Tell me how you will recruit more big bucks by forcing everyone to target big bucks?
It simply does not ,AKs bigger bucks. All it does is temporarily reduce take for a year or 2.
Show any population data that supports this idea. The only place where it truly works is when you completely limit take at the same time.
I can see the writing on the wall for region W. It will soon be a place where us NR will only get every 4 to 5 years, and residents will hammer the bucks until,even that is not enough and the entire state will fall like a house of cards!
The best part about WY is the ability to hunt a ton of places and still have many options. It is what allows WY to have great bucks and allows people to actually enjoy a hunt!
Soon hunting WY will be like every other state. Pick your unit, your weapon, cram a ton of hunts into a 9 day season, and still wonder why there are not many quality Bucks unless you get a tag that is once in a lifetime!
Sounds like a great future for WY!
>Respectfully elks96, I totally disagree with
>our comments/believes.
>
>I know what Utah DWR and
>other's have stated about antler
>restrictions and genetics. Just
>because they have said it,
>printed it, published it, written
>Doctoral Dissertations about, and those
>statements have been repeated and
>are now taught in Graduates
>School's syllabus, as science, does
>not make it true.
>
>Like so damn many of the
>myths about mule deer that
>have become science, the nonsense
>about the dangers and negative
>consequences of antler restriction are
>grossly unfounded.
>
>Ie:
>You can't transplant mule deer.
>You can't save mule deer by
>feeding them in the winter.
>
>It only takes 4 to 6
>bucks per hundred does to
>keep the does breed.
>Coyotes have no significant impact on
>fawn survival.
>Cougar populations have insignificant effect on
>mule deer populations.
>Mule deer will not use under
>passes/over passes during migration.
>
>This list could go on but
>you get the idea.
>
>All these so called scientific teachings
>are agency propaganda used by
>our fish and game departments
>are social/economic/political arguments and are
>nearly always biologically false, or
>at the very least biological
>half truths.
>
>DC