???? Region G Hype

RoadlessHunter

RoadlessHunter

Active Member
Messages
580
I'm not sure why Region G is getting all the hype this year.? I hunted the area last year for 11 days during the hunting season and spend countless days scouting.? This unit is 10 years away from have any potential under perfect circumstances.? The number of 18 to 22 inch deer that get shot in this area is unbelievable. ?The size that was considered big for this unit 10 - 15 years ago was 32 to 37 inches wide bucks and an occasional monster in the 40+ inch wide category.?? This size has been replaced with the 24 to 26 inch type buck being a monster for the area, with and occasional monster in the 30 inch range.?? Until the masses stop shooting all the little guys the unit will not recover.? In my group last year we went 0 ? 4 because we didn't find a buck worthy of shooting.? We let the little guys grow another year.?? If you are content with a 22 inch 3 x 4 for your hard earned money, then Region G is your spot.?
 
I totally agree with you region G is Way Over hyped. I hunted there last year spent almost 15 days hunting and scouting saw one buck in the 160's and I saw more hunter than I have ever seen. I just think that the rest of Wyoming is so Bad right now that they have to hype somewhere.
 
Who is hyping it? Everything I have read and written myself whether it's here, HF, OYOA, etc. describes it exactly as you have. I don't see anyone hyping it other than it is a beautiful place to hunt that occasionally turns out a great buck. If anyone does even basic research on G they will find far more feedback saying exactly what you described. Too many people assume it is just lack of effort on most hunters part that keeps them from seeing the truly monster bucks. While this may be true to an extent it takes more than effort to turn up a great buck in G.

All that being said, more residents of Wyoming would rather have the opportunity to hunt G and H every year than try to turn it into a 30" factory. Personally, I would take what we have right now over the Henry Mountains model any day. But that's just me.
 
Last year was a bad year for region H I bet G was no better.There was a lot of outfitters in H last year I wonder if G was the same?
 
"All that being said, more residents of Wyoming would rather have the opportunity to hunt G and H every year than try to turn it into a 30" factory. Personally, I would take what we have right now over the Henry Mountains model any day. But that's just me."

I'm in the same boat. I like to hunt. I don't need big bucks to enjoy the hunt. I appreciate those who have the skill, time and stamina to take big bucks regularly. Many of us have diverse priorities. If you can't enjoy a hunt in G or H, you hunt for a different reason then a lot of us. Its a great day in that country, even if one doesn't see a deer!
 
I agree that G and H need to stay a general area.? I would hate for those units to become draw areas, especial now I am a Wyoming resident.? I think that the resident can allow a few more deer to grow up instead of hammering them before they even hit the ground at birth.? This is my thinking as far as residents go.? If Region G is a general tag then you are guaranteed a chance to hunt that area every year.? I see no reason in shoot truck loads of little bucks every year.? If you let them grow we will see better deer.? If we want G to look like Utah then kept shooting.? Since we can hunt every year let the little guy live.? Now on the other hand, I can see why the nonresident pound the first little guy they see.? It takes 3 to 5 years to draw a G tag and the point creep goes up 1 point every 2 years.? If my next hunt will be in 5+ years then the bucks you pass up will be dead by the time you draw again.? Ultimately it comes down to personal choice.? If we would like to see a couple big boys each season then we need to let them grow.? How many little buck does it take to equal a giant buck?? No equation I have will make (Little Bucks = Big Buck).? A truck load of 2 points = 0 big bucks, but every one of the little guys had the potential to be a big buck.
 
I think making G limited to Residents is a bad idea.

I looked into the harvest stats a few years ago and IIRC, NR's kill more deer in G than Residents.

The reason I feel its a bad idea, is a hunter with a LQ tag that they may not draw again for even 2-3 years, is likely going to kill a deer. Rather than eat the tag, they'll shoot a lesser buck not knowing when they'll draw again. If you know you can have the same opportunity/tag next year, many will hold off shooting a smaller buck.

Finally, if G or H or A, or C are over-hyped, go somewhere else or to another state. Nobody is forcing anyone to hunt in G or even Wyoming for that matter.

For the record, I have only killed 3 mule deer bucks in Wyoming since 2006, one on a LQ tag, and none in G or H.
 
The problem is that the resident population has exploded over the last 15 years. Way too much pressure these days. Not to mention the winter range is being destroyed
 
I would like to add just an "observation" with regard to who is killing some of the smaller bucks in G. License plates tell more than a non res vs res story. As we all know, the smaller initial number on the WY plate, the larger the population area. I see many small numbered plates up the Greys in Sept....when they don't take a buck there, we then see them down in 135 taking a smaller buck so as to not go home empty handed.

See it with both res & non-res vehicles doing it every year. Wish that could be separated somehow, some way.
 
"they" aren't going to do anything.

If YOU guys want some changes, then show up and make it happen.

Most of the stuff you're talking about can be done by the commission, but they cant read your minds.
 
>The problem is that the resident
>population has exploded over the
>last 15 years. Way
>too much pressure these days.
>Not to mention the winter
>range is being destroyed

wyohighcountry,

The population has increased but has the hunting population increased. I found some data from USFWS but it is total hunting licenses, tags and stamps sold by state. It shows in 2000, Wyo sold 179,728 resident licenses. Not just deer. In 2014 it sold 171,771. For deer specifically I found 2007 resident deer licenses were 55,795 and in 2013 there were 53,130 sold. Both of these data points show a decrease. Do you have any data that shows on increase in the number of deer hunters?

I think since the 1980's it would be fair to say that the high country see's more pressure than it used to but overall I am not so sure. From the old timers I talk to they seem to say the Aspen country in G used to get hit a lot harder than it does these days but few went up high.
 
>I would like to add just
>an "observation" with regard to
>who is killing some of
>the smaller bucks in G.
>License plates tell more than
>a non res vs res
>story. As we all know,
>the smaller initial number on
>the WY plate, the larger
>the population area. I see
>many small numbered plates up
>the Greys in Sept....when they
>don't take a buck there,
>we then see them down
>in 135 taking a smaller
>buck so as to not
>go home empty handed.
>
>See it with both res &
>non-res vehicles doing it every
>year. Wish that could be
>separated somehow, some way.

If they were separated wouldn't those same hunters just be taking a smaller buck out of the Greys?

I kind of like having a few sacrificial units that people can go take a meat buck. 131 is managed specifically for this reason. Easy place to take a small buck and generates a lot of license sales from those that only have a weekend to hunt.
 
Something has to be given up... Or our last semi strong hold of buck hunting will not last.

If Residents are not willing to give up tags every year, NR less tag numbers and WGF less tag sales, the last quality remaining will be a thing of the past. On top of the fact a large number of hunters refuse to go home with out shooting a young buck. We are going to have to find ways to let up on the pressure some how. Our weapons, gear, scouting and talent are far better than the resource can handle.

Ask yourself what are you willing to give up to have quality bucks for the future??

I personally would be willing to give up tags every year, or hunt with primitive weapons, in trade for a long season.

At the very least we should be educating hunters to shoot those old 3x3 for meat or target practice with their new gun system...
 
Buzz,

Have run that topic, as well as pick an area (unit), and 135 dates moved, by some G&F folks. Not met too well & I understand both sides. I'm always for new ideas.

As for sacrificial units......this is still not an easy unit to go take a meat buck in for the average hunter. It's just easier than the 2 units to the north & happens to be on the way home for many that traveled a long distance both res & non res. Those hunters take advantage of the later dates in 135. I should have clarified my response to the comments above......if you want to let em get older, 135 fits into the future thinking process in not taking a smaller buck leaving the high country.
 
Does it? Wyoming has plenty of LE units and none of them are any better than G or H. I don't buy the scenario that we are hunting big bucks to extinction in G and H.

If a person does not find it a quality hunt unless they see a 180" buck every day then I think you are correct. For me the opportunity to hunt is far more important than a book deer. We each have our own priorities, so why is your priority higher than mine? Why is mine higher than yours? The answer is neither is. Wyoming has general units and LE units. If you are willing to not hunt every year then hold out for one of the many LE units the state currently has to offer.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-15 AT 04:12PM (MST)[p]I try to pass on smaller bucks sometimes that's not all that possible when all you see is small bucks and the price of a tag.
 
ASB,

I personally wish more hunters would just kill elk or whitetail instead of mule deer in Wyoming to fill the freezer. Its a piece of cake to kill 3 elk a year in Wyoming, why shoot a dink mule deer for meat?

The problem I think you'll run into is that a vast majority of deer hunters don't want LQ areas statewide. Plus, there's a snowball effect as more and more areas go LQ while some stay open to general. The remaining general areas take an absolute pounding.

No easy answers out there on this issue...if there were, it would have been done already.
 
Agreed on the elk, never thought about whitetail as an alternative I guess because I lop them in with a lot of private ground.

When you have the likes of Eastmans, HF, and even these forums to an extent pushing G as the land of "180 class bucks" or "better than any LQ unit"......the fact it takes NR at least 4 points to now draw in the special (6pts regular),
......potentially EVERY resident in the state could theoretically hunt there, it has now become the 5th biggest population center in WY for 2 weeks.

I do not have the answers, however I do see that the "lure" of a large buck and the awesome country involved is what brings many hunters. The underbelly of that is reality dictates there is not a 180 tied to every tree, nor is there a immature buck tied to a tree that is easy to get to or pack out up there. But, 135 is less rugged & on the way home....WITH dates that allow us to have 2 opening days on one hunt.

Throw emotion to the side, that is one reason immature deer are coming out of G. I'm not trying to piss up anyone's back regarding this.....just another topic for health debate.
 
Price of the tag isn't a problem for residents. I would like to see Wyoming create a special area. These areas would have a general special tag. The only difference with this tag and a normal tag is the price. For example Region G would require the special general tag. The cost would be lets say $150. That may reduce the number of people that hunt that area and generate so extra $$$. The general special could still hunt the normal general areas, but the normal general tag couldn't hunt the special areas.
 
ASB,

Good post, and I agree with you on 135. It should open and close on the same dates.

In fact, I think more deer seasons/areas, at least regionally, should all open and close on the same dates.

I just don't think most hunters travel that much to hunt deer. I have hunted H maybe 3-4 times, G only a few days here and there. I prefer to hunt mule deer closer to home and if I travel, it is usually to hunt whitetails up North.

The smart thing that WY does is open deer/elk/antelope at different times without much over-lap in seasons. That makes hunters choose to use vacation days hunting either elk, deer, or antelope for the most part.
 
What other parts of the North American Model are you willing to sacrifice to limit the hunter of average means?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-15 AT 03:58PM (MST)[p]Buzz,
For me personally, I see more single digit plates there than double digit plates, but that's just my observation. I would not be bothered at all to travel for a chance at a "180".

Roadless......not a bad thought.....probably not gonna happen, but a different view nonetheless
 
The idea is to encourage participation in hunting, not make it a sport for the wealthy.

While you very well may be below average means, there are many locals in the area that are likely lower than that.

Should they be forced to sit out, in their own back yards, because they cant pay $150 a tag?

My financial situation may be better than yours and I don't want you in G or H. So, how about we jack it to $1k a tag? I can afford that all day long...but should I get to hunt while you sit out, just because of my financial situation?

I say not only no, but HELL NO.

While what you're proposing is not that drastic, you know as well as I do, that you will be excluding a segment of the deer hunting population.

You're heading down the slippery slope of the European model...and that's not a good thing, IMO.
 
Isn't the NR pricing......now even more regarding the 60/40 already down that slippery slope?

Hunting a statewide (pretty much) general deer tag......Id & Wy are about the last to let that happen. Idaho's hunting is laffable currently. Does WY need to get there before something changes? At least Roadless threw an idea out there, good or bad. How about residents picking a general unit? Or, even a region? Just throwing something out there. As said earlier.....dates in the region be identical.

Change nothing?
 
I hunted G and H as a resident from 2001 through 2011. Most of the hunting was backpack type hunting. During that time, I harvested two buck mule deer. I saw a few big bucks and had the opportunity one year to miss a super non-typical. Initially, the crowds weren't too bad. The last few years when I hunted there, I found too many people setting up their backcountry camps on top of the deer. Most of the hunters I bumped into were from Utah, Washington or California. I ran into very few resident hunters. I was not hunting wilderness. BuzzH is right that many units in G&H have non-residents harvesting more deer than the residents.

The last year I hunted that country, I ran into a large group of Utah hunters with some teenage boys. They claimed they were from the "Best of the West" crowd. One of the boys had taken an average buck at almost 1,000 yards from camp. He had picked it off in the cliffs near an avalanche chute. My thoughts on that were not positive. The year before, I found an outfitter guiding two guys in one of my favorite basins. I know he guides in NW Wyoming and by his actions and stammering I would bet he wasn't permitted to guide hunters in that area. The last couple of years, I found that you really needed to bump the timber to find a good buck after the opener.

The last year down there, a buddy took a 30" 4x3. That year was it for me when I ran into people in almost every draw and avalanche chute. I saw a lot of people harvesting 2 and 3 year old bucks when they couldn't find the big boys on the opener.

I now find the spots closer to home to have the same beautiful scenery as G&H without the crowds. The deer numbers aren't like those in the Wyoming Range, but I don't care anymore. One year, closer to home, I took a 185 typical buck after finding nothing I wanted to kill in H. As I get older, I am more into the experience and have found what I like the country closer to home. There are no crowds and I enjoy the solitude.

just my two cents on G&H...mh
 
Yes...that's what happens when legislation is used to manage wildlife via special interests.
 
Another drastic proposal that I know would make the long time resident squeal like a pig would be to ban horses for deer hunting. September 15 to 2 days after the season closes. If you have to pack in and haul your deer out on your back you may think twice about dumping a little one 5 miles back in. I know I know going to get he!! On this one.
 
I am a nr and have certainly notice articles, photos, outfitter web sites all G, for several years know, dont forget horse rental adds on this site. I certainly dont have the solution but certain areas I prefer to just have a fun hunt with out the trophy pressure,and it sound like that is G,dont worry I have max pts and it wont be G. If you stopped hunting in G in 5 years only a small portion of the bucks there know would be what you dream of. I was once told it takes 10000 buck to get 1 over 200 and most of the ones that would get there look real good at 4 years old. without cutting back on the take could cause irreversible damage just so everyone can hunt,the days of everyone hunting soon will be a thing of the past.
 
As a NR who enjoys western WY hunting I read as much as I can on the various forums about G&H. These posts about G&H complaining, hyping, or whatever, are as regular as clockwork. However, I do not recall ever seeing someone post up the proposal they have prepared to the Commission. If Wyoming residents truly want change, why doesn't someone try? And by try I mean conducting research to back up your proposal, gathering consensus(signatures), preparing a well written proposal, and pushing like heck to get it considered by the Commission. Maybe it has occurred and I am just not aware.

Seems like a pick your region regulation would solve some of the issues with crowding, pressure that many complain about. Idaho did this with there general elk and it appears to have stuck there as an acceptable way to limit pressure without sacrificing much in opportunity.

I see that WYGF are having meetings March 23-26 at various offices if you want to give your input on changes you would like to see.

B.
 
Seems like you could make hunters pick region/unit when they purchase their license/tag. Kind of like Colorado except its not a draw. You still get to hunt your unit of choice every year you just don't get to unit hop from one opening day to the next
 
Changing the opening to early October and keeping the season relatively short would work toward reducing harvest without affecting opportunity or adding restrictions like closing out horses.
 
MH.....agreed with much of what you say, am also picky about taking an animal. But, there are only 600 NR tags in G. I can assure you there are more than that many resident hunters in G from the Star Valley alone, let alone those that travel.

Can agree certain basins will draw the same hunters year after year no matter the residency status. But, the numbers contradict that there are more NR hunting that country than residents.
 
>Changing the opening to early October
>and keeping the season relatively
>short would work toward reducing
>harvest without affecting opportunity or
>adding restrictions like closing out
>horses.

No offense bruin, I disagree 100 percent. All you would do with this strategy is destroy the experience with over crowding and kill the same number of bucks. Idaho has destroyed many units proving this over and over again with concentrated seasons.

We should think outside the box. Why not have a 2-3 year lay out period, if you punch your tag, excluding youth of course. Make the resident really think before dropping the hammer. Fill the freezer with elk, antelope, or wolf meat. Pick your reigion may work for awhile. Separating 135 is a great idea, I have brought it up with the biologist here many times.
 
I think the time has come that we limit ourselves in regards to the weapons we use to hunt. I am not a muzzy hunter, don't even own a muzzleloader, but i think Regions G and H should ONLY allow a muzzleloader for the "firearm" season.

Those units are big open country, and when you can be selective out to a 1,000+ yards with a rifle, very little big bucks (and even small bucks now) are going to make it out of a season alive.

I am strictly a rifle hunter, but i would definitely give up my rifle for a muzz in exchange to give those deer a break, and maybe get a chance to see a deer that country is known for. You still get to see those same mountains, still have the same experience, still pay the same fee for a tag, and not have to make it a resident draw or lower NR quota.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-15 AT 09:22AM (MST)[p]Buzz, you might want to look at the harvest stats again. Here are the 2013 stats as published on the WY G&F website:

Region G (Units 135, 143, 144, and 145)

Total Buck Harvest on these units:

Residents: 1517
Non Residents: 311

So residents kill roughly 5 times as many bucks according to this info. Or to be more specific, no residents harvested 17% of the bucks in region G, and residents harvested 83%.

By the way I'm a non resident that has hunted G a couple times. I don't think they should necessarily limit residents for region G (for various reasons) but I think they could tweak things to make it better, especially the overall experience and long term management of the deer herd.

>I think making G limited to
>Residents is a bad idea.
>
>
>I looked into the harvest stats
>a few years ago and
>IIRC, NR's kill more deer
>in G than Residents.
>
>The reason I feel its a
>bad idea, is a hunter
>with a LQ tag that
>they may not draw again
>for even 2-3 years, is
>likely going to kill a
>deer. Rather than eat the
>tag, they'll shoot a lesser
>buck not knowing when they'll
>draw again. If you know
>you can have the same
>opportunity/tag next year, many will
>hold off shooting a smaller
>buck.
>
>Finally, if G or H or
>A, or C are over-hyped,
>go somewhere else or to
>another state. Nobody is forcing
>anyone to hunt in G
>or even Wyoming for that
>matter.
>
>For the record, I have only
>killed 3 mule deer bucks
>in Wyoming since 2006, one
>on a LQ tag, and
>none in G or H.
>
 
I hunted g last year I would estimate that there were about 10 residents for every 1 non resident.
 
Appears we have plenty of solutions from what appears to be mostly non residents on ways to put a 190 - 200 class buck in every basin. As someone who hunts G every year, I'm content with the opportunity to see a 170 - 180 class buck most years. I've also been lucky enough to take a few of those bucks. I think a solution that makes more sense, is continue to cut back on non resident tags. Let's have the G&F do a study where we knock the non resident quota back from 600 to whatever it is to say a 150 for 5 - 6 years and then see if quality improves. Until then, if yer unhappy with resident opportunity, go hunt somewhere else...
 
>I hunted g last year I
>would estimate that there were
>about 10 residents for every
>1 non resident.


You also "couldn't find a bull worth shooting" in 124 and the two places you hunted in G had 42 and 52 other guys in them....LOL!
 
You aren't too far off. Here's the 2013 stats from the WY G&F website:

Region G (units 135, 143, 144, 145)

Total number deer hunters for region:

Residents 4517
Non residents 646


>I hunted g last year I
>would estimate that there were
>about 10 residents for every
>1 non resident.
 
I am a non-resident, and I for one would never say to cut resident tags alone.
Have you guys forgotten the state owns the animals, and its residents own the state?

Tags cut across the board would be the terminology to use!
 
Its always the same old stuff blame the NR's. I get the same thing down here with not enough tags or too many tags. Some people just want to hunt they don't care about size others want bigger bucks. I like the middle ground. WY is the last frontier like my brothers says and somebody wants to mess it up.
 
4517 resident tags and 646 non resident tags and u guys wanna cut non resident tags to fix the problem? Glad u guys aren't biologists.
 
Quest, I'm here & there is already a problem. It's nowhere close to what it can be. And, I never said cut res tags either. I just said something has to be done about getting skunked in the high country & taking a meat buck in the lower country on the way home. And, if there is a good late Sept snow, some of those high country bucks make their way south & get killed on some years....that's a month season on some of those bucks in an early heavy snow year.
 
Some guys get all riled up like a different management opinion is an attack on their tradition of hunting. It's not.

The NR who want a G/H experience like was possible a few decades ago don't want to cut out Residents. What I think a lot of the NR are saying is that if G/H are as good as any of the Limited tags in Wyoming, then Wyoming has a problem with not having a true trophy experience.

I am not sure whether G/H are the places to do it, but Wyoming certainly has the genetics and habitat to have a few true "trophy" areas. Sure the opportunity guys get to keep their "hunt-every-year" program, but don't the guys who would rather wait 10 years and shoot a 180+ buck have a valid opinion too?

The problem with Wyoming isn't necessarily G/H. It is that if G/H are as good as the best Limited tags, and G/H aren't that good anymore, then the entire state has essentially chosen a 100% opportunity format (especially since Residents hunt G/H every year, OTC).

My main point is that if Wyoming had a few true "trophy" units that were worth a decade of points, then nobody would be balking about G/H. In fact, they'd support the idea of a backcountry experience every year for those that wanted to do it.

Grizzly
 
Most of those old bucks make year after year. I like the long season it spread out some of the hunters. What I do think is the weather plays a big part if you see those older class bucks. It's hard to pass on a 160 inch buck nowadays. I think me and Founder hunt the same place in WY.
 
That's great you & Founder hunt the same basin. But we were talking about the immature deer getting hammered.
 
That depends who your talking to some hunter like smaller bucks there not trophy hunters.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-15 AT 11:23AM (MST)[p]As a non-resident who considers hunting every few years in g a treat and one of my favorite hunts out west I would strongly oppose any changes.

Region G IS AWESOME! I'm amazed at how many guys want a 190" buck in every basin, but when that happens, and everyone applies, they will be the first to ##### they can't draw a tag! Is quality down from years ago?? Yep, but i have yet to hunt a year up there I didnt find a significant Buck, many approaching 190/200"....

I personally would prefer to hunt every few years, than sit back and wait to draw a tag every 15 years. I don't have a desire to apply for the Henry Mountains, paunsagaunt, AZ Strip, etc, hunting once or twice maybe three times in a lifetime to go on a "canned" hunt for a 200" deer ain't for me...haha I think it sucks I can't draw g every other year anymore lol

Me and everyone I hunt with must be the luckiest hunters on earth- I can honestly say this....IMO...if you can't find a 175-180" buck in region g, in ten days, I'd re think my strategy hunting tactics...we are still seeing plenty!
 
Please read them posts again, Quest. My comments were regarding trophy hunters taking their (discouragement), (lack of hunting skills), (running out of vacation time on a particular trip),however you want to interpret that, into "making sure" they take a forky (spike - forks get it too) on their way home out of 135. I also said some non-local res were as guilty as non res regarding that.

To me, hunt whatever buck makes you happy, be it big or small. But, that is not what is happening in 135 to some degree. That's all I am saying.
 
n b r, post em up we would love to see some of these bucks you and your buddies take.

Personally, I would like to see more guys take a forkie. Since I am 100% confident they will not kill them all, that should leave more mature deer for me.

Honestly, think about this. 3 pt or better restrictions have been tried before in many states and they have shown themselves to not be effective at generating a better population of trophy class bucks. Much of CO OTC elk hunts have 4 point or better rules. Trying to find a 6 point in many of those areas is akin to finding a leprechaun. However, when Utah in the early 90's wanted to change the age characteristics of its elk herd it made most of its elk units spike only. After a few years it went to spike only as well as a few LE tags for older bulls. By 2002 most of those units were producing true trophy class elk. Seems to me, by my completely anecdotal evidence, that taking more lower age class animals has a much greater chance of increasing the number of trophy class animals. So I say to those hunters that are happy with a forky, keep banging away we will make more.
 
ASB To me, hunt whatever buck makes you happy, be it big or small. But, that is not what is happening in 135 to some degree. That's all I am saying.

I don't know about 135 but I agree with you on the rest.
 
Yep reduce the NR tags that will help?? LMAO Replace five guys from Idaho and Utah paying $500 a tag for 15 guys from Rock Springs paying $40 a tag.
 
>Point restrictions work great in region
>k last year. Truck
>loads of 2 point live
>another year.

If it works and produces a bunch of trophy class bucks then that will be great. I honestly would be happy if it did. However, it has shown itself time and time again to not do that. Perhaps this time will be different.
 
>Yep reduce the NR tags that
>will help?? LMAO Replace
>five guys from Idaho and
>Utah paying $500 a tag
>for 15 guys from Rock
>Springs paying $40 a tag.
>

Why would those 5 NR's be replaced with 15 residents?
 
>Mulecreek, you DONT know? Residents
>will just move over with
>the NR decrease.

Why? Do you honestly think 15 hunters from Rock Springs are just waiting for a few NR's to go away so they can hunt G and H? Trust me, if we want to hunt G and H we do. No one from RS is afraid of NR's. We may complain about them but definitely not afraid. Decreasing NR tags for G and H would have no increase in the number of overall hunters. None what so ever.

Some residents don't hunt G and H because they think its crowded but why would they think its less crowded if there were 3 times as many hunters. Your thought doesn't make any sense.
 
A few years ago I looked at the stats the WY G&F provides on their website. As many know the NR tag numbers have been reduced several times over the past ten years or so in Region G. At one time it was at least 1200 (IIRC), it is now set at 600 for Region G. But the total number of hunters has not decreased. Seemed like for every reduction of a NR hunter, at least one resident took that spot. It may not be the 3:1 ratio mentioned above, but yes the overall number of hunters in Region G has at least stayed steady (possibly increased) even though the number of NR hunters has been cut in at least half.

So what has the WY G&F accomplished by cutting NR tags in Region G over the years? I guess it makes some residents happy, but likely hasnt achieved anything regarding herd health, hunt quality, or revenue $$$$ for the Department.

Does it really matter if a hunter in Region G is from across the border in Idaho, or a resident from Casper or Cheyenne? Very few people that hunt G can call the place their back yard, most travel there to hunt it, and sure some of those hunters cross an invisible state line, but they all are hunters.
 
>
>Does it really matter if a
>hunter in Region G is
>from across the border in
>Idaho, or a resident from
>Casper or Cheyenne? Very few
>people that hunt G can
>call the place their back
>yard, most travel there to
>hunt it, and sure some
>of those hunters cross an
>invisible state line, but they
>all are hunters.


Yes it matters because that invisible line prevents me from hunting the henry mtns in Utah every year. (Which I would love to do.) It also prevents me from hunting the controlled hunt Idaho's unit 44 or 45 every year. So yes that invisible line matters a lot.

[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
I would love to see Wyoming give the same amount of NR tags for region G as Utah gives NR tags on the Henry Mountains. The residents of Wyoming would see a huge jump in quality and age class harvested in about 2-3 years. Don't you agree?

[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-15 AT 08:32AM (MST)[p]Residents in Utah CANT hunt Henrys Mtn every year either. Residents in Idaho CANT hunt controlled units 44 and 45 EVERY year either. But residents (ALL of them in theory) in WY CAN hunt Region G every year.

The point I was trying to make it about TOTAL number of hunters, whether it be NRs or residents. This thread trended toward a discussion of limiting NRs in Region G. In the end, does the management or health of the mule deer herd in Region G matter IF we take away 5 NR tags and at the same time allow 5 more residents hunters to hunt? What good does it do to further reduce NR tags in the Region when at the same time every resident can hunt it?



>>
>>Does it really matter if a
>>hunter in Region G is
>>from across the border in
>>Idaho, or a resident from
>>Casper or Cheyenne? Very few
>>people that hunt G can
>>call the place their back
>>yard, most travel there to
>>hunt it, and sure some
>>of those hunters cross an
>>invisible state line, but they
>>all are hunters.
>
>
>Yes it matters because that invisible
>line prevents me from hunting
>the henry mtns in Utah
>every year. (Which I would
>love to do.) It also
>prevents me from hunting the
>controlled hunt Idaho's unit 44
>or 45 every year. So
>yes that invisible line matters
>a lot.
>
>[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
Its comparing apples to oranges. Utah also limits the RESIDENTS tags on the Henrys. WY doesnt limit the resident tags in Region G. 4000+ resident hunters hunted Region G in 2013, compared to only 600+ NRs.

Has the age class and quality improved in Region G since WY G&F reduced NR tags from 1200 to the current 600?
 
Resident hunting opportunities should always be the last cut. If reducing the number of hunters, or even keeping hunter numbers level is the goal, then cut NR opportunity first.

Before a single Resident tag is cut, every single NR tag should be gone first.

As to the issue with G and H, there are options that could help without going LQ. Some of them have been touched on in this thread.
 
It looks like NR hunters had a 50℅ success rate last year, at 600 tags that means WY could have saved 290 deer if they only gave 20 NR tags. I think that is a great idea! Let's band together as resident hunters. We can keep G a general area and pay a higher price to make up the difference of cutting NR tags to 20!

[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
Then 600 MORE residents start hunting Region G since its an OTC tag for them, and according to the stats they have a harvest rate around 35%, so instead of saving 290 deer, you have only saved 87. That is until even more residents start hunting the region down the road (which is the trend according to the Wy G&F stats), then you save nothing.

The cut in NR tags over the years has done nothing to improve the herd in Region G and Region H.


>It looks like NR hunters had
>a 50℅ success rate last
>year, at 600 tags that
>means WY could have saved
>290 deer if they only
>gave 20 NR tags. I
>think that is a great
>idea! Let's band together as
>resident hunters. We can keep
>G a general area and
>pay a higher price to
>make up the difference of
>cutting NR tags to 20!
>
>
>[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
huntfishall I think your the only one that understands what I'm saying. LOL It would take a hell of a lot of residents to make up for lost revenue and the herd would be wiped out.
 
>Then 600 MORE residents start hunting
>Region G since its an
>OTC tag for them, and
>according to the stats they
>have a harvest rate around
>35%, so instead of saving
>290 deer, you have only
>saved 87. That is until
>even more residents start hunting
>the region down the road
>(which is the trend according
>to the Wy G&F stats),
>then you save nothing.
>
>The cut in NR tags over
>the years has done nothing
>to improve the herd in
>Region G and Region H.
>
>
>
Why aren't these 600 residents already hunting G?
Do you think 600 resident hunters are not hunting G because of NR tags! That's funny stuff!
If all NR tags were cut next year, they may eventually be replaced by resident hunters but for at least a few years there would be 500+ less people hunting G.
[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
"Do you think 600 resident hunters
>are not hunting G because
>of NR tags! That's funny
>stuff!"

I never said that. I have no idea why more and more residents are deciding to hunt G. All I know is the G&F stats (REAL DATA not just opinion), has shown that decrease in NRs has been met with at least an equal increase in resident hunters in Region G. So what is the reason for this? The hunt quality hasnt improved so I doubt that is the reason they've decided to start hunting there. But there must be a reason.

>>Then 600 MORE residents start hunting
>>Region G since its an
>>OTC tag for them, and
>>according to the stats they
>>have a harvest rate around
>>35%, so instead of saving
>>290 deer, you have only
>>saved 87. That is until
>>even more residents start hunting
>>the region down the road
>>(which is the trend according
>>to the Wy G&F stats),
>>then you save nothing.
>>
>>The cut in NR tags over
>>the years has done nothing
>>to improve the herd in
>>Region G and Region H.
>>
>>
>>
>Why aren't these 600 residents already
>hunting G?
>Do you think 600 resident hunters
>are not hunting G because
>of NR tags! That's funny
>stuff!
>If all NR tags were cut
>next year, they may eventually
>be replaced by resident hunters
>but for at least a
>few years there would be
>500+ less people hunting G.
>
>[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
Again, I'm glad u boys aren't biologists. Buzz what will improve the quality (older bucks) in this unit?
 
All the magazine hype in the world is not going to make the mountains in "G" any less steep.......or the shots any closer.....or getting a buck out of there any easier.

I'm betting a lot of guys who just take the word out of the magazines as gospel, will be a bit surprised. If I had to guess, I think the number of 180" type bucks taken per hunter is probably in the 1 in 60 to 1 in 75 range. It is no cakewalk.
 
If your theory was correct there would have been loads of bucks "saved" since they decreased NR tags from 1200 years ago to the current cap of 600. Where are all these bucks at in 2015? It hasnt happened.

>It looks like NR hunters had
>a 50℅ success rate last
>year, at 600 tags that
>means WY could have saved
>290 deer if they only
>gave 20 NR tags. I
>think that is a great
>idea! Let's band together as
>resident hunters. We can keep
>G a general area and
>pay a higher price to
>make up the difference of
>cutting NR tags to 20!
>
>
>[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-15 AT 12:08PM (MST)[p]Lots of things.

I think a big step is to identify what the average hunter wants out of deer hunting in G,H, and other areas.

I believe if the goal is bigger deer, we need to increase total deer numbers.

In the meantime, I think access should be looked at. I think a reduction in the number of outfitters able to operate. I think the number of hunters each outfitter is permitted to take needs to be limited. I think flying should be out-lawed for scouting.

Concentrating on ALL habitat requirements rather than just focusing on winter range.

Some education on deer migration, maintaining and improving migration corridors, overpasses, etc.

More enforcement on poaching, party hunting, etc.

Educating hunters that its not a bad thing to kill elk for meat, and that its OK to not fill your deer tag. Educate them that there are 2 species of deer in Wyoming to hunt. Increase access for whitetail hunting and provide an alternative for killing a mule deer just to fill a tag.

Shorten seasons, stop all doe hunting, even by youth.

The list is endless and if we want to increase deer herds sacrifice and collaboration have to happen.
 
The fact is if less bucks are killed during the fall more bucks will return the following year, unless there is a big winter die off.
The bucks that return will be a year older also correct?

[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
>The cut in NR tags over
>the years has done nothing
>to improve the herd in
>Region G and Region H.

I could not agree more. Which brings me right back to the problem not being that hunters are killing too many deer. I would be interested to see if anyone can point to an area, in any western state, that has cut tags during the first decade of the 2000's and has brought herds back to what they were in the 70's, 80's or even the 90's. Not saying it doesn't exist but I am not aware of it. Every state has cut the number of tags and no state has reversed the overall trend of declining deer herds. In western Wyoming I do not believe we are over hunting the deer herd.
 
There's only been 1 proven way to increase the # of mature bucks in an area. Cutting the nonresident tags to 0 (cutting 600) and issuing unlimited resident tags (4500+) won't solve the problem.
 
In 2013 35℅ of the 2800+- active resident hunters in the greys river harvested a deer. Meaning residents harvested approximately 980 deer. NR hunters harvested approximately 300 deer. Meaning NR's harvested over 42℅ of the deer harvested in G.
I like your proposals Buzzy, keep the good ideas coming.
All of your ideas add up to more deer surviving. If less NR tags are given more deer will survive. Win-Win for the deer and the residents.



[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
Where did you get your numbers?

Look at my post #38 above. It has the 2013 harvest numbers for 2013.

NRs harvested approximately 17% of the buck in Region G in 2013.

Perhaps you left out unit 135?

Is there anything else you left out????

>In 2013 35℅ of the 2800+-
>active resident hunters in the
>greys river harvested a deer.
>Meaning residents harvested approximately 980
>deer. NR hunters harvested approximately
>300 deer. Meaning NR's harvested
>over 42℅ of the deer
>harvested in G.
>I like your proposals Buzzy, keep
>the good ideas coming.
>All of your ideas add up
>to more deer surviving. If
>less NR tags are given
>more deer will survive. Win-Win
>for the deer and the
>residents.
>
>
>
>[font face="verdana" color="green"]Jake Swensen
 
300/1280 = .234, meaning NR's harvested 23.4% of the deer harvested in G

IMHO doesn't really matter what you do to the number of NR tags. If the hunting gets better, real or imagined or hyped, hunting pressure by residents will continue to build. Especially if the remainder of the state continues to struggle regarding mule deer.
 
My main point of this post was as a resident, if you can hunt the area every year. Then why not let the small guy grow up. We had a buck that we watched come back to the same spot for 5 years strait. He even made it through the tough 2010 winter. He was never bigger than a 3x3, but he was on that same ridge overlooking the same cliff every year. The last time we seen him was 2012. His biggest year he was 27 inches wide lots of mass, but still just a 3x3. If you let a buck go then he has a decent chance of being back and bigger.
 
Guys can't let em go. U want more older bucks, issue fewer tags letting more bucks survive the season. It's the only thing that works.
 
Rambo, bend over, reach down, latch onto that thing you call your neck and pull your head out! Nobody draw the Henry's. You sound like a ignorant fool.
 
>Rambo, bend over, reach down, latch
>onto that thing you call
>your neck and pull your
>head out! Nobody draw the
>Henry's. You sound like a
>ignorant fool.

Lol oh man, thanks for the advise. ;)
I feel better.
No need to call names you fool. ha ha ha
I know someone draws the Henry's. If Wyoming limited region G's tags like Utah limits the Henry's, G would be out of this world. I love hunting G and I would hate to see that happen. I have NR friends I help hunt G when they can draw. I was just having fun making a few guys squeal. So back off dudley.


[font face="verdana" color="green"] Jake
 

Similar threads

Betterluckythangood
Anybody seen a grizzly in G area lately?
Replies
18
Views
2k
elkassassin
elkassassin
nfh
Youth antelope hunt
Replies
16
Views
772
Ranger1
Ranger1
Founder
Region G, Utah Private Land Deer and Elk Hunts
Replies
0
Views
881
Founder
Founder

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

8 bachelors.jpg
Mrs. Asplin & her 13A buck 2022.jpg
IMG-4854.jpg
Fantastic Bull for HntHrdr
IMG_20231028_120707.jpg
0DBCA506-76F8-4595-8089-F785636AD79D.jpeg
IMG_3248.jpeg
D84FDC2B-22FA-4870-B5C3-9E1EE95C84D1.jpeg
8F2C0601-111C-445F-ABCC-C13EF663FE05.jpeg
5C47B919-EF3C-4281-8F4C-4F78F0C38D05.jpeg
Screenshot_20210904-094841_Instagram.jpg
894EFA67-E657-43D5-B990-81B7086AAEB3.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