Wyoming Mule Deer?

S

SMOKESTICK

Active Member
Messages
852
Do you think Wyoming, after attending the season setting meetings, is doing enough to address chronic declining numbers of mule deer?
 
I haven't seen the specific opener/closing dates. I don't think they're available yet. Having talked to several Game Wardens, it still looks to me like they are trying to walk along the top of the fence. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong. It's just that they get caught in the middle of trying to make everyone happy. They are also caught in a position of having to generate much of their own funding. If they cut tags, they are cutting money from their own budget. That makes a difficult situation, at best. They talked like point restriction doesn't work, but it is being implemented in other areas of the state. I was hoping to see it around southwest Wyoming, at least for a few years, to save some younger bucks. One weekend for adults and two weekends for youth is probably not a bad thing. We've had a good winter, but multiply nothing by something, it still comes up zero. We're not starting with "nothing" but numbers are way down. It's going to take a bunch of time for mule deer to come back. It's getting close to the tipping point, all factors involved, of never having a good strong population again in my opinion.
 
From what I have read, I have not seen anything 'Set' yet.

I do agree with 'bucklover' that they have many folks and desires and opinions to satisfy while still maintaining a workable budget.

Plus balancing the outfitter, vendor, bsn's and local ecomomy of many 'hunt towns' for ressy and non-ressy seasonal spending/income.

I'm sure we all will still adjust/participate no matter what side of the fence we feel they come across to.

Robb
 
Robb,

You are correct. Nothing has been set yet. They have now held most of their 'season setting' meetings and will be finalizing their recommendations at their regional meetings. That is why I asked the question. Once the regional meetings are over, recommendations are sent to the Commission for approval and implementation.
 
Don't get me wrong, but I'm kind of amazed that they are at least doing something vs what has been the norm in past years. I think they have a start in some areas which is a good sign. Certianly this is not an overnight fix, our herds will likely take several years to even somewhat recover.
 
Looks like regions K and parts of G will be the "sacrificial lambs" this year.12 day seasons(with 14 for youth)are just too long,IMO(with the present herd condition).Also still killing does in some areas to placate supposed landowner damage.Seriously,how much damage can 12 does do??They want to shorten the seasons in other areas,though.So when those areas close,everyone will flock to the few remaining open areas.
 
12 day season what is even the point.I bet they are letting youths shoot any deer to. I believe I made a post earlier towards people that were posting comments about the meetings earlier in the year and how the WGandF are going to make a differants with the deer herd and do whats right. My comment was something along the lines of them(WYGF) being completely full of ##### and blowing smoke up peoples buts wait tell hunting season you will see. Well looks like I was right
 
My thoughts.

For starters, the dynamics of mule deer and their decline is a complicated issue. Frankly, I dont think there are one-size fits all management fixes out there.

The reasons why mule deer are not doing well are many, and IMO, in most cases/regions its likely a combination of several problems.

What needs to happen is to start at the start...mule deer numbers will not increase by guessing whats going on.

Issue one, and step one, should be to obtain base line data of where we're at population wise.

Issue two, should be mandatory harvesting reporting to know how many deer hunters are killing each year.

Once you have the base line data, then start figuring out what the limiting factors are for the individual herds. Dont be guessing and throw money at problems that arent problems. For example, if habitat is the issue for a particular herd, dont be wasting a bunch of money shooting coyotes.

Next should be setting realistic population goals based on biology...hold the politics and socially accepted fluff.

Finally monitor your management decisions and see if those decisions are having a postive impact on attaining your goals. If not...back to the drawing board.

Make management decisions based at the herd level, rather than state-wide broad brush approaches.

IMO, most of the "management" that is happening is not addressing low deer numbers, rather trying to improve trophy potential of whats left. Thats a poor way to manage, we dont need limited quotas for the sake of only growing more big bucks. We need to worry about increasing TOTAL deer numbers, with that will come more deer for all, including more bigger bucks, longer seasons, and more opportunity for all. More deer also means more deer hunters and more revenue to continue to manage.

The current path being taken is not in the best interest of the deer herds, more geared to the best interests of those wanting to shoot trophy bucks.

To save mule deer, and the hunting heritage of same...we need to increase deer numbers, period.

If that doesnt happen, we're left with crumbs and managing people rather than game.
 
The biggest thing they need to change is make the whole state draw, no more general seasons. That coupled with wise wolf and cougar management should make a difference.
 
How is going to a draw state-wide going to improve habitat? How is that going to address predator issues? How is that going to address the poaching problems? How it that going to secure winter range? How is that going to increase forage value? How is that going to improve doe/fawn ratios? How is that going to help the over-all health of mule deer?

Simply going to a statewide draw likely wont increase the deer herd much, if at all. We arent killing does at all in many general areas and yet the populations still arent bouncing back...

Cant see how going LQ for buck hunting, in areas with no doe harvest currently, is going to increase the deer population.

General seasons arent causing deer populations to crash...simply arent.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-12 AT 06:30PM (MST)[p]Buzzh I agree with most of what you said in your first post. However if a deer herd is struggling to increase its numbers when the area is a general area that has hundreds of people killing any buck they can find. How is putting it to limited quota not going to help the deer herd increase a little. If you dont think it will you are delusional. Its simple math you kill less bucks during hunting season and you will have more mature bucks alive come Nov to breed all the does to make more fawns.
I spend more time than you could possibly imagine looking at deer in western and south western wyoming and I am 100% convinced that one of the reasons our deer herds are declining is there are not enough mature bucks to breed all the does. The mature bucks are just spread way to thin in my opinion. I agree there are many factors effecting declining deer numbers many of which you brought up. But even If you removed most of the predators and poaching stopped and the habitat was in the best shape it had been in for 30 years. Our deer herds are not going to increase greatly until the WG&F takes drastic measures because thats what we need is drastic measures and start to do whats right from a managment stand point and use commensense regardles of potential loss of revenue. Take last year for example we have the worst winter die off in the 30 years(thats what the WG%F said)and all they do is hold meetings telling the public the deer herds are in bad shape and somethings needs to be done. But nothing drastic has and will be done. I have very serious doubt the WG%F will do what is needed to help our muledeer recover until it is to late and I I feel that time is rapidly approaching. I believe they dug themselves into a hole they can not climb out of after last winter atleast not in my lifetime but hopefully i am wrong.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-12 AT 08:00PM (MST)[p]I dont buy your theory at least not in most areas. You look at the LQ areas we have now and deer herds are doing no better in those areas population wise. The deer herds are not splitting at the seams in units like 101, 102, 89, etc. etc. and those are all LQ areas.

Also, trophy bucks arent found behind every piece of sagebrush in those units either.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with having a few more bucks, but I've yet to see a buck poop out a fawn just lately. Carrying a handful of bucks from year to year isnt going to grow the population at any significant rate, you need more does, you need younger does, and healthier deer in general. You have to improve the habitat. With better habitat you get healthier adult deer, healthier fawns, more twin fawns, and deer that can survive harsh weather much better as well as evade predators easier.

Its also fair to note that you're blaming the G&F for things they dont have control over. They cant just tell the BLM, USFS, or private land owners that they are going to start improving deer habitat. Doesnt work that way, the federal agencies are under no obligation to work with the G&F to improve habitat for deer.

To blame the G&F for all these problems with deer is foolish, they dont have control of a vast majority of the deer habitat found in the West. Further, many of the G&F as well as Federal agencies are facing budget shortfalls and many arent even making payroll. Pretty tough to manage with no money, and in many cases the Resident hunters and tax payers are not willing to provide additional funding for deer.

I think its going to take a lot of cooperation/work between private land owners, public land management agencies, conservation/hunting groups, and hunters if we're to see any significant changes.

Throwing a handful of $hit on the wall and seeing what sticks isnt going to get it done. Like you said, we dont have time to guess...we need to be putting our limited funds into correct solutions.

Whats happened for the last 20+ years is best described as "shizophrenic management"...randomly adjusting seasons, messing with point restrictions, limited quota areas, shooting coyotes, etc.

Its intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, that the last 20+ years of "doing something"...hasnt worked...all the $hit has fallen off the wall. Time to move on to something that does work.

Please see my original post on this thread in regards to starting at the start....
 
Buzz the habitat can support thousands more deer in the wyoming range than it does. And i dont buy your bs about limited qouta will not help the deer. Why is it you only see 20-30 fawns per 100 does? even in the summer? Its b/c they arent getting bred. You might be right about one thing and that is bucks dont have fawns. BUT does cant have fawns without bucks to breed them. The areas you mentioned that are limited qouta besides 89 is the most desolate country in this entire state. With little water and very low precipitation a year. Its not exactly the perfect habitat anyways, but where the habitat is good the deer are thriving in very healthy numbers. 70 percent of areas 101 & 102 dont hold deer, or atleast sustancial numbers due to strictly the enviorment of the place. Region G is awesome habitat, though 20 years of over hunting and piss poor management decisions have lead us to the path we are now. You can blame it on what but ive lived here i have been watching deer year round my whole life. I know what the problems surrounding this herd are. Some has to do with develoment, road kill, winter yadda yadda. B/c of the winters we get we need a surplus of animals. 90 percent of the winter ranges arent even being used b/c of lack of deer. We've got plenty good habitat period! If the game and fish cant afford cutting tags maybe they should start laying some of thier ppl off. Its not about the G&F and thier well doing, its about the animals that they have sworn to protect that die to pay thier salary. For some reason i think you work for them b/c they feed me and the rest of the public the same bs you talk all the time. By not shooting thousands of deer every year we will have more in the long run!
 
Lmao, Lets let unlimited hunters go into the general units and kill off the rest of the bucks. Then we'll see how doe's can breed doe's... F'ing brilliant!!! WOW
 
BuzzH I am not blaming the bad habitat on the game and fish. What I am blaming on the WG&F is there refusal to do what needs to be done from a managment stand point to ensure our deer herds dont go extinct. You can not Have a winter like we did 2010 and 2011 and loose the amount of deer we did and then not do a thing to help the herd out. They did nothing to try and save more bucks from being killed the folowing huntings season. If you think this has no efect on the herd you sir are an idiot. Also the limited quota areas you spoke of(if thats what you want to call them) are severly miss managed,with way to many tags being issued. They did not lower the quota after the 2008 winter that wiped the herd out in 102 they left the tag numbers the same And i could be wrong but I believe they wanted to raise the tag quota to 600 tags but it got shot down. again I could have my facts wrong but thats what I was told. So the day the WG&F actually start managing areas in the state as true limited quota and manage them right then you can not compare them and use them as an example and until then dont bother.
 
Buzz the habitat can support thousands more deer in the wyoming range than it does.

Based on what? Can you provide any proof of forage quality, protein content, anything tha will support your claims?

And i dont buy your bs about limited qouta will not help the deer.

Why's that? How is limited quota hunting going to improve deer habitat? How is that going to reduce poaching? How is that going to increase doe/fawn ratios? How is that going to reduce deer kills on highways? How is that going to increase forage potential? How is that going to increase deer health? How do you know what the quotas will be when the whole state is LQ?

Why is it you only see 20-30 fawns per 100 does?

Where? Not all areas of the state are seeing that. It could be any of a number of things...predators, poor forage, poor doe health, drought, skewed doe populations with too many older aged animals...to name a few. Tell me what YOU KNOW to be a fact of why its happening? Should we identify the problem or continue to guess and throw some more money at the wrong problems?

Its b/c they arent getting bred.

Do you have any studies or peer reviewed science to back that up? I'd guess...you're making a guess.


You might be right about one thing and that is bucks dont have fawns. BUT does cant have fawns without bucks to breed them.

Can you provide buck to doe ratios for the area of the state you're referring to? Also, can you provide data to support how low the buck-to-doe ratio has to before all the does arent bred?

The areas you mentioned that are limited qouta besides 89 is the most desolate country in this entire state. With little water and very low precipitation a year. Its not exactly the perfect habitat anyways, but where the habitat is good the deer are thriving in very healthy numbers. 70 percent of areas 101 & 102 dont hold deer, or atleast sustancial numbers due to strictly the enviorment of the place.

Not buying that either...I've hunted both areas and the habitat doesnt exactly suck. Theres lots of good habitat that isnt supporting deer in the numbers it should. I see no signs of any over-utilization of even the best habitat found within all those units. Deer numbers should be much higher in all three areas...and are not...even though they're LQ.



Region G is awesome habitat, though 20 years of over hunting and piss poor management decisions have lead us to the path we are now. You can blame it on what but ive lived here i have been watching deer year round my whole life. I know what the problems surrounding this herd are.

Great, if you know what the problems are then fix them. Not every area in the state has the same problems.

Some has to do with develoment, road kill, winter yadda yadda. B/c of the winters we get we need a surplus of animals.

Agree, but I thought you just said you know whats wrong in your area? I already stated we need higher deer populations, and I've yet to see any facts regarding how its possible to grow a deer herd by simply going to a LQ hunt. See above questions and please answer them.

90 percent of the winter ranges arent even being used b/c of lack of deer.

Agreed again...like I already stated, we need to find ways to increase herd numbers, going LQ wont help an unhealthy doe or a doe past prime breeding age increase the over-all population. You cant make chicken salad out of chicken $hit...no matter how much you try.

We've got plenty good habitat period!

Really? Have you ever looked at what the habitat in the West looked like in the 50's, 60's, and 70's compared to what it looks like now? From the massive amounts of studies and aerial photography I've looked at over a lot of mule deer range in the Western U.S. combined with 25 years of work in Resource Management...I'm more than a little convinced that good mule deer habitat has shrunk significantly in the last 30-40 years. I also know enough about forage potential, utilization, climax vegetation, seral stages, etc. to know that what the average layperson looks at as "good habitat period!" may look good from far...but is far from good.

If the game and fish cant afford cutting tags maybe they should start laying some of thier ppl off.

Great idea...lets be sure to run a full page story on that, should be some wonderful news for poachers. Sure to really help the herds...


For some reason i think you work for them b/c they feed me and the rest of the public the same bs you talk all the time.

Nope, dont work for the game and fish, but do work in a field going job doing habitat assessments in 8 states in the interior west. I draw conclusions based on having spent the last 25 years of my life working 200+ days a year in the field as well as hunting 3-5 states a year.


By not shooting thousands of deer every year we will have more in the long run!

Not necessarily true...one tough winter and you're back to square to one.

Just sayin'...
 
BUZZ is spot on on this.B/D ratios in region G are plenty sufficient to get almost all does bred.After 10-15 yrs of drought in SW Wy,the habitat has been severely degraded.Fawns are not surviving based on other reasons than does not being bred.Whether that mortality is from predators,highways,poor health from mom,or being a second cycle baby are all reasons that are up for speculation.Unit 102 has been LQ for several years now,and habitat is some of the best you will find.And I guarantee you that 75% of 102 is suitable habitat for deer,and most of that is good habitat.And yet,the herd still won't grow.Also,600 tags was not proposed.The proposal was to continue with 400.As for unit 101,tags have dropped from 125 to 75 to 50 in a span of about 5-6 yrs.LQ units do not grow more deer.LQ units can grow older deer,and have better B/D ratios.Wildlife biology is an inexact science at best.Saving a few bucks one year may help with a higher B/D ratio the next year,and some older bucks,but it really doesn't do anything to grow the herd.And that is what is really needed.If we can figure out how to grow the herd,everything else will fall into place.My problem with the season proposals this year is that G&F have done nothing to help ease hunter congestion.Too many different opening and closing dates.Wyoming resident hunters are spoiled beyond belief.Everyone wants more and bigger bucks,but no one is willing to sacrifice anything to achieve that.
 
Q.)Buzz the habitat can support thousands more deer in the wyoming range than it does.

Based on what? Can you provide any proof of forage quality, protein content, anything tha will support your claims?

A.)-> I dont have to provide forage quality based on the fact that any idiot can tell when there is plenty of lush new growth on the winter ranges from 3 wet years. A healthy plant looks pretty damn close to a heathy plant. Im sure the protien hasnt ranged dramatically in the last 20 years. Its the same damn dirt these plants have been living in since time.

Q.)And i dont buy your bs about limited qouta will not help the deer.


Why's that? How is limited quota hunting going to improve deer habitat? How is that going to reduce poaching? How is that going to increase doe/fawn ratios? How is that going to reduce deer kills on highways? How is that going to increase forage potential? How is that going to increase deer health? How do you know what the quotas will be when the whole state is LQ?

A.)I give up trying to tell you how limited qouta would benefit mule deer. I can already tell your as hard headed and set in your ways as anyone ive ever talk to but i will give it one more shot. Kill less deer = more deer that survive= more deer in the future. As for highway kills it wont nothing will unless huge overpasses are made, not those little ones the deer are afraid tp use. It wont increase forage potential, but allow more animals to benefits off of whats not getting eatin. It will increase the health of a deer herd by letting more deer survive and having more genetic diversity. I dont know what the the LQ's will be but knowing Wyoming close to unlimited amount.

Q.)Why is it you only see 20-30 fawns per 100 does?

Where? Not all areas of the state are seeing that. It could be any of a number of things...predators, poor forage, poor doe health, drought, skewed doe populations with too many older aged animals...to name a few. Tell me what YOU KNOW to be a fact of why its happening? Should we identify the problem or continue to guess and throw some more money at the wrong problems?

A.)Southern end of the Wyoming Range. Yeah IT could be all those things but i just told you what it was. I spent 6 days in the field every 8 days. So close to half the year im out there i see first hand whats going on more than just about anyone. Not drought related, why you may ask hmmm there just been too much water. Skewed population? No im pretty good at aging deer considering how tough it may be. Here is the problem winter range closures hurt more than help give sancturary to poachers and predators. An overwelming number of hunters very few bucks, not enough bucks to go around. in a nut shell "getting shot out, not breeding, predation"

Q.)You might be right about one thing and that is bucks dont have fawns. BUT does cant have fawns without bucks to breed them.

Can you provide buck to doe ratios for the area of the state you're referring to? Also, can you provide data to support how low the buck-to-doe ratio has to before all the does arent bred?

A.) I usually see 1 buck to 35 does in the rut. It almost impossible for 2 bucks to succesfully breed that many does. I dont need data IM OUT THERE ALL THE TIME! I see whats happening while you sit on your computer and try to argue over whats needs to happen with this herd. The last questions easy it 0, and we are coming to that number quicker than you might think.

Q.)about areas 101 and 102

A.) There isnt any water is most of that good habitat you talk about!

A.) Now im done playing your stupid game. I have seen pics of habitat from that time. My family is ranchers. Nothing like most the winter range demolished by 100's of thousands of sheep and 10's of thousands of cattle. The winter ranges look better now than back in the hayday of mule deer in western wyo. you can blame that arae going to crap on piss poor management that is it that is all
 
I agree with a number of points above. Management based on speculation rather than facts will likely give us no improvements. My observations of my little neck of the woods do not jive with a lot of what I read on the forums. Now my experience is anecdotal so I wouldn't propose that game management would be based on it, though it might be grounds for more objective observations. I live in region G. In the past couple of years, I have observed an average of 2-3 fawns per doe going into September. I have observed bucks at a ratio of 1:3 does. Most of the bucks are young, but would say at least 30% of what I see are four points and probably half of those, based on body and antler size to be mature bucks. I observe that many of the residents do not fill their tags and do hold out for a bigger animal. I observe that a number of very nice bucks come out of the region and I see none of them on this or other hunting forums.

Based on what I know the deer are eating, our summer range could support a significantly larger herd, but hear mixed messages about the winter habitat. Quality of forage becomes much more key and I'm not sure we have the quality on the winter grounds needed.

I know I can go up any number of canyons in the area during winter where the deer are and find several lion kills of the week, week after week.

Over the past couple of years, I observe that there is a significant decline in overall population. I have not observed a serious change in buck, doe, or fawn ratios. I also note that many of the deer I am seeing take a bit more leg work than they used. I.e., I see far less deer driving the country, but see more in areas off the beaten path than I have over the past several years.

Now my observations don't completely jive with those of some others who live in the same region. It is a big region, we are all limited by the variables specific to ourselves and the areas we frequent. Relative to predation, perhaps in 135 coyotes would be a bigger concern while in 144 and 145 lions are a bigger concern. I don't know.

I don't believe for a second that LQ hunting in G will help the deer herd, though it would no doubt increase the buck/doe ratio and give us more, bigger bucks. I don't see our buck doe ratio as a problem and will choose opportunity over trophy hunting anytime. Would I recommend Game and Fish form a management plan on my observatoins and opinions in of themselves? Not on your life.
 
GntShedz- You should listen to Nontypical. That guy knows more about what is going on than most. Didn't the south end of the WYO Range have a hard winter, which in turn would have killed fawns, caused doe to abort or absorb the fetus? Funny how the winter ranges of the past produced so many animals and now those same winter ranges can't support half the deer. Those plants of the past were fresh, new and young. Now those plants are old, decadent, and stale.

I often wonder if mule deer are not cyclical and permits should be adjusted accordingly. Don't feel alone Wyoming. Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and more are all in the same boat called "Declining Mule Deer". We can blame it on our Game Agencies, but the reality is that mule deer herds in limited quota areas are not growing. There is something in the water, the range, the air or Mother Nature which is causing the populations to drop.
 
GntShedz,

I don't pretend to have the answers for the decline of Mule Deer populations throughout the west but i can say that you have provided some pretty weak answers to the questions you were asked.

Saying your sure that forage quality is the same without any facts is a sure fire way to get a bad result. The same damn dirt. Weak! Any thoughts on why a farmer makes improvements to his land from year to year? Its the same damn dirt.

Winter range closures giving sanctuary to poachers? I'll take that over the army of shed hunters pushing bred does all over hells half acre.

Do you hinestly think the buck to doe ratio is 35:1? I hunt western wyoming and this is not at all consistant with what I see or the experts report.

Can't say as i agree about the lack of water in 102. I spend alot of time in 102 and I work each day in 101. 102 has more water than most think. It may not be streams but small seeps and springs are everywhere.

Mule deer are declining throughout the west. Not one state has the answer to increasing herds. There are many LE units in the west and not one of them has mule deer busting at the seams. I for one do not think general areas in Wyoming are the main factor. Look at the elk poplations in wyoming and Colorado. Numerous general areas in Wyoming that continue to thrive. Majority of Colorado elk is unlimited tags and is crawling with hunters ready to shoot the first 4 point they see. And still the herds thrive. I think the problem goes much deeper than making units LE. I think it is many things, all of which have been mentioned before. I also think that many of the issues causing the decline are beyond mans ability to control. Many, very qualified and competant people have been trying to turn around mule deer populations for decades and have not been having much sucess. I find it hard to believe that all of that work has been done by fools.
 
There might be something to that "cycle" theory.I wouldn't want to speculate one way or the other.You are correct about mulies declining all over their range.IMO,the biggest single factor started decades ago when the federal govt banned the use of 1080 for predator control.1080 was some bad-a$$ stuff.The coyote would eat it and die,then the eagle would eat the dead coyote;and HE would die,then...well,you get the idea.It took predators 20 yrs to make a comeback from 1080,and we now see a much higher predator/prey ratio than we did 30 yrs ago.Then we get 12-15 yrs of drought and more development on top of that.And that's not just Wyoming.mmwb-Some good comments.When you mention "mature buck",are you referring to 3 yr olds and up?Have you lived in G very long?Were you there in the late '80's and early '90's?Just curious if you remember the deer herds from back then.No one was complaining about lack of deer in 1990!Winter range in the LaBarge complex not only has 15 years of drought to try to overcome,but more oil and gas development to contend with.There's no easy answers here.I'm all for saving more bucks to get some older age class bucks for next year.That's a good band-aid approach for the bucks I seek,but it doesn't solve the overall problem of why we can't grow more deer.
 
Coyotes have a bigger impact on deer than most people think. We have plenty of coyotes on the winter ranges. More than most would think.... I have called in 5 or more coyotes at a time near wintering deer with a fawn bleat! I have killed over 15 dogs in one day on these winter grounds.

The predator control services killed over 500 coyotes in Nugget canyon (area 135) in a 3 week period in 2010-11 winter. They used a helo and fixed wing aircraft. And still the Fat local game warden says the coyotes are just eating rabbits....Hmmm!

Wyoming has been successfully managing Antelope for a long time. It's time to start managing deer like antelope. Agreed mule deer have more problems than just over harvest. Let's at least start managing the issues we can control. LImited quota is imperative. Or if you want your continued opportunity just look at how well that has worked for Idaho...
 
Thanks for the good comments. I believe the WY G&FD is trying to make some changes; however, I agree that a lot appears to be fluff & stuff, with little or no specific, measurable results defined or identified. I believe some within the Department still do not believe that mule deer are in trouble.

Here is what I would propose:
1- Wyoming does need to implement a mandatory harvest reporting process. This needs to be serious and hunters should not be allowed to hunt if they do not submit their annual report.

2- All hunters hunting mule deer should be required to submit teeth to the G&F Department so that an average age of harvest can be determined in every mule deer management herd. A tooth envelope should be sent out with every mule deer license purchased and available at license selling locations for those which purchase in person. To help offset the added costs of this new program, a $5 fee should be added to every mule deer license.

3- Greater analysis needs to be done to identify the problems each specific herd is experiencing. Most studies have shown that mule deer does are pretty effective in getting pregnant but little is known as to how many fawns are actually being born and what is contributing to their mortality. Until we find out why the mule deer factory is struggling to produce the number of mule deer it once did, we will never truly fix the problem. Sportsmen will continue to fight for an ever declining number of mule deer. It is a race to the bottom.

4- Once specific issues for each mule deer herd unit are identified & understood, we can then begin to address those factors which are limiting production.

5- Standardization of data collection for each specific mule deer herd needs to be established. It appears, from reviewing some of the Job Completion Reports, that every region has their own way of doing things. I see a lot of holes in data sets or completely no data collected. I know that WY G&F biologists are very dedicated but I believe some are not given the tools they need to effectively collect all the information they need. Furthermore, I believe that sometimes their priorities are not being properly set as they have too many demands being placed upon them and too little time is being dedicated to recovering mule deer populations. They appear stuck in a rut and unable to see that mule deer populations are not recovering and will most likely never recover if we continue do the same things over and over, hoping for a different outcome.

Currently, I believe, the Department sees most of these issues as social and they are spending to much playing with fluff & stuff and not actually managing the resource. We are to willing to play the game and fight for 'our particular interest'; yet, we are not looking at the big picture. We are all going through the motions but nothing will change until we start asking the right questions. I believe we need to ask: Why we are making these proposed changes; What are the desired outcomes from these changes; How will we measure the success or failure of these changes to produce the desired out come; How are these proposed changes going to stop the long term trend of declining mule deer populations in Wyoming?
 
THE WOLFHUNTER IS RIGHT !!!! SIMPLE BASIC COMMON SENSE APPROACH IS ALL THATS NEEDED HERE.

THE LAST THING WE NEED IS ANOTHER 5 YEAR STUDY.

WE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF A DEER HERD TO WAIT THAT LONG.

CUT SOME TAGS

STOP THE HARVEST OF THE ANTLERLESS FOR 5 YEARS

STOP THE HARVEST OF THE YEARLING BUCK FOR 5 YEARS

STOP HUNTING MULE DEER AFTER HALLOWEEN FOR 5 YEARS

MANDATORY HARVEST REPORT / CHECKIN STATIONS

START AN AGGRESSIVE DOG AND CAT REMOVAL PROGRAM.

THE PREDATOR ISSUE IS A BIGGER PLAY THAN ALOT OF FOLKS REALIZE

THIS PLAN IS FOR IDAHO BUT IT WILL WORK ANYWHERE

PREY FOR 10 MILD WINTERS IN A ROW AND START WORKING ON HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS AND ROAD KILL ISSUES WHEN YOU HAVE THE MONEY

I HAVE FRIENDS THAT CAN KILL 10 COYOTES IN A DAY AND RETURN TO THE SAME AREA THE NEXT DAY AND WHACK THE SAME AMOUNT. GIVE THE AREA A WEEK AND THEN DO IT AGAIN. OVER AND OVER.....
 
That is too cool wolfhunter!

Toss some of them harvest photo's up for us will ya!

Those coyote harvests/winter pelts ~~ pretty much cover your cost to hunt them---that is great!

I only got 2 'yotes this winter---- $70 for the pelts....even though I used my 7mag.

Yeh---I should-a-got the big one mounted.....I am regreting it---

Robb
 
I believe Muley204 has the right idea. An "All Above" stragey is the best way to go if your serious about helping the herds, apply common sence tactics. I believe to that its partly due to a cylce. Everything cyles in time. Saving more deer now will help in the long run for a better rebound, even if a hard winter hits.
 
My bad--$70 for BOTH pelts...thought that was what I typed...

I just am not very good at mouth calling and I just can not justify spending $400-+ on those automated/remote calling machines....they are very sweet though.

Plus the 7mag. really blows them up!

Have a good wknd wolfhunter.

Robb
 
I also do not know if LQ is the answer. I am concerned with amount of pressure these low deer numbers are being subjected to. How man times can a doe and fawn be bumped before they are stressed or leave quality habitat? Is the BLM answering to anyone? The majority of winter range is in their hands. Do we have a good handle on predator numbers? Does th WGF even know what the lion population is in he wyoming range? What about elk numbers? In more than one area, including 102, I have seen high elk numbers impact forage and habitat. Contrary to popular belief elk don't eat just grass. The WGF is trying to get a handle on elk numbers but we have a problem with killing elk in the southern wy range. Could elk hunting during the rut and while deer are on winter range be having an impact? Just some question I do not profess to have answers for but I think should be considered in a solution.
 
The Game and Fish is managing the resource by political and budgetary influences. The studies the graphs and charts they use only justify their salary. If they were truly managing for the betterment of the herds, we would be managing completely differently especially for declining mule deer herds. Would it not be better to be talking about how the buck numbers were so good we should be raising tag numbers.... Instead we insist on being behind the curve. Wyoming game and fish needs to get ahold of their management. Limited quota gives them the tools to do their job. If it's budget driven maybe we resident hunters should be paying more for a tag. Maybe the tag price should be comparable to a tank of fuel.... Hunters don't blink an eye at spending THOUSANDS of $$$$$ for technology to hunt better!!


Also is not time hunters should respect the opportunity that is given to us and not feel we are entitled. Maybe we should gladly sacrifice some hunting opportunities for the betterment of our herd. If you need to go hunting go kill some coyotes and wolves. Fill the freezer with a cow elk!


Plus think about this; the more technology we accept as normal (1000 yard hunters, radio's, GPS's, an on and on.... the more restricted the tags need to be. Or we will simply hunt ourselves out of game. Maybe it's time to make the hunter hunt a little harder....
 
Here's a thought that just came to me. We all want to be able to hunt every year. Maybe if we do what I'm thinking, it would still be possible. How about if we were only able to hunt with a rifle, every other year, or every two years. The off years we could still hunt, but would need to use more primitive type weapons. I know, that would require longer seasons etc. but it's something to think about.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-12 AT 06:24PM (MST)[p]All this talk about artifically raising deer numbers is somewhat of a joke, mother nature has the final say, because most things are simply beyond human control, it hurts I know but thats how it is. We don't need more surveys,we need to start managing people and taking care of what deer herds are there now, not fantasizing about creating robust deer herds. Limited quota is the only real solution for managing hunt pressure, the rest of the puzzle is not totally within our ability to manipuliate . Do what we can to help overall numbers, but taking care of what we have is very important also.
 
I got the impression that at least at the regional level, they (WY G&FD) do not believe mule deer are in trouble. It is hard to fix something when people do not believe it is broken.
 
They acknowledge a problem in the Western portion, but when fixing something costs money and isn't as lucrative as turning a blind eye to it, the norm will be to sit idle and address everything but the actual problem.
 
Smokestick,

If the game and fish admits there is a problem then they have to do something to fix it. All we need is the wyoming resident to agree on limiting the hunting pressure, resident and nonresident combined and it will happen. Then like piper states we can manage or take care of the mule deer we have left...

In my humble opinion trying to convince the local game and fish to make the right choice is a waste energy. What we need is some miracle to get the residents to agree it's time to work together and go to the top decision makers of wyoming. Problem is nobody can agree...
 
The biologists say the age structure of the bucks is just fine in region G and H, the overall deer numbers are just low? could be, but in my opinion the hunt is not exactly a stellar experience for most of us in that area, at least compared to the past.
The bottom line is it seems to basicly be business as usual as far as management goes, in SW wyoming anyway.
 
Piper I agree with you on that, at least in SW Wyoming. I believe WY SFW is going to do something about this just don't want to get ahead of my Board on it.
 
As several have said, this is a complicated issue. But most are right. Managing mule deer as well as antelope are managed in Wyoming would reap dividends for both deer and hunters.

To answer the original question, the G&F is taking this pretty seriously. I went to the season setting meetings and the region D situation is a prototype for what may come elsewhere. Short seasons and limited quotas are coming to D. But as always, the "devil is in the details." IMO, the "limited quotas" in 101 and 102 are pretty much a joke. Those quotas need to be set at about 30% (or less) of what they presently are for a few years. I lease a couple of ranches that have as many deer as 101 and we shoot 5-7 deer per year there.

We need those mature bucks to breed the does. There's data and sound science out there that documents the benefits of mature bucks very well.

But we also need to manage predators. Lions and coyotes and even eagles are hard on ungulates. We can't do anyting about eagles, but we can and should hammer lions and coyotes. Kudos to the G&F for addressing this issue in region D.

Elk are also an issue. The term I use is "spatial displacement." When there are too many elk around, the deer seem to move away from the elk and generally that means the deer are in second-class habitat. Poorer nutrition, poorer cover, higher predation, lower survival and lower populations.

I went for a long walk on a big ranch I lease on Saturday. Saw fewer deer than ever in that area, but it might be because the grass is already green and we're having a record warm/dry/mild March/April. But I did see more elk than ever there through the winter and last Saturday. We'll try to get rid of those elk this fall, especially the cows.

This will throw Buzz into a tizzy, but we all watched the Colorado Division of Wildlife almost shut down the Gunnison Basin after the tough winter a few years ago. The deer there are very slowly recovering. We might need drastic measures like that in Wyoming to get things to recover. This did not happen overnight and it may take time to get the situation rectified.

On the ranches I lease for deer hunting, we never shoot a mule deer doe. And we try to shoot about 10% of the bucks. And things don't change much, at least in the 20 years I've been amnaging things. We have good age structure, decent fawn survaval and no more deer than ever. That's darned conservative management and maybe Wyoming is really just being too hard on a fragile resource. I just can't support all of the general seasons we have. But I do agree with the need for better reporting and data on mule deer.

I looked at some of the best habitat I've seen in Wyoming this last week. Lots of mahogany, bitterbrush and a diversity of sagebrush. Some of the bitterbrush gets used hard, but the remainder of the species have excellent leader growth and are in good shape. It could easily carry more deer, especially if we could get more antelope and elk harvested.

As a side note, I am personally cutting down almost every pine tree off of over 50 acres on my wife's family ranch in the Black Hills north of Newcastle. The ponderosa pines are encroaching into some of the best and only mahogany in that area. I'm cutting down thousands of trees per acre to "open up the canopy" and stimulate the mahogany. If everybody would take on even 10 acres per person per year and improve the habitat, we'd see more critters in the long run. It hellacious hard work, but it will help mule deer.

Do what you can personally, then try to be an advocate for the mule deer. That's my philosophy. While we may not all agree on the specifics, if we just do those things, we can make progress. I think everyone is trying and we are making progress, but it comes slowly. Keep the faith.
 
When SFW was founded there were 50,000 mule deer in the Wyoming Range. Twenty years later we are struggling to maintain 30,000. Please Mr. Smokestick remind us all what SFW has done for mule deer.
 
appaloosa:

WY SFW was started in November of 2002 but didn't really get going until February 2003. WY SFW has not been able to do a lot specifically for mule deer but I hope to change that soon.

What might be a better question is what does everyone want to do for mule deer now?

I know that SFW is about getting results! A problem cannot be fixed if no one honestly believes the problem exists.

I have put forward my suggestion. What is your suggestion(s) appaloosa? After all, That was the purpose of this thread.
 
I doubt its changed significantly.

Mule deer dont rely heavily on crop fields or alfalfa fields.
 
The crop patterns have not changed much in most areas in Wyoming in the past 30 years. But Buzz needs to get around a little more. In the eastern plains of Wyoming, alfalfa, wheat and even corn are major parts of mule deer diets. Just counted yesterday coming to work and there were 50-60 deer, all eating in the alfalfa fields on the way to work.

I can drive about 10 miles from home and see 150-250 deer feeding in wheat during the winter. In the 80's and 90's, there were more like 300-500 deer visible in those same fields, but there are fewer deer in those areas now. Those deer typically pull into draws and breaks to feed mostly on mahogany during the summer months.

The deer in many Wyoming areas feed heavily on winter wheat during the October to April time frame.

The biggest change in the last 30 years was the CRP coming in during the mid 80's. That newly seeded grass and alfalfa created a short-term boom in the mule deer in thse areas. But as the stands became decadent and the afalfa died out, deer numbers went back down. CRP is coming out a bit more now and it has not been much of a factor for 15-20 years.

Another excpetion is Northeast Wyoming. Crop acres planted to wheat and other small grains have gone down in the last 30 years. There's more ground getting hayed instead of planted to grain. Not sure it has had a major impact on mule deer, though.
 
I've also seen a lot of mulies right in with the whitetails in the winter wheat and alfalfa fiesld in Region M where I hunt every year. The antelope also seem to really be going to them more and more too.
 
I was wondering on crops bc where I visit in WY I don't see much, but where we hunt in CO the number has been declining. Seems every patch of WW or potato "garden" is slap full of deer.
 
ICMDEER SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE ON TARGET AND THE REST OF YOU FOLKS AS WELL. LOT'S OF GOOD INFO AND IDEAS.

QUESTION... WHAT IS THE NEGATIVE IF WYOMING WENT TO THE DRAW FOR ALL UNITS JUST LIKE COLORADO ?

HERE IN IDAHO THERE ARE FOLKS THAT BELIEVE THE SWITCH FROM WINTER WHEAT TO CRP HAS DAMAGED THE DEER HERD HERE IN IDAHO.

IS GROWING WINTER WHEAT NOT A FORM OF HABITAT IMPROVEMENT?

COMMON SENSE TELLS ME IT'S ANOTHER SIMPLE SOLUTION TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

LET'S SCRAP THE CRP PLAN ......AND PLANT SOME WHEAT.

NO MORE 5 YEAR STUDIES !!!

YOU GUYS HAVE POSTED EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, AND IT WILL WORK. IMPLEMENT THE PLAN WITH THE 10 OR 15 ROCK SOLID SOLUTIONS AND THIS HERD WILL COME BACK QUICK, 5 TO 10 YEARS YOU WILL SEE A DRAMATIC TURNAROUND.

ALSO WE NEED TO HAVE MOTHER NATURE GIVE US A FEW MILD WINTERS.

2 CENTS
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-12 AT 07:18PM (MST)[p]The negative of going to a limited quota system would be the fact that residents couldn't hunt anywhere they want to every year, and if the buck quotas were restrictive enough and mature buck ratios were high enough there could be a decline in deer fawn production, as has been seen in Colorado since going to a statewide limited quota system.
The positives could be in the hunt quality and length, in trophy quality, in hunter satisfaction, in the recrutment of young hunters, and the retainment of older hunters.
In S.W, Wyoming changes in harvested crops have little to do with the deer herds, oil and gas production and the increased traffic and human population are the most recent noteworthy changes that have impacted the deer.
 
Hopefully the Wyoming resident will soon see the negatives of limited quota are worth the positives. All a wyoming mule deer hunter has to do is look at Idaho to see what is coming, that is if, all that is done is shorten the season and cut the non resident tag numbers. You can go hunting in Idaho every year but the herd numbers and buck quality sucks....

Wyoming has the least amount of population with the some of the best resource. If managed a little better, it would be the be the best of the best. Do the math, hunters would not be waiting to draw like AZ, NV, and Utah... We simply could have our cake and eat it too with some sacrifice...Seems simple!!!!!
 
I guess they have an effect but in a lot of this area the elk are fed in the winter, the summer range is huge, its the winter range thats so limited and as I mentioned most of the elk are on the elk feedgrounds in the winter.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-12 AT 09:56PM (MST)[p]Wolf hunter said, "Do the math, hunters would not be waiting to draw like AZ, NV, and Utah... We simply could have our cake and eat it too with some sacrifice...Seems simple!!!!!

No its not...you really should start doing some math. To get started, look at the total number of deer hunters that hunt Wyoming each year.

Figure out how many total deer units you have in the state...look at the LQ numbers in the existing LQ units. Take that average multiply by the total number of deer units. Now divide that number by the total number of deer hunters (both R and NR) that Wyoming has.

Something tells me a bunch of hunters are going to be eating $hit sandwiches each year...far from cake.

In particular when you're dealing with this type of mentality regarding the deer quotas in the severly restricted LQ areas we already have in place:

ICMdeer said, "IMO, the "limited quotas" in 101 and 102 are pretty much a joke. Those quotas need to be set at about 30% (or less) of what they presently are for a few years. I lease a couple of ranches that have as many deer as 101 and we shoot 5-7 deer per year there."

It would seem that even though LQ has been implemented in some areas, it still isnt "good" enough for those whining the loudest. According to ICMDEER, we should be only issuing about 15 total tags in 101, even better to only give 5-7 per year. The same mentality applied to 102 would result in around 70 total deer tags for that unit.

These are the problems with statewide LQ and why I'm really hesitant to rally behind that kind of move:

1. There is NO question that opportunity for all is going to decrease sharply. No question, and that includes youth hunters.

2. Going LQ does nothing...zero...zip to increase the total deer population.

3. The drive behind it has nothing to do with deer health, increasing herds, improving hunter retention, or getting youth more interestd in hunting...and has EVERYTHING to do with increasing trophy potential of whats left.

4. Once WY is statewide LQ, people like ICM deer will not be happy until you can whack a 180 buck off the road during a hunt. Just look at his above example. I mean really? Issue 15 tags in 101 and 70 in 102??? For some, enough is never really enough...if only obviously.

5. There will be many hunters not hunting mule deer in Wyoming each year...just a fact if we go statewide LQ. I think many are trying to compare CO to WY. I dont ever see the day that each LQ unit in WY has an archery season, muzzleloader season, and 3-4 rifle seasons like is common in Colorado. In particular when the 3rd and 4th seasons in Colorado catch part or most of the rut.

6. Right on the heels of statewide LQ deer units will be a "new" Resident point system to make sure that the tags are distributed fairly.

Its literally opening pandoras box...and once the genie has left the bottle there is no going back.

I would really encourage people to seriously think about the ramifications of what statewide LQ would do. I dont find enough positives based on what I see with Wyomings LQ areas now to justify pushing the entire state that way.

Be careful what you wish for...
 
Can't ever see the entire state going LQ and I would oppose it if they did. The drop in revenue would be huge. The G&F needs money to deal with wolves, bears and everything else. Unless the legislature decided to fund the G&F, their only option to make up revenue would be to jack resident and non resident license fees through the roof. Residents would never stand for it. Especially when most resident hunters aren't trophy hunters. Hunting mule deer does should be eliminated except in limited cases. I think we should also be pushing the legislature to change the law allowing 20% of deer tags to go to non residents and give the G&F the ability to determine non resident tag quotas for every area. Come on SFW with all yer claimed political clout, step up to the plate. Then I'd raise resident fees enough to cover the difference. I'd also put a tax on outfitted/guided hunts since those folks can afford to pay(no I didn't vote for Obongo) and have the money used strictly for habit improvement and acquisition. Hell, why we're at it, let's create a state lottery with a quarter of the revenue going to the same. Think our republican ranchislators would go for any of it, not likely...
 
A couple honest questions.

1- Before this last winterkill, were there not a growing number of mature bucks in SW WY? We saw a substantial increase of heavy horned mature bucks from about 2006-2010 on the south end of G. Then the winter of 10-11 hit and wahla, a huge decrease in bucks.

2- Can we save-up mule deer to use them at a future date? Someone previous mentioned the Gunnison Basin. They carried too many bucks, got hammered by a winter and their whole herd crashed. Now they are seeing slowwww recovery, not enough doe to produce fawns. Can't see how carrying a larger number of bucks helps if they die in a harsh winter, which seems to occur every 3-6 years.

3- If we are having frequent winter kill, does that not show us the problem is forage and the attempt to carry more bucks will not help the forage situation?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-12 AT 09:13AM (MST)[p]sorry buzz but some of your opinions don't hold water, Hunt satisfaction would go up, as it did in Colorado, and with satisfaction comes retention and recrutment.
Your right it wont help overall numbers, and there will be opportunity especially in areas where deer are abundant(Whitetail areas ect) The youth hunters in highly restricted Nevada are better off than in Wyoming because they can hunt every year and have a quality experience, as opposed to Wyoming where most have a short season and a crowded crappy experience and quit.

This is the Monster Muley web site and your right about many of us wanting to increase the percentage of trophy bucks, Im not afraid to admit it, and I also believe its time that hunters start changing their attitudes a little about mule deer, and start moving to the more abundant and prolific elk when it comes to meat hunts, its not 1960 anymore, their not the same deer herds your grandpa hunted.
You clearly don't get the fact that Wyomings limited amount of limited hunt areas are so hard to draw because they are so few, and as I stated before any resident who hunts deer in Colorado can do so every year, and since Wyoming has one tenth the amount of residents Colorado does?, well you figure it out.
It would be a nice dream for me if Wyoming managed deer like Nevada or Colorado, I could get excited once again about hunting.
Uncrowded conditions, maybe a longer season, maybe using a primitive weapon or a hunting a new area, seeing quality deer, sorry just a dream, instead its the same old story with me, debating whether or not to buy a tag and even go deer hunting.
 
Buzz you made me chuckle. You don't know much about me and yet you always spout off things like I won't be happy until I can shoot a 180 buck from the road. I don't know many folks that spend more time looking at and for big bucks and hiking, spotting and just getting out and looking at deer in gerneral than I do. Yet you have to castigate me. Not sure what motivates you to such negative behavior. I guess it's the safety of the internet. But in all honesty, it's too bad you do that sort of thing. I feel like you have things to add, but when you behave that way, you lose credibility.

I'm not sure 101 and 102 need to stay at those low harvest levels indefinitely, but from all I saw, the deer were way overharvested. Like you say, data would help.

Please try to be constructive and positive. Please state your case without attacking others; most of the world will respect you more.
 
Piper,

How satisfied do you think deer hunters are with a hunt they cant participate in?

Just curious.

I really struggle with this issue...seriously struggle with it.

Theres a selfish part of me that wants to say the hell with it and push the LQ idea. I've killed a lot of mule deer and a lot of nice bucks with general tags, and I still can.

What I would be asking all the youth hunters, those hunters new to the sport, etc. to do is to give up exactly what I have done and enjoyed.

Despite what you think, there wont be enough tags to go around, in particular in the top LQ units...its just a fact.

If the easy to draw units in CO, NV, etc. are so great...why dont you hunt them every year? Better yet, post up some pics of all the mature deer you've killed in them. I'd like to see the quality of the deer you're killing in the areas it takes 0-1 points to draw.

Its great you admit that you're pushing LQ and support this idea based on selfish reasons of just wanting more trophy bucks. I'd have the same reasons for them, and like I said, at this point...I should push it as well for the same selfish reasons.

Its just not really easy for me to throw the next generation of deer hunters under the bus because I need yet another trophy buck for the wall. WTF gives you or me the right to tell them that even though I got to enjoy general tags...you shouldnt?

I also couldnt agree more with you about the attitude changes regarding filling the freezer with elk and leaving the mule deer alone...spot on there.

I am never going to be in support of increasing the number of LQ areas in Wyoming without decent base-line data...and without a management plan in place that significantly increases the mule deer population.

Its flat ridiculous to be catering to trophy hunters, who are a minority of deer hunters, by simply managing whats left.
 
Buzz- the reason I don't hunt Colorado or Nevada every year is because im a nonresident in those states so its harder to draw, and even residents don't usually hunt Nevada every year unless they are willing to go archery. In Nevada they give the 12 to 17 year olds a special quota and allow them to hunt all three weapon types, from August to mid Oct in most areas, and thats nice for kids as they have school and usually have a limited time to hunt.
I look at opportunity as something that isn't just being able to hunt every year, and when the prime aged hunters with lots of time and top of the line equipment are the only ones that have a reasonable chance at a dreamed about trophy, I think its time for a change.
 
Good management doesn't always mean doing things that everyone will like; in most cases it's comes down to forcing ppl not to pull the trigger by not handing them a tag. For our properties here, killing something doesn't make or break a season, there's more satisfaction that comes from knowing the deer are progressing in quality and quantity.....that means shelling out money to improve their situation without expecting anything from it; managing isn't cheap and hunting isn't cheap. Because of those factors, when getting kids into hunting ppl have to figure out it's okay to hunt through their kids until they can afford it on their own.
 
Buzz,

Keep up the the insults...I can handle them. It just paints a clearer picture of who you are!

Your wrong that only a few hunters want better trophy quality, at least in our country of G & H. You don't (DO NOT) hike to the top of a 10,000 ft mountain peak to shoot the first fork horn to present a shot. Here, in western Wyoming, 90 percent of hunters are trophy hunting!! We have to much pressure put on theses mule deer bucks to continue status quo, to deny that is only being greedy or ignorant. I see how you Buzz would not want to limit your personal hunting. It takes you three states and 5 elk per year to attempt to prove your manhood to yourself.

If we put you in charge of western Wyoming YOU would close the feed grounds to run us out of bloated elk, continue to pound the deer and have a wolf in every drainage. Wow that would be progress!! I thought you were suppose to be the "educated" one....
 
Piper brings valid points,BUZZ-whether you agree or not is just an opinion.You have many opinions as well..many of which are purely speculation.ICM stated his opinion on how many tags should be doled out for 101 and 102.Trust me on this one-G&F has a much different opinion on that.If all of western Wyoming went limited quota,I can pretty much guarantee you G&F will give out more tags than each unit warrants.Of course,that is just MY opinion.Don't talk about selfishness.You have made it pretty clear how much game takes up your freezer space.I guess "selfish" can mean different things to different people.I kill 2-3 bucks during a decade.How much wild game do you kill in a year?It's all subjective and relative.If we can justify it in our own minds and can sleep at night,then it's okay...right?Habitat projects can take years-even decades to make a difference.You know that as well as anyone-probably better.I'm all in favor of habitat improvements-but shouldn't we take measures in the meantime,while we're waiting?I've been around long enough to see what happened to Utah's hunting,and what is happening in Idaho now...I don't want to be in that situation here.I also think that many more people agree with me now than did 5 years ago.Just my opinion.....
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-12 AT 02:57PM (MST)[p]wolfhunter,

What insult is that? Please point out where I insulted you.

I didnt say only a few hunters want better trophy quality, I said those that do are in the minority...which is a fact. Most want to hunt deer every year and most are willing to sacrifice trophy potential to do so.

Also, I have the resources, time, and knowledge to apply for and hunt 3-7 states a year, I'm hunting each year and doing a lot of it. It doesnt matter to me personally if Wyoming goes LQ...could care less from an individual standpoint. Like I already stated, the selfish side of me wants it. However, I'm not just concerned about MY hunting opportunities...I typically hunt 50+ days a year and cant remember the last time I only had a tag for one state. But, that doesnt mean I have forgotten where I came from...a family of strong hunting heritage that hunted ONE state, with OTC general tags, where trophy potential, antlers, hunting mags, and B&C scores meant jack $hit to all of us.

I'm more concerned about the people that dont have the best jobs, time, or resources that only get to participate in the one state they are residents of. You know, the vast majority of Residents who rarely, if ever, apply for any tags other than the state they live in. Pretty nice of you to tell them the state they live in needs to go LQ to satsify the needs of trophy hunters, and that they should "just be happy about deer hunting once every 3-10 years."

Great answer, thank you for your consideration of others...their traditions, their families, and their hunting heritage.

The systematic denial of not giving one single $hit about the average DIY resident hunter is staggering...its all about trophy quality over every thing else.

Yet, I'm labeled the selfish one!

laffin'...
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-12 AT 03:07PM (MST)[p]Wolfhunter,

I'd like to see one single set of data to support this "fact" of yours... Here, in western Wyoming, 90 percent of hunters are trophy hunting!!

The harvest statistics say other-wise...unless your idea of "trophy" hunting is killing 1.5-3.5 year old buck.

Laffin'...again.
 
Thanks nontypical - Cliff. good comments. You've been around long enough to earn your stripes. Through the years, I have learned to value your comments as much or more than anyone's with respect to Western Wyoming. Your actions and track record have long ago proven you care. Keep up the good work.

As I've said many times, we will never all agree. I have always made the comparison between antelope and deer in Wyoming,and I've done that for over 25 years. I truly beleive that if the G&F managed mule deer like they do antelope, we would have a better, stronger mule deer resource and a better quality hunting experience. I just can't see how if it is good for antleope, it can't also be good for deer.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-12 AT 06:04PM (MST)[p]Buzz,

The magical question that always comes into play...where is the data?? There is no data to support common sense knowledge that hunters look for the big trophy for a few days, get discouraged and drop the hammer on a 2.5 year old buck. You don't get that from a check station and a tail gate discussion. With no mandatory harvest reports with real questions, it simply is not possible. That does not change the reality that 90 percent of G and H hunters are trophy hunting first. Have you ever hunted western Wyoming Buzz?? Maybe you should ride or hike to the top of Rams horn peak next Sept 15th and get an eye opening experience of toooo many hunters not enough deer. Maybe ask the bazillion hunters with 1000 yard guns and technology out the a$$ how many of them are meat hunters...before you question my knowledge of my back yard. That mountain needs it's own zip code on sept 15th. That is not the only mountain with to many hunters either! Black Mountain in Idaho use to be just like the Rams horn peak 15 years ago. Idaho hunters felt the same way you do about limited quota and opportunity... Now your lucky to see 3 bucks all day!

Let's talk about throwing our next generation under the bus... "If we continue down the path that western Wyoming mule deer are on", we will have thrown the next generation of hunters, the herd and our future under the bus... backed up and ran them over again!
 
Yep, I've hunted Western Wyoming for deer/bears with a good NR friend of mine.

The first few hours we hunted there, I glassed up a half dozen bucks, one of which my buddy and I thought would go 180.

The next day, we hunted another area and saw some more deer, moose, a bunch of black bears, and even found some wolverine tracks in the light dusting of snow.

Later in the day, my buddy asked me if I wanted to go shoot the buck we thought would go 180 that we'd found the evening prior...I elected to pass.

My buddy, however, decided the buck was worthy of his tag and connected that same evening. Turned out being north of 190 gross.

2005WyomingDeer4.jpg


I continued to hunt and saw several more good bucks, a bunch of bears, moose, and elk but elected to pass on them as well.

I've since hunted that area a few more times and have yet to see another deer hunter...or a hunter of any kind.

I'd bet a sack of money I could hunt that again and would be unlikely to see another hunter.

Oh, later that same year, my wife and I found this buck on opening day in another general unit that started October 1st. A few days later, I glassed him up again and let another good friend take this one. The second buck over 190 gross in a 2-week span I got selfish on...

IMG_0583_4_1_1.JPG


In a strange set of circumstances, and some poor judgement on my part, I ended up with buck...

IMG_0606_3_1.JPG
 
Buzz,
I will bet you that big sack of money if we continue on the current path with our mule deer herd, your little honey hole will not hold up either...
 
You were bettin' in your last post I'd never hunted Western Wyoming...

Hope you never go to Vegas.
 
I really feel like Idaho has thrown the deer under the bus and wyoming is sadly in front of the same bus.

I have friends in Colorado that where against the draw when it was introduced but in just a short time saw the huge turnaround in overall quanity of deer and quality of bucks. THE POPULATION INCREASED AND THE AGE OF THE BUCKS INCREASED. The fears they had of not being able to draw a tag every year where set aside as well. THEY HUNT BUCKS EVERY YEAR !!! The biggest positive they found was that the units that where poor in the past are better because of the plan put in to place. The units that where good are great.

I have friends that hunt DIY as NR in Colorado as well and they draw every year in a 0 point unit and out of the 3 of them over the last 15 years have darn near went 100% on 4 point bucks rangeing from 150 to 170 with 3 or 4 that went near 180 not bad in my book for a 0 point unit. I am not sure what everyone considers trophy hunting but here in Idaho at the point where we are--- 150 to 170 every year looks great --This would be huge for Wyoming and Idaho....2 seven day seasons with a 5 or 10 day break in the middle. This plan would probably fit everyone into the hunt. When the herd is low the tags will be low and when the herd is up the tags will be up....IT'S A SIMPLE FIX....

ICMDEER - I feel your idea of using the antelope plan in Wyoming on the deer , will work just as well.

BUZZ - This idea that no one will ever get to draw a tag or you won't get to hunt every year is a false.

I would bet that there will be leftover tags every year in some units. You may not get to hunt your 1st choice every year but you will be able to hunt and most likely harvest.

The deer have been hurt by the winters here in the west. 2 out of the last 5 years have been bad. The only state that cut tags way back was Colorado. You watch if we get some mild winters here in the next 5 years Colorado's herd will be strong again and Idaho and Wyoming will still be weak.

NOW IS THE TIME TO REBUILD OUR BIG GAME HERDS.

2 cents
 
Lots of "bettin'" and "I thinks" going on.

Its not surprising everyone in Colorado gets to hunt deer, like I already stated, and you must of failed to read...with an archery season, muzzleloader season, and 2-4 rifle seasons in most every unit in Colorado...of course you'll draw a tag somewhere.

Fact is though, we've got ICMDEER recommending 5-7 tags for unit 101, MAYBE 70 tags for 102. No mention of 4-6 seperate seasons with hundreds of tags per...like is common in CO.

Name me a unit in Wyoming currently that has seperate tags for archery, muzzleloader, and 2-4 rifle seasons...to the tune of several hundred total tags.

You're pissing up a long rope if you think WY can structure its seasons like Colorado and assure everyone a tag.

I've been involved in the Platte Valley plan...and I dont see anything suggesting seperate tags for an archery season, seperate tags/season for muzzleloader, or 2-4 seperate rifle hunts.

What I do see is a crowding/over-harvesting issue to the general areas that are closest to the Platte. Where, predictably as the sun rises each day, those areas will be pushed to LQ.

I've also yet had an honest answer, by anyone on this thread, how just going LQ will increase doe/fawn ratios, or significantly increase the over-all deer population. Going LQ is not doing one single thing to address why mule deer are still continuing to decline in nearly all of the West, both LQ and General units.

The decline isnt happening because we have too few LQ units...and thusly, increasing LQ areas isnt going to increase the total deer population.

All I keep hearing is that going LQ will increase the number of older bucks/trophy potential. Geezus H. Christ on a crutch...who'd a thunk that?

My question is still how is increasing LQ areas, increasing over-all deer numbers?

We arent addressing the problems of low deer production, poor doe health, poor survivability of fawns, etc....only throwing a fuggin' band-aid on whats left and keeping the dream of a trophy buck alive in the heads of the blue-hairs.

Just the way it is.

You increase your deer herd significantly...the concerns of trophy potential solves itself.
 
You obviously have not spent much time hunting in western Wyoming if you hunted and never saw another hunter. But I guess in your mind your now an expert!!!

So what your saying is as long as you can come in and plow another animal and punch a tag your fine with western Wyoming mule deer being on a downward spiral.... How about SE Idaho?? Have any D!CK measuring pictures on SE Idaho turf. Are you proud of their opportunity programs...
 
Buzz,

So what your saying is that in Colorado in 1999 when the state went to all limited quota in each and every unit it didn't affect the deer herd? It seems like by 2003 everyone was clammering to hunt mule deer in Colorado, must have been a fluke. I am guessing the limited entry has nothing to do with it. If you are a great white hunter you can put a big one on the ground anywhere no matter if it is the only mature deer in the unit.

Wyoming kills too many deer for the holding capacity of the area at this point. I bet myself that sooner or later you would post some pictures of your deer on here. You take shots at ICMDEER who is actually a fine gentleman and avid mule deer hunter. He is very concerned as a lot of folks on this website about the future of mule deer. When you throw down your personal attacks you loose credibility.

Rich
 
lostinoregon,

What I'm sayin'...is Wyomings problems arent Colorados problems.

To continue with some linear thought, what fixes/fixed Colorados deer herd, probably wont fix Wyomings woes.

Go ahead continuing to believe that limited quota buck hunting will significantly increase WY's deer production.

I seem to recall...about the time CO went all LQ, they also drastically reduced doe harvest. Or was it just my imagination? I doubt having more does around was resposible for an increase in deer number...naaaa.

Despite Wyoming not allowing hardly any doe mule deer hunting in most areas of the state being discussed here...we still cant seem to improve/grow deer herds. Explain again, in detail...how limiting buck harvest in these areas will grow the deer herds, increase fawn survivability, improve deer habitat, increase the health of does, etc.

I'm all ears...

Also explain how implementing management that will do all the things I mention NOT expand the deer herd.

Again...all ears.

For the last time...what WY has been doing...and still continues to do...is throw money at, and implement management "fixing" $hit that aint broke, with data they dont have.

Ever heard of starting at the start? Well, Wyoming hasnt either.
 
Buzz,

I don't post on here a lot, but I do read a lot of the threads and have read a lot of your comments over the last couple of years. I would say that you are clearly a guy with a lot of knowledge and passion for hunting and judging by the amount of posts you place on this site, you really care about convincing people that your way of thinking is the correct way of thinking.

Just a little advice that you may want to heed, but only if your goal is to influence people in the direction that you feel is better for future generations, as you say it is. Ripping on people with your little smart ass comments and other rhetoric your throw around is doing absolutely nothing to help people open up to and consider your beliefs. Further, when you debate on here, it is not usually very honest. What I mean by that is you often create false straw men from someone's comments or slightly, but intentionally, twist them out of context. I think when people see these things, especially time and time again, they are going to lose respect for you and your position. You may think you are winning the argument, but you are actually losing the battle if your true goal is to influence people in your direction.

I realize this is just an internet forum, and people can say whatever they want. I get it. I really do. However, I have read enough of your posts to know that you are genuinely trying to influence people that your beliefs are correct. If that is indeed the case, you may want to consider what I just explained.
 
BuzzH, you are absolutely correct, simply going limited entry statewide will NOT automatically increase deer populations. On the other hand...........

Research on multiple species going back many years makes it crystal clear that one of the most important factors in building/maintaining a big game population is getting the breeding females pregnant during the first estrus cycle. Multiple research projects on several species, but not mule deer to my knowledge, have found that the females control both the timing and individual male they breed with. For the most part, females will not breed with young males, 1.5 to 2.5 years of age, during the first estrus cycle. Is this also true for Mule Deer? I believe it is.

Multiple research projects have also found that predation on fawns/calves that are born late, or born small, is much higher than on early birth large newborns. Other research projects have found that in some cases, late fawns/calves are not capable of being bred at 1.5 years of age.

So what does all of that mean? One of the key things we should be measuring is this: Do we have enough mature bucks, typically considered to be 4.5 years of age and older, to impregnate the vast majority of breeding does during the first estrus cycle? If not, given all of the other factors impacting mule deer, populations will decrease.

In my opinion, it takes a mature buck ratio/doe ratio somewhere around 15/100 to accomplish the job. It really does not matter how you get there: Limited entry, shorter seasons, less motorized access which increases escapement, total closures, etc.

The Colorado experience is illustrative of the problem. Colorado not only cut the number of buck tags by more than half in 1999, they also cut the number of days bucks were hunted. The result, between 1999 and 2006, the deer population increased from 475,000 to 610,000. Statewide buck ratio in either 2006 or 2007, can't remember which, was 39 bucks/100 does. How did Colorado react to this success story? Added tags, added seasons, added weapons, added unit wide landowner tags, and started to shoot the hell out of the upper end bucks across the state.

Then comes the terrible winter of 2007, large losses of deer in much of western colorado, and Colorado does cut tags. What don't they do? They don't eliminate the 4th season rut hunts, or cut back on the number of seasons, or cut back on landowner tags. The result, by 2012 counts, the deer population is lower than it was in 1999.

In Oregon, there is a long history of closing or reducing harvest, and seeing substantial increases in populations. Perhaps the most interesting I have found occurred in 1929 in the Murderers Creek unit. Due to low deer numbers, the Murderers Creek drainage was closed to all hunting. (there was no elk or antelope hunting in Oregon in 1929). Five years later, in 1934, the population had exploded, and they had to issue doe tags to get the population under control. There are multiple other examples of similar results, and I would guess the same thing is true in other states.

As far as I can find, Wyoming does not publish population estimates, buck/doe ratios or fawn/doe ratios anywhere on their website. If that is incorrect, I would appreciate someone providing a link.

My observation as a non-resident who has hunted Wyoming 4 of the last 6 years, and plan on hunting antelope this year and elk in 2013, is that extended seasons and staggered start dates for residents is a bigger problem than actual hunter numbers. No data to back that up, but that is my feeling. There is a fair amount of historical data that tends to show that reduced season length is more effective than LE in decreasing buck harvest, which is what you have to do if mature buck numbers are low. It has the added benefit of not reducing income to the Department.

I have put together some data sheets comparing the buck population for each mule deer unit in Oregon over time, both in real numbers and as a percentage of the Management objective over the past 10 years. If anyone would like to look at that data, shoot me a PM or email with your email address and I will be happy to send it to you, along with my comments.

This has been a great discussion, and it is obvious that many of you are greatly concerned about the future of mule deer and mule deer hunting in Wyoming. By the way, I am sitting on maximum points for deer, and don't have a clue where to use them. Any ideas would be appreciated.

Mike Morris
Scoutdog
503-317-7576
[email protected]
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-12 AT 07:26AM (MST)[p]Not sure if this will help you, but it's the closest the G&F has on their website and contains a tremendous amount of information done by the biologist for each area. This is the data for 2010, as 2011 won't be posted for quite a while. This report is done for every animal in the state. Here's the link and I think you will be impressed how thorough it is:

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000497.aspx
 
Not trying to say in a bad way just saying. I dont tell my doctor how to do his job, I trust his judgement. Mabey we all should let the biologists do there jobs with out letting politics of outside pressure influence there judgement.

IMO, if the herds are as bad as everyone is saying. Waiting around to do studies before doing anything might not be a great idea? Sounds typical of a government problem, lets study it first to death before doing anything productive about it.
1) What happens to the herd in the mean time while waiting around for studies to be completed?
2) After the studies, then what approach does one take? Have a base line for the herd, does not give whats the problem of the decline, if so how will it be seen where the problem is? Have to start somewhere, might as well start now and see through studies how those ideas have or have not worked through the herd studies?

I think alot of it is common sence to fix and if even some of the above mentioned ideas are put into place will have a postive effect.
 
Just a little perspective to throw into the discussion. LQ is not the magical cure all for mule deer populations or trophy bucks. Here in Eastern OR all rifle deer hunting is LQ. Our LQ deer hunting is so inferior to WY's general season units its laughable.

I agree with Scoutdog that standardizing Wyomings seasons would have the effect of reducing resident harvest without limiting opportunity or reducing funding. Another idea to consider is what Idaho did with their general elk seasons some years ago.
Used to be that your general ID elk tag let you hunt the whole state. ID felt that was increasing harvest so they created there pick a zone system.

Would a pick a zone system for WY resident deer not also reduce harvest, while maintaining opportunity and revenue? I am only guessing that there are a fair number of WY residents who hit western WY for the Sep 15 opener, and if unsuccessful, return home and harvest a deer there. Seems to me this would have to reduce the amount of orange on Sep 15 I hear so many complain about.

My two cents.

Banger
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-12 AT 11:22AM (MST)[p]Excavator,

First off I'm a big fan of sarcasm...use it...appreciate it. I wont apologize for my smart-assedness, as you call it.

There is a method to why I feel its valuable. It draws people out of the wood-work, keeps things active, and makes boring threads/subjects worth reading. It also brings posters back to threads where EVENTUALLY good ideas may surface.

Case in point on this very thread, as I now think, we're starting to see an understanding of the issue, exchanging ideas, getting more people involved, and starting to log.

Heres my take, with the Platte Valley Deer issue as the "example". Let me preface by saying that the issues inherent to the deer herd in the Platte may not be issues in other areas of the state. But for the sake of making a point as to how I draw conclusions, lets keep it there.

I attended a couple of the meetings, wrote comments, and gathered a bunch of information regarding the Platte from all kinds of sources.

The deer herd is declining there like everywhere else.

My comments recommended starting at the g-damn start.

In the last meeting I attended here is what I learned to be "fact", and I'm assuming them to be truths as well.

1. The Platte River deer population data for the last upteen years has been flawed. In a nutshell, population estimates have been grossly over-estimated. They've based management practices and set tag quotas on that. They NOW claim they are using a "new modeling tool" and are "pretty sure" its more accurate. Great, now we have a base-line that lets all assume is accurate, showing much lower deer populations.

2. The biologist has NO idea why deer are tanking in the Platte, other than to say, "its a lot of things". Thats a problem and a big one. We cant fix a single thing until we know whats broke. A fact that is impossible to deny.

3. The biologist had NO idea about the condition of any of the deer habitat in the Platte, summer, fall, winter, spring...none of it. Unless your idea of "knowing" is a set of a whopping 3 browse study sites in the entire Platte River Valley, which emcompasses a huge portion of South Central Wyoming. YES...I said THREE study sites, all of which are on WINTER RANGE.

4. They have just recently radio collared some doe mule deer to see whats going on with them. But, the biologist made the comment, that just a week prior to the meeting, they does they collared were in poor condition. This despite the fact we had the best water year in recent history, best plant growth, etc. Should this be a "hint" as to whats going on?

5. There is no mandatory harvest reporting...red flag? Maybe?

6. There is a recommendation to spend a bunch of money killing coyotes as well as increasing both bear and lion seasons/quotas in the Platte. I asked the biologist for population estimates for both lions and bears...got ZIP. I asked for any information he might have for fawn mortality from both bears and lions. The reply I got was, "well I dont have anything and it would cost us a lot of money to find out". Really? So lets just assume we have a coyote, bear, and lion problem and throw a bunch of money at that, even though we arent sure.

So, in response to all the data they dont have, armed with NO FUGGIN' idea what the problem is, they propose that going LQ will solve it and increase deer numbers.

To make it even better, we'll set population goals based on "we had no complaints from landowners in the 1980's and hunters seemed to be happy with the number of deer"...pulling those numbers from their own admitted "flawed" data, which IMHO, is akin to pulling them straight from their own asses.

Oh, its get better from here.

To clearly avoid all accountability on the new management "plan", they ask 122 sportsmen who attended the scoping meetings to pretty much write their course of action. Included in the street-savy biology, of the 122 in attendance, the WYG&F has let them define what a trophy buck is (any buck with antlers 24 inches wide), what management practices they want to implement (killing coyotes, eagles, bears, and lions), and also going with a LQ designation for the entire platte to increase the number of "trophy bucks". Oh, and that course of action will also be expected to increase total deer numbers.

Holy balls guys...does that sound like a great way to increase the deer herd? Is that management "plan" the best use of our limited resources?

One would think...no, I'm wrong, fuggin' HOPE, that the WYG&F would take a more active role in identifying the problems FIRST before you let the public take the wheel and blow your money.

Thats my point, you cant fix broken stuff by fixing whats not broken. Further, the WYG&F has "hired" a bunch of plumbers to fix their broken car. That way, when their current plan flops, they can blame the damn plumber.

Even with the lack of data they currently have, its pretty damned obvious that we're more likley than not, dealing with major habitat issues in all or a portion of mule deer habitat. When does are in poor condition after a summer/fall/winter we've had this year...thats a pretty decent indicator.

But, lets go shoot some bears, shoot some lions, shoot some coyotes, shoot some eagles and go LQ.

Sure winner...and will certainly cure our mule deer woes.

Lets not study some habitat, lets not figure out how many deer we're killing, lets not look at plant communities, lets not worry about conifer encroachment, seral stages of plant communities, lets not look at protein content of said forage, lets not worry about doe health, lets not worry about fawn survival.

We dont need to start at the start, we dont need to identify the real problems, we're doing "something" that the public wants.

What a crock, and a sad joke that will do nothing to improve the situation other than make a few who luck out in the draw improve their odds at "24 inch wide" mule deer.

Great plan.

Congratulations?
 
Excellent post,scoutdog5.You have done your homework!Buzz knows the root of the problem.More deer=more mature bucks.But that could take years to produce results,and it may never happen,because of never-ending development and encroachment on mulie country,especially winter range.I'll tell you this-Wyoming's deer herd will never increase without doing something.And my vote is for:ALL OF THE ABOVE.We can't afford to wait any longer to see if our dwindling deer herds are going to fix themselves.Habitat improvements,more predator control,limiting hunter numbers;maybe even feeding deer on the winter range like we presently feed elk!Banger-have you hunted Wyoming recently?Did you hunt here 20+ years ago?Not trying to start anything;just curious.Pick a zone is being discussed as we speak.Also,the idea of picking a unit when you buy your license has been tossed around.These could be possible solutions to hunter congestion before going to LQ.Our local group will be sending out a questionaire to all the email addresses in our database soon.We have around 800 names on file.It will be interesting to see how people feel about these things.You know,even only 2 yrs ago,a thread like this would have only garnered 10-12 responses.Wyoming's hunters are concerned about this resource.Someone made a comment about trusting your doctor to make the right decisions about your health and comparing that to wildlife management being left to the pros.Sounds good in theory,but have you ever heard of a doctor making a mistake that cost someone dearly?Biologists are taught from textbooks just like any student.Maybe those textbooks are outdated.Things aren't the same as they were 20 yrs ago.EVERYTHING has changed.Maybe it's time we change our deer management strategies.
 
Good post non typical.... What is your groups name? What is your groups contact info??

I agree the only BAD choice is to do nothing. Limit hunting pressure by 1/3, kill a bunch of coyotes and wolves, limit winter harassment and demand mandatory hunt reporting, we would be well on our way to finding a base line. Habitat issues are must as well.

Buzz let's you and I pick 100 acres of prime winter habitat, you define how we can improve it, I will donate all the time and money necessary to build it up. Maybe more concerned locals would be willing to take on more acres....
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-12 AT 01:08PM (MST)[p]I don't know of anywhere man has artificially created robust deer herds, I remember when nonresidents could buy two backcountry deer tags in central Idaho for 25$ each, in the early 80s the deer were all over the place, in the late 80s they were thick in SW Wyoming, same thing in Nevada, I can assure you those booms weren't manmade. I wish we would take care of whats alive now and try to have some quality in the hunts without hurting deer populations, if that means not hunting everywhere every year, then so be it, I say lets give the younger hunters something to get excited about and look forward to.
In Wyoming the biggest buck recently killed came from a governers tag holder using a high priced guide hunting, after they hunted the poor animal down like it was on the FBIs most wanted list, In Colorado a 16 year old youth killed a 300 plus point buck a few years ago, I can tell you from stories like that which state cares more about youth hunters, youth opportunity and which state has the most selfish hunters.
 
Nontypical,

No I did not hunt here 20 years ago, have been making trips to Wyoming since 2006. I guess the point I was trying to make is that for someone who lives in a very poor mule deer state, Oregon, the hunting experiences I have had in western WY recently are amazing compared to what I have in my home state. It sounds like my perspective could be much different if I had a longer history there. The deer hunting must have been flat out incredible 20 years ago if what I experienced in the last few years is considered poor hunting.

At any rate, I hope Wyoming does whatever is necessary to keep their herds healthy and productive, and the trophy production will take care of itself. What you all have compared to Oregon is night and day. I would hate to see WY get to the point we are at in the Beaver state.

B
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-12 AT 01:28PM (MST)[p]Wolfhunter said, "Buzz let's you and I pick 100 acres of prime winter habitat, you define how we can improve it, I will donate all the time and money necessary to build it up. Maybe more concerned locals would be willing to take on more acres....

Question...

How do we know winter range is the problem that needs improving?

If I know that be the problem, I'm on board. If its not the problem, I'm not too excited about wasting your money and my time doing that.

Thats the point I've been trying to make on the course of this thread. Put the effort into fixing the REAL PROBLEMS, not the problems we "think" are out there...all for the sake of "doing something".

Thats exactly why we're in the $hit with mule deer right now...
 
There is a point where commen sense isn't a bad thing to go by, Im sure the locals could tell that the Platte river areas were hurting long before the G and F admitted to using faulty data. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that its the winter range that is the limiting factor in regions G and H, a couple hunting trips to the Hoback or Salt River range should tell anyone that the high country bucks are getting pounded and driven out of their prefered habitat weeks earlier than they should be. Instinct and experience aren't foolproof but they shouldn't be ignored either.
 
Correct me if I am wrong Buzz, trying to understand your posts. The problem (s) with the declining herd is not exactly known? If so, what I gather from your suggestions is to gather data before any corrective action is taken (what happens to the herd in the mean time) or if I misread into that, what actions would you suggest to do while data is being collected?

Heres another idea. It was mentioned that the biology is outdated. If the theory behind the biologist is outdated, trim back and let some of them go. Use that money to better serve the fish and game.
 
BUZZH wrote Question...

How do we know winter range is the problem that needs improving?

If I know that be the problem, I'm on board. If its not the problem, I'm not too excited about wasting your money and my time doing that

I HOPE YOU ARE NOT SEROUS ABOUT THAT COMMENT AND TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE WINTER RANGE MIGHT NOT BE THE PROBLEM. HAVE YOU EVER SPENT ANY TIME IN WESTERN WYOMING AND SOUTH WESTERN WYOMING WINTER RANGES ? SEEMS TO ME YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS SPOUTING OFF AT THE MOUTH LIKE DIARRHEA. YOU JUMP DOWN EVERYONES CASE ABOUT NOT HAVING DATA TO SUPPORT THERE CLAIMS. WELL LETS SEE SOME DATA BUZZH THAT WINTER RANGE MIGHT NOT BE THE LIMITING FACTOR FOR THE DEER IN WESTER AND SOUTH WESTERN WYOMING.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-12 AT 03:56PM (MST)[p]SSakitas,

Where did wolfhunter mention we were dealing with Western Wyoming or South Western Wyoming?

Missed that, and for the record I was under the impression, that he was referencing the post I put up just previously to his...you know where I was using the PLATTE VALLEY deer herd in my example of putting the cart squarely in front of the horse.

Yes, I've spent plenty of time on those winter ranges, and yes, they're in less than ideal shape. Yes, IN WESTERN WYOMING, its likely to be the problem.

Now, smart-guy how you gonna fix it?

Oh, and next time, try with comprehension hat ON...rather than the ASSHAT.

"Heres my take, with the Platte Valley Deer issue as the "example". Let me preface by saying that the issues inherent to the deer herd in the Platte may not be issues in other areas of the state. But for the sake of making a point as to how I draw conclusions, lets keep it there."
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-12 AT 04:08PM (MST)[p]Western Wyoming G&H is about all we have been talking about....Buzz you brought the platte valley into your discussion.

Who has the A$$HAT now!!
 
beech18,

Thats exactly right, believe me, if anyone knew for sure what was wrong we'd be looking for ways to fix it. In the case of the Platte River herd that I mentioned above, the biologists involved DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE...other than "its a lot of things."

Based on what I've seen and what I've heard the biologists claim, more likely than not its a habitat issue. I feel its more a problem of late spring/summer/early fall range problem VS winter range problem.

Yes, we need to gather data to support a management plan that will actually fix the problem. It should also be noted that the biologists dont even use existing data gathered from other agencies...as they have no idea of the data the agency I work for collects and compiles. None. Its a national study conducted on all forest lands, all ownerships, across the interior west. Not saying that data will solve all the woes, but its a data source not being utilized currently.

I'm not saying do nothing...take some measures that are obvious, and in particular those that arent costing large sums of money. Things like eliminating any type-6 doe tags, shorten seasons, reduce quotas, etc.

Just dont put all your effort, and more importantly money, into things like coyote control UNLESS you have data to support thats what causing a majority of the problem.

Let me ask you this...how will throwing money at problems not impacting mule deer, help to increase the mule deer population?

One last thing...Once you've identified what really is the limiting factor (found via witchcraft, voodoo, redneck logic, or biology, I dont care how you identify it) spending your money and effort on THAT will only bear one thing...and that is more mule deer.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-12 AT 04:26PM (MST)[p]Perfect example of why problems arent solved...LACK OF DATA.

Show me where you referenced G&H here:

Buzz let's you and I pick 100 acres of prime winter habitat, you define how we can improve it, I will donate all the time and money necessary to build it up. Maybe more concerned locals would be willing to take on more acres....

I'd still say you need a 4XL...
 
All I have been speaking about from the beginning of the discussion has been G&H re-read if you need to...

You look good in your A$$HAT!! We all have one, time to time!!

So how do we fix the PROBLEMS or winter grounds in Western Wyoming??? YOU have the floor. I am very interested and would be willing to attack them 100 acres at a time!!
 
Topgun, you are my hero. I have taken a few minutes to scan the data in the link you provided. I would think I died and went to heaven if I had that level of information about Oregon. I am going to be spending a lot of time over the next couple of months looking at all of that data. Might even help me figure out where to go deer hunting in Wyoming.

BuzzH, please post what hunting units would be in the Platte Valley area you are referring to. I agree with most of what you posted in general, but really want to look at some stats for those units.

Okay, I arbitrarily chose the southern half of Region M, hunting units 41,44,45,46, and 47, and did a fairly detailed analysis of the data provided. This is the paintrock herd. Some very interesting information is provided, and I think it certainly provides some indicators of why this population is not doing better.

The management objective for the area is 13,000 deer post hunt. The estimated population in 2010 was 10,400. From 2005 throgh 2010, the population ranged from a low of 10,400 to a high of 11,100. The area has been below MO for 15 consecutive years. The population estimate was arrived at using POP2 computer modeling program. The biologists report states that he believes that estimate is accurate based on field observations. My opinion in Oregon is that Pop 2 tends to overestimate populations, but that is the number we have so that is what we used. Based on the ratios provided, here is the population breakdown for that area in early 2011:

Total Population.....10,400
Bucks.................1,692
Fawns.................2,428
Does..................6,280

These numbers look pretty good at first glance. We would kill to have these numbers on 90% of the units in Oregon. Fortunately, the report provides a lot more detail, and those numbers are not so good.

According to the report, they counted 301 actual bucks on the five units during their feild surveys. Of those, exactly 4, let me repeat that, FOUR, were Class 3 Category bucks, with antlers greater than 25" spread. FOUR!!!!!! Those are Oregon numbers boys. I would define Class 3 bucks as mature bucks. You can refer to my first post on this thread where I outlined what research has shown about having mature bucks do the breeding.

Out of the 301 bucks, 74 were Class 2, defined as having an antler spread of 20 to 25". These are basically 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks, and maybe a few 4.5 year olds with poor genetics or other issues. That leaves 226 yearling, 1.5 year old forked horns and spikes. Think about that, 3/4 of the bucks left after hunting season to do the breeding are yearlings.

Extrapolating those percentages out to the total buck population, here is what you get:

Mature bucks........................23
2.5 to 3.5 year old bucks..........416
1.5 year old yearlings...........1,253

Each year, approximately 1,000 fawns become bucks prior to the hunting season. Given the numbers above, and ignoring that there are some non-hunting mortality losses between post season counts and the next hunting season, 2,250 bucks out of the buck population of 2,700 bucks are 1.5 and 2.5 years of age.

According to the harvest statistics, 692 bucks were killed in 2010. Of those, 560, or 81%, were 2.5 years old and older. 132, or 19% were 1.5 year old yearling bucks.

What is obviously happening on this unit is that the harvest of 2.5 year old bucks and older each year is too high, and very few bucks are reaching maturity. In my opinion, this is having a significant negative impact on breeding success during the first estrus cycle, resulting in late born small fawns that are suffering higher rates of mortality than should occur. It is also likely that those younger, smaller females that make it to breeding age are less successful in producing large healthy fawns. Although I cannot find any research on mule deer that addresses this point, there is substantial research on whitetails and elk that indicates that fawns/calves that start out small/late never recover, regardless of how long they live.

So, assuming there is some validity to my opinion, what could you do about it? In my opinion, Limited Entry would not help here, unless you were willing to reduce tags below the level of the older buck harvest of 560 animals. This would be a reduction of more than 2/3 from current hunter numbers. Typically what happens when you go limited entry with far fewer tags is that the harvest of Class 3 bucks goes up, because those types of hunts attract hunters who are much more serious and dedicated to harvesting mature bucks. Your overall buck harvest would likely go down, but that would not result in more mature bucks in my opinion.

One idea that would help would be to reduce the number of days in the hunt. I recognize that it is already a short season here, but that would be one way to not only reduce the total buck harvest, but also the mature buck harvest.

The very small numbers of mature bucks counted indicates to me that the deer in this area are too accessible, too many roads, to much open country, or some similar problem. One way you can cut down on the harvest of mature bucks is to make it harder to find them, close roads, disallow cross country motorized travel, etc. Another thing you can do is move the season earlier, so it is much less likely that bucks are focused on smaller winter ranges.

The big factor that is not covered in the data is what portion of the population and harvest is on private land. If this area is like Oregon, the actual buck ratios on public land are much smaller than they are on private land, so the harvest is focused on that part of the population least able to handle the harvest levels.

Okay, I am looking forward to your guys comments and opinions on what I see in the data. I have more info on the population side of the situation for this herd unit, but will have to post that later. I have to get back to work.

Scoutdog
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-12 AT 10:54PM (MST)[p]This:

Out of the 301 bucks, 74 were Class 2, defined as having an antler spread of 20 to 25". These are basically 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks, and maybe a few 4.5 year olds with poor genetics or other issues. That leaves 226 yearling, 1.5 year old forked horns and spikes. Think about that, 3/4 of the bucks left after hunting season to do the breeding are yearlings.

Lots of assumptions there, and frankly their definition of class 3, class 2, etc. is a bunch of bunk.

Those classes they are using could be, and likely are, more an indication of genetics than age or maturity.

I can assure you that a good many mule deer bucks will never reach 25 inches in width their entire lives. Your...and their, assumption that class 2 bucks are 2.5-3.5 years old is a "guess" at best.

Take a look at this buck, disregard the ugly mug on the hunter:

IMG_1461.JPG


I saw this buck for 2 years straight, didnt kill him the first year I found him. Shot him the next year as a 6.5 year old buck. That buck is well within the definition of a class 2 buck based on antler spread...and would have not likely ever jumped into the class 3 category.

Another example on a deer I photographed on a hunt:

IMG_2749.JPG


I believe this buck is 4.5 years old and will never reach a "class 3" stage based on his narrow spread for a deer his age.

I can tell you another thing, I'd bet in 2-3 years there wouldnt be many hunters on this board just taking his picture and not calling him a trophy buck...or a mature buck, because he's less than 25 inches wide. I can also tell you that if he breeds a doe as a 4.5+ year old deer that the fawns produced wont be at any disadvantage.

Thats the problem I have with the management "plan" for the Platte, they're basing trophy status on antler spread when they should be basing management on AGE structure.

Oh, and the Platte is primarily 78, 79, 80, 81...
 
BuzzH, I absolutely guarantee you that any biologist who sees that first buck will put in the class 3 buck. I think the second one could likely end up in the class 2 list, but I doubt if he is any older than 4.5, and could be younger than that.

I think the important point here is not whether there were 22 mature bucks out of almost 1,700, or even 50. The question is whether or not there are enough of them to breed the vast majority of does during the first estrus cycle. Pretty obvious the answer to that question is no.

Thanks for the unit numbers. I will take a look at that data in the next couple of days, and post my thoughts.

Scoutdog
 

Similar threads

M
Interesting Graph Upper Shoshone Mule Deer Antler Size
Replies
10
Views
1k
West River
W
M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
852
nfh
nfh
J
Deer Unit 2-2024- Colorado- Current Prospects For Trophy Bucks
Replies
14
Views
2k
Jerry
J

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

81F1A2A1-7896-4C0E-9B10-4B4CEE028A2D.jpeg
Screenshot_20230117_155522_Gallery.jpg
Velvet.jpeg
03B1D327-E319-436F-A8FA-04891CB2A9E3.jpeg
6195imgp2419.jpg
6655F4C1-1974-4D0F-9068-6D63B8D5A43A.jpeg
IMG_7742 copy copy.jpg
B9DB58CD-076A-4DD9-A623-15C05115ED64.jpeg
Colorado Trophy Bull Elk
image3.JPG
451C0A3C-93DE-4709-8B6B-987DFC31D3D3.jpeg
IMG_6576.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