Tag cuts
- Thread starter junior
- Start date
ridgerunner
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,966
Is there a link to the quotas?
BigJohnson
Member
- Messages
- 96
>>But it has no affect on
>>resident hunters, and that's the
>>elephant in the corner.......
>
>The Wyoming economy, as of late,
>will control the resident hunting
>pressure.
And the locals are fully aware the hunting is going to stink so they will regulate themselves and stay home or go to other parts of the state that had a more mild winter. I hope this year doesn't cause knee jerk reactions to go to a limited entry system down the road.
>>resident hunters, and that's the
>>elephant in the corner.......
>
>The Wyoming economy, as of late,
>will control the resident hunting
>pressure.
And the locals are fully aware the hunting is going to stink so they will regulate themselves and stay home or go to other parts of the state that had a more mild winter. I hope this year doesn't cause knee jerk reactions to go to a limited entry system down the road.
Cahunter805
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,385
I know residents might not like it region G and H need to be limited tags for resident hunters also.
HalfAce
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,153
E 600 to 500
F 950 to 750
G 600 to 400
H 800 to 600
I couldn't help but laugh at this. We all know the tag reductions are warranted (we can argue to what exact extent)after the winter. But its ridiculous if the WY fish and game thinks that the 200 NR tag reduction in region G will make some kind of a difference.
Last year 5,868 Residents hunted G. Its hard to regulate something when only 10% of a population is regulated and the other 90% is not.
WY could drop the NR tags in G to zero and that place would still get hammered.
F 950 to 750
G 600 to 400
H 800 to 600
I couldn't help but laugh at this. We all know the tag reductions are warranted (we can argue to what exact extent)after the winter. But its ridiculous if the WY fish and game thinks that the 200 NR tag reduction in region G will make some kind of a difference.
Last year 5,868 Residents hunted G. Its hard to regulate something when only 10% of a population is regulated and the other 90% is not.
WY could drop the NR tags in G to zero and that place would still get hammered.
>>>But it has no affect on
>>>resident hunters, and that's the
>>>elephant in the corner.......
>>
>>The Wyoming economy, as of late,
>>will control the resident hunting
>>pressure.
>
>
>And the locals are fully aware
>the hunting is going to
>stink so they will regulate
>themselves and stay home or
>go to other parts of
>the state that had a
>more mild winter. I
>hope this year doesn't cause
>knee jerk reactions to go
>to a limited entry system
>down the road.
It's inevitable.
>>>resident hunters, and that's the
>>>elephant in the corner.......
>>
>>The Wyoming economy, as of late,
>>will control the resident hunting
>>pressure.
>
>
>And the locals are fully aware
>the hunting is going to
>stink so they will regulate
>themselves and stay home or
>go to other parts of
>the state that had a
>more mild winter. I
>hope this year doesn't cause
>knee jerk reactions to go
>to a limited entry system
>down the road.
It's inevitable.
If G ever goes limited quota, it will be because resident hunters want it. The day non residents have a say in anything related to resident hunting is the day they need to fire the head of the G&F and get rid of the G&F Commissioners. If almost 6000 residents hunted G last year, I would imagine at least 5000 of them will want those areas to stay general...
grosventrehunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,941
+1 triple.
Yeah, I live in G and would fight it. Those of us willing to live in Wyoming get the benefits of it. Living in other states might be more lucrative for some, but there are trade offs. All we have to do is look at all the other states. Why would we want to go where the nonresidents have already gone in their own state?
Of the residents who hunt G and H, I wonder how many days they actually hunt.
The proposed cuts are no doubt in anticipation of winter kill. It'll be curious to see what the toll was, after the spring surveys are done.
Of the residents who hunt G and H, I wonder how many days they actually hunt.
The proposed cuts are no doubt in anticipation of winter kill. It'll be curious to see what the toll was, after the spring surveys are done.
HalfAce
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,153
I agree, your state, your rules. Residents should be rewarded the opportunity to making the types of choices that favor them.
But do you guys think that cutting 200 tags will do much to help the deer in that herd after this winter? Will reducing the number of hunters from 6,468 to 6,268 make a significant difference? Any difference? Obviously its possible a few residents will choose to hunt somewhere else, but we cant be certain of that either since its an OTC unit.
But do you guys think that cutting 200 tags will do much to help the deer in that herd after this winter? Will reducing the number of hunters from 6,468 to 6,268 make a significant difference? Any difference? Obviously its possible a few residents will choose to hunt somewhere else, but we cant be certain of that either since its an OTC unit.
schoolhousegrizz
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,710
Any news on if they are cutting antelope tags? How do you residents feel about g and h going limited or something like first choice only? I'm guessing you don't want that to happen, but just wondering what you think.
BigJohnson
Member
- Messages
- 96
Looks like they also shortened the season a bit.
grosventrehunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,941
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-17 AT 09:59PM (MST)[p]Make all general season deer tags open on the same day and shorten the season. Yes, I think cutting 200 tags would help, some. Do you think 200 more tags would make a difference on the Henry's or the strip?
HalfAce
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,153
The Strip's unit 13B only issues 100 tags a year so technically you couldn't decrease it by 200 tags. If you were to add 200 more tags, that would be a 200% increase in tags. Either choice is a big change.
Region G going from 6,468 to 6,268 hunters is only a 3% decrease. Not a big change, especially when comparing it to the strip.
Do you guys think there was a 3% mortality in G this winter?
Region G going from 6,468 to 6,268 hunters is only a 3% decrease. Not a big change, especially when comparing it to the strip.
Do you guys think there was a 3% mortality in G this winter?
grosventrehunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,941
So what you are saying is 200 tags would make a difference.......
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,609
With the average out of my Group Appl, sharing my 11 points, we might not draw after all in G.
Oh well, I already have my elk tags drawn.......
Robb
Oh well, I already have my elk tags drawn.......
Robb
Founder
Founder Since 1999
- Messages
- 11,689
Dang, it might take 6-8 points to draw this year! Hard to say if the winter kill will have a few guys holding off or not. Some of us might be watching from the sidelines.
How long will that area be able to maintain quality and remain general season for residents? I think the way technology and free time is going, it'll have to become limited to residents as well in the near future. I'll say in 5 years or so. We'll see.
Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
How long will that area be able to maintain quality and remain general season for residents? I think the way technology and free time is going, it'll have to become limited to residents as well in the near future. I'll say in 5 years or so. We'll see.
Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
>So what you are saying is
>200 tags would make a
>difference.......
are you serious or sarcastic? There is no way cutting 200 NR tags will make a effective/logical difference when there are 6000 resident hunters unrestricted.
And comparing it to the strip or henry's, like stated above they offer very few tags. If they cut 3 tags from the 100 in the strip, no that wouldn't make a effective difference
Mntman
"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
>200 tags would make a
>difference.......
are you serious or sarcastic? There is no way cutting 200 NR tags will make a effective/logical difference when there are 6000 resident hunters unrestricted.
And comparing it to the strip or henry's, like stated above they offer very few tags. If they cut 3 tags from the 100 in the strip, no that wouldn't make a effective difference
Mntman
"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
jm77
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,509
LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-17 AT 10:42AM (MST)[p]>>So what you are saying is
>>200 tags would make a
>>difference.......
>
>are you serious or sarcastic? There
>is no way cutting 200
>NR tags will make a
>effective/logical difference when there are
>6000 resident hunters unrestricted.
>
>And comparing it to the strip
>or henry's, like stated above
>they offer very few tags.
>If they cut 3 tags
>from the 100 in the
>strip, no that wouldn't make
>a effective difference
>
>Mntman
>
>"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
>
The 5868 resident hunters is not accurate. If I am correct there is a 6 week season region wide. Many residents hunt multiple areas and are counted more than once. It is not unrealistic to say that figure being used on this post is 20-30% higher than the actual number of resident hunters in "G".
>>200 tags would make a
>>difference.......
>
>are you serious or sarcastic? There
>is no way cutting 200
>NR tags will make a
>effective/logical difference when there are
>6000 resident hunters unrestricted.
>
>And comparing it to the strip
>or henry's, like stated above
>they offer very few tags.
>If they cut 3 tags
>from the 100 in the
>strip, no that wouldn't make
>a effective difference
>
>Mntman
>
>"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
>
The 5868 resident hunters is not accurate. If I am correct there is a 6 week season region wide. Many residents hunt multiple areas and are counted more than once. It is not unrealistic to say that figure being used on this post is 20-30% higher than the actual number of resident hunters in "G".
boomer
Active Member
- Messages
- 330
jm77 is right about the resident numbers. I'm sure I was counted hunting three different regions, but I only have 1 tag.
I will admit, however, that a tag decrease for non-residents may be as much about point sharing as it is about the actual deer that would be harvested.
I will admit, however, that a tag decrease for non-residents may be as much about point sharing as it is about the actual deer that would be harvested.
JakeSwensen
Active Member
- Messages
- 680
>WY could drop the NR tags
>in G to zero and
>that place would still get
>hammered.
^^^^^^^^^
That would be awesome! Zero NR tags!
???
[font face="verdana" color="green"] Jake
Swensen
>in G to zero and
>that place would still get
>hammered.
^^^^^^^^^
That would be awesome! Zero NR tags!
???
[font face="verdana" color="green"] Jake
Swensen
BPKHunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,798
Being from Idaho and hearing the same NR arguments on what is owed them, I agree that residents come first.
That said, given the fact the herd appears to need some relief this next year, I don't hear much from the Residents about a willingness to formally reduce opportunity in these units.
If so, that's selfish.
I won't disagree with a concern that if they make it LE, then it might stay that way forever. But, I don't think that concern should trump the health of the herd in likely your best mule deer unit in the state.
Gotta find a solution if it's as bad as reported.
That said, given the fact the herd appears to need some relief this next year, I don't hear much from the Residents about a willingness to formally reduce opportunity in these units.
If so, that's selfish.
I won't disagree with a concern that if they make it LE, then it might stay that way forever. But, I don't think that concern should trump the health of the herd in likely your best mule deer unit in the state.
Gotta find a solution if it's as bad as reported.
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,609
Damn I just got hit for my Az. bow bull elk tag....
5th tag in 15 years.....
2 elk tags again in Wyoming....(10 out of 11 years)
No wonder I have soooo many Deer points in Wyo...
Robb
5th tag in 15 years.....
2 elk tags again in Wyoming....(10 out of 11 years)
No wonder I have soooo many Deer points in Wyo...
Robb
jm77
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,509
>
>That said, given the fact the
>herd appears to need some
>relief this next year, I
>don't hear much from the
>Residents about a willingness to
>formally reduce opportunity in these
>units.
>
>If so, that's selfish.
I think you are way too premature with this statement. I think residents tend to sell regulate, like what I have seen mentioned on this post.
>I won't disagree with a concern
>that if they make it
>LE, then it might stay
>that way forever. But,
>I don't think that concern
>should trump the health of
>the herd in likely your
>best mule deer unit in
>the state.
Remember, LQ solves nothing with doe deer. LQ vs general is all about how many bucks are killed. The health of the deer herd isn't effected until buck/doe ratios drop below 10/100. Given the terrain in G that is likely not to happen.
>That said, given the fact the
>herd appears to need some
>relief this next year, I
>don't hear much from the
>Residents about a willingness to
>formally reduce opportunity in these
>units.
>
>If so, that's selfish.
I think you are way too premature with this statement. I think residents tend to sell regulate, like what I have seen mentioned on this post.
>I won't disagree with a concern
>that if they make it
>LE, then it might stay
>that way forever. But,
>I don't think that concern
>should trump the health of
>the herd in likely your
>best mule deer unit in
>the state.
Remember, LQ solves nothing with doe deer. LQ vs general is all about how many bucks are killed. The health of the deer herd isn't effected until buck/doe ratios drop below 10/100. Given the terrain in G that is likely not to happen.
I'm just glad I don't need to modify my applications. I was a little worried about drawing antelope, but they significantly increased the amount of permits on my second choice unit so I should be fine.
The residents that hunt g and h every year have an annual tradition that has deep roots. We don't need to mess that up by limiting resident hunters on there.
Just my two bits.
Dillon
The residents that hunt g and h every year have an annual tradition that has deep roots. We don't need to mess that up by limiting resident hunters on there.
Just my two bits.
Dillon
I'm opposed to LQ in the regions for residents. I would not be opposed to pick a region, or a multitude of other solutions to reduce hunting pressure in G & H.
I'm also not opposed to a reduction in non resident tags for region G. Wyoming gives away the bank to non-resident hunters when comparted to most other western states so I don't have much sympathy.
I'm also not opposed to a reduction in non resident tags for region G. Wyoming gives away the bank to non-resident hunters when comparted to most other western states so I don't have much sympathy.
mightyhunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,208
I am surprised that F tags may be cut. Game and Fish hooks a lot of suckers with those tags. For the most part, these are migration hunts that take some knowledge of the area if you are ever to have any success. Access into these areas with the wilderness restrictions also make the hunting problematic.
I have seen nothing to indicate that the Clarks Fork Herd has suffered much in the way of winterkill. I was out hiking in 105 yesterday. I saw in excess of 100 mule deer. There were lots of last year's fawns. They all looked good. They were already starting their migration back into the Beartooths and beyond.
I am wondering if the cutbacks are the result of over harvest in the units closest to the North Fork and South Fork of the Shoshone. When most of the elk units went LQ, the outfitters had to pick up another source of revenue. They are doing more deer hunts to maintain that revenue.I have witnessed the hammering of the 2-3 year old buck population in those areas. In my opinion, the trophy quality in those units has dropped considerably in the last 5 years. I didn't hunt those areas for the first time this year. The herds in those units are not all that big when compared to the units in the Wyoming Range.
just sayin...mh
I have seen nothing to indicate that the Clarks Fork Herd has suffered much in the way of winterkill. I was out hiking in 105 yesterday. I saw in excess of 100 mule deer. There were lots of last year's fawns. They all looked good. They were already starting their migration back into the Beartooths and beyond.
I am wondering if the cutbacks are the result of over harvest in the units closest to the North Fork and South Fork of the Shoshone. When most of the elk units went LQ, the outfitters had to pick up another source of revenue. They are doing more deer hunts to maintain that revenue.I have witnessed the hammering of the 2-3 year old buck population in those areas. In my opinion, the trophy quality in those units has dropped considerably in the last 5 years. I didn't hunt those areas for the first time this year. The herds in those units are not all that big when compared to the units in the Wyoming Range.
just sayin...mh
SDBugler
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,238
Looks like burning my max deer points on G last year was the best decision I could have made. With a 33% reduction in tags, point creep will really increase over the next few years. Unfortunately these tag cuts will likely never get added back into the system after a few years even if the herds come back. In 5+ years when the herds rebound everyone will have forgotten about why the tags were cut and the there will be an outcry that there are already too many NR hunters.
I agree that residents should have more opportunity than NR's when it comes to hunting, but what is a fair allocation of NR opportunity? With this recent tag cut, that will have the NR's at only 6% of the total. Is that fair? Is that equitable to what other states provide?
I agree that residents should have more opportunity than NR's when it comes to hunting, but what is a fair allocation of NR opportunity? With this recent tag cut, that will have the NR's at only 6% of the total. Is that fair? Is that equitable to what other states provide?
SDBugler
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,238
Junior
I'm not sure how WGF comes up with their final numbers for hunters/unit but they are obviously calculated in similar ways for Res and NR via harvest surveys. So it doesn't matter if the "exact number" of hunters it true or not but the percentage or ratio of Res/NR would be the same.
Looking at the pooled hunters in the harvest stats there are 5868 resident pooled hunters and 648 NR pooled hunters. Now we know that 648 isn't correct because they didn't issue that many tags. However the percentage of pooled hunters (pooled the same way for Res and NR) is 9.9%. If you cut the number of NR tags by 1/3, then you could assume the number of pooled NR hunters would also reduce by 1/3. Doing a recalculation with a third less NR pooled hunters results in 432 NR hunters and that would be 6.8%.
My point of 6% is just to question to everyone, both Res and NR's, if this is a good allocation of opportunity compared to other areas in WY and what other states offer?
There have been comments that the Residents will "self regulate". I find this hard to believe when the next post talks about long standing "tradition" for residents. Those comments contradict. Personally, I think the fact that G/H open earlier than other units, will prevent "self regulation". If G/H opened simultaneous with the rest of the majority of general units, then I could see "self regulation" work based on quality/quantity and hunters deciding where to hunt based on quality/quantity. However with the early dates compared to other units the residents will always have the option to try G/H first and see if they pull out a trophy and then go hunt another area later on if they don't.
I'm not sure how WGF comes up with their final numbers for hunters/unit but they are obviously calculated in similar ways for Res and NR via harvest surveys. So it doesn't matter if the "exact number" of hunters it true or not but the percentage or ratio of Res/NR would be the same.
Looking at the pooled hunters in the harvest stats there are 5868 resident pooled hunters and 648 NR pooled hunters. Now we know that 648 isn't correct because they didn't issue that many tags. However the percentage of pooled hunters (pooled the same way for Res and NR) is 9.9%. If you cut the number of NR tags by 1/3, then you could assume the number of pooled NR hunters would also reduce by 1/3. Doing a recalculation with a third less NR pooled hunters results in 432 NR hunters and that would be 6.8%.
My point of 6% is just to question to everyone, both Res and NR's, if this is a good allocation of opportunity compared to other areas in WY and what other states offer?
There have been comments that the Residents will "self regulate". I find this hard to believe when the next post talks about long standing "tradition" for residents. Those comments contradict. Personally, I think the fact that G/H open earlier than other units, will prevent "self regulation". If G/H opened simultaneous with the rest of the majority of general units, then I could see "self regulation" work based on quality/quantity and hunters deciding where to hunt based on quality/quantity. However with the early dates compared to other units the residents will always have the option to try G/H first and see if they pull out a trophy and then go hunt another area later on if they don't.
SDBugler
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,238
Jm
That is a pretty funny comparison!!!!
I thought we were talking about G?
So what you are saying is that NR are more than welcome to come to WY and take the nondesireable and leftover tags to help manage the herds, just not welcome to hunt bucks and high quality ares, or maybe more specifically the areas that you hunt.
My point in my post is to raise the question of what is a fair percentage or ratio?
It seems strange to me that in units where the state feels it is necessary to limit the number of hunters that the statute says 80/20. Yet in a general area such as G (which general areas are typically less restrictive) they are reducing the ratio to 93/7.
May I ask you what you feel is the appropriate ratio?
That is a pretty funny comparison!!!!
I thought we were talking about G?
So what you are saying is that NR are more than welcome to come to WY and take the nondesireable and leftover tags to help manage the herds, just not welcome to hunt bucks and high quality ares, or maybe more specifically the areas that you hunt.
My point in my post is to raise the question of what is a fair percentage or ratio?
It seems strange to me that in units where the state feels it is necessary to limit the number of hunters that the statute says 80/20. Yet in a general area such as G (which general areas are typically less restrictive) they are reducing the ratio to 93/7.
May I ask you what you feel is the appropriate ratio?
RoadlessHunter
Active Member
- Messages
- 580
If you think WY residents have it so great then come join us, but good luck finding a decent job. I can barely afford to hunt the resident tags. There is a price to pay to live in WY. The day G goes draw I will leave the state.
>My point in my post is
>to raise the question of
>what is a fair percentage
>or ratio?
>It seems strange to me that
>in units where the state
>feels it is necessary to
>limit the number of hunters
>that the statute says 80/20.
>Yet in a general area
>such as G (which general
>areas are typically less restrictive)
>they are reducing the ratio
>to 93/7.
>May I ask you what you
>feel is the appropriate ratio?
SD---You need to remember that the only thing Wyoming has in an actual Statute is that they have to issue 7,250 elk tag to NRs. There is nothing that says they have to issue a single tag of any of the other species to us NRs! IMHO Wyoming is the best state in the west for how it treats NRs in it's tag allotments!
>to raise the question of
>what is a fair percentage
>or ratio?
>It seems strange to me that
>in units where the state
>feels it is necessary to
>limit the number of hunters
>that the statute says 80/20.
>Yet in a general area
>such as G (which general
>areas are typically less restrictive)
>they are reducing the ratio
>to 93/7.
>May I ask you what you
>feel is the appropriate ratio?
SD---You need to remember that the only thing Wyoming has in an actual Statute is that they have to issue 7,250 elk tag to NRs. There is nothing that says they have to issue a single tag of any of the other species to us NRs! IMHO Wyoming is the best state in the west for how it treats NRs in it's tag allotments!
Founder
Founder Since 1999
- Messages
- 11,689
I'm sure the acceptable number of tags to most residents is zero for non-residents and 1 for them, and everyone else should stay home cause all the deer winter killed and there's no big deer up there anymore anyway. Ha ha
The nail was hit on the head when someone mentioned that none of those politicians up there are willing to suggest resident tag cuts until absolutely needed. If there's a little room to cut non-resident tags, they will to please the residents who complain about too many tags and winter kill.
Eventually, it'll be limited to residents too.
Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
The nail was hit on the head when someone mentioned that none of those politicians up there are willing to suggest resident tag cuts until absolutely needed. If there's a little room to cut non-resident tags, they will to please the residents who complain about too many tags and winter kill.
Eventually, it'll be limited to residents too.
Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
Founder,
The acceptable number of tags is around a 10% allocation to nonresidents. If that dips a little low in one particular unit, after a horrific winter so be it. Wyoming far exceeds 10% on a statewide average, Especially for elk, moose, sheep, & goats. For the record Utah gives <8% to non resident hunters for their better quality hunts. I never hear residents of these other Western states demanding that they give more tags to their Wyoming brethren.
LQ is not needed in Region G or H for residents. Wyoming is long overdue in making hunters pick a region or a season. Or coming up with less intrusive method of lowering the amount of hunters in Region G or H.
The acceptable number of tags is around a 10% allocation to nonresidents. If that dips a little low in one particular unit, after a horrific winter so be it. Wyoming far exceeds 10% on a statewide average, Especially for elk, moose, sheep, & goats. For the record Utah gives <8% to non resident hunters for their better quality hunts. I never hear residents of these other Western states demanding that they give more tags to their Wyoming brethren.
LQ is not needed in Region G or H for residents. Wyoming is long overdue in making hunters pick a region or a season. Or coming up with less intrusive method of lowering the amount of hunters in Region G or H.
SDBugler
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,238
>If you think WY residents have
>it so great then come
>join us, but good luck
>finding a decent job.
>I can barely afford to
>hunt the resident tags.
>There is a price to
>pay to live in WY.
> The day G goes
>draw I will leave the
>state.
Roadless
That is actually in the plans right now. Our company is struggling to get qualified people to come work in our Sheridan office and so I am planning to move to Sheridan after my youngest son graduates from high school next year.
>it so great then come
>join us, but good luck
>finding a decent job.
>I can barely afford to
>hunt the resident tags.
>There is a price to
>pay to live in WY.
> The day G goes
>draw I will leave the
>state.
Roadless
That is actually in the plans right now. Our company is struggling to get qualified people to come work in our Sheridan office and so I am planning to move to Sheridan after my youngest son graduates from high school next year.
SDBugler
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,238
>
>SD---You need to remember that the
>only thing Wyoming has in
>an actual Statute is that
>they have to issue 7,250
>elk tag to NRs.
>There is nothing that says
>they have to issue a
>single tag of any of
>the other species to us
>NRs! IMHO Wyoming is
>the best state in the
>west for how it treats
>NRs in it's tag allotments!
Topgun
Sorry "statute" may have been the wrong terminology (hard to keep them all 100% accurate when applying in 10 states). But I believe there is a commission rule or regulation that states something about 80% of licenses go to residents in LQ units. That would leave 20% for NR.
I agree WY is pretty generous to NR with 20% in the LQ units relative to other states.
It just seams out of whack to me that they feel 80/20 is acceptable in an area that requires very restrictive licenses yet 93/7 in an area that for all realistic purposes is unlimited hunting pressure. I'm not complaining, I'm just stating something that seems strange in my opinion.
>SD---You need to remember that the
>only thing Wyoming has in
>an actual Statute is that
>they have to issue 7,250
>elk tag to NRs.
>There is nothing that says
>they have to issue a
>single tag of any of
>the other species to us
>NRs! IMHO Wyoming is
>the best state in the
>west for how it treats
>NRs in it's tag allotments!
Topgun
Sorry "statute" may have been the wrong terminology (hard to keep them all 100% accurate when applying in 10 states). But I believe there is a commission rule or regulation that states something about 80% of licenses go to residents in LQ units. That would leave 20% for NR.
I agree WY is pretty generous to NR with 20% in the LQ units relative to other states.
It just seams out of whack to me that they feel 80/20 is acceptable in an area that requires very restrictive licenses yet 93/7 in an area that for all realistic purposes is unlimited hunting pressure. I'm not complaining, I'm just stating something that seems strange in my opinion.
jm77
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,509
SD
Regulation:
(iii) Deer. Eighty percent (80%) of the total available limited quota deer licenses shall initially be offered to residents in the initial drawing.
Topgun is right, there is no guarantee to nonresidents of any percentage of deer tags, this is totally up to the Commission. There is no mention as to what specifically NR get. Also, your 93/7 is closer to 86/14 considering many more residents will hunt multiple areas within G based on the 6 week season and therefore are counted two and three times in total number of hunters.
Considering how many NR big game licenses are sold each year in Wyoming, I think the state treats NR hunters well.
Regulation:
(iii) Deer. Eighty percent (80%) of the total available limited quota deer licenses shall initially be offered to residents in the initial drawing.
Topgun is right, there is no guarantee to nonresidents of any percentage of deer tags, this is totally up to the Commission. There is no mention as to what specifically NR get. Also, your 93/7 is closer to 86/14 considering many more residents will hunt multiple areas within G based on the 6 week season and therefore are counted two and three times in total number of hunters.
Considering how many NR big game licenses are sold each year in Wyoming, I think the state treats NR hunters well.
MaineFlatlander
Active Member
- Messages
- 318
I'm not complaining as I think Wyoming is very fair but..
Lets be completely honest...about 58,500 Resident tags and 25,000 NR ???? BUT and a very big BUT every one of those NR tags were issued through a drawing or bought as a leftover Some of those tags weren't even wanted by Residents..
While Residents are limited in certain units every single Resident who qualifies can go out and buy a deer tag...every year...
So while the above numbers look great for NR, and they are, this year there could be 200,000 resident deer tags sold (we all know it wont happen but still)
And I'm not worried. As soon as my kids are out of school in a few years I plan to move as I have already retired. Its a LOT cheaper to live there on my salary then it is here. Until then I'll play the game.
Lets be completely honest...about 58,500 Resident tags and 25,000 NR ???? BUT and a very big BUT every one of those NR tags were issued through a drawing or bought as a leftover Some of those tags weren't even wanted by Residents..
While Residents are limited in certain units every single Resident who qualifies can go out and buy a deer tag...every year...
So while the above numbers look great for NR, and they are, this year there could be 200,000 resident deer tags sold (we all know it wont happen but still)
And I'm not worried. As soon as my kids are out of school in a few years I plan to move as I have already retired. Its a LOT cheaper to live there on my salary then it is here. Until then I'll play the game.
I don't see the need for G and H to go to limited entry draw. I see tons of pictures of big deer alive or dead coming out. Seems like they got a good thing going with lots of opportunity and still big bucks behind every tree. Seems like the NR guys wanting to have two or three basins to themselves are the ones wanting LE. I think it is awesome that WY has a place that R can go on an OTC tag and have the shot at a big one. Not much of that left. I hope they are the last one standing, even if I never go hunt G or H.
2 cents DZ
2 cents DZ
faultcurrent
Active Member
- Messages
- 136
I don't believe the BS JM77 is trying to pass off of guys getting counted 3 times so the number is inflated. How about the guys that don't get counted at all? In over 15 years of hunting G and H I've been counted once. And the line about residents self regulating themselves? Yeah riiiight.
DZ hit it on the head. Agree 100%.
DZ hit it on the head. Agree 100%.
a few self regulate, the rest, well, if its got antlers, its getting lead. I live in Wyoming, one of the major deciding factors of moving here was the deer hunting and availability of tags. Having said that, I wouldn't have major heartburn with limiting tags as long as it was done on a per area basis, no more regions for nonresidents. It works for Colorado and there will be areas a guy a can get a tag in regularly.
ORIONTHEHUNTER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,738
Colorado also limits residents
faultcurrent
Active Member
- Messages
- 136
I think a few minor tweaks like adjusting season dates to one opening day would help not only the deer but the hunters too. Spread out the pressure. But again, that is only my opinion.
Honestly though how bad is the hunting right now? Does anything need to be done? Are does not getting bred?
It was "bad" after 92 but there still were quality bucks and the views didnt change. Still some of the most beautiful country out there. And to experience it with a tag in the pocket? Thats some good stuff right there.
I think people have a false idea of what it was like in the "good old days". Big bucks are always rare, thats what makes them special. And that's why even in black and white days they took pics.
Honestly though how bad is the hunting right now? Does anything need to be done? Are does not getting bred?
It was "bad" after 92 but there still were quality bucks and the views didnt change. Still some of the most beautiful country out there. And to experience it with a tag in the pocket? Thats some good stuff right there.
I think people have a false idea of what it was like in the "good old days". Big bucks are always rare, thats what makes them special. And that's why even in black and white days they took pics.
jm77
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,509
>I don't believe the BS JM77
>is trying to pass off
>of guys getting counted 3
>times so the number is
>inflated. How about the
>guys that don't get counted
>at all? In over
>15 years of hunting G
>and H I've been counted
>once.
It doesn't take much research to find out that harvest surveys are models made using the hunter surveys that many of us who hunt Wyoming receive. According to the professionals, there are 95% or better in accuracy. Just because you don't receive a survey, doesn't mean a thing.
Also, if you have completed a survey you all know, the question is asked which areas were hunted. If you replied, for instance, that you hunted 135 in archery and 143 in rifle, you are counted as a hunter in both areas.
Not rocket science, but I can understand why some have difficulty grasping it.
>is trying to pass off
>of guys getting counted 3
>times so the number is
>inflated. How about the
>guys that don't get counted
>at all? In over
>15 years of hunting G
>and H I've been counted
>once.
It doesn't take much research to find out that harvest surveys are models made using the hunter surveys that many of us who hunt Wyoming receive. According to the professionals, there are 95% or better in accuracy. Just because you don't receive a survey, doesn't mean a thing.
Also, if you have completed a survey you all know, the question is asked which areas were hunted. If you replied, for instance, that you hunted 135 in archery and 143 in rifle, you are counted as a hunter in both areas.
Not rocket science, but I can understand why some have difficulty grasping it.
SDBugler
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,238
Jm77
As long as we are in the off season and have time on our hands and need something hunting related to talk about. I would like to understand your data supporting that the numbers are 30% off for residents. We know the numbers are off by 8% for NR because they have 48 more NR hunters counted than NR licenses sold. But how are you coming up with 30% for Res hunters?
When I look at the harvest summary data, it appears that the number of R and NR hunters that hunt multiple units in G should be pretty close to the same. Here is the data supporting my assumption:
Success rates
With the exception of unit 144 all the success rates between R and NR is almost equal. If R hunters cross hunted more than NR hunters than their success rate should be lower (30% lower would support your claim)
Overall between all the units in G the success rate for R hunters is 46.7% and 52.6%. I would expect this since a higher percentage of NR hunters are likely to be guided than NR hunters. Also, the fact that G is their only option to bring home a deer whereas a resident could harvest a meat buck in an easier unit to drag one out of.
Hunter days
The number of days per hunter within each unit is almost identical across the board between R and NR hunters both on a unit by unit basis and also as a combined total of all units within G.
On a unit by unit basis:
135 - R = 4.797 days/hunter and NR = 4.112 days/hunter
143 - R = 5.548 days/hunter and NR = 5.516 days/hunter
144 - R = 5.309 days/hunter and NR = 5.259 days/hunter
145 - R = 4.511 days/hunter and NR = 5.156
The combined total for all the G units for R hunters is 4.971 days/hunter and for NR hunters is 4.938. If your claim that the number of hunters is actually 30% lower (4,108 hunters) than the number of days per hunter would be 7.101 days/hunter. I would find it very hard to believe that the "average" R hunter actually spent 7.101 days hunting in G (44% more days per hunter than NR hunters). the statewide averages for mule deer hunters is 3.779 for R hunters and 3.159 for NR hunters (again an almost equivalent value).
As long as we are in the off season and have time on our hands and need something hunting related to talk about. I would like to understand your data supporting that the numbers are 30% off for residents. We know the numbers are off by 8% for NR because they have 48 more NR hunters counted than NR licenses sold. But how are you coming up with 30% for Res hunters?
When I look at the harvest summary data, it appears that the number of R and NR hunters that hunt multiple units in G should be pretty close to the same. Here is the data supporting my assumption:
Success rates
With the exception of unit 144 all the success rates between R and NR is almost equal. If R hunters cross hunted more than NR hunters than their success rate should be lower (30% lower would support your claim)
Overall between all the units in G the success rate for R hunters is 46.7% and 52.6%. I would expect this since a higher percentage of NR hunters are likely to be guided than NR hunters. Also, the fact that G is their only option to bring home a deer whereas a resident could harvest a meat buck in an easier unit to drag one out of.
Hunter days
The number of days per hunter within each unit is almost identical across the board between R and NR hunters both on a unit by unit basis and also as a combined total of all units within G.
On a unit by unit basis:
135 - R = 4.797 days/hunter and NR = 4.112 days/hunter
143 - R = 5.548 days/hunter and NR = 5.516 days/hunter
144 - R = 5.309 days/hunter and NR = 5.259 days/hunter
145 - R = 4.511 days/hunter and NR = 5.156
The combined total for all the G units for R hunters is 4.971 days/hunter and for NR hunters is 4.938. If your claim that the number of hunters is actually 30% lower (4,108 hunters) than the number of days per hunter would be 7.101 days/hunter. I would find it very hard to believe that the "average" R hunter actually spent 7.101 days hunting in G (44% more days per hunter than NR hunters). the statewide averages for mule deer hunters is 3.779 for R hunters and 3.159 for NR hunters (again an almost equivalent value).
Conrad8899
Active Member
- Messages
- 258
I am a resident of Wyoming... And by no means do I want preference points.. For elk deer or antelope.. I would like to see. Residents pick a general area.. And that's the area U hunt.. And U pick Ur weapon archery or rifle. Not both.. Wyoming fish and game made a couple units 4 point unit this year.. It will be interesting how that goes.. Why not make general g units 4 point or better? JMO
huntfishall1
Active Member
- Messages
- 393
So reading through all the responses in this thread its mentioned a least a couple time how it's tough to live as a resident in Wyoming due to lack of jobs and low wages. Basically the economy wont support many jobs or high paying positions.
I'm all about doing what is ultimately best for wildlife - whatever it takes within reason, including tag cuts. But I find it funny that they propose to reduce NR tags in several regions, about 700 tags total based on what I read above. How much revenue will this amount to in license and tag fees? How much lost revenue to other areas/local economy from NR that would potentially spend their money on goods and services? These cuts and loss in revenue despite the fact that everyone knows it wont make a significant difference in the herd health when the same regions have OTC tags for the residents. Ultimately what does all this achieve for residents? I guess seeing a few less NRs hunting in the fall. The overall havest numbers likely wont change much. Its very silly and near sighted in my opinion.
I'm all about doing what is ultimately best for wildlife - whatever it takes within reason, including tag cuts. But I find it funny that they propose to reduce NR tags in several regions, about 700 tags total based on what I read above. How much revenue will this amount to in license and tag fees? How much lost revenue to other areas/local economy from NR that would potentially spend their money on goods and services? These cuts and loss in revenue despite the fact that everyone knows it wont make a significant difference in the herd health when the same regions have OTC tags for the residents. Ultimately what does all this achieve for residents? I guess seeing a few less NRs hunting in the fall. The overall havest numbers likely wont change much. Its very silly and near sighted in my opinion.
faultcurrent
Active Member
- Messages
- 136
>Jm77
>As long as we are in
>the off season and have
>time on our hands and
>need something hunting related to
>talk about. I would
>like to understand your data
>supporting that the numbers are
>30% off for residents.
>We know the numbers are
>off by 8% for NR
>because they have 48 more
>NR hunters counted than NR
>licenses sold. But how are
>you coming up with 30%
>for Res hunters?
>
>When I look at the harvest
>summary data, it appears that
>the number of R and
>NR hunters that hunt multiple
>units in G should be
>pretty close to the same.
> Here is the data
>supporting my assumption:
>
>Success rates
>With the exception of unit 144
>all the success rates between
>R and NR is almost
>equal. If R hunters
>cross hunted more than NR
>hunters than their success rate
>should be lower (30% lower
>would support your claim)
>Overall between all the units in
>G the success rate for
>R hunters is 46.7% and
>52.6%. I would expect
>this since a higher percentage
>of NR hunters are likely
>to be guided than NR
>hunters. Also, the fact
>that G is their only
>option to bring home a
>deer whereas a resident could
>harvest a meat buck in
>an easier unit to drag
>one out of.
>
>Hunter days
>The number of days per hunter
>within each unit is almost
>identical across the board between
>R and NR hunters both
>on a unit by unit
>basis and also as a
>combined total of all units
>within G.
>On a unit by unit basis:
>
>135 - R = 4.797 days/hunter
>and NR = 4.112 days/hunter
>
>143 - R = 5.548 days/hunter
>and NR = 5.516 days/hunter
>
>144 - R = 5.309 days/hunter
>and NR = 5.259 days/hunter
>
>145 - R = 4.511 days/hunter
>and NR = 5.156
>The combined total for all the
>G units for R hunters
>is 4.971 days/hunter and for
>NR hunters is 4.938.
>If your claim that the
>number of hunters is actually
>30% lower (4,108 hunters) than
>the number of days per
>hunter would be 7.101 days/hunter.
> I would find it
>very hard to believe that
>the "average" R hunter actually
>spent 7.101 days hunting in
>G (44% more days per
>hunter than NR hunters).
>the statewide averages for mule
>deer hunters is 3.779 for
>R hunters and 3.159 for
>NR hunters (again an almost
>equivalent value).
One should not question Jm77. Hes right and he knows it. If you have any doubt, ask him.
>As long as we are in
>the off season and have
>time on our hands and
>need something hunting related to
>talk about. I would
>like to understand your data
>supporting that the numbers are
>30% off for residents.
>We know the numbers are
>off by 8% for NR
>because they have 48 more
>NR hunters counted than NR
>licenses sold. But how are
>you coming up with 30%
>for Res hunters?
>
>When I look at the harvest
>summary data, it appears that
>the number of R and
>NR hunters that hunt multiple
>units in G should be
>pretty close to the same.
> Here is the data
>supporting my assumption:
>
>Success rates
>With the exception of unit 144
>all the success rates between
>R and NR is almost
>equal. If R hunters
>cross hunted more than NR
>hunters than their success rate
>should be lower (30% lower
>would support your claim)
>Overall between all the units in
>G the success rate for
>R hunters is 46.7% and
>52.6%. I would expect
>this since a higher percentage
>of NR hunters are likely
>to be guided than NR
>hunters. Also, the fact
>that G is their only
>option to bring home a
>deer whereas a resident could
>harvest a meat buck in
>an easier unit to drag
>one out of.
>
>Hunter days
>The number of days per hunter
>within each unit is almost
>identical across the board between
>R and NR hunters both
>on a unit by unit
>basis and also as a
>combined total of all units
>within G.
>On a unit by unit basis:
>
>135 - R = 4.797 days/hunter
>and NR = 4.112 days/hunter
>
>143 - R = 5.548 days/hunter
>and NR = 5.516 days/hunter
>
>144 - R = 5.309 days/hunter
>and NR = 5.259 days/hunter
>
>145 - R = 4.511 days/hunter
>and NR = 5.156
>The combined total for all the
>G units for R hunters
>is 4.971 days/hunter and for
>NR hunters is 4.938.
>If your claim that the
>number of hunters is actually
>30% lower (4,108 hunters) than
>the number of days per
>hunter would be 7.101 days/hunter.
> I would find it
>very hard to believe that
>the "average" R hunter actually
>spent 7.101 days hunting in
>G (44% more days per
>hunter than NR hunters).
>the statewide averages for mule
>deer hunters is 3.779 for
>R hunters and 3.159 for
>NR hunters (again an almost
>equivalent value).
One should not question Jm77. Hes right and he knows it. If you have any doubt, ask him.
>>Jm77
>>As long as we are in
>>the off season and have
>>time on our hands and
>>need something hunting related to
>>talk about. I would
>>like to understand your data
>>supporting that the numbers are
>>30% off for residents.
>>We know the numbers are
>>off by 8% for NR
>>because they have 48 more
>>NR hunters counted than NR
>>licenses sold. But how are
>>you coming up with 30%
>>for Res hunters?
>>
>>When I look at the harvest
>>summary data, it appears that
>>the number of R and
>>NR hunters that hunt multiple
>>units in G should be
>>pretty close to the same.
>> Here is the data
>>supporting my assumption:
>>
>>Success rates
>>With the exception of unit 144
>>all the success rates between
>>R and NR is almost
>>equal. If R hunters
>>cross hunted more than NR
>>hunters than their success rate
>>should be lower (30% lower
>>would support your claim)
>>Overall between all the units in
>>G the success rate for
>>R hunters is 46.7% and
>>52.6%. I would expect
>>this since a higher percentage
>>of NR hunters are likely
>>to be guided than NR
>>hunters. Also, the fact
>>that G is their only
>>option to bring home a
>>deer whereas a resident could
>>harvest a meat buck in
>>an easier unit to drag
>>one out of.
>>
>>Hunter days
>>The number of days per hunter
>>within each unit is almost
>>identical across the board between
>>R and NR hunters both
>>on a unit by unit
>>basis and also as a
>>combined total of all units
>>within G.
>>On a unit by unit basis:
>>
>>135 - R = 4.797 days/hunter
>>and NR = 4.112 days/hunter
>>
>>143 - R = 5.548 days/hunter
>>and NR = 5.516 days/hunter
>>
>>144 - R = 5.309 days/hunter
>>and NR = 5.259 days/hunter
>>
>>145 - R = 4.511 days/hunter
>>and NR = 5.156
>>The combined total for all the
>>G units for R hunters
>>is 4.971 days/hunter and for
>>NR hunters is 4.938.
>>If your claim that the
>>number of hunters is actually
>>30% lower (4,108 hunters) than
>>the number of days per
>>hunter would be 7.101 days/hunter.
>> I would find it
>>very hard to believe that
>>the "average" R hunter actually
>>spent 7.101 days hunting in
>>G (44% more days per
>>hunter than NR hunters).
>>the statewide averages for mule
>>deer hunters is 3.779 for
>>R hunters and 3.159 for
>>NR hunters (again an almost
>>equivalent value).
>
>One should not question Jm77.
>Hes right and he knows
>it. If you have
>any doubt, ask him.
In reading a number of your posts in the short time you've been on this site I'd damn sure question you and your comments before I would anything Jim posts on here!!!
>>As long as we are in
>>the off season and have
>>time on our hands and
>>need something hunting related to
>>talk about. I would
>>like to understand your data
>>supporting that the numbers are
>>30% off for residents.
>>We know the numbers are
>>off by 8% for NR
>>because they have 48 more
>>NR hunters counted than NR
>>licenses sold. But how are
>>you coming up with 30%
>>for Res hunters?
>>
>>When I look at the harvest
>>summary data, it appears that
>>the number of R and
>>NR hunters that hunt multiple
>>units in G should be
>>pretty close to the same.
>> Here is the data
>>supporting my assumption:
>>
>>Success rates
>>With the exception of unit 144
>>all the success rates between
>>R and NR is almost
>>equal. If R hunters
>>cross hunted more than NR
>>hunters than their success rate
>>should be lower (30% lower
>>would support your claim)
>>Overall between all the units in
>>G the success rate for
>>R hunters is 46.7% and
>>52.6%. I would expect
>>this since a higher percentage
>>of NR hunters are likely
>>to be guided than NR
>>hunters. Also, the fact
>>that G is their only
>>option to bring home a
>>deer whereas a resident could
>>harvest a meat buck in
>>an easier unit to drag
>>one out of.
>>
>>Hunter days
>>The number of days per hunter
>>within each unit is almost
>>identical across the board between
>>R and NR hunters both
>>on a unit by unit
>>basis and also as a
>>combined total of all units
>>within G.
>>On a unit by unit basis:
>>
>>135 - R = 4.797 days/hunter
>>and NR = 4.112 days/hunter
>>
>>143 - R = 5.548 days/hunter
>>and NR = 5.516 days/hunter
>>
>>144 - R = 5.309 days/hunter
>>and NR = 5.259 days/hunter
>>
>>145 - R = 4.511 days/hunter
>>and NR = 5.156
>>The combined total for all the
>>G units for R hunters
>>is 4.971 days/hunter and for
>>NR hunters is 4.938.
>>If your claim that the
>>number of hunters is actually
>>30% lower (4,108 hunters) than
>>the number of days per
>>hunter would be 7.101 days/hunter.
>> I would find it
>>very hard to believe that
>>the "average" R hunter actually
>>spent 7.101 days hunting in
>>G (44% more days per
>>hunter than NR hunters).
>>the statewide averages for mule
>>deer hunters is 3.779 for
>>R hunters and 3.159 for
>>NR hunters (again an almost
>>equivalent value).
>
>One should not question Jm77.
>Hes right and he knows
>it. If you have
>any doubt, ask him.
In reading a number of your posts in the short time you've been on this site I'd damn sure question you and your comments before I would anything Jim posts on here!!!
Stillwater165
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,239
Very well thought out statement huntfishall1. I agree , the few non resident tag cuts aren't gonna help much. I don't care if a person happens to be a local or not , we should all have the common sense to ease up in the heavily hit areas this year. But the truth is most won't , some due to greed , others to the meat in the freezer mentality. I guess we just hope for the best , prepare for the worst.
What are the buck to doe ratios? We shouldn't probably be killing antlerless deer in heavily hit areas. Unless there are too few bucks relative to does, what is decreasing the number of bucks killed going to do for the health of the herd? Or is this about trophy opportunity, rather than the health of the herd?
I'll be curious about Game and Fish's budgetary plans, cutting that many NR licenses. No doubt they will have one.
I'll be curious about Game and Fish's budgetary plans, cutting that many NR licenses. No doubt they will have one.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
Residents will have have to draw a deer tag in certain regions within 5 years. You can bet on it.
jm77
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,509
SD
I like the way you tweek the numbers. So how about this:
Statewide, 18% of NR didn't hunt on their deer license. G is a popular region, so let's say only 10% NR didn't hunt their region tags in G. That means 17% of NR hunted more than 1 area in G.
Now based on the difficulty for a NR to spend the whole season or return and hunt different areas or seasons, it is highly likely that in comparison 20-30% of resident hunters hunted more than 1 area in Region G for the mere fact we live here and can do it easier.
This is my comment from post #25, you used the figure "30%"
"Many residents hunt multiple areas and are counted more than once. It is not unrealistic to say that figure being used on this post is 20-30% higher than the actual number of resident hunters in "G"."
I like the way you tweek the numbers. So how about this:
Statewide, 18% of NR didn't hunt on their deer license. G is a popular region, so let's say only 10% NR didn't hunt their region tags in G. That means 17% of NR hunted more than 1 area in G.
Now based on the difficulty for a NR to spend the whole season or return and hunt different areas or seasons, it is highly likely that in comparison 20-30% of resident hunters hunted more than 1 area in Region G for the mere fact we live here and can do it easier.
This is my comment from post #25, you used the figure "30%"
"Many residents hunt multiple areas and are counted more than once. It is not unrealistic to say that figure being used on this post is 20-30% higher than the actual number of resident hunters in "G"."
faultcurrent
Active Member
- Messages
- 136
>>"And U pick Ur weapon archery
>>or rifle."
>>
>>Not this. They have this in
>>Colorado. Ask them how they
>>like it...
>
>Don't have to ask them, just
>look at their harvest statistics
>and the record books. Speaks
>for itself.
Are harvest stats and record book entries good indicators of the health of the herd? Or sound management practices?
>>or rifle."
>>
>>Not this. They have this in
>>Colorado. Ask them how they
>>like it...
>
>Don't have to ask them, just
>look at their harvest statistics
>and the record books. Speaks
>for itself.
Are harvest stats and record book entries good indicators of the health of the herd? Or sound management practices?
faultcurrent
Active Member
- Messages
- 136
>Residents will have have to draw
>a deer tag in certain
>regions within 5 years. You
>can bet on it.
Pretty vaugue assumption. They have had draw tags in certain regions for 30+ years. Are you implying region G and H? If so I've been hearing that one for 20 years...
I bet in 5 years residents are still hunting G and H OTC...
>a deer tag in certain
>regions within 5 years. You
>can bet on it.
Pretty vaugue assumption. They have had draw tags in certain regions for 30+ years. Are you implying region G and H? If so I've been hearing that one for 20 years...
I bet in 5 years residents are still hunting G and H OTC...
SDBugler
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,238
Jm77
I appreciate the discussion. It is through discussions like this that we all become more educated, but also understand other's opinions.
I have never heard the statistic that 18% of NR's don't hunt with their tag. That figure is amazing especially with it becoming more and more difficult to acquire tags and with the rising cost of tags. I can't imagine not hunting on a tag after waiting usually 8+ years to draw! When I draw a NR tag I take at least a week off to hunt and sometimes up to 3 weeks if it is a great tag. (I planned 3 weeks on my G tag last year but only took 7 days before harvesting)
So lets agree to assume that 10% of the NR hunters didn't hunt with there G tag. That would mean only 540 of the 600 NR's actually hunted. The harvest stats indicate 648 hunters between all units. Therefore, at least 108 of the 540 NR's hunted multiple units. That makes the NR stat numbers of 648 off by 20% as well? So then the number of hunters for both R and NR hunters are inflated by +/-20% due to hunting multiple units?
I appreciate the discussion. It is through discussions like this that we all become more educated, but also understand other's opinions.
I have never heard the statistic that 18% of NR's don't hunt with their tag. That figure is amazing especially with it becoming more and more difficult to acquire tags and with the rising cost of tags. I can't imagine not hunting on a tag after waiting usually 8+ years to draw! When I draw a NR tag I take at least a week off to hunt and sometimes up to 3 weeks if it is a great tag. (I planned 3 weeks on my G tag last year but only took 7 days before harvesting)
So lets agree to assume that 10% of the NR hunters didn't hunt with there G tag. That would mean only 540 of the 600 NR's actually hunted. The harvest stats indicate 648 hunters between all units. Therefore, at least 108 of the 540 NR's hunted multiple units. That makes the NR stat numbers of 648 off by 20% as well? So then the number of hunters for both R and NR hunters are inflated by +/-20% due to hunting multiple units?
>TG how many other hunters did
>you see in G on
>your hunt? Seems to
>me there must be a
>hunter behind every tree for
>it to go to LE.
>
>
>Just a quick comment.
>
>DZ
We skipped the first few days at the recommendation of our guide. Our hunt was from 9/20-9/24 and we only saw two guys on horseback the 4th morning after I had filled my tag. There were also very few rigs parked at any of the trail heads in those two units and our guess is that the real nasty weather on the opener and the next 2-3 days ran a lot of people out of the country. We didn't really even see any hunters to amount to anything in Afton and Alpine when we went in to the taxidermist, gas station, etc.
>you see in G on
>your hunt? Seems to
>me there must be a
>hunter behind every tree for
>it to go to LE.
>
>
>Just a quick comment.
>
>DZ
We skipped the first few days at the recommendation of our guide. Our hunt was from 9/20-9/24 and we only saw two guys on horseback the 4th morning after I had filled my tag. There were also very few rigs parked at any of the trail heads in those two units and our guess is that the real nasty weather on the opener and the next 2-3 days ran a lot of people out of the country. We didn't really even see any hunters to amount to anything in Afton and Alpine when we went in to the taxidermist, gas station, etc.
pymulies
Active Member
- Messages
- 439
I think there was a topic last year that was very similar but had to do with the tag allocation for special and regular.
Granted, the proposed tag cut is next to nothing in the grand view of management, but you aren't going to find many (if any) residents that care. If the herd is stabilized by cutting those 200 tags we couldn't care less.
I can already hear the responses about hunters sticking together and all that BS. Until your home states make tag allocations equal to Wyoming, sorry don't want to hear it.
The fact is if you don't like it, don't put in. There will be five guys waiting in line to draw that tag.
Same goes for tag price hikes and Wyoming's Wilderness rules. Don't like it, oh well.
Py
Granted, the proposed tag cut is next to nothing in the grand view of management, but you aren't going to find many (if any) residents that care. If the herd is stabilized by cutting those 200 tags we couldn't care less.
I can already hear the responses about hunters sticking together and all that BS. Until your home states make tag allocations equal to Wyoming, sorry don't want to hear it.
The fact is if you don't like it, don't put in. There will be five guys waiting in line to draw that tag.
Same goes for tag price hikes and Wyoming's Wilderness rules. Don't like it, oh well.
Py
pymulies
Active Member
- Messages
- 439
I think there was a topic last year that was very similar but had to do with the tag allocation for special and regular.
Granted, the proposed tag cut is next to nothing in the grand view of management, but you aren't going to find many (if any) residents that care. If the herd is stabilized by cutting those 200 tags we couldn't care less.
I can already hear the responses about hunters sticking together and all that BS. Until your home states make tag allocations equal to Wyoming, sorry don't want to hear it.
The fact is if you don't like it, don't put in. There will be five guys waiting in line to draw that tag.
Same goes for tag price hikes and Wyoming's Wilderness rules. Don't like it, oh well.
Py
Granted, the proposed tag cut is next to nothing in the grand view of management, but you aren't going to find many (if any) residents that care. If the herd is stabilized by cutting those 200 tags we couldn't care less.
I can already hear the responses about hunters sticking together and all that BS. Until your home states make tag allocations equal to Wyoming, sorry don't want to hear it.
The fact is if you don't like it, don't put in. There will be five guys waiting in line to draw that tag.
Same goes for tag price hikes and Wyoming's Wilderness rules. Don't like it, oh well.
Py
faultcurrent
Active Member
- Messages
- 136
You can say that again!
Wyonative21
Member
- Messages
- 10
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-17 AT 08:07AM (MST)[p]Wyo G&F passed the issue this week: G & H were both cut 200 tags each, ALL units/areas with in G & H will have a closing date of OCT 6th. Also a 3 point restriction was placed on all units in both G & H.
All of you who say a 200 tag reduction wont help....well do us a favor and don't apply in Wyo this year. That will also help!
If 1....yes even 1 more deer is counted next year after springs counts that's a plus! So people who say a 200 tag reduction is pointless, your a fool for thinking so! Being "butt hurt" for being a non-resident and now having worse odds is somehow Wyoming's and the resident's fault????? Well Wyoming isn't the only state who cut tags this year! Oh and remember Wyoming also does not have a 10% limit on non-residents. SO STOP CRYING and thinking your entitled a tag! Wyoming has treated non-residents VERY VERY well in the past.
Another point....remember yes A LOT of residents hunt G & H, but a huge number of them don't leave the road, only hunt opening weekend, don't hunt in bad weather, etc.....Now a non-resident who draws, in my opinion one of the best tags in the West, usually is more dedicated. Yes that's correct I know a vast majority of the nonresidents who draw a G or H tag are hand down more dedicated and hunt harder than probably 80% of the resident hunters! Non-residents also in general harvest older class of deer, because of this. Its the resident road hunters who "slay" any 2x2 buck standing along the road!
So yes two things will greatly help the suffering G & H deer herds this year...... 1- The reduction of Non-resident tags 2- The 3 point restriction, so resident road hunters don't shoot all the 2x2's!
All of you who say a 200 tag reduction wont help....well do us a favor and don't apply in Wyo this year. That will also help!
If 1....yes even 1 more deer is counted next year after springs counts that's a plus! So people who say a 200 tag reduction is pointless, your a fool for thinking so! Being "butt hurt" for being a non-resident and now having worse odds is somehow Wyoming's and the resident's fault????? Well Wyoming isn't the only state who cut tags this year! Oh and remember Wyoming also does not have a 10% limit on non-residents. SO STOP CRYING and thinking your entitled a tag! Wyoming has treated non-residents VERY VERY well in the past.
Another point....remember yes A LOT of residents hunt G & H, but a huge number of them don't leave the road, only hunt opening weekend, don't hunt in bad weather, etc.....Now a non-resident who draws, in my opinion one of the best tags in the West, usually is more dedicated. Yes that's correct I know a vast majority of the nonresidents who draw a G or H tag are hand down more dedicated and hunt harder than probably 80% of the resident hunters! Non-residents also in general harvest older class of deer, because of this. Its the resident road hunters who "slay" any 2x2 buck standing along the road!
So yes two things will greatly help the suffering G & H deer herds this year...... 1- The reduction of Non-resident tags 2- The 3 point restriction, so resident road hunters don't shoot all the 2x2's!
Wyonative21
Member
- Messages
- 10
Why??? Or we could just praise the G&F's decision to enact a 3point restriction after a winter like this. The 3point restriction will help get any 2016 buck fawns, that survived the winter, through to 2018. Without the 3point restriction this year the 2016 buck Fawn carryover would be almost nothing. Its already almost nothing with projections that only of 1 out of 10 fawns made it through this past winter.
Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters
Urge 2 Hunt
We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.
