Agreed. I know they send out a survey every year. I'm not sure if everyone gets one but they should and it should be mandatory you fill it out. Don't fill it out? You can't put in for tags the following year. AK does this and I think it works pretty well. I can go to their website and look at harvest stats etc from previous years. It would be interesting to see trends in units in WY that residents can hunt OTC.
Hard to say what percentage of people fill those out. And it's likely that only a small percentage of bucks killed in the Grey's River Drainage get checked at the station at Alpine. It's just not possible to keep it open all day and night during the season. And the number of Bucks killed in the Salt River Range, and the south end of 135? That's anybody's guess.
If NM can do it I’m sure WY can as well.
I wasn't aware that NM had that. Thanks for sharing. I suppose I would know if they would give me a tag sometime. Maybe I should go troll the NM forum calling for changes to their systems and seasons hahahahaha
So with all the doom and gloom I take it you're not hunting G or H this year? Do tell...
I haven’t harvested a deer in over a decade but kill an elk up in the Wyoming Range every year. The deer herds are in Sad shape in my 45+ years of hunting and observing this majestic resource. The next step Game and Fish will try is to lower the objective to 30,000. Sad.
Yes, decrease nonresident tags.
That wasn't the question I asked. Are you still planning to hunt G or H this year?
Don't care,f it cost me,$20,$200 or,$2000
Hmmmm so when are you going to start pushing this,same,idea for Idaho?
Having an Oct. 1st opening date actually would decrease resident hunter numbers as many deer areas in Wyoming open on Oct. 1st in many other parts of the state. The hunters from Cheyenne, Casper and Laramie would now likely stay local so as to hunt with local family and friends and hold their annual deer camp reunions closer to home. It would also decrease pressure on area 135 which doesn’t start until Oct 1st now and many hunters move from the North end of the Wyoming Range to hunt the Sept. 15th opener then head down to 135 to hunt another opener on Oct. 1st.
I've been pushing the same idea in Idaho for 15 years. I realized guys like me that were killing a buck every year were the problem. Just like many other muley hunters I've transitioned to were many of my tags now go unfilled. It would be nice if guys who didn't fill their tag every year were rewarded and guys who have to kill a meat buck every year were penalized. Unfortunately there are too many guys that still want to kill a buck every time they get a tag.
There is a problem with the nonresident crowd. What percentage of the nonresident G tags do you think go unfilled compared the the percentage of the resident G tags that go unfilled? Very few of the nonresidents that are capable of killing a buck are choosing to go home with tag soup. Many residents that are capable of killing a buck are not taking a buck home from G every year.
I'm one of those guys,and my wife is one of those women WE,DONT DO TAG SOUP
Seem’s confounding that such a dyed in the wool indiscriminate meat hunter would spend any time on a website geared towards trophy hunting. But then again nothing you say on here ever makes any kind of sense.
Hmmm remind me again why I should give a rats, a** about what you or anyone else,thinks about my opinion if you don't like it use the ignore feature thats what its for
Everyone of those,whitetails were private land opening weekend whitetails,taken in WESTERN NYS you know,that awful state,that,doesn't have,any big bucks,
I agree that you have every right to bring home meat every time you get a tag. That is completely within your right to do. However, I would rather see additional restrictions targeting guys like you.
I'm really trying to understand why you ares so interested in changing Wyoming. Obviously you have never hunted G, yet you feel it needs changed to fit your vision. I look at other state forums on here and you only comment on Wyoming. Hell, you don't even comment on your own state forum unless you're called out over it. Then you get your feelings hurt when hunters from Wyoming tell you to butt out. Do you have another "new buddy" who you begged, borrowed and lied to so that they share their points this year in G this year? I honestly don't get it.
You sure are avoiding my question. So let's ask again. Are you planning on hunting the entire season this year in G, then move to 135 if you don't kill anything prior?
How is this anywhere close to accurate without mandatory reporting? Please share. Wyoming doesn't know how many residents hunted G last year. Fact. They don't know how many deer were killed there last year either.
The Wyoming Game and Fish uses an accredited professional surveying agency. The numbers of useable survey returns that must be obtained is a calculated percentage of the total number of licenses sold in each area, or the number needed to realize a 90% confidence interval that is +10% of the male harvest estimate at the herd unit level.
Yes I'm familiar with the system the WYGFD uses. And it proves my point they don't really know how many people hunt and how many deer are killed in G.
Nothing like a little plagiarizing on a hunting forum to try to make it seem like you know what you are talking about?
Plagiarizing is when you claim someone’s work as your own. He cited his source and it does give the Wyoming G&F explanation of why they continue to resist mandatory online surveys.
I suppose just like in post #144. He frequently posts like that with no source, but using word for word material. Whatever...
Nothing like a lot of IGNORANCE on your part. It’s obvious you’ve been doing it a LONG TIME. Sometimes the Truth and the Facts get in your way. Hmmmmm............??????
Many factors go into Nonresidents having higher success rates. Many of those kills are guided hunters who utilise the expertise of professional Outfitters. We many times see non-residents harvesting at a higher success rate than residents. Other issues are they travel farther and hunt harder as they know how difficult the area G license is to obtain and often they are more aggressive and determined. The point is non-residents are now such a small percentage of the harvest they aren’t the primary main problem of a diminishing resource with fewer and fewer deer each year. Mr. Nelson also sees it the same way. It is the worst I have seen it in 45+ years on those Winter ranges. Sad.
Please show me one of my posts anywhere on this forum where I quoted media word for word, other than statute and regulation, like you do.
Your Slothfulness and Ignorance is becoming apparent. You can’t do any research yourself. PATHETIC.
Please show me any post anywhere where your IGNORANCE isn’t Apparent. Becoming the norm for you. Looks like the Truth and the Facts get in the way of your IGNORANCE. Hmmmm.....???????
We’ve all read that. Are you trying to use that to make a point? Of course it may reduce harvest but it also may not...
I know everyone, he’s still here right? Give the guy a couple likes. Maybe he will go away?
Who said there's a problem?
$500 might not be enough, start around $750 or $1000
Exactly. There really is no excuse not to.
Are you even coherent? Maybe your avatar should be Slightly InCoherent? First you state, “Feel free to post the research/data where less bucks would be killed with an Oct. season. I'll be here waiting.” Then you try to Ignore your Ignorance by stating, “We’ve all read that. Are you trying to use that to make a point? Of course it may reduce harvest”. Even in Alaska they know by reducing season length you can reduce harvest.
It’s no secret. Even Wyoming Game and Fish recognises the Wyoming Range herd which once numbered 60,000 deer is now about 29,000 deer. They even meet and publish on the low deer population. They still recognise the problem and often hold meetings.
Sooooo you’re saying killing 1500 BUCKS a year is the cause for this decline and it can be fixed with a buffer zone and shorter season? ????
How would you prevent sportsman from filling out or reporting fraudulant information ?
You can’t. But honestly if you’re lying on a harvest report that’s pretty weak sauce.
Its a start I guess,
Soooo you’re saying we should open it up to 5 doe tags per hunter per year as we used to have and add another 21 days to the season and have an extended season on the Winter range and year round oil and gas drilling as everything is just fine with the Wyoming Range herd. Move along, nothing to see here, all is now normal, 29,000 and decreasing..........LMAO. SlightlyIncoherent. ????????
You ever take the time to consider that maybe the deer herd was over the carrying capacity then? Even back then they realized a crash was going to happen. That’s how those 5 doe tags per person came to be. Probably would of been worse winterkill if they didn’t do that. Just to clarify for everyone out there the 5 doe tags was temporary and not a normal every year quota. Highfastflyer is grasping at straws to maintain his pie in the sky buffer zone idea and the idea that a few less days of killing bucks is going to bring the herd back.
“You ever take the time to consider that maybe the deer herd was over the carrying capacity then?” No, as the herd stayed above 50,000 even reaching almost 60,000 in the 1960s. We could kill multiple does and multiple bucks way back then and for the period of 1950-1995 the herd was always over 50,000. More than 45 years, was it over carrying capacity then, for 45 years? Now we have 29,000 and decreasing. Come on man, you must be the guy who saw the passenger pigeons decrease dramatically then said, oh just keep shooting and killing them as normal, they are doing fine, nothing to see here, move along. This is why we don’t listen to SlightlyIncoherent Ignorant Fools like you who just want to keep everything as is when it isn’t working and hasn’t been since 1992-93 winter. This is why we have active working groups and Initiatives not MM fools trying to slaughter a greatly diminishing resource. Next year when we reach 27,000 should we increase the Doe harvest and extend the season 21 days? Sad.
It sad you’re stuck in the 1950s and 60s. All the changes since then you’ve seen. If only you would of done something back then like a buffer zone on development on the winter ranges. You really were ahead of your time. Based on you saying you hunted and were around back then can how are you still hunting this country? You must be knocking on 90. Or are you like jims and this is all just up in that noodle of yours?
Again, you’re INCOHERENT. I never said I hunted in the 50s and 60s, I said the deer population from 1950-1995 was always 50,000 plus. You know they do publish those statistics. You might want to consider educating yourself SlightlyIncoherent by reading those reports. I have been hunting and observing the Wyoming Range for 45+ years and observed the upswings and down swings. I can tell you it’s the worst I have ever seen it. All those high alpine mountain basins all held significant mature mule deer up until the 1992-93 winter. Now they are only full of elk and hunter orange and an Incoherent Alaskan who wants to hunt them till extinction, increase the doe harvest and extend the season 21 days shouting all is well, nothing to see here, move along. Sad and Pathetic and Incoherent.
How accurate do you think the population estimates were back then? Hell they can’t even tell you how many deer were killed last year in G and you expect those numbers to be accurate?
“These are the good old days for someone who’s putting in the time in G.” If these are the good ole days, I poor pity those young hunters who never saw how great this herd was and the data and record books are well documented about the herd population remaining above 50,000 and the quality of bucks in its heyday. Your Ignorance and Incoherence to comprehend a herd which went from 60,000 to 29,000 is in great shape is apparent (The good ole days) is a great example of how Deluded and Ignorant you truly are. Are you also a history denier? The rest of your world salad vomit post is also incoherent and not worth reading let alone commenting on. I doubt there is professional help which could even professionally help your Ignorance, Delusion and Incoherent grasp of reality. I suggest you stay out of the Wyoming Range as it has gone downhill dramatically and the once every 8 years you do get to hunt next we might be below 20,000 by then. In the meantime I’ll keep trying my best to save what little remains, though it’s likely soon to reach the point of no return. Sad.
Although I appreciate your passion, you really need to provide a few more facts before spewing untrue information, your so full of it. I've enjoyed this book for the past 30 years, published in 1978 and although the herd units were slightly different and management practices have changed, it talks about the severe winters on 1971 and 1973 which pretty much put the hurt on the deer herds, when there was way less hunting pressure. Still good info and reasons why November seasons were scaled back and the concerns of development that was happening back then. And the best information I have from attending all those WY G&F public meetings is the chart I've attached for your use. Take a good hard look.
Oops, Flyer boy got caught flying with his pants down!
mic drop.....
Thanks for helping prove my point. The deer herds routinely in the 1960s were above 50,000 and in many years all the way up until the bad winter of 1992-93 when we rarely exceeded past 40,000 since then. As Dr. Monteith has stated in numerous conferences. “Although I appreciate your passion, you really need to provide a few more facts before spewing untrue information, your so full of it. I've enjoyed this book for the past 30 years, published in 1978 and although the herd units were slightly different and management practices have changed, it talks about the severe winters on 1971 and 1973 which pretty much put the hurt on the deer herds, when there was way less hunting pressure. Still good info and reasons why November seasons were scaled back and the concerns of development that was happening back then. And the best information I have from attending all those WY G&F public meetings is the chart I've attached for your use. Take a good hard look.
Apparently those statistics are published and you are wrong. You can't even admit that gracefully!
Just curious, but why did they raise the objective from 30,000 to 50,000 from 1980 to 1992 before the big winter? From what I have read the 1950 and 60s were an anomaly and were by far the highest number of deer in the Wyoming Range, Wyoming and the whole Rocky Mountain west in centuries. It must have been a perfect storm with less drought, range health (changing from grasses to more forbes) and milder winters. I don't know much, but I do know it is all about fawn survival. All focus needs to be on how do we get fawns (especially female fawns) to survive to adulthood. If there are enough bucks to breed the does, buck harvest and hunting pressure doesn't matter. That is an easy fix if you want to have an older age class buck to hunt.
Brian they do chart percentages of bucks killed by NR's compared to residents. NR kill a lot more.
Fawn survival is at very low historical rates. Western Wyoming’s mule deer numbers continue to shrink... pregnancy rates are high, but fawn recruitment into the overall population is low. Most pregnant females in the Wyoming Range Herd deliver an average of two fawns each year, but the number of fawns alive three or four months later dropped by about half. The drought is destroying any hope for higher fawn recruitment.
They kill at a higher percentage rate, but only kill 11% of the total bucks killed. It is discussed above in detail....26.8% of residents killed a buck and 38.8% of non-residents. On average, non-residents probably hunt a bit harder than residents because they can't hunt it every year and is probably the reason their success rate is greater.
They prove well my point.
Can you please provide details on how your buffer zone and short season will help with the overall health of the herd? Thanks!
I in no way ever want to see limited quota hunting on the Wyoming Range but creating a small buffer area or safe haven would greatly enhance the herd in several ways. I have always called for General License hunting with the exception of 144 and 143 going limited quota. This helps primarily, by a safe haven with much less hunting pressure and stress on does and fawns in a core area stretching from near the Idaho border all the way to the Winter Ranges. Less hunters will mean less stress on those deer and higher survival rates. The elk we know are growing at the direct cost of the deer herds as proven in studies in Wyoming and Oregon how elk displace the deer and eat and compete for the very same forage. You can’t have both high elk and deer herds. In the 1970s it was rare to see elk in those high Alpine mountain basins. Elk herds are now far above objective. Now all you see are hunter orange and elk. Sad. https://capcity.news/latest-news/2020/09/22/decade-of-the-elk-for-hunters-as-herds-top-goals-by-32/
I understand your thoughts on both the buffer zones and the elk I just think you are wrong. You got any data that suggests going to limited quota on bucks improves doe and fawn winter survival? I'll take data from any state. Hell, ill take it from CA if they have it. Seems to me that most every where in the west has moved to LQ units and yet MD still decline. Everywhere! You got any data that suggests stress in the fall on does and fawns is causing higher than anticipated winter kill? Once again, Ill take it from any state.
Yeah. I'll make the proclamation that only having limited quota tags in 143 and 144 will adversely effect the whole point of your thread...Says he doesn't want limited quota then next line mentions limited quota
Think the general hunting pressure is bad now...holy smokes, um...with that kind of proposal, what we talking about, an additional 4000-5000 hunters being displaced into the surrounding units. No thank you. Again........Displaying your Ignorance on how many hunters actually hunt the Wyoming Range. There are only 400 non residents in all of G. The residents are 4912 using last years data in ALL of the Wyoming Range. In 143 there were 917 resident hunters and in 144 there were 885 hunters. Some of these hunters hunt overlapping areas so of these 1700 hunters there were another 400 who also hunted in another area ie Afton hunters hunt 145 near town on opening weekend then they know some good mid season areas where big bucks go when pressured and hunt 144 so there is definitely overlap of hunters. In order to decrease Hunter crowding as we discussed earlier the way to soften this would be to shorten and standardise the deer seasons with many of the other Wyoming resident general deer areas. If another 1000 hunters from Cheyenne, Laramie, Casper and Gillette had to drive across state and miss their local family reunion and deer camp hunt which opens on Oct. 1st they likely would just stay local and hunt with family and not drive across the state for a short 10 day season which opens on Oct. 1st now instead of the past Sept. 15th deer opener. Wyoming Game and Fish has already studied this and researched it. The advantages are as follows:Yeah. I'll make the proclamation that only having limited quota tags in 143 and 144 will adversely effect the whole point of your thread...
All of the research and data displays how human disturbance can negatively affect mule deer herds. I don’t think we need to discuss how increased motorised traffic increases deer stress as the literature is quite evident on that. High human use and disturbance on recreation trails and human activity is also negatively affecting and causing stress on mule deer does and fawns.
Urge 2 Hunt
We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.
