Ways to improve deer quality and maintain opportunity.

[Rambo]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-15 AT 02:35PM (MST)[p]I believe the goal is more quality deer while maintaining opportunity. We need to increase total deer numbers and limit harvest of younger deer.


1)Stop all doe hunting, even by youth.

2) I think flying to scout should be illegal.

3) Concentrating on all habitat requirements especially transition areas and winter range.

4) Using knowledge of deer migration, to maintain and improve migration corridors. More overpasses in needed areas could really help reduce deer/vehicle collisions.

5) Encourage more coyote hunting.

6) Consider 3 point or better restrictions excluding youth hunters.

7) Enforcement against poaching and party hunting, and encouraging more hunters to help in this area is key.

Anyone have anything to add? Thanks

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

 

[Deerlove]

Get rid of all thoses pesky NR's! On a serious note, more primitive weapon tags.

 

[Rambo]

>Get rid of all thoses pesky
>NR's! On a serious
>note, more primitive weapon tags.
>
Lol, that was good entertainment. I know NR are here to stay. I was just trying to make some guys squeal and it worked.

Good idea, I would like to see more primitive weapon opportunities as well.

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

 

[mulecreek]

1. No special archery and muzzy tags. Leave the tags as they are. However, during the archery only portion you can take any buck.
2. During the firearm portion you can only shoot 2 point or less.

 

[DW]

All good suggestions. The 3pt restriction takes the pressure off of 1.5 yr old deer and puts it on 2.5 yr old deer. It doesn't increase 5.5+ yr old deer. Getting them to that age is only possible by letting them walk till then. The only way to do that is fewer tags unfortunately.

 

[BuzzH]

Best way to maintain and increase opportunity is to increase the over-all numbers.

"Fixing" quality you don't really have to look at improving numbers, and why this never works.

However, if you increase total numbers and herd health, many of the "fixes" needed to improve quality, magically "fix" themselves.

 

[mulecreek]

Buzz,

Don't you think that for some areas the carrying capacity is what it is going to be without some rather huge changes. I believe many of these changes are largely out of the control of human intervention. I still agree that we need to do habitat improvements and look to increase the herds but we have been trying that for the last 20 years and mostly with little success. I am very skeptical that we are going to make a step change in herd size anytime soon. Hopefully I am wrong.

 

[fullthrottle]

Good post Bo, I would like to see some of those ideas implemented across the west. 3 point restriction gets shot down all the time, but it sure seemed like where we hunted, it was a lot better. And only a couple years after they stopped point restriction the mature deer numbers took a nose dive.

 

[wolfhunter]

Hunter numbers do matter!! We need to make sure the buck numbers stay very close to 40 bucks per 100 doe. When the buck numbers get to low, the herd will crash... Just like Idaho has proven with single digit buck to doe ratios.

Antler restrictions will not work well here in western Wyoming. Our 2 year old bucks are 4 point bucks. Those are the bucks we want to survive. We actually need to be killing the big old 3x3's and 3x4's. I wish the meat hunters and guys who have an itch to just shoot something would kill those big old 3 points instead of the young up and comers.

Each hunter should have to kill 15 coyotes or 1 wolf to earn a deer tag! Or plant some bitter brush with Buzz...!

 

[fullthrottle]

40/100!!! Damnit I wish Utah would think that way.

 

[Liontamer]

Antler point restrictions are a great way to have a lot of little tiny bucks.....

 

[Zeke]

Good ideas, all.
Maybe in The modern world antler point restriction wouldnt work BUT I can tell you that many Henry Mountin Bucks reside on my wall because of the restriction. It was done away with because the F&G decided a couple wide 2pts were getting killed.
In their wisdom, they opened it to all bucks. Needless to say, it was shot to Hell in a few short years and was ultimately closed for years only to reopen as a very limited entry unit.
Maybe point restrictions don't work now but they sure did....back in the day!
Zeke

 

[appaloosa]

Honestly, where else in the world can you experience the quality and opportunity you have in Wyoming. Sure, deer are struggling everywhere and I am all for improving numbers, but good grief where else in the world can you buy an over the counter tag and have the opportunity we have. In the last 5 years I have killed 3 deer > 180" on general tags and should have had bigger ones if I had slowed down and been patient. The two years I didn't kill deer I didn't hunt cause I was chasing moose, buff and mnt goat.
Personally, if you are complaining about a lack of opportunity or quality in Wyoming you are not hunting hard enough or smart enough.
As a side note, some of you guys need to put down the stone tools and crawl out of the ice age. Antler point restrictions have been studied to death and they don't work! They do not improve the age structure of deer populations. Personally, if it was up to me I would let guys kill a doe if they wanted. It would benefit the population way more if someone put an old gummer doe in the freezer than a 1-3 YO buck.

 

[Zeke]

>As a side note, some of
>you guys need to put
>down the stone tools and
>crawl out of the ice
>age. Antler point restrictions
>have been studied to death
>and they don't work!

>I would let
>guys kill a doe if
>they wanted.

Sounds like you've got it figured out. I sure wish everyone else did.

On this we all can agree: the way to increase buck quality and quantity is to increase the whole herd through fecundity. Buzz has the answer, grow more deer. The burning issue is how to arrive at that destination in the modern world.
Zeke

 

[Rambo]

>As a side note, some of
>you guys need to put
>down the stone tools and
>crawl out of the ice
>age. Antler point restrictions
>have been studied to death
>and they don't work!

>I would let
>guys kill a doe if
>they wanted.

^^^ No! Appaloosa are you serious?
How are guys going to recognize an old doe?

I think a 3 point or better would at least save the tiny guys.

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

 

[Deerlove]

Ram too many greenhorns shoot at the site of antlers IMO.

 

[Rambo]

>Ram too many greenhorns shoot at
>the site of antlers IMO.
>

That may be true.


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

 

[nontypical]

APR's have unquestionably improved b/d ratios in many areas of Wyoming when they got below 10/100. I also noticed an overall improvement in areas that went to 4-pt or better. Within 2 years time, there were several 190+ and a few 200+ bucks killed in an area that had been a virtual joke previously. This is an area that has lots of roads and easy access. So don't throw a blanket statement of "antler point restrictions don't work" over the entire spectrum of mule deer hunting. They absolutely have worked in the past and will continue to work in the future. It's one of many tools that game managers can use for varying reasons.

Fecundity is the main culprit in low deer numbers. When you add predators, habitat deterioration, development, fences, highways, etc, etc, etc, it's no wonder mule deer are struggling. Better quality habitat means better quality deer. If you eat crappy food, you're going to be in crappy shape. If you live in a shack, you are easier prey to predators. If someone put a fence across the street you drive to work on, you would have to expend more energy going to work a longer way.

Without factoring in hunter-caused mortality, predation is easily the number one cause of deer mortality in most places. On Hwy 189 from I-80 to Kemmerer, more deer were killed by vehicles than hunters a few years ago! There are many things that need to be done to improve deer numbers, but anyone that thinks we can return to the glory days of mule deer hunting are most likely deluding themselves. We can kill coyotes till the end of time, build overpasses like crazy, tear down fences, etc, etc... but without good food, mule deer numbers will just not grow. It's pretty much as simple as that.

Predator control works if it's done at the right time of year to help a struggling herd rebound...overpasses are nice to keep deer from getting squashed( and people from being in accidents), yada, yada, yada.

Improve the carrying capacity!!

Fecundity. Look it up.

 

[Deerlove]

APR s are a short term fix. Having a few 190 bucks doesn't mean it's successful.

 

[appaloosa]

Nontypical, I agree with almost everything you have said, and you are spot on about habitat and all the other factors impacting deer. We will likely never recover to levels we saw in the "good ole days". You cant run cattle and sheep 365 on their winter range, punch roads, highways, subdivisions and gas wells all over the country and expect deer to respond positively. But it is simply time to put some of these long standing myths to bed...
APRs do not improve age structure in bucks, period. this is fact, it has been proven over and over again. All they do is shift the harvest to deer with the minimum number of points and protect the immature deer.

 

[DW]

A quick Google search of apr's will give u all the info u need. Plenty of studies done on it.

 

[wolfhunter]

The best buck to put on the dinner table and get out of the gene pool is the 4-8 year old 3x3's or 3x4's... Western Wyoming winter grounds have a surprising number of them, if you haven't noticed. Some of them are real trophies, regardless no matter how well we feed them they are not growing a 4 point frame. If hunters would shoot these bucks, instead of the young 4 pointer, this act would increase the carrying capacity during the rough winters for the rest of the herd, plus grow bigger bucks for the future.

I believe that after a major winter kill, APR could be very beneficial for a year or two. Currently regions G and H are in need of some over all pressure reduction to insure our buck to doe ratios remain intact. APR would not be an asset in this department IMO.

The areas in W WY that continue to hold big old bucks are getting smaller and smaller every year. Opening week I witnessed more bucks being killed out of areas the bucks used to be safe in... i.e. the long range shooter. This is not an attack on long range hunters, it's merely an observation. If we continue at this feverish pace of killing, the last remaining strong holds will be gone. Bucks do not have a defense instinct for 800-1400 yards period. The Game & Fish has no idea how much more effective the modern buck hunter is. One of the saving graces for western Wyoming in the last 9 years is a bunch of hard core NR buck hunters have been sitting on the fence building points. As these hard core NR dudes start coming back to W WY, combined with our resident hunter numbers continuing to grow, our remaining resource is not going hold up. If WGF does not find a way to remove some of the pressure, some how, the Wyoming Range Mule Deer Herd will pay the price!!!

 

[nontypical]

I absolutely agree that APR's are a short-term fix. I should have specified that in my previous post. But the fact is, APR's are a viable and useful tool in deer management. Last year, region K went to a 3-pt or better regulation. Whether you agree with it or not, APR's have been shown to improve age class in bucks in unit 132; where they have been in effect for several years now. Regardless of what previous studies have shown.

All those things I mentioned in my previous post are nice short-term fixes that help deer and buck numbers; age class, b/d ratios, etc.

But none of it matters if the vittles suck.

 

[BuzzH]

As to the APR's the biologists that I've talked to think they shouldn't be in place longer than 3 years. I agree with that, for the short term and in times of low deer numbers, maybe.

Long-term, they can do more harm than good.

Wolfhunter, I know a way you can limit at least one Resident deer hunter from hunting the Wyoming Range...you can go hunt somewhere else.

Step up and make a difference...tuffie.

 

[letmgetbig]

Rambo, On you tube that buck in the thumbnail (Big winter range bucks with Jake Swenson) that is you isn't it. In my opinion that is my favorite buck. That cape is something & he is the oldest one I have seen in a while. Wolfhunter thumbs up on post #21 As a resident I have thought a lot about this. What about an every other year odd & even birth year hunt. For example I would sit out this year because I was born on an even year.(& concentrate on elk) Or you can get a tag in your own County or Region but you have to draw for a different one that you don't reside in. Just a couple of my thoughts. Also a Limited Quota within say G or H. Part General and part Limited entry. Just throwing ideas out we have to change something. Although with this easy winter it may not be the year to cry foul. But again there is still to much pressure & people for my liking & the Deer's liking to.

 

[grosventrehunter]

I think some tend to forget that killing a 180+ buck isn't everyone's goal when hunting G/H. That's the theme here on MM, but not the goal in many hunting camps. I've talked to a lot of hunters in H and they were happy with a 2/3 year old 4x4's. How do you tell a guy not to shoot the young ones, when the young one might be just the deer he/she wants to harvest. Some of guys come from the southern or eastern part of the U.S., and a 2/3 year old 4x4 is a trophy compared to the whitetail they have been killing. It's their tag can they not shoot what they want?

Now, i don't agree with what I stated above, I'm all for 180+ plus deer. I'm only stating how do you deal with that issue other than lowering the tag numbers. I do not want to see resident tag numbers cut. This year I hunted a LQ unit (90). I have seen bigger/better bucks in G and H, so I don't think LQ is everything it's cracked up to be. 128 is the same, and hear it's way down from years past. Yes, in a LQ unit less deer are being killed and it's not overly crowded, but with LQ comes less opportunity for us hunters. Personally, I would rather be in the mountains looking for a 180 buck, then sitting home. Not an easy fix.

 

[Rambo]

>Rambo, On you tube that buck
>in the thumbnail (Big winter
>range bucks with Jake Swensen)
>that is you isn't it.
>In my opinion that is
>my favorite buck. That cape
>is something & he is
>the oldest one I have
>seen in a while.

Yes sir. That's me, I spend a lot of time on the winter range and in the high basins beacause I love these animals. He is definitely a beautiful buck and one of my favorites this year also. It was a good year on the winter range for big bucks.

I never experienced Wyoming hunting in the 80's because I was still in diapers but I can tell you I love the hunting in Wyomimg. It can be a bit frustrating when I see more nonresident vehicles than resident at many of the trailheads I hunt. (Maybe just where I'm hunting?)

I am finding ways to get away from the majority of people. I love hunting the high country every year. I see big bucks and have a great time. I would hate to see that change.


[font face="verdana" color="green"] Happy hunting, Jake

 

[letmgetbig]

I thought it was you, nice to see a young person who enjoys that. Reminds me of me. There were some nice bucks. But I didn't see any real Holy Crap bucks. If you consider how many hunters will be after the ones that were there. There are not many bucks at all. I think something is going to have to give in the near future. By the way this is the nlsnoutdrswy guy. I'll see ya out there somewhere.

 

[ClearCreek]

>Fecundity is the main culprit in
>low deer numbers.
>
>Fecundity. Look it up.

Actually fecundity is NOT the main culprit, fecundity can be high but when recruitment is low, the population drops. Increased habitat quality, driven by moisture, can increase recruitment considerably.

(Oh, and fecundity is a term typically used in fisheries management.)

ClearCreek

 

[nontypical]

Low recruitment is caused by fecundity in many cases. Better habitat means more fawns. That IS fecundity.

I have only read about fecundity in relation to fawn recruitment.

I'm not a biologist; nor do I profess to be one. You?