there and getting a deer was never more than a 2-3 hour chore. Now look at the record book, back in the 50s,60s when hunter populations were lower, booners grew all over the state, take a look in the last 10 years, MT doesnt even get an nod for being in the top 10. Even as questionable as the management in idaho is...its still better than MT. If you want G to achieve its maxiumum trophy growing potential, you will have to limit the number of younger bucks harvested. one way or another.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-15 AT 02:10PM (MST)[p]Shorter seasons usually have the opposite effect, GVH. In most( if not all) instances, hunter harvest is usually HIGHER. Ask any G&F official from any state.

Lip Curl and wolfhunter are right. The only way to have more older age class bucks is to either raise total deer numbers or limit harvest on younger bucks.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-15 AT 02:40PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-15 AT 02:27?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-15 AT 02:26?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-15 AT 02:18?PM (MST)

Wolfhunter, you still mad at the wife and me. She really loves you I promise. Brush those teeth and she might want to kiss you again. Your uneducated guess and unsupported facts are useless... something you are good at. Lip curl talked nothing about what I asked you to prove. I understand you never graduated high school, evident by how you write/speak, so I will ask again. Prove where shorter seasons hurt the deer herd. Mt/Id have extremely long and liberal seasons. Youre the reason certain people shouldn't breed, but hey without dumb people like you there wouldn't be anything to gauge the smart ones.

Nontypical, I just asked for facts. Never heard/knew shorter seasons had the negative affect. If a guy only has a week of vacation then he will shoot the same small buck regardless how long the season is. It's the guys who hunt opening week then come back the last week of the season I'm talking about. Wolfhunter has a big mouth and rides the coattails of others when called out.
 
Gros Utah went to a five day hunt and claims more bucks were killed with it than a ten day hunt. I know it doesn't make sense to me either.
 
Not true, when utah went to a shorter season in some units the heard size and quality both went up. Shorter seasons was good for the mature buck heard in Utah.
 
Grosventrehunter (Pot belly),

You sniffing paint this afternoon...? I really don't want to kiss your wife! When your hallucinations stop we can talk mule deer again.
 
GVH,

I agree with you that shorter seasons will save deer in Wyoming. Wyoming is not Idaho, Utah, or Colorado. Wyoming hunters have lots of options to extend their seasons in other units, its not like they're tied to one deer unit.

I would much rather have a shorter season than ever see anything go LQ.

If you want an example of NOT changing the number of deer killed by going LQ, look no further than the Platte Valley. I talked at length with the biologist(s) about that very thing. The number of deer harvested in what are now the LQ areas of the Platte Valley, is no different than it was when it was general. They are killing the same number of deer.

A hunter satisfaction survey was conducted and people hunting those units seem satisfied that they are able to spend less time whacking a forkie from the road.

The problem with all the "fixes" being discussed is its simply trying to satisfy the wants of a small portion of the hunting public and managing what's left of the deer herds.

The average Wyoming Resident couldn't give a chit less about trophy potential if they tried. They want to be able to hunt deer every year, and if so inclined, kill a buck of their choice. There's nothing wrong with that, its how a majority of deer hunters have always done things.

There's still plenty of opportunity for trophy bucks out there for those that aren't interested in killing a smaller buck. Killing a large buck shouldn't be easy and that seems to be the intent of most posting here: Completely change management to provide trophy potential to a minority of deer hunters. Sorry, but I'm not willing to sell out yearly opportunity, so some old blue-haired dude, stuck in the 60's, can try to recapture the "good old days".
 
Killing is not the most important part of hunting to me, my opinion is based on that and other quality issues, my opinions are mine though.

The Grey's river country has great potential but the reality falls far short. Today's modern Hunter is too good and too Tec savvy for September 15 open high country hunts with OTC resident and generous nonresident quotas in my opinion, at least if you want a quality experience and plenty of big antlered deer. this is My opinion only though.
I also think that hunters are only going to get more deadly, we have airplane scouting, big Money outfitters,thousand yard rifles, and a lot of other things going on. So it is what it is.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-15 AT 05:55PM (MST)[p]Wolfhunter (toothless) smile and take a pic for us, then come up with a few facts, or are you still riding others coattails. You make dumb, dumb.

Thanks DW that's a pretty good article, but stop helping toothless this is his lesson plan.

Well said piper, I would have to agree with you.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-15 AT 07:58PM (MST)[p] This is my first post on this forum but I had to jump in on this. Cutting NR tags in this unit and leaving a general tag for residents will not do much except jack up the price of resident tags. Considering the 60/40 split on regular/ special tags NR hunters spend $244,800.00 on deer tags in Region G. That means Wyoming would need to sell 6,442 more tags to residents to make up that revenue from NR tags in Wyoming alone.
Next point is controlling the number of hunters in each region does help with deer populations and trophy potential. If you need proof look at how well Colorado's mule deer responded when it went from OTC tags for deer to unit specific tag allotments. Granted some units take a long time for residents to draw but the overall deer heard numbers and trophy potential in the state went up.
Allowing an unlimited number of people to shoot bucks in the high country during the middle of September with the increase in glass quality and long range guns is a bad idea imo. As others have stated the technology gap along with airplane scouting doesn't leave the old bucks much of a chance. Again Colorado only allows a very small amount of rifle tags for mule deer in September. Everything is either archery or muzzle loader.
This isn't just about the quality of bucks in Region G it is the rest of the west as well. It is that deer numbers are continuing to decline and if we as hunters are not willing to limit our opportunities and tilt the odds back in the deer's favor then 20 years from now our kids will not be hunting mule deer. The herds can only drop so low before the agencies are forced to close seasons. The herd that is associated with Region G is down drastically and will continue until things are done to help the deer out.
Sorry for the book I just wrote.
 
I bet It will be a long time before residents are willing to bend, as we have heard on this post, most want to hunt anywhere they want to and hunt it every year.
The deer herds won't completely die off as long as there is habitat , they may decline some in size and quality will certainly decline even more.
 
The numbers will continue to decline and may reach unsustainable levels if things are not done. As the older bucks become fewer and fewer the does will wait until their second breeding cycle kicks in because there are not any mature bucks around to breed. They then have fawns later in the spring and the fawn mortality rate is higher because they were born later. They are less likely to survive predators and a bad winter. Take that situation with another bad winter like Colorado had in 07 and you go from a herd that is hurting numbers wise to a disaster. Things can go south quick for the mule deer. Hell there could be guys wishing 20 years from now that they had the same hunting we have right now which is sad because we would like things to go back to the really good days of mule deer hunting. I hope hunters can agree to allow the G and F agencies to do what is necessary to turn this thing around including cutting tags and maybe charging 15 bucks for a mule deer stamp if they promise 100% of the money goes to mule deer habitat restoration.
 
Guess someone needs to show me the classifications in G before I would come to the conclusion that their are not enough mature bucks to breed the does during their first cycle. Don't think that's the case IGWT.

The trophy quality and numbers of deer are related only in that the more deer, the more bucks that may attain trophy size. Limiting buck hunters may not increase herd size to any degree, unless all mature bucks have been killed off. That's not happening.
 
I keep a very close watch on the region G deer herd on the winter range. I live in close proximity and am retired( although I don't have blue hair), so I'm able to make several trips during winter. The section of winter range that I keep tabs on is probably 10 miles long and about 5 miles wide. Trust me...there are plenty of mature bucks to breed does. I noticed very few late-cycle fawns this winter; I can think of only one.

B/D ratios are high, and the fawns are in excellent condition.

I have never heard any big game biologist claim that shorter hunting seasons mean less kill. As I said before, I have heard claims of the opposite occurring. But don't take my word for it; ask the professionals( G&F ). Cramming more hunters into a shorter season means overcrowding, and people feeling more pressure to fill their tags. IMO, we are already overcrowded. Reducing tags( if at all) should be a response to hunter overcrowding as much or more than any other reason.
 
COULD IT BE THAT THE GUYS NOT SEEING THE QUALITY BUCKS ARE HIKING IN TO FAR OR NOT HIKING FAR ENOUGH. IF A 190 GIVE OR TAKE 15 INCHES IS WHAT YOUR LOOKING FOR THEN G IS ALIVE AND WELL....THE DEER ARE ON THE HILL, HOWEVER AFTER SUN UP ON THE OPENER THE WHOLE GAME CHANGES DO TO THE PREASURE FROM HUNTERS. MY ADVICE SCOUT AND HUNT THE AREA THE HORSE GUY WALKS THROUGH ON HIS WAY TO HIS HUNT AREA OR SCOUT AND HUNT THE AREA PAST WHERE THE HORSE TRAIL ENDS. BIG BACKS , GREAT FRONTS ,3" EYE GAURDS HEAVY AND AN EXTRA, 28" TO 30" WIDE ...FOR SOME FOLKS IT'S A DINK....I CALL IT A GOOD BUCK...JUST MY OPINION
 
No one is saying all of the big bucks are gone. Guys that actually study the winter range for a living are saying the number of mature deer is down. And limiting tag numbers does allow more mature bucks to reach maturity. Also does anyone on here want to say that all of the population numbers out there as far as lower numbers is wrong. It is a proven fact that the mule deer herd has taken a beating.
It isn't just hunting but highway mortality, the oil boom, loss of habitat, predators and the list goes on. But as far as what we as hunters have direct control over is asking G and F agencies to do the right thing for the mule deer herd long term not what gives us more opportunity to shoot a deer wherever we want.
 
If I'm not mistaken didn't they (GnF) shorten the deer season around the Casper area? Why would GnF do such a thing if it has no benefit?
 
My advise to you IGWT is to read what nontypical wrote above. I believe he is correct.
 
We already have plenty of LQ areas in this state. If your unhappy with G & H, give things a rest and put in for a limited quota area like 87 or 89. Those areas are being closely managed by the G & F. Fact is, most residents who talk about passing up and never shooting a deer in G or H still buy a license for one reason. They know the opportunity exists for a large buck. I'm completely satisfied seeing a 170 - 180 class buck most years and will be voicing my opinion with the G&F in a few weeks to leave things as is. As for the non residents, if resident hunting is gnawing at yer brain, hunt somewhere else. In the meantime, us residents can keep bantering this until the cows come home. As is, I doubt the G&F will be changing anything as long as the majority of us still value opportunity...
 
I have been a silent follower of Monster Muleys from the start. (Well done Brian) I am a keep to myself kind of guy, but this subject is very important to me. What has happened to region G is very SAD and for that matter G,H,K, S.E Idaho & N. Utah. First let me point out that I can still find A 200+ in. Buck almost any day I want to weather Scouting, Hunting or just looking. It would be my guess that those who still think G is OK as it is. Never got the chance to experience it in when it was good. There are way to many other folks to have a real quality experience. The WY. range can not produce or provide Deer for the entire state. Really not even enough for 600 Non residents. There are still some big bucks & there should be. But I assure you there are not 600 of them. At some point we are all going to have to get on the same page and do what is best for the Deer. I have not even got started but I will leave it at that. It's good to be able to share my thoughts. Thanks and letmgetbig
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-15 AT 06:55AM (MST)[p]Pot Belly,

Are you a California transplant? If you want short seasons with crowded hunting and no quality bucks, you should move back to where you came from!!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-15 AT 07:52AM (MST)[p]Toothless, maybe you should get off your azz and learn to hunt. Just because you can't kill a big buck doesn't mean we should change things to help you out.

I love it. First it was idaho, then utah, then montana,and now california. You're running out of states. Still waiting on those facts toothless, but your own so no more riding coattails.
 
There are a couple things you can be certain of... getting off my ass and killing big bucks is not a problem for me. Also, I can't figure it out, the wolves around here just seem to be leaving....

PS. My teeth are just fine, never even had a cavity!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-15 AT 08:39AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-15 AT 08:28?AM (MST)

Maybe you smiled and scared them off. If you're killing big bucks why are you worried. Everything is wonderful then right?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-15 AT 08:40AM (MST)[p]Letmgitbig, I hunted the are in the 1980s a few times, and boy I would like to have that chance again, your right what happened is a tragedy.

I talk with people who hunted and lived here in the 50s and 60s I guess it was incredible.
If your a resident come to the season setting meetings, share your opinion, there are too many people like triple BB to effectively promote a change in management. But someday when things get even worse you never know?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-15 AT 11:49AM (MST)[p]"Never got the chance to experience it in when it was good."

This is a valid point and explains the divergence among many of us. Everything is a frame of reference and if you've hunted in paradise, then everything will thereafter seem inadequate. Many of us aren't encumbered with that problem. I live in G and love hunting that country. I think the hunting is great! I'm sorry some can't enjoy it as it is. I hope they can find someplace else where they can. I recognize that the deer aren't thick. I recognize that monster bucks are rare. That being said, many of us could care less if it ever is like the old days. We can enjoy a day hunting, even if we don't see a deer and don't need antlers on the wall. So it sometimes become a debate for opportunity to hunt more often with less chance of a big buck or less opportunity to hunt, but with more opportunity for a trophy when we get to hunt. I don't think either is morally superior, but we do tend fall on different sides of the aisle.

Many of us are just plain old guys who like to hunt. Many of us enjoy wild game much more than domestic meats. Yes, we kill elk too, as well as antelope. Many of us are providing meat for multiple families. Many of us actually can economically get wild game.

The viability of the herd itself should be the deciding factor of course and the declination of mule deer is a broad problem throughout their range, not just in G, or H, or... Sure, if hunting is impeding on a taxed herd, then fine; just close the hunting down for a couple of years, if needed (for everybody). Then it wouldn't be about who gets what preferred opportunity. It wouldn't be a resident vs non resident or a trophy vs opportunity vs meat hunter thing. It would be a preservation of deer thing. I could live with that. The question is: Is the deer herd currently unviable? Much smaller than the glory days? Yes. Unviable? Doesn't appear to be so at this time.
 
Great post MMWB. I think that if needed to close down an area will never happen. The reason is always around the $'s. F&G needs to meet a budget. If the lower tags in an area then they raise tags in another. Plain and simple it is economics. The only way to reduce tags is to add them in another area. I do believe Wy. more than any other western state tries to match hunters with game as seen when hard winters hit and tags get reduced. But still it all goes back to revenue. I do believe that the Sportsman should pay for F&G. They do need the ability to raise $'s when the need to cut tags arises. Right now the only way is to raise fees. Then when they add tags back into the mix and it creates extra funds they absorb them and it becomes the new normal. Next hard winter or drought hits and back to the same story of needing the revenue and they cannot cut the overall tag numbers. Fix the $'s and you will help the animal numbers. Then the Biologist can do their job.

DZ
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-15 AT 02:43PM (MST)[p]GVH- G&F shortening the seasons is in many cases due to what the public wants...not for management reasons. If the public makes a big enough fuss about what they perceive as a lack of management on the part of F&G; in many cases G&F acquiesces to the public's demands. Like I said; ask them. They are readily available and more than willing to answer any questions you may have.

IGWT- You can't stockpile bucks. The winter of 2010-2011 killed 90% of our fawns in the Wyoming Range and other places according to G&F data. That same winter killed a large percentage of older age class animals as well. Of course there are less mature bucks now. Winter plays a much bigger role than hunters in deer populations. Saving bucks for next year only helps if winter does, too.

Letmgetbig- First off, welcome to the forum. Hope you got thick skin. :) Let me first say that deer numbers have been down ever since the winter of '92-'93. In all of those places you mention, deer numbers have never recovered from that winter for a myriad of reasons. The Wyoming Range had a population of 50K+ deer prior to 1992. Can't seem to get above about 35K ever since. I remember the great deer numbers before that winter, too. Deer numbers were great all over back then! I didn't hunt there much because deer and big buck numbers were so much higher right near my home town. I did, however, kill one of my biggest bucks ever the previous season in the WR. Though there were a few killer winters I remember before 92-93, deer never really came back after that one.
 
mmwb I respect you & your opinion but I have to reply on a few things. But I still love ya. Because as hunters we need to stand together. "you could care less if it's ever like the old days" I also live in the region G area. My family settled this area and I'm very proud of my family history. So the Old Days are very special to me. My family has been hunting some of the same canyons since the late 1800's "Enjoy it as it is" Well I want to enjoy it like it could be or should be not just accept it like it is. That's enough of that. I have some Mule deer videos on you tube if you want to see some nice bucks on the winter range. And even some hunts last fall. My user name is nlsnoutdrswy I think the name of one might be Mule Deer on the winter range. That's all I have to say for now.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-15 AT 07:27PM (MST)[p]Yeah, if we don't get caught up in the details, I expect most of us are on the same page than off. If I'd been here in the "good old days," maybe I would be more disappointed now. I was living in the southeast corner and not hunting then. It was to my advantage to not be. One difficulty for many that set roots long term, is dealing with change. Particularly if it is change contrary to what is really important to us. I don't blame anyone for wanting it like it has so often been described and plenty of pictures indicate. I don't think it can be without pretty much stopping hunting for a couple of years, hammer the predators a bit more, and even then--would current winter ranges support half again as many deer? I really don't know.

I'm not over the hill, but have been around a few decades and have dealt with some rough stuff. It helped me to learn to appreciate the best in what I have, rather than focus on what has been lost. Life is better when we can resolve to not be miserable over the difference between our ideal and what is. Letmeget big, we are neighbors. I just don't which one you are.
 
dz--Economics is always a huge factor. Then there is the question of how do we balance? We need to support (finance) game and fish AND we need to keep hunting affordable. For many of us, coming up with the cash to buy tags isn't a big deal. Unfortunately, there really are people that are taxed to where tags are a significant cost. I hate to see resident tags go up for those. We have very reasonable tags. The higher things go up, the more elitist hunting becomes. It seems to me that non resident tags are pretty high already. In the long run, we can hope that the legislator will support others who enjoy the outdoors helping to fund specifically non-game animal/bird/fish responsibilities of the game and fish. Perhaps eventually, mineral royalties or other state funds.

I don't believe that game and fish will go under if they don't raise prices, even if the non residents bailed. Hunting and fishing is a big deal to Wyoming residents and the legislature would be squeezed into proffering funding. It may come to it in time, as at some point you have to stop raising costs to the hunter. By that time we will find some attrition because of the costs and it will become self defeating.
 

Similar threads

M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
854
nfh
nfh
tnvol
Western WY deer 2024 hunt??
Replies
10
Views
817
tnvol
tnvol
M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
798
ICMDEER
ICMDEER

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

8F0904AB-B842-4953-A27A-275E9F6948A9.jpeg
65E6EA60-F2B7-4891-835D-F258D93A65B9.jpeg
6935C80D-66EB-49AC-AD7F-63080286843C.jpeg
IMG_8714.jpeg
18FD7F55-9A33-4C3C-912D-4FA5B15A3D00.jpeg
imagejpeg_0.jpeg
Resized_20211120_083144.jpeg
IMG_20200318_184151935.jpg
7DFD9AE7-CDDF-4F71-A43A-E83906F994BB.jpeg
Big Eyeguards
9103B07D-0E64-4120-938C-01BB4F48B98B.jpeg
24E7F2DF-7AD5-4627-A528-457825762D12.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