End region G point creep!

highfastflyer said:
I think we can agree having far fewer hunters in an area would greatly decrease human disturbance and stress on wildlife, especially does and young fawns being reared.
Click to expand...
I don't think we can. I think its accurate to say fewer hunters would decrease the potential for stress but that doesn't necessarily translate into fewer does and fawns dying over the winter. Just because an animal experiences stress doesn't mean it is causing or even contributing to their winter survival rate. Further, reducing the number of hunters isn't going to remove the human caused stress just reduce it. What level of fall human interaction is required to keep a MD alive over winter? It also isn't going to remove all stress from deer. They still have to contend with all the other things that they worry about. Explain why the elk in these regions seem to thrive? Are elk just better at dealing with human caused stress than MD? Why are whitetail numbers in these areas increasing? Are they better at dealing with stress than MD?

I think if we ever get to the horrible position of the elk feedgrounds going away we will see what was contributing to elk thriving.
 
mulecreek said:
I don't think we can. I think its accurate to say fewer hunters would decrease the potential for stress but that doesn't necessarily translate into fewer does and fawns dying over the winter. Just because an animal experiences stress doesn't mean it is causing or even contributing to their winter survival rate. Further, reducing the number of hunters isn't going to remove the human caused stress just reduce it. What level of fall human interaction is required to keep a MD alive over winter? It also isn't going to remove all stress from deer. They still have to contend with all the other things that they worry about. Explain why the elk in these regions seem to thrive? Are elk just better at dealing with human caused stress than MD? Why are whitetail numbers in these areas increasing? Are they better at dealing with stress than MD?

I think if we ever get to the horrible position of the elk feedgrounds going away we will see what was contributing to elk thriving.
Click to expand...
You are denying the data then.
“Human caused disturbance increases stress on mule deer and if the disturbance is great enough it will displace them from important habitats. (Freddy eat al 1986, Sawyer et al 2009). When undisturbed mule deer select habitats they do so to optimise food availability, nutrition and escape cover. This ensures they are able to minimise energy expenditures and body weight loss and increase their chances of survival. The needs of the mule deer population need to be considered to reduce human disturbance impacts on fawn rearing areas.”

We know why the elk survive, they are more efficient biological machines at surviving and dealing with winter and human caused stress and habitat manipulation. We also have a Massive feedlot program for elk. Many studies have shown how much better the elk have fared at the direct expense of mule deer. We really have only been seriously monitoring these does since 2013 when the Migration Initiative and Dr. Monteith began his research. By the way we are extremely fortunate to have him performing this research as he is a treasure trove of knowledge. The data is not encouraging. The does have high pregnancy rates but many of those fawns are not even surviving the rearing season to make it to the winter range. Ecosystems are complex and he (Dr. Monteith) is still unraveling the causes.
“Pregnancy rates among mule deer of the Wyoming Range were typically high and ranged between 90-99%. Furthermore, most animals were pregnant with twins each year resulting in relatively high fetal rates (average number of fetuses per pregnant animal was 1.71 ± 0.03 across years; Fig. 4). Although fetal rates tended to be high, recruitment of young tended to be low. Since 2013, approximately half of the potential fawns born in early summer survived to autumn, and fall recruitment averaged 0.83 ± 0.05 fawns per collared female for Wyoming Range mule deer 2013- 2016 but dropped to 0.51 ± 0.11 in 2017, following severe winter conditions of 2016/2017 “
6C706E81-F4DC-4060-86E3-1AD42414343B.jpeg

 
Last edited:
I don't see anything in what you posted that indicates the reduction in fawn survival has anything to do with too much human interaction in the fall. I am not arguing that fawns are dying at a higher rate than in the past. Also not arguing that herd numbers are not what they have been in the past. I'm arguing that moving a unit from Gen to LQ will change any of this. Damn near every study Monteith does results in the same thing. Does are in rough shape and therefore have a hard time making babies. Due to food sources or the lack there of. I have yet to see anything he has produced that indicates its due to too much human interaction in the fall.

The elk feedgrounds make my point for me. The main reason that the elk thrive is because the feed, all year long. The reason you don't see massive winter die off is due to the feedgrounds. If it was possible to do the same thing with MD, I am confident you would see a lower winter kill. Since we know that is not going to happen and that MD don't respond to supplemental feed the way elk do then we know it isn't going to happen. Therefore you have to improve the range condition for deer. Barring that, killing off the elk wouldn't do sh!t except result in less elk. IMO. If your theory on slaughter the elk and the MD will thrive was true then MT should have MD herd bursting at the seams. They run a 6 month, kill every last elk, policy and their herds are decreasing. In both their Gen units and LQ units.

I'll ask the question again. Since every state that had at one point General or OTC MD tags has long since gone to LQ, please show me a unit that has rebounded MD numbers to 1960, 1970, 1980 or even 1990 levels?
 
I agree...All you got to do is ban harvest game pictures and mandate antlers to be left in the field. There ya go problem solved
 
mulecreek said:
I don't see anything in what you posted that indicates the reduction in fawn survival has anything to do with too much human interaction in the fall. I am not arguing that fawns are dying at a higher rate than in the past. Also not arguing that herd numbers are not what they have been in the past. I'm arguing that moving a unit from Gen to LQ will change any of this. Damn near every study Monteith does results in the same thing. Does are in rough shape and therefore have a hard time making babies. Due to food sources or the lack there of. I have yet to see anything he has produced that indicates its due to too much human interaction in the fall.

The elk feedgrounds make my point for me. The main reason that the elk thrive is because the feed, all year long. The reason you don't see massive winter die off is due to the feedgrounds. If it was possible to do the same thing with MD, I am confident you would see a lower winter kill. Since we know that is not going to happen and that MD don't respond to supplemental feed the way elk do then we know it isn't going to happen. Therefore you have to improve the range condition for deer. Barring that, killing off the elk wouldn't do sh!t except result in less elk. IMO. If your theory on slaughter the elk and the MD will thrive was true then MT should have MD herd bursting at the seams. They run a 6 month, kill every last elk, policy and their herds are decreasing. In both their Gen units and LQ units.

I'll ask the question again. Since every state that had at one point General or OTC MD tags has long since gone to LQ, please show me a unit that has rebounded MD numbers to 1960, 1970, 1980 or even 1990 levels?
Click to expand...
Your point of the fawns aren’t surviving the Winter Range misses the main focus of the Wyoming Range Initiave’s work. More than half aren’t even making it to the Winter Range. Yes, winter kill is a big problem but we have an even bigger problem now recognised as these fawns aren’t even making it through the rearing process to even be able to get to the Winter range survival state.

”that doesn't necessarily translate into fewer does and fawns dying over the winter.”

Human recreation, disturbance, pollution, hunting and interaction we know can and does cause fawn fatalities. Having 50 limited quota deer hunters in an area vs. having over 1000 in an area on a General License deer season is a whole lot less human interaction.
““Human caused disturbance increases stress on mule deer and if the disturbance is great enough it will displace them from important habitats. (Freddy eat al 1986, Sawyer et al 2009). When undisturbed mule deer select habitats they do so to optimise food availability, nutrition and escape cover. This ensures they are able to minimise energy expenditures and body weight loss and increase their chances of survival. The needs of the mule deer population need to be considered to reduce human disturbance impacts on fawn rearing areas.”

Another study I read showed how hunting stress was affecting a red deer herd in Portugal. Similar Cortisol studies on stress have been accomplished on whitetail deer in the US. “Hunting activity is usually seen as a factor capable of causing an intense stress response in wildlife that may lead to short but also long-term stress. In the Lousã Mountain, Portugal, the population of red deer (Cervus elaphus) is the target of intensive seasonal hunting. We collected and measured cortisol (and its metabolites) in three tissues types (blood, feces and hair) from red deer hunted during two hunting seasons to evaluate the stress levels at different time windows. We also assessed the immunological and physical condition of the animals. We predicted that the hunting activity would act as a stressor inducing increased short and long-term stress levels in the population. Results showed an increase in hair cortisol levels during the months of harvesting.”

Regarding your assertion that limited quota never results in increased deer numbers. The best example I could give for that is Colorado. Colorado is now 100% limited on deer and it shows as the current premiere mule deer hunting state. Granted, mule deer numbers are not at 1960s levels nor likely will they ever be but since going limited entry the deer hunting has at least stabilised in many areas and in years with low winter kill the harvest has reached high levels. I don’t want to see us go that route totally in Wyoming and certainly not in the Wyoming range but limited quota does have positive management value. If current deer numbers keep dropping, likely, we are going to have to go that route ultimately anyways.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Physiological Stress Reactions in Red Deer Induced by Hunting Activities

Game hunting is an activity largely practiced all over the world. Understanding its consequences on wildlife is crucial for the proper management and development of hunting directives. In this study, we examined stress levels in hunted wild red deer by ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
jm77 said:
Man, you aren't kidding here. Guess we need to quit hunting big bucks on the Wyoming Range to get higher fawn survival!

What a joke...but he feeds off his own BS without a doubt.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can join SlightlyIncoherent and start shooting does and fawns on the Wyoming Range and extend the season into the Winter Range as ultimately at this pace there won’t be any deer left out there in a few decades with current management strategy. WTF, shoot em all till there ain’t none standing. SAD.
 
If you truely think going to Lq_LE or harvesting only trophy bucks will
actually improve trophy deer in G may I suggest you study Montana's unit 270
Or a few of the other units they did this with
Hasn't worked there I highly doubt it will work for g in Wyoming
 
Ultimag said:
If you truely think going to Lq_LE or harvesting only trophy bucks will
actually improve trophy deer in G may I suggest you study Montana's unit 270
Or a few of the other units they did this with
Hasn't worked there I highly doubt it will work for g in Wyoming
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Kaibab, Henry Mountains, Paunsagaunt and top Colorado units should just change now back to General License so we can improve trophy quality. LMAO.
 
highfastflyer said:
Yeah, the Kaibab, Henry Mountains, Paunsagaunt and top Colorado units should just change now back to General License so we can improve trophy quality. LMAO.
Click to expand...
So are you suggesting some of the units in G should be managed like the Henry’s and Paunsagaunt? I doubt you will find many residents in the area that would be willing to give up the opportunity they currently enjoy.

Deer hunters in G are only small part of human caused stress for deer in G. There are also elk hunters, ranchers, campers, guys riding motorcycles, etc. You would have to eliminate all those other people as well to eliminate human caused summer/early fall stress on doe mule deer. This wouldn’t do anything to eliminate the stress on mule deer caused by predators (coyotes, bears, wolves, lions and bobcats). I don’t think deer hunters in G in September and October is a big factor in for/fawn survival. If it were up to me, I would be looking at ways to minimize human caused stress November to April.

You said that 50% of fawns are not even making it to winter. Those fawns are not dying from human related stress. They are being eaten by predators. There are numerous studies that prove the effects predators have on mule deer and how predators suppress the population, especially after a bad winter. Coyotes and lions also cause a lot of stress year round on mule deer. Why do you think bucks are feeding on the highest quality food up high on the mountain in July and August and does stay in areas with more cover? The does are utilizing less prime feeding areas to keep their fawns safe from predators.
If you want deer to recover quickly after a bad winter, kill off a bunch of predators and the population will bounce back much faster. It is only a short term solution for the complicated problem of the decline of mule deer but it is very effective.
 
BrianID said:
So are you suggesting some of the units in G should be managed like the Henry’s and Paunsagaunt? I doubt you will find many residents in the area that would be willing to give up the opportunity they currently enjoy.

Deer hunters in G are only small part of human caused stress for deer in G. There are also elk hunters, ranchers, campers, guys riding motorcycles, etc. You would have to eliminate all those other people as well to eliminate human caused summer/early fall stress on doe mule deer. This wouldn’t do anything to eliminate the stress on mule deer caused by predators (coyotes, bears, wolves, lions and bobcats). I don’t think deer hunters in G in September and October is a big factor in for/fawn survival. If it were up to me, I would be looking at ways to minimize human caused stress November to April.

You said that 50% of fawns are not even making it to winter. Those fawns are not dying from human related stress. They are being eaten by predators. There are numerous studies that prove the effects predators have on mule deer and how predators suppress the population, especially after a bad winter. Coyotes and lions also cause a lot of stress year round on mule deer. Why do you think bucks are feeding on the highest quality food up high on the mountain in July and August and does stay in areas with more cover? The does are utilizing less prime feeding areas to keep their fawns safe from predators.
If you want deer to recover quickly after a bad winter, kill off a bunch of predators and the population will bounce back much faster. It is only a short term solution for the complicated problem of the decline of mule deer but it is very effective.
Click to expand...
Not wanting to manage it that way at all. This was a response to Ultimag’s response that limited entry is always bad for trophy quality. I fully understand the opportunity loss and want the Wyoming Range to stay this way as primarily a General area but give the deer a significant boost and safe haven in 144 and 143 only.

Regarding elk hunters and recreationists still using the area, by Oct. 15th many of those deer, especially the does and fawns are well on their way towards the winter range and on the move as the rut starts shortly after the bull elk hunt and by then the fawns are much bigger anyways. Many of those does in the migration initiative demonstrate the timing of this. There aren’t that many recreationists up there. Many times during the summer the only guys you meet on the trail are deer hunters headed up scouting and placing trail cams for the upcoming deer hunt or archery hunters in early September.

Regarding your assertion that predators are the main cause of the fawn depredation does not pan out in Dr. Monteith’s research. In only one year since 2013 was predators the primary cause of fawn deaths. The primary one he thinks are nutrition and stress related. The other years also had serious disease issues and the bad winter years had does remaining in such poor shape that many of the newborn fawns were still born or born with such poor body condition from a highly stressed mother they didn’t survive. Dr. Monteitch’s study: “Since 2013, we have successfully tracked 341 fawns and have been continually monitoring their survival. Fawn survival over the past five summers has been variable, and leading cause of mortalities differs from year to year. In 2015, disease was the leading cause of death in fawns over summer. Following a particularly harsh winter in 2016-2017, stillbirths were the leading cause of death in fawns the following summer. This component of the project is still ongoing, and leading causes of mortality has differed each year.”

I fully agree more needs to be done regarding predators but I do know many cities in Wyoming have coyote calling contests and government trappers along with numerous local hard core trappers removing plenty of coyotes and most of area G is in the Wolf predator zone. Many outfitters specialise on hunting the Wyoming Range for mountain lions so all the predators are hit pretty hard though, yes more can be done.

Wyoming Migration Initiative – Advancing the understanding, appreciation, and conservation of Wyoming’s migratory ungulates by conducting innovative research and sharing scientific information through public outreach.

migrationinitiative.org migrationinitiative.org
 
Last edited:
Never,said it was,bad I said it won't bring back region g to the good old days,which you seem to be obsessed with those days,are,long gone ,there is no bringing the past into the future.
buffer zones,won't work
Limiting hunters,or changeing seasons,won't work .
improving /preserveing habitat is what,needs,to happen deer,can't grow if they,don't have the habitat /nutrition
 
Hunters,are predators
So if preditation isn't the main cause then there is no reason to reduce hunter numbers
 
Highfastflyer,

I’ll have to take time one of these days to read Monteith’s studies. I’ve been reading about and studying mule deer for 20+ years and have never heard of disease consistently being the main cause of fawn mortality. I’m sorry but I don’t think your idea of a buffer zone is going to get much support from local hunters. I’m also not convinced that human interaction July to October 15th is a big factor in mule deer does and fawns health. I’m always interested in learning something new and I’m not opposed to discussing ideas with people I disagree.

Coyote contest don’t really have a big impact on coyote populations. None hunters that dislike the pictures from coyote contest hate the idea of hunters that selectively target deer with the big antlers. I’ve never participated in a coyote calling contest and don’t really like it when one takes place in my area. However, I see coyote contest hunters (and trappers) as allies and not the enemy. Aerial gunning, 1080 and disease are the only things that I’m aware of that have had significant impacts on coyote populations.
 
Ultimag said:
Hunters,are predators
So if preditation isn't the main cause then there is no reason to reduce hunter numbers
Click to expand...
Again showing your Ignorance. Reducing Hunter numbers is a tool we use every year in wildlife management. Do you hunt antelope in Wyoming? How many of them are General license areas? Oh, but, but but........, wait, wait, wait, we don’t reduce Hunter numbers in Wyoming when herd numbers decrease. Sorry dude, we do it all the time and limited quota is the method we often use in Wyoming to control harvest. Every antelope unit in the entire state uses that method. As I have repeatedly said I don’t want to go fully limited quota but a small buffer and safe haven area could go a long ways to bringing back a highly stressed and constantly diminishing resource. What is your plan to bring back the habitat? More oil and gas drilling on Winter ranges with a token chain drag through the sagebrush occasion ally to show a token of support.
 
BrianID said:
Highfastflyer,

I’ll have to take time one of these days to read Monteith’s studies. I’ve been reading about and studying mule deer for 20+ years and have never heard of disease consistently being the main cause of fawn mortality. I’m sorry but I don’t think your idea of a buffer zone is going to get much support from local hunters. I’m also not convinced that human interaction July to October 15th is a big factor in mule deer does and fawns health. I’m always interested in learning something new and I’m not opposed to discussing ideas with people I disagree.

Coyote contest don’t really have a big impact on coyote populations. None hunters that dislike the pictures from coyote contest hate the idea of hunters that selectively target deer with the big antlers. I’ve never participated in a coyote calling contest and don’t really like it when one takes place in my area. However, I see coyote contest hunters (and trappers) as allies and not the enemy. Aerial gunning, 1080 and disease are the only things that I’m aware of that have had significant impacts on coyote populations.
Click to expand...
The local support is higher now for restrictions than it has been n the past as the herd numbers continue to fall. At what point will local hunters say enough is enough. We were at 50,000 then 40,000 then 30,000 and now around 29,000 and falling. When we hit 25,000 will you support a buffer area? How about 20,000? Yes study up on Dr. Monteith’s research and educate yourself a little to inform yourself better about Wyoming and Wyoming Range mule deer management.
 
highfastflyer said:
The local support is higher now for restrictions than it has been n the past as the herd numbers continue to fall. At what point will local hunters say enough is enough. We were at 50,000 then 40,000 then 30,000 and now around 29,000 and falling. When we hit 25,000 will you support a buffer area? How about 20,000? Yes study up on Dr. Monteith’s research and educate yourself a little to inform yourself better about Wyoming and Wyoming Range mule deer management.
Click to expand...
The local support? Prove it.

You keep changing numbers and what you say. One post it’s 60,000, this one you start off at 50k. Another post you say you’re against limited quota. Two posts ago you said you’re now for only partial limited quota. FFS make up your mind. How can anyone take you serious when you are a big flip flopper?

Have you factored in out of the 1500 bucks how many would of naturally died off during the winter? And take that number and realize those bucks are not going to help get the population back to your mythical 50k, 60k or whatever your mind determines in the next post?

stop with the buffer zone talk. It’s just silly.
 
Slightlysober said:
The local support? Prove it.

You keep changing numbers and what you say. One post it’s 60,000, this one you start off at 50k. Another post you say you’re against limited quota. Two posts ago you said you’re now for only partial limited quota. FFS make up your mind. How can anyone take you serious when you are a big flip flopper?

Have you factored in out of the 1500 bucks how many would of naturally died off during the winter? And take that number and realize those bucks are not going to help get the population back to your mythical 50k, 60k or whatever your mind determines in the next post?

stop with the buffer zone talk. It’s just silly.
Click to expand...
“The local support? Prove it.”

Again........ Demonstrating your IGNORANCE. Slightly Incoherent. In 2012 when we still had almost 40,000 deer in the Wyoming Range hunters supported having limited quota options. These numbers are from the survey then. I know with only 29,000 deer in the Wyoming Range and falling each year many support it even more so now.

“
Limiting hunters in the field—Despite the finding above that a majority think it is
important to hunt every year, a large majority of mule deer hunters (65%) support limiting the number of hunters in the field, even if it would make it less likely that they would draw a license; meanwhile, 26% oppose.”

Another interesting response.

“Nearly half of Wyoming mule deer hunters (47%) say that the quality of their deer hunting over the past 5 years has gotten worse. Otherwise, 44% give a neutral answer (the same, 34%; don’t know, 10%), and only 9% say it has improved.”

”There's no arguing with the guy. He is 100 percent convinced he's totally correct.”

So do many Wyoming sportsmen. Sometimes the facts and the truth get in your way. I still suggest you seek professional help, but I know those options are very limited in Alaska.
 
Last edited:
I’m still not convinced that a buffer zone would do anything significant to help does/fawns in G. Good luck in trying to convince locals that it will.
 
OK cut numbers ,cut tags shorten the season to 5 days add your buffer zone and when numbers continue to decline(which they,are going to do ) then whats the next move ? What do we blame it on next ?
Mule deer continue to decline ,the,west continues,to grow in population more habitat continues,to be developed into housing, businesses, oil gas,solar
 
Ultimag said:
OK cut numbers ,cut tags shorten the season to 5 days add your buffer zone and when numbers continue to decline(which they,are going to do ) then whats the next move ? What do we blame it on next ?
Mule deer continue to decline ,the,west continues,to grow in population more habitat continues,to be developed into housing, businesses, oil gas,solar
Click to expand...
We look back and say we should have cutback earlier and managed differently. We are now at 29,000, do we start a small buffer area now or wait until it hits 25,000, or do we wait until 20,000? Maybe you just want to shoot em’ all now til’ there’s nothing standing. SAD.
 
wyoflythrower said:
what is the argument against a standard deer opener date for all general deer seasons?
Click to expand...
No good arguments against it. This and a slightly shorter season. Most of G now opens on Sept. 15th. Area 135 now opens on Oct.1st. My suggestion is move it all to Oct. 1st to stop hunters from hunting both openers and shorten the season to 10 days ie Oct. 1 to Oct 10th and create a buffer area safe haven of limited quota in area 144 and 143.
 
Give everyone who applies for G a lion, bear, and 10 coyote tags. Once proof of filling those tags (or DFG’s quota has been met on the lion and bears) Hunters will be given a deer tag. ???
Pound away at that idea. I know Wisconsin use to mandate that you filled 5 doe tags before you were issued a buck tag. It may of only been done were my sister in law grew up.
 
Colo's success story:

Colorado Parks & Wildlfe (CPW) incorporates public expectations and peer-reviewed research into the formulation of deer management strategies. For example, in 1999, CPW responded to concerns about low buck numbers and declining fawn production by eliminating over-the-counter buck licenses in favor of a totally limited licensing regime. With strict limits in each game management unit, deer license sales dropped by 40 percent from 154,276 in 1998 to 93,020 in 1999. Post-hunt buck to doe ratios increased dramatically from a statewide average of 17 bucks per 100 does prior to limitation to 32 bucks per 100 does after the change.

Population estimates are compared with herd management plan objectives to determine harvest recommendations/license numbers that will move the population towards herd objectives. The average sex ratio for deer herds statewide during the past few years is approximately 30 bucks per100 does, which is consistent with the statewide objective.

The Colo success story may be short-lived with the new-later rifle season dates and increase in tag quotas but Colo has been the Western US mecca for B&C bucks from 2002 through 2020 after tags were limited and buck to doe ratios almost doubled!

All Colo units went to draw in 1999. In the period from 1998 - 2002 there were only 46 typical and 13 nontypical bucks entered from Colo in the B&C books. In the 5 year period from 2003 - 2007 after all tags were limited there were 154 typical and 31 nontypical B&C bucks harvested in Colo. That's almost a 3x increase in B&C bucks harvested in only a few years after going to limited....WOW...didn't take long to see dramatic improvements!!!!

Even after the horrific back-to-back winters in 2007 and 2008 there were still 97 typical and 14 nontypical B&C bucks harvested in the 5 year period from 2008 - 2012. That's still almost 2x the B&C bucks! Every 5 year period since tags have been limited there have been 2x more B&C bucks/year harvested in Colo than when tags were general OTC.

Anyone that is a monster muley fanatic and hunts Wyo on a regular basis is aware that G and H has great POTENTIAL for producing MORE higher quality bucks. This isn't only true in G and H but other limited units (87, 89, and 90, etc).

Wyo has a lot of potential but will this ever happen? I guess it's up to Wyo res to decide if they are willing to sacrifice a little to improve the quality of bucks to their potential. I'm not saying to limit Wyo res tags but having a standard deer opening date for all general units would be a simple, positive start in the right direction. Having a shorter season would be icing on the cake! 2 simple changes that could potentially improve quality of bucks.

I'm sure my statements will be super popular with the Clan of Shame and they will twist, turn, and grovel!

Here's an interesting article by Mike Duplan that was published in the Westernhunter Magazine a few years back: https://westernhunter.net/information/the-state-of-colorados-mule-deer/

Take a look at the graph that reflects the quantity of quality old age class B&C bucks harvested after Colo tags were limited in 1999!
 
Last edited:
jims said:
Colo's success story:

Colorado Parks & Wildlfe (CPW) incorporates public expectations and peer-reviewed research into the formulation of deer management strategies. For example, in 1999, CPW responded to concerns about low buck numbers and declining fawn production by eliminating over-the-counter buck licenses in favor of a totally limited licensing regime. With strict limits in each game management unit, deer license sales dropped by 40 percent from 154,276 in 1998 to 93,020 in 1999. Post-hunt buck to doe ratios increased dramatically from a statewide average of 17 bucks per 100 does prior to limitation to 32 bucks per 100 does after the change.

Population estimates are compared with herd management plan objectives to determine harvest recommendations/license numbers that will move the population towards herd objectives. The average sex ratio for deer herds statewide during the past few years is approximately 30 bucks per100 does, which is consistent with the statewide objective.

The Colo success story may be short-lived with the new-later rifle season dates and increase in tag quotas but Colo has been the Western US mecca for B&C bucks from 2002 through 2020 after tags were limited and buck to doe ratios almost doubled!

All Colo units went to draw in 1999. In the period from 1998 - 2002 there were only 46 typical and 13 nontypical bucks entered from Colo in the B&C books. In the 5 year period from 2003 - 2007 after all tags were limited there were 154 typical and 31 nontypical B&C bucks harvested in Colo. That's almost a 3x increase in B&C bucks harvested in only a few years....WOW!!!!

Even after the horrific back-to-back winters in 2007 and 2008 there were still 97 typical and 14 nontypical B&C bucks harvested in the 5 year period from 2008 - 2012. That's still almost 2x the B&C bucks! Every 5 year period since tags have been limited there have been 2x more B&C bucks/year harvested in Colo than when tags were general OTC.

Anyone that is a monster muley fanatic and hunts Wyo on a regular basis is aware that G and H has great POTENTIAL for producing MORE higher quality bucks. This isn't only true in G and H but other limited units (87, 89, and 90, etc).

Wyo has a lot of potential but will this ever happen? I guess it's up to Wyo res to decide if they are willing to sacrifice a little to improve the quality of bucks to their potential. I'm not saying to limit Wyo res tags but having a standard general deer opener date would be a simple, positive start in the right direction. Having a shorter season would be icing on the cake!

I'm sure my statements will be super popular with the Clan of Shame and they will twist, turn, and grovel!

Here's an interesting article by Mike Duplan that was published in the Westernhunter Magazine a few years back: https://westernhunter.net/information/the-state-of-colorados-mule-deer/

Take a look at his table that reflects the quantity of quality old age class B&C bucks harvested after Colo tags were limited in 1999!
Click to expand...
@jims welcome back! I’m sorry I didn’t read the article you supplied as I would like the answer to when was the last time you hunted G?

<Jims heads back under rock>
 
You mentioned area 87 had more potential. Kinda funny i remember a few years there where there was I think 9 tags given to residents. A bunch of booners did not just start showing up. Why jims? I also drew an 89 tag when they gave residents 25 tags. The hunt was a grind....no booner why jims? I will give you some slack though they are much better areas then surrounding general areas as far as number of deer but trophy size isnt much greater if any
 
Bookhead said:
You mentioned area 87 had more potential. Kinda funny i remember a few years there where there was I think 9 tags given to residents. A bunch of booners did not just start showing up. Why jims? I also drew an 89 tag when they gave residents 25 tags. The hunt was a grind....no booner why jims? I will give you some slack though they are much better areas then surrounding general areas as far as number of deer but trophy size isnt much greater if any
Click to expand...
Jim’s merely said Potential for a good mature buck NOT a B&C type buck from Natrona County.

”has great POTENTIAL for producing MORE higher quality bucks.”

If you want a B&C buck his state of Colorado far exceeds Wyoming potential for mule deer but some very nice Mature mule deer bucks do come from Wyoming, especially Lincoln, Teton and Sublette, Carbon counties. Natrona county is a top end B&C county though for Pronghorn.

Limited Quota can if managed and implemented properly increase the age class as it allows more bucks to survive to maturity if properly managed. This is well documented and Jims home state of Colorado is a fine example of proper implementation just as Wyoming leads in limited quota Pronghorn B&C bucks.

Top 125 Trophy Counties

In commemoration of its 125th anniversary, Boone and Crockett Club has released an historic list of the Top 125 trophy counties across the U.S.
www.boone-crockett.org www.boone-crockett.org
 
You’ve convinced me highfastflyer, you should move to Colorado.

Back to WY if you want to see where limited quota has failed look no farther than units 101 and 102. When they were OTC they produced way more big bucks. Since they’ve went limited quota they have been in a gradual slide. There’s little oil development and their winter range is intact. They’ve cut the tags even more recently. No difference in big buck numbers. According to highfastflyer and Jims these measures are the key to grow big bucks!

It’s a complicated issue with WY deer but what’s not complicated is how stupid a buffer zone idea is. And limiting buck harvest even more to try to increase numbers.
 
Slightlysober said:
You’ve convinced me highfastflyer, you should move to Colorado.

Back to WY if you want to see where limited quota has failed look no farther than units 101 and 102. When they were OTC they produced way more big bucks. Since they’ve went limited quota they have been in a gradual slide. There’s little oil development and their winter range is intact. They’ve cut the tags even more recently. No difference in big buck numbers. According to highfastflyer and Jims these measures are the key to grow big bucks!

It’s a complicated issue with WY deer but what’s not complicated is how stupid a buffer zone idea is. And limiting buck harvest even more to try to increase numbers.
Click to expand...
SlightlyIncoherent you should just hide your head under that Muskeg up there in Alaska. Limited Quota won’t produce any B&C bucks then why does Wyoming lead all states in Limited Quota B&C Pronghorn bucks LMFAO!!!!!:love::love::love::love: With your IGNORANCE we should just go General License on the Red Desert areas to improve trophy quality. DOH!!!!:eek:o_O:eek:o_O:eek:Perhaps area 7 elk would produce more B&C bulls if we went General License for elk. :ROFLMAO::coffee::ROFLMAO::coffee::ROFLMAO::coffee:
 
highfastflyer said:
SlightlyIncoherent you should just hide your head under that Muskeg up there in Alaska. Limited Quota won’t produce any B&C bucks then why does Wyoming lead all states in Limited Quota B&C Pronghorn bucks LMFAO!!!!!:love::love::love::love: With your IGNORANCE we should just go General License on the Red Desert areas to improve trophy quality. DOH!!!!:eek:o_O:eek:o_O:eek:Perhaps area 7 elk would produce more B&C bulls if we went General License for elk. :ROFLMAO::coffee::ROFLMAO::coffee::ROFLMAO::coffee:
Click to expand...
When you have to change species for a weak attempt to prove your point you’re at rock bottom.

Luckily everyone here knows how far off your rockers you are. At least @jims was smart enough to bow out.
 
Slightlysober said:
You’ve convinced me highfastflyer, you should move to Colorado.

Back to WY if you want to see where limited quota has failed look no farther than units 101 and 102. When they were OTC they produced way more big bucks. Since they’ve went limited quota they have been in a gradual slide. There’s little oil development and their winter range is intact. They’ve cut the tags even more recently. No difference in big buck numbers. According to highfastflyer and Jims these measures are the key to grow big bucks!

It’s a complicated issue with WY deer but what’s not complicated is how stupid a buffer zone idea is. And limiting buck harvest even more to try to increase numbers.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make any sense, if you really think a OTC strategy for 101 or 102 would have older age class bucks on the landscape I can’t help you. Obviously many more things in play than OTC vs limited quota. It’s just a silly comparison
 
Slightlysober said:
When you have to change species for a weak attempt to prove your point you’re at rock bottom.

Luckily everyone here knows how far off your rockers you are. At least @jims was smart enough to bow out.
Click to expand...
SlightlyIncoherent we surely know who is off their rockers and likely stretching themselves to place their head between their legs or maybe stretching to place it somewhere lower or under that Alaska Muskeg. Keep stretching a little lower, you’re almost there. Yeah let’s take 101 and 102 and put them all back to General License so we can improve trophy quality. Hell, while we’re at it let’s take the late season 130 and make it General License to improve trophy quality. LMFAO.:alien::ROFLMAO::alien::ROFLMAO::alien::ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
highfastflyer said:
SlightlyIncoherent you should just hide your head under that Muskeg up there in Alaska. Limited Quota won’t produce any B&C bucks then why does Wyoming lead all states in Limited Quota B&C Pronghorn bucks LMFAO!!!!!:love::love::love::love: With your IGNORANCE we should just go General License on the Red Desert areas to improve trophy quality. DOH!!!!:eek:o_O:eek:o_O:eek:Perhaps area 7 elk would produce more B&C bulls if we went General License for elk. :ROFLMAO::coffee::ROFLMAO::coffee::ROFLMAO::coffee:
Click to expand...
Oh yea great example theres only about 10 times as many antelope in wyoming then any other state thats why
 
Bookhead said:
Oh yea great example theres only about 10 times as many antelope in wyoming then any other state thats why
Click to expand...
Yes it certainly is, all due to a good ole Wyoming limited quota system. Hmmmmmm......?????? Amazing how that limited quota system works. Perhaps Jim’s is onto something.
 
Last edited:
highfastflyer said:
Yes it certainly is, all due to a good ole Wyoming limited quota system. Hmmmmmm......?????? Amazing how that limited quota system works.
Click to expand...
Limited quota has landed pronghorn at about the same place as OTC mule deer when looking at total population.

Ask @jm77 how the pronghorn are doing population wise in the area he hunts frequently. Not many years ago, over 2,000 permits issued...this year, 75.

I think you need a better example.
 
BuzzH said:
Limited quota has landed pronghorn at about the same place as OTC mule deer when looking at total population.

Ask @jm77 how the pronghorn are doing population wise in the area he hunts frequently. Not many years ago, over 2,000 permits issued...this year, 75.

I think you need a better example.
Click to expand...
SlightlyIncoherent likes those sheep hunts. Maybe we should just go General License on area 4 and 5 Sheep licenses. You know, just so we can improve the numbers as you seem to think, and the trophy quality LMAO.:love::cool::love::cool::love::devilish::devilish::devilish: I am sure we need General License on those Red Desert pronghorn hunts.:eek::coffee::eek::coffee::eek::coffee:
 
Last edited:
highfastflyer said:
SlightlyIncoherent likes those sheep hunts. Maybe we should just go General License on area 4 and 5 Sheep licenses. You know, just so we can improve the numbers as you seem to think and the trophy quality LMAO.:love::cool::love::cool::love::devilish::devilish::devilish:
Click to expand...
Montana has unlimited OTC sheep areas...they kill rams over 8 years old frequently.

What's your point again?
 
Bookhead said:
Oh yea great example theres only about 10 times as many antelope in wyoming then any other state thats why
Click to expand...
Is your argument that Wyoming should have OTC antelope areas?
BuzzH said:
Montana has unlimited OTC sheep areas...they kill rams over 8 years old frequently.

What's your point again?
Click to expand...
Buzz you know this is a terrible example so why did you even make it? It’s OTC but with mortality quotas. Are you arguing for changing all limited quota hunt areas to OTC with a mortality quota? Seems like an interesting thing to manage.
 
BuzzH said:
Montana has unlimited OTC sheep areas...they kill rams over 8 years old frequently.

What's your point again?
Click to expand...
Certainly, I am certain your proposal will gain solid traction with FNAWS. How could we have ever mismanaged our sheep hunting in Wyoming by using a limited quota system. I also like that General License idea on Mountain Goats as I’ve never hunted one of those. Surely we need General License immediately on those you know just to improve the numbers, and the trophy quality. LMAO.:alien::devilish::alien::devilish::alien::devilish::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::coffee::coffee:
 
Last edited:
wyoflythrower said:
This doesn’t make any sense, if you really think a OTC strategy for 101 or 102 would have older age class bucks on the landscape I can’t help you. Obviously many more things in play than OTC vs limited quota. It’s just a silly comparison
Click to expand...
No what I’m saying is there’s more issues at play than hunter harvest on the number of trophy class bucks. I agree it doesn’t make sense looking on the outside in, but the numbers don’t lie especially with social media you see a lot more of the bucks that are killed. Way less big bucks killed since it’s went to LQ than when it was OTC. It just proves that just cuz you limit the tags it doesn’t magically fix the number of big deer out there.
 
highfastflyer said:
SlightlyIncoherent likes those sheep hunts. Maybe we should just go General License on area 4 and 5 Sheep licenses. You know, just so we can improve the numbers as you seem to think, and the trophy quality LMAO.:love::cool::love::cool::love::devilish::devilish::devilish: I am sure we need General License on those Red Desert pronghorn hunts.:eek::coffee::eek::coffee::eek::coffee:
Click to expand...
You could go to a quota system where the hunt shuts down after x amount of animals are killed. MT WY and AK do it, im sure a few more states do it.
 
highfastflyer said:
SlightlyIncoherent we surely know who is off their rockers and likely stretching themselves to place their head between their legs or maybe stretching to place it somewhere lower or under that Alaska Muskeg. Keep stretching a little lower, you’re almost there. Yeah let’s take 101 and 102 and put them all back to General License so we can improve trophy quality. Hell, while we’re at it let’s take the late season 130 and make it General License to improve trophy quality. LMFAO.:alien::ROFLMAO::alien::ROFLMAO::alien::ROFLMAO:View attachment 39047
Click to expand...
Please edit your post and take my photo out of there. You do not have permission to use my photo. Thanks!
 
highfastflyer said:
Certainly, I am certain your proposal will gain solid traction with FNAWS. How could we have ever mismanaged our sheep hunting in Wyoming by using a limited quota system. I also like that General License idea on Mountain Goats as I’ve never hunted one of those. Surely we need General License immediately on those you know just to improve the numbers, and the trophy quality. LMAO.:alien::devilish::alien::devilish::alien::devilish::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::coffee::coffee:
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you've never hunted mountain goats. We can only kill 4 a year up here. You're not missing much, they don't taste the best, but they sure do live in some beautiful country. I've lost count on how many of those hunts I've been on.

Your problem with the whole mule deer issue in WY is you keep comparing it to trophy quality based on the size of the rack. Keeping comparing everything to B&C but that means nothing to how a herd is actually doing.
 
Slightlysober said:
No what I’m saying is there’s more issues at play than hunter harvest on the number of trophy class bucks. I agree it doesn’t make sense looking on the outside in, but the numbers don’t lie especially with social media you see a lot more of the bucks that are killed. Way less big bucks killed since it’s went to LQ than when it was OTC. It just proves that just cuz you limit the tags it doesn’t magically fix the number of big deer out there.
Click to expand...
Got it and I agree that you can’t magically grow older age class animals only by limiting the tags but it could do that is everything else stayed the same which we know never happens. 102 (limited quota) and Region K (OTC residents) are very similar and have experienced the same weather histories and both have lower than historical deer herd numbers. I would argue that K is even in worse shape due to it being OTC and therefore 102 would likely be in even worse shape if it was OTC as is region K. The decline in deer number in 102 has little to nothing to do with it being LQ and much more in predator numbers, bad winters, etc.
 
wyoflythrower said:
Got it and I agree that you can’t magically grow older age class animals only by limiting the tags but it could do that is everything else stayed the same which we know never happens. 102 (limited quota) and Region K (OTC residents) are very similar and have experienced the same weather histories and both have lower than historical deer herd numbers. I would argue that K is even in worse shape due to it being OTC and therefore 102 would likely be in even worse shape if it was OTC as is region K. The decline in deer number in 102 has little to nothing to do with it being LQ and much more in predator numbers, bad winters, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%. K is in horrible shape. K got hammered by twice within 5 years with a bad winters. I flew back in 2010 to shed hunt and one morning walking I found close to 50 dead deer...in one hour. Found a nice 190 class bucks sheds and the skull was 3 feet away. It didn't matter that K already had a short season, and it wouldn't of mattered if there was a buffer zone. Sure they didn't die by a bullet but thousands died due to the winter. It never recovered and then they got hit again. So sad but that's how it goes.

My point regarding 102 is it didn't get a boom of big bucks since going to limited quota. People think all you gotta do is limit the tags and big bucks will be everywhere. Not true for all areas. As the deer numbers came back the % of big bucks didn't. Some of the real old timers said it's sucked since they put in flaming gorge. They said a lot of deer wintered down in there. That was before my time so I have no idea. Just hearsay. But I'm not going to sit here and claim it as facts. I never saw a big winterkill in 102 while I lived there (22 years) but I know they had one a couple years back. I did see the elk population boom while there, maybe thats a reason, I don't know.

But I'm not going to get on here like highfastflyer and claim that cutting a few days off the season, putting in a magical buffer zone, and making the opening the day the same is going to bring the mule deer population back. Sure it will put a few more bucks on the mountain, but all it takes is a winter like 2010 to take those and many more away.

I'm ok with bucks dying by winterkill (most would say lionkill) and I'm glad there's buck dying of old age. If the bucks were not making to old age it would be an indication of a problem. But until we see the age class of bucks harvested dropping a lot I see no reason to reduce buck harvest. Maybe if you hunt G you have to turn in a jaw bone and they can age the bucks. See if theres any trend? I don't know. I don't claim to be an expert and if its coming off that way I apologize. At the end of the day I'm all about the resource first, and hunting should only be allowed if the population can handle it. And region G does are getting breed and the buck to doe ratios are fine. Until some of that changes I see no need to restrict hunters anymore.
 
The problem in 102 is food. The problem in G is food. The problem in H is food.

Making a unit or region LQ is not a solution to a problem but rather a consequence of a problem. LQ wont fix food. It hasn't in any other state. It hasn't with antelope. It hasn't with moose. It hasn't with sheep. Elk herds in wyo continue to grow in both Gen and LQ units. Why? Food.
 
mulecreek said:
The problem in 102 is food. The problem in G is food. The problem in H is food.

Making a unit or region LQ is not a solution to a problem but rather a consequence of a problem. LQ wont fix food. It hasn't in any other state. It hasn't with antelope. It hasn't with moose. It hasn't with sheep. Elk herds in wyo continue to grow in both Gen and LQ units. Why? Food.
Click to expand...
Food is life!
 
wyoflythrower said:
Is your argument that Wyoming should have OTC antelope areas?

Buzz you know this is a terrible example so why did you even make it? It’s OTC but with mortality quotas. Are you arguing for changing all limited quota hunt areas to OTC with a mortality quota? Seems like an interesting thing to manage.
Click to expand...
About on par with comparing management of 2 different species.

Or thinking you increase total population by going LQ...it doesn't work that way.
 
highfastflyer said:
Yes it certainly is, all due to a good ole Wyoming limited quota system. Hmmmmmm......?????? Amazing how that limited quota system works. Perhaps Jim’s is onto something.
Click to expand...
No probably not most likely just because there's always been 10 times as many because the habitiat sustains it
 
Just read a article that to make a impact on coyote killing does/fawns in a local herd it will take 5 years of killing the entire local coyote population at 70% or higher to make a different in the survival of the herd.
I have never seen that many coyotes killed in one area ever.
 
Gator said:
Just read a article that to make a impact on coyote killing does/fawns in a local herd it will take 5 years of killing the entire local coyote population at 70% or higher to make a different in the survival of the herd.
I have never seen that many coyotes killed in one area ever.
Click to expand...
How would you know if you got 70% of the coyotes in an area? Seems like that would be hard to figure out.

Coyotes get plenty of pressure in WY. They are an easy target to blame for sure.
 
Slightlysober said:
You could go to a quota system where the hunt shuts down after x amount of animals are killed. MT WY and AK do it, im sure a few more states do it.
Click to expand...
Yes but we never will as it’s a really dumb way to hunt both ecologically and aesthetically. Could you imagine 5000 hunters bombarding area 5 with massive pack strings of horses, llamas and all their equipment. You think Arizona big elk hunting is overcrowded when somebody gets a tag, imagine all the preseason scouting, trail cams and paid professional outfitters running around with satellite phones and social media posts. It would be like taking area 5 and making downtown LA. Besides all the human-grizzly interactions, poaching, litter and hunters shooting anything with horns on day 1 as they know the season will rapidly close down if they don’t pull the trigger on that first small ram on top of Franc’s peak. Let alone the added stress of all those people on the environment and the wildlife. Besides how many other species would now be impacted by continuous hunting and displacement by the hoarded and masses. You keep stretching your neck and trying to self pleasure yourself in Alaska and leave the management of Wyoming wildlife to those who don’t have IGNORANT ideas like an unlimited quota system on area 5 sheep hunting. :eek::cool::coffee::eek::cool::coffee::sick::sick:
 
Last edited:
Slightlysober said:
No what I’m saying is there’s more issues at play than hunter harvest on the number of trophy class bucks. I agree it doesn’t make sense looking on the outside in, but the numbers don’t lie especially with social media you see a lot more of the bucks that are killed. Way less big bucks killed since it’s went to LQ than when it was OTC. It just proves that just cuz you limit the tags it doesn’t magically fix the number of big deer out there.
Click to expand...
I agree it’s not a magical fix and I’m not calling for a full up limited quota system yet. For now I think at least an attempt should be made to stop the ongoing demise of the Wyoming Range herd. Standing idly by and just letting the same old management practices at work isn’t working. Shortening the season to Oct. 1st to Oct. 10th and standardising it all throughout G along with a small number of areas like 144 and 143 going limited quota and dramatically increasing cow elk licenses to bring that herd down to objective could just be the fix. Standing by and watching the herd go from 50,000 to 40,000 to 30,000 and now 29,000 and what point do you change wildlife management? Do we wait until 25,000, 20,000? Maybe you just want to continue to shoot em’ till there ain’t nothing standing. Same old same old boys, just keep hunting’ em’ till they are all gone. SAD.
 
highfastflyer said:
I agree it’s not a magical fix and I’m not calling for a full up limited quota system yet. For now I think at least an attempt should be made to stop the ongoing demise of the Wyoming Range herd. Standing idly by and just letting the same old management practices at work isn’t working. Shortening the season to Oct. 1st to Oct. 10th and standardising it all throughout G along with a small number of areas like 144 and 143 going limited quota and dramatically increasing cow elk licenses to bring that herd down to objective could just be the fix. Standing by and watching the herd go from 50,000 to 40,000 to 30,000 and now 29,000 and what point do you change wildlife management? Do we wait until 25,000, 20,000? Maybe you just want to continue to shoot em’ till there ain’t nothing standing. Same old same old boys, just keep hunting’ em’ till they are all gone. SAD.
Click to expand...
How can you say there’s no attempt going to stop the decline of mule deer? You’re the one quoting the research likes it your own thoughts and ideas. ?.

Is it really that hard for you to understand that hunting isn’t even close to the top for reasons for the decline? You out of all people should know that.

I hope you’re just trolling. The reason why the seasons are the way they are is because no one but you and Jims think shooting bucks is the #1 factor in the decline. And then you have no respect for all the work that’s been done, work going on and all the research that’s been done. Doesn’t matter if you live in WY or 3000 miles away in Alaska it’s obvious while you have the passion you are ignorant and have no idea what you’re talking about.
 
Slightlysober said:
You could go to a quota system where the hunt shuts down after x amount of animals are killed. MT WY and AK do it, im sure a few more states do it.
Click to expand...
Montana, has,declared,war on all wildlife
We can take it off the grill she's officially done outfitter welfare is alive,and well
And the're quota,system is,a,joke along wirth every thing else ,the fws,does,
 
Slightlysober said:
How can you say there’s no attempt going to stop the decline of mule deer? You’re the one quoting the research likes it your own thoughts and ideas. ?.

Is it really that hard for you to understand that hunting isn’t even close to the top for reasons for the decline? You out of all people should know that.

I hope you’re just trolling. The reason why the seasons are the way they are is because no one but you and Jims think shooting bucks is the #1 factor in the decline. And then you have no respect for all the work that’s been done, work going on and all the research that’s been done. Doesn’t matter if you live in WY or 3000 miles away in Alaska it’s obvious while you have the passion you are ignorant and have no idea what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
Well said,
 
Slightlysober said:
How can you say there’s no attempt going to stop the decline of mule deer? You’re the one quoting the research likes it your own thoughts and ideas. ?.

Is it really that hard for you to understand that hunting isn’t even close to the top for reasons for the decline? You out of all people should know that.

I hope you’re just trolling. The reason why the seasons are the way they are is because no one but you and Jims think shooting bucks is the #1 factor in the decline. And then you have no respect for all the work that’s been done, work going on and all the research that’s been done. Doesn’t matter if you live in WY or 3000 miles away in Alaska it’s obvious while you have the passion you are ignorant and have no idea what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
According to your statements, “There is nothing wrong with G (and H) right now.”
Then you try and feebly attempt to say, there is an ongoing attempt to stop the decline of mule deer. Hmmmmmm. Which is it. Which large scale season dates change, cutbacks in resident harvest or attempts to reduce human caused stress is ongoing? Please do tell? According to you there is nothing wrong with G and H now.

Then you state, “You’re the one quoting the research.” Yes that is what we do in Science and the study of Biology. If you don’t even know that I suggest you keep feebly attempting to bend down and pleasure yourself and stretching your neck out just a bit lower. Your pictures look like you’re going for a “dirty sanchez” on yourself, kinda gross for a MM forum. Keep your head out of the Alaska Muskeg as we don’t buy your nonsensical ideas in Wyoming, still LMAO about the quota harvest. Maybe you would want a quota harvest on mule deer for all those non residents getting a chance to hunt every year until the quota is filled. Yeah that will surely decrease the stress on the deer herds. I’m sure we will reach 20,000 very quickly with your brain dead proposals. It’s obvious you are ignorant and have no idea what you’re talking about.
 
highfastflyer said:
According to your statements, “There is nothing wrong with G (and H) right now.”
Then you try and feebly attempt to say, there is an ongoing attempt to stop the decline of mule deer. Hmmmmmm. Which is it. Which large scale season dates change, cutbacks in resident harvest or attempts to reduce human caused stress is ongoing? Please do tell? According to you there is nothing wrong with G and H now.

Then you state, “You’re the one quoting the research.” Yes that is what we do in Science and the study of Biology. If you don’t even know that I suggest you keep feebly attempting to bend down and pleasure yourself and stretching your neck out just a bit lower. Your pictures look like you’re going for a “dirty sanchez” on yourself, kinda gross for a MM forum. Keep your head out of the Alaska Muskeg as we don’t buy your nonsensical ideas in Wyoming, still LMAO about the quota harvest. Maybe you would want a quota harvest on mule deer for all those non residents getting a chance to hunt every year until the quota is filled. Yeah that will surely decrease the stress on the deer herds. I’m sure we will reach 20,000 very quickly with your brain dead proposals. It’s obvious you are ignorant and have no idea what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
Your desperation is apparent. There is nothing wrong with G and H. G and H are regions and in terms of hunting. I’ve never said there’s not issues with the deer herds. But nice try. You’re grasping at straws. Sit down drink another beer and tell your wife again about the buffer zones. Because social distancing from mule deer is going to save them ?
 
BuzzH said:
Montana has unlimited OTC sheep areas...they kill rams over 8 years old frequently.

What's your point again?
Click to expand...
Buzz, you know better then that. They limit the harvest after a few sheep are killed and the close the season.

Limiting Bucks killed = older bucks = more bigger bucks. This is all basically facts, but it doesn't mean it is what should be done in G and H. That is up to the G&F and residents.
 
Slightlysober said:
Your desperation is apparent. There is nothing wrong with G and H. G and H are regions and in terms of hunting. I’ve never said there’s not issues with the deer herds. But nice try. You’re grasping at straws. Sit down drink another beer and tell your wife again about the buffer zones. Because social distancing from mule deer is going to save them ?
Click to expand...
Your desperation in your photos is obviously apparent. A bit obscene watching you try to self pleasure yourself in the Alaskan wilderness though. I suggest you keep stretching a bit more in your photos you post and embarrass yourself as you’re almost to the pay dirt. In the meantime, I will keep calling for change as one of the greatest treasure troves of Wyoming, the Wyoming Range deer herd continues to decline and idiots like you just keep saying. “There is nothing wrong with G and H right now.” Sad how it continually diminishes right before our eyes. Truly SAD.
38868576-7390-466D-9D7C-4EFBFA5F5C7A.png
 
highfastflyer said:
Your desperation in your photos is obviously apparent. A bit obscene watching you try to self pleasure yourself in the Alaskan wilderness though. I suggest you keep stretching a bit more in your photos you post and embarrass yourself as you’re almost to the pay dirt. In the meantime, I will keep calling for change as one of the greatest treasure troves of Wyoming, the Wyoming Range deer herd continues to decline and idiots like you just keep saying. “There is nothing wrong with G and H right now.” Sad how it continually diminishes right before our eyes. Truly SAD.View attachment 39129
Click to expand...
Yeah posting on monstermuleys is a call for change ???. Nice selfie btw!
 
nripepi said:
Buzz, you know better then that. They limit the harvest after a few sheep are killed and the close the season.

Limiting Bucks killed = older bucks = more bigger bucks. This is all basically facts, but it doesn't mean it is what should be done in G and H. That is up to the G&F and residents.
Click to expand...
Yes buzz knows. The unlimited part refers to # of licenses. Of course it’s on a quota.

I like your math on big bucks but first off this thread was started for a solution to point creep. It since turned into silliness from a couple members who say the deer population will be saved by not killing bucks ? and make the season shorter for the overall population ???. I chit you not they think that.
 
Slightlysober said:
Yes buzz knows. The unlimited part refers to # of licenses. Of course it’s on a quota.

I like your math on big bucks but first off this thread was started for a solution to point creep. It since turned into silliness from a couple members who say the deer population will be saved by not killing bucks ? and make the season shorter for the overall population ???. I chit you not they think that.
Click to expand...
No, we fully well know what the research shows, but you continue to display SlightlyIncoherent Ignorance reading and more importantly understanding it. Hmmmmmmm.........????? I see a pattern here.:alien::eek::cool::alien::eek::cool:


”Shorten general license mule deer season length • Advantages
o May reduce mule deer harvest pressure.”
 
highfastflyer said:
No, we fully well know what the research shows, but you continue to display SlightlyIncoherent Ignorance reading and more importantly understanding it. Hmmmmmmm.........????? I see a pattern here.:alien::eek::cool::alien::eek::cool:


”Shorten general license mule deer season length • Advantages
o May reduce mule deer harvest pressure.”
Click to expand...
Woah are you telling me you had to read something to tell you less hunting days equals less bucks taken? Groundbreaking stuff. Wow. Just wow. Who would of thunk it? You sure are dense.
 
Slightlysober said:
Woah are you telling me you had to read something to tell you less hunting days equals less bucks taken? Groundbreaking stuff. Wow. Just wow. Who would of thunk it? You sure are dense.
Click to expand...
What is obvious is your Incoherency and inability to even understand simple concepts then when REFUTED you again display you are SlightlyIncoherent.
“it since turned into silliness from a couple members who say the deer population will be saved by a season shorter for the overall population, chit you not they think that.”

Then when refuted you just go for the head up the arse routine. Hmmmmm. Houston, we have a problem here.
A2CEBFEE-6667-4382-B4DA-CE34F9A423DD.jpeg
 
High-density populations can also harm the deer themselves by increasing competition for food and transmission of diseases and parasites. Deer in lower-density populations tend to be in better physical condition, all else being equal, because there is more food available to them. Because they don't come in contact with as many other deer, they are less likely to be infected with parasites or diseases.
 
Ultimag said:
High-density populations can also harm the deer themselves by increasing competition for food and transmission of diseases and parasites. Deer in lower-density populations tend to be in better physical condition, all else being equal, because there is more food available to them. Because they don't come in contact with as many other deer, they are less likely to be infected with parasites or diseases.
Click to expand...
Yet what we find is disease IS a serious problem even now with a historical low population. The elk are way over objective eating much of the potential nutrition.
Dr. Monteith’s research: “In 2015, disease was the leading cause of death in fawns over summer.” https://migrationinitiative.org/
 
I'm not a,biologist so I'm truely not sure what the answer or solution is
I dont think there is a way to make everyone happy, eventually mother nature will solve it for us I guess,
 
Ultimag said:
I'm not a,biologist so I'm truely not sure what the answer or solution is
I dont think there is a way to make everyone happy, eventually mother nature will solve it for us I guess,
Click to expand...
Even the biologists don’t have all the answers yet. Doing nothing and just keeping status quo continues to lead us to where we are now at. I would suggest a shortened season of Oct. 1 to Oct. 10 and standardised in all areas in G. Making 144 and 143 limited quota would create a safe haven and a buffer zone which could help decrease human caused stress. Aggressively harvesting cow elk to get them back to or lower than the objective will at least be an attempt to solve the problem rather than just keeping the status quo. Even Dr. Phil said doing the same old thing over and over and over and expecting different results is the definition on Insanity. It’s time for a more aggressive management approach. One poster on here said he supported making area 135 limited quota instead of 144 and 143. I could be persuaded to accept that and keeping all other areas General but 144 and 143 would stretch from almost the Idaho border on the West to the Winter Ranges on the East. Could we all just agree status quo isn’t working. The herd was at 50,000, then it went to 40,000 then 30,000 and now we are at 29,000. At what point do we just say we need some changes and we need them sooner rather than later. Sad.
 
beech18 said:
The idea of required hunter reporting i believe should be done. In today’s tech world can’t be that hard to collect that data. In my opinion every state should implement that practice, if they don’t already.
Click to expand...
No way to keep an accurate honest record,
Not all hunters,are honest poachers don't fill out harvest reports
Sportsman are gonna lie on a harvest report
When it ask what region /unit they harvested the animal gaureenteed
 
Mule deer are in bad shape all over the west and sad situation, LQ hasn’t or won’t fix the problem in H, G or any area. Look at all of Wyoming’s LQ areas, nothing as far as quality is happening in any of them. And as hff said above let’s make the late tag in 130 a general tag, hmmm in case ya didn’t notice most of the big bucks killed are from region H after a long general season on many hunters roaming the hills, then they think the make it to the promise land only to have a few 25 hunters kill there hope and dreams!! Yup LQ is best for all I guess !! NOT!!
 
Founder said:
When “200” is thrown around so freely about a place I take notice. Especially when I spend a significant amount of time in that place and have found very, very few of them. Makes me wonder just how crappy I am at this deer hunting game.

I was once told a guy saw 7 200+ bucks on a 3 mile stretch of ridge I scouted and saw none. I cleaned my optics that afternoon! :LOL:
Click to expand...
There killed every year so That has to mean there around, not behind every tree, behind every rock or in every drainage but there somewhere. And you do just fine on big bucks in G.
 
JB1975 said:
Of all the entertaining threads Founder kills, this one lives on. Lol
Click to expand...
We all stare at car wrecks. I didn’t intend for this thread to go sideways. I honestly didn’t know there were guys out there that think more bucks will make the Wyoming range deer come back strong. That’s some whacked stuff right there.

We could end this thread pretty quick. Bring up God , Trump and all things Washington DC related ?
 
Maybe before making any decision at all, the WYFG should take the logical approach and actually figure out what is being harvested in region G.

A mandatory harvest report would tell you everything you need to know about age classes harvested, non-res vs res harvest, and total number harvested. Once this info is gathered, it would be much easier to make decisions like the ones you have all discussed.

However, it seems nobody is concerned about the deer. They just want to get the damn UTAH guys off the mountain.
 
Ultimag said:
No way to keep an accurate honest record,
Not all hunters,are honest poachers don't fill out harvest reports
Sportsman are gonna lie on a harvest report
When it ask what region /unit they harvested the animal gaureenteed
Click to expand...
If It's tied to your account and permit it's pretty tough to lie about the unit you hunted. There also needs to be a penalty for not reporting the harvest. Several states do harvest reporting and I believe it helps a ton. There may be a small percentage that don't do it or do it wrong, but any good info to help manage deer (especially one of the best deer herds in the West) is a benefit in my book.
 
“I honestly didn’t know there were guys out there that think more bucks will make the Wyoming range deer come back strong.” There are many though who do think helping the does and fawns survive will help the Wyoming Range deer herd come back. Things like issuing more cow elk tags, decreasing human disturbance in a safe haven buffer area by having 1700 less mule deer hunters whom summer scout, place trail cams and archery hunt all the while putting a stress effect on the does and fawns, more predator control, winter range nutrition enhancement projects and more projects to stop deer highway collision just a few ideas which might help those does and fawns survive and perhaps even thrive and get us back to the 40,000 objective.
 
HJB said:
If It's tied to your account and permit it's pretty tough to lie about the unit you hunted. There also needs to be a penalty for not reporting the harvest. Several states do harvest reporting and I believe it helps a ton. There may be a small percentage that don't do it or do it wrong, but any good info to help manage deer (especially one of the best deer herds in the West) is a benefit in my book.
Click to expand...
We,will agree to disagree
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Elk.jpg
IMG_3043.jpeg
STC_0675 copy.jpg
2010 buck2.JPG
Screenshot_20230911_120944_Facebook.jpeg
STC_0663 copy.jpg
IMG_6394 (1).JPG
IMG_7866 3.jpeg
IMG_0006.JPG
Great Looking Nevada Muley
Screenshot_20240522_140114.jpg
2E961453-D3D0-4618-B0FA-6B028B1F3D3C.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