Wyoming Deer Unit 66/Muddy Mountain HMA

O

OddSixMuley

New Member
Messages
3
In the past few years I have been out to Wyoming various times hunting Muleys as a Non-Resident. These times have been spent hunting in different General Regions and camping out. However, this year my brother who is still in school and does not have as much time available to hunt, really wanted to come along. For this reason and the high percentage draw rate for Region D, We applied for General Region D with an intent to hunt the Muddy Mountain HMA. I know we are not guaranteed to draw and know about the 3 point anteler restriction but being that we will be coming to this area for the first time, We were looking for a little advice as to where to start looking. Any help is much appreciated.
 
I hunted the Chalk Mountain area in unit 66 a few years ago and had a great time.Took a decent 3X4 buck the first day of season .Scouted for two days prior and only saw a total of 7 deer.Deer are scarce but you can still fill a tag.
I also scouted the muddy mountain management area after taking my buck and all I saw was other hunters.
 
66 is dead. Too many years of any deer and harvesting does has taken its toll. 66 used to be a primo area. Things started changing drastically 6 - 8 years ago. Complaints to the G&F fell on deaf ears. And not just from hunters. A number of landowners were also asking them to take drastic measures. Again nothing changed. At the last couple of spring meetings the G&F has acknowledged 66 is in trouble. Hunting pressure has dropped off quite a bit from past years as most locals are aware there's very few deer anymore. I know the G&F is wrestling with going limited quota. Two years ago at the landowners only spring meeting with the G&F, several folks recommended to close the season for a couple years and then re-evaluate. Other than reducing some non resident tags, the degradation continues...
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-14 AT 06:52PM (MST)[p]Somewhere in the archived ,I read where some guys hunted the area last fall and never seen a deer.
 
If its like any of the other big game units around Casper, antelope,deer, or elk, it has been hammered by doe hunters, too much pressure, and poor management.
 
I wish I had some good advice for you, but previous comments are all pretty accurate. The genetics still run in the deer, but the numbers and age class is in pretty bad shape. I used to hunt 66 pretty hard. The last time I did was several years ago when I watched 4 truckloads of long haired people (mixture of men and women) smoking cigarets pull up to a canyon rim and line up shooting 6 of 7 bucks in a group. The biggest one got away but all the young ones with milk on their lips were eliminated from existence. I had been watching the group of deer prior to these peoples arrival thinking to myself that several of the bucks would be great deer with some age.... I don't mean to stereotype but it was definitely a show of sportsmanship I wouldn't want to show any of our younger generations. I agree the G&F have their head in dark wet places in regards to managing our herds. Unfortunately, many of our resident hunters also missed the boat on conservation as well. Good luck in your hunt.
 
66 is a good example of an area that should not be a general hunt the way it is. It's far too easy to access, roads everywhere. Deer population stinks, and the number of mature bucks is super low. I may get slammed for that but I'm OK with it. You will play heck trying to find a mature buck on publically accessible ground in 66, or 70 for that matter.
 
Thanks Guys. Sounds like it might be tough but it still beats not getting out and giving it a whirl. I know there were some better units in terms of quantity and quality but nothing else worked out when on a tight schedule for this year. Either way it will be nice to get my brother out on his first trip. I can't let him think it's too easy anyways. lol
 
I hope all of you that have input for G&F show up to the season setting meetings and voice your thoughts. We need that in Wyoming. Seems like many people "wear down" and just give up.

Keep trying to do the right thing. Speak your peace. Stay involved. Our deer herds need you. I have grandkids now and hope there are some deer left for them in 20-30 years.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-14 AT 10:50AM (MST)[p]>I hope all of you that
>have input for G&F show
>up to the season setting
>meetings and voice your thoughts.
> We need that in
>Wyoming. Seems like many
>people "wear down" and just
>give up.
>
>Keep trying to do the right
>thing. Speak your peace.
> Stay involved. Our
>deer herds need you.
>I have grandkids now and
>hope there are some deer
>left for them in 20-30
>years.


Yes, I agree we should attend G&F meetings, but what we shouldn't forget is the tough job our wildlfe professionals have trying to please everyone and manage wildlife at the same time.

My family owns land in deer area 66 and along with our neighbors we have controled the mule deer hunting for decades. Over that period of time there has been NO doe harvests and VERY limited hunting on muley bucks. The deer herds are almost non-exsistent now, as we have watched their numbers decrease over years of almost no hunting presssure.

Our problem in area 66 will not simply be solved by changing it to limited quota or issuing Type 9 archery tags. The biggest mentality I see at public meetings is not "what can we do for wildlife?" but "what can you(G&F) do to help me draw a tag or put a big buck in my sights?".

And yes, I have grandkids too, and the last thing I want for them is "Choose Your Weapon" or worse yet less hunting opportunity.
 
To add to what jm77 has said, lets also be diligent in the big picture of keeping public wildlife in public hands.

In todays political climate, its become the new "normal" for outfitters and landowners to change laws for profit. Things like transferable landowner tags, outfitter sponsored tags, and even archery only tags (like jm77 mentioned). Not to mention what about happened this last session, where there was a proposal to increase the number of NR special fee tags to 60% and reduce the NR regular price tags to 40%. These types of laws are 100% a self serving agenda via the outfitters and guides with NO thought given to the average DIY NR hunter.

Those type of laws are a huge threat to every sportsmen, other than those with deep pockets, or to those that are making a profit from same. In particular an even bigger threat to the next generation of hunters.

I'd also recommend that all sportsmen show due diligence in regard to the various Land Management agencies as well. They control a vast majority of legally accessible lands we all hunt. Make sure that as Sportsmen, your voices are heard. Make sure they understand that OUR public wildlife needs to be considered in regard to how we manage OUR public lands.
 
Buzz,

I need remind you the G&F is still broke. All LE non resident deer and elk tags should sell for the special price.

The state of Wyoming has a product that the market dictates is worth more than what the state is currently selling it for. The same could be said about the 60%-40% split for general licenses just so the price (or split) doesn't exceed what the market will support like Montana and Idaho have done. Raising the price to what the market will bear has no relation to "keeping the wildlife in public hands". The cost of a nonresident permit is only a fraction of the hunt when you calculate gas, gear, processing fees, scouting trips, or booking with a outfitter regardless of the price of the tag.
The same could be said about resident deer and elk tags. The price does not come anywhere close to what the market will support. If you want cheap hunt general season units.
For the record I'm not a outfitter

Way to keep pitting outfitters against sportsmen and your war on free markets. You should move to California you'd fit right in.
 
>Buzz,
>
> I need remind
>you the G&F is still
>broke. All LE non
>resident deer and elk tags
>should sell for the special
>price.
>


Absolutely 100% wrong! The Wyo G&F Dept is not broke and that's a fact.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-14 AT 09:32AM (MST)[p]Please dear

My point is we shouldn't raise the price to where Non residents quit buying them through the draw process. I promise you Wyoming's better LE tags would all fetch the special price and changing the split would most likely result in all the tags still being sold.
I do hunt other western states and I pay whatever the tag costs.
JM77

I don't know if there really broke or not? I'm only going on what they say. I haven't gone through there budget by line item. As with most govt agencies I'm sure there is some serious fat that could be trimmed or process that could be improved. Last year they didn't go for the fat and went immediately to the stuff that sportsmen felt
 
Robb---I was going to respond to his posts, but after reading yours I can't think of anything else to say, LOL!!!
 
I've pretty much given up on MM. One of you guys called a person I consider a friend (from Game and Fish) and used my name in a less than flattering manner right after one of my recent posts. Whoever did that owes me an apology.

You always seem to think your ethics are above reproach here, but what you did in that case is unacceptable. I handle disagreement well. I don't try to act condescending and pit outfitters against sportsmen and/or landowners which is common practice here.

I don't call Game and fish employees and say "so-and-so" this or that. I simply speak my own opinion.

Shooting darts at me because I disagree with you and prefer limited quotas in some areas some other with choose your weapon is somehow crazy to me. It's simple disagreement.

Being "high and mighty" and self righteous is not a good answer. I'm darned ethical and have spent my life advocating for mule deer, hunting opportunities and habitat improvements. And because I have a valid opinion that's different from yours, you come down hard and denigrate me and my way of thinking. That's not positive or productive.

I'll be out all day Friday with a chainsaw in my hands hinging aspen to improve habitat in a burn. I've personally cut over 100,000 trees on over 100 acres in brush habitat to help mule deer. I give money to all sorts of wildlife causes.

I'm a landowner in three counties. I outfit. But above all, I'm a mule deer advocate. I've given away hunts. Still do, regularly. I've spent countless thousands of my own dollars to help mule deer and their habitat, but the high and mighty roundly criticize a valid opinion. I don't berate you, call your friends and #####, and you should not do that to me.

One of you two guys should PM me - maybe both and let me know that we could both have valid opinions. And there's no reason to "cheap shot" on this place. and maybe that way, whoever called and used my name will "fess up" and admit their behavior and tactics.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you can't show common courtesy and respect, I don't have any use for you. My parents taught me about courtesy and respect when I was still in the sandbox (and we never even had a sandbox), but it appears those basic concepts are lacking here.

We should try to work together on common matters to improve our wildlife, not spend out time sniping at others who care. We should dedicate time and effort to the well-being of our wildlife and habitat. Your personalities are so self righteous that you have hard time seeing the forest for the trees in this matter. Let's get along and not shoot darts at one another. Life's too darned short for this sort of behavior.

Wyoming has my heart and will always be my home. Why the hell can't we just work together to improve our precious state? And in the process, be kind to one another? My parents also taught me "If you can't say something nice, then it's best to not say anything at all." Good words to ponder. Simple disagreement is fine, but cheap shots just don't work. Know the difference.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-14 AT 09:38PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-14 AT 09:34?PM (MST)

Outfitters pit themselves against sportsmen...wilderness guide law, tiered license fee structure...things of that sort. Not exactly what I'd call a show of good faith toward sportsmen.

Other states more so...outfitter sponsored tags, transferable landowner tags, guide requirements for certain species, etc. etc.

Matter of fact, the outfitter lobby is largely responsible for starting this awesome trend of using the Legislature to get their way.

I'm about tired of having to travel to Cheyenne, Helena, etc. to fight the onslaught of BS Legislation thats the new normal these days. Legislation that looks to do cute things like flip the Special and Regular priced fee percentages on NR hunters. Things like archery hunters asking for 10% of all available tags being archery only.

I'm sure its just a matter of time before I'll be fighting transferable landowner tags and outfitter sponsored tags. Wouldnt be surprised if its in the next general session.

Maybe if sportsmen didnt have to spend time, effort, and money fighting crap legislation they could work on important things like wildlife habitat. Maybe they'd even want to work with some of the groups if they didnt have to do so with a knife in their backs.

Not likely to happen if the trend of the last decade continues.
 
I can tell you this Jim, I tried to PM you and you never answered back. I also DID NOT talk to anyone at the G&F that knows you. But hear this: if you think I would stand idly by while something that affects me adversly is basicly going on behind my back, you're sadly mistaken.

I had to listen to a bunch of dung from another outfitter about 'Choose Your Weapon' in area 16, so I personaly took the initiative to find out what the the heck was going on since you didn't respond back to me.

And no disrepect, but you seem a little thin skinned considering the fact you mentioned that meeting and any fall-back about what you said, by people who don't agree you, was a foregone conclusion.
 
So I assume it was Jeff that called Will Schulz in Saratoga and raised hell. That's your prerogative. But to use my name in that conversation/context is not right.

And I didn't answer your PM because it came across in a negative way from my perspective. You just wanted details so you could do as you did, use them to go after someone who is just floating an idea. As I wrote in the forum, go to the meetings and provide your input.

I was at the meeting in Wheatland Monday night and the same idea was floated there. It had a pretty warm reception, except for one other outfitter (who I won't name) who was afraid/concerned that the result might push more elk off public lands in area 11.

As I said above, I'm all for doing positive things for our wildlife and this personal bickering is not productive. It's negative and divisive. We'd be better served to use our time and effort to enhance habitat and work together.

Of much greater concern to me is the fact the G&F has decided to combine a ton of antelope areas here in SE Wyoming. That decision is going to reduce the quality of management and the result has the potential to be very negative in the long term. I have not spoken to hardly anyone who is in favor of it, yet not a sole on this Wyoming forum has even addressed that critical matter.

They have already combined 4 areas; 11, 12, 13 and 14, and next area the ones east and west of I-25 north from Cheyenne to Wheatland and Torrington. eight areas into two. Antelope have always been one of our best-managed resources, and now we are moving backward. Too bad no one pays any attention to that.
 
>So I assume it was Jeff
>that called Will Schulz in
>Saratoga and raised hell.
> That's your prerogative.
>But to use my name
>in that conversation/context is not
>right.
>
>And I didn't answer your PM
>because it came across in
>a negative way from my
>perspective. You just wanted
>details so you could do
>as you did, use them
>to go after someone who
>is just floating an idea.


Jim, I really don't know what to think about you now. You answer my PM as Mr Nice Guy and then you get on this thread and say this.

NO, for the second time it wasn't me who called Schulz and who cares who did. Nobody trashed you and what's the reason Schulz got upset? Was this "public" meeting a secret? What wrong with finding out details? This affects everyone who hunts in Wyo and all of us get a say in this.

Get real, Jim, this isn't about you and your reputation and cutting 100,000 trees on 100 acres(by the way that's 1,000 per acre) These forums are about exchanging ideas and if anyone owes an apology, it's you to me.

Jeff
 
The G&F doesn't exactly make it easy to see the changes they are making. MOST guys probably don't know about cuts or area combinations.

I couldn't agree with you more IMC, I think the area combinations stink. The HUGE quotas of these areas will often funnel hunters to VERY small public land areas and there will be even more pressure on those areas. Instead of 2-300 guys looking to hunt a public section, you'll have several hundred more . . .

I applaud you guys who make it to meetings and help keep us informed. I am typically busier than a one-armed wall-paper-hanger with work and kids . . .
 
What in the heck is the idea behind combining all these antelope units? I saw some in the southeast were combined on the new map when I was trying to help a guy on another website find a place to hunt and wondered what was going on. Everyone always talks about how they handle the antelope compared to deer. Now you're saying they are going to be doing a lot more of that and I just don't understand how they will be able to control who hunts where if they combine those units.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-14 AT 03:45PM (MST)[p]I've heard of this recently, Mike and it doesn't seem to have intial support from sportsman. I was told it was to make management easier, but I will ask the question tonight at the season setting meeting in Casper. Will let you know what we are told.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-14 AT 12:15PM (MST)[p]Ultimately, it must be saving them money, which they are going to need this year more than ever due to all the cuts in tags . . .
 
Thanks Jeff! I don't see how that could save them any money when they still have to cover the same amount of ground to do their surveys. It just seems like if they start enlarging areas that they won't be able to control where hunters go that draw tags compared to issuing tags for smaller units that seems to be working. They already have some units with Type 1 and 2 to spread people out when those could even be made into separate units. Now they're going the other way and I'm one of those "if it ain't broke" type of guys and will be anxious to see what their reasoning is when everyone seems to think that deer should be managed more like antelope.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-14 AT 09:20PM (MST)[p]Buzz,

So quit traveling. Your squashing good ideas on the premise that they only benefit the dastardly outfitter.
The 60/40 split was a good idea just as so the permits didn't start going unsold. If you can't afford the special permit you probably shouldn't be hunting out of state.
Tiered license structure is a good idea. I wish they charged more for residents permits (at least the resident LE permits)
The archery split increases opportunity, raises revenue, and decreases hunter overcrowding. Save the destroy the resource argument because 8 out of 10 western states already do this with great success.
The nonresident wilderness isn't a great law unless your a resident. I will say I won't hardly hunt areas that aren't wilderness because it helps overcrowding.
Why do you hate any raise in prices that isn't on the backs of the average sportsmen.(remember I'm not opposed to a fee increase).
 
>Thanks Jeff! I don't see
>how that could save them
>any money when they still
>have to cover the same
>amount of ground to do
>their surveys. It just
>seems like if they start
>enlarging areas that they won't
>be able to control where
>hunters go that draw tags
>compared to issuing tags for
>smaller units that seems to
>be working. They already have
>some units with Type 1
>and 2 to spread people
>out when those could even
>be made into separate units.
> Now they're going the
>other way and I'm one
>of those "if it ain't
>broke" type of guys and
>will be anxious to see
>what their reasoning is when
>everyone seems to think that
>deer should be managed more
>like antelope.


Asked the question at the meeting tonight and they held me over to explain and show the maps. Apparently, these combined areas are in the southeast corner of the state and are dominated by private land. Last year if you had an antelope tag in 34,35,or 36 you could hunt any of the 3 areas. They are just combining them as one this year. Next year they will do the same for deer. I was told that management will be no different than if they were separate, due to private landowners basicly controling hunters on their land. Counts, objectives and harvest stats will all be done the same, but for one area now instead of three.

Guess I'd like to hear from someone who hunts that country and get their take on it, but seems to make sense.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-14 AT 11:30PM (MST)[p]feduptwo

"The archery split increases opportunity, raises revenue, and decreases hunter overcrowding. Save the destroy the resource argument because 8 out of 10 western states already do this with great success."

increases opportunity?- archers would only hunt Sept and could not hunt Regular season. Type 1&2 hunters would lose half or all of Sept special bow season. Sounds like a loss of opportunity to me.

raises revenue?- only if total tags are increased and then Buzz is right, more pressure on resource, namely bulls and bucks.

Decreases hunter overcrowding? Not likely, because now when a bow hunter fills their tag they are not able to hunt Regular season. It's slightly more complicated then you think.

The only great success I see is the way it is now in Wyoming, not a future with 'Choose your Weapon"
 
jm77---Thanks for taking the time to make the inquiry! There is nothing better than direct interaction, rather than emails and phone calls on stuff like this. So in essence it sounds like all they're doing is changing/decreasing boundary lines on the map. It seems as though they should be making news releases on things like that to keep us abreast of changes, but I don't recall getting anything on it or reading anything in their Regional updates on the website. That's two big changes now in the last year that I don't believe the public was made aware of before hand with the other one being the big change they made on elk units up in the northwest. The latter definitely played a role in hiow guys applied up there this year and IMO they should have told people the number of tags to be issued for each of those new areas so the NRs could have made an informed choice in using their PPs. I guess with these antelope boundary changes I don't see any real reason to do it. It will now require that the map/chip companies make that change to show the new boundaries and in turn each person will have to update their individual GPS, which costs money on both ends. Maybe they don't think of things like that when they make those types of changes, but their GWs use the same GPS and chips that we do and they willhave to do the same thing. In any event, it's good to know that since it's basicly all privately controlled land that herd management will not change.

As far as your remarks to feduptwo in your reply, I'm in complete agree with them!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-14 AT 10:54PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-14 AT 10:53?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-14 AT 10:46?PM (MST)

Let's examine this for a minute. Take 100 tags for a unit that you have 80% success rate. This results in 80 animals being harvested.
Let's now take 20 of these permits and designate them archery only. Archery hunters afford a much lower success rate (lets round up and assume a 40% success rate).
This results in 64 animals being harvested by rifle hunters and 8 animals being harvested by archery hunters for a total of 72.
Now take the original harvest do some 2nd grade math and 80-72=8 and come to the conclusion that we've killed 8 less animals.
If I want to maintain the exact same harvest I can give 8 additional tags to archery hunters. These 8 additional tags will result in 3 more animals being killed and bring total animal harvested to 75.
Assuming the same success we can issue 5 additional archery tags assume two more animals will be harvested. This brings us to 77 animals being harvested.
We can issue 3 more tags and the same success rate = 2 animals being harvested (rounded up). This equals about 15-16 extra permits that won't be issued with roughly the same demand on the resource.
This would result in a 20% reduction in hunters in the field for the rifle hunt.
Assuming that about 50% of hunters take advantage of both archery and rifle seasons. It would result in a 28% reduction in archery hunters in the field participating in the archery season.
Also remember that 8 out of 10 Western states currently utilize this tactic to spread out hunters, increase revenue, increase draw odds, and make hunting more enjoyable. I know you're a property owner and if I owned hunting property I wouldn't want this either. And yes your right it is less opportunity for the chosen few who draw a tag in the draw or are gifted landowner tags in our retarded landowner tag system.
 
feduptwo

I can assume your post was for my benefit. Sorry you wasted your time showing us you are capable of 2nd grade math, although it looks like you checked your work three times!

But it changes nothing.

I can tell you from living in Wyoming my whole life, it's not like those 8 other western states. Two season hunting is one of the great things about this state and even if you don't draw your favorite area, you can pick up your bow in Wyoming and hunt rutting elk or early season mulies every year if you are a resident. EVERY YEAR!!

There are so many senarios you can come up with on type 9 tags, but the bottom line is hunters lose opportunity so a few more archers can draw a tag and take the field. Bow hunter welfare! And I don't think hunting pressure during rifle will be reduced at all. Those hunters successful during archery season are now removed from the rifle season. Plus those 'elite' bow only guys aren't there either, because they wouldn't be caught dead with a gun in their hands. Most likely, no matter how you cut it, type 1&2 hunters will not only lose opportunity to hunt special archery, but will be in the field with more hunters.

Don't forget, type 9 licenses are not needed for wildlife management. In fact, ask any wildlife biologist if it's easier to manage game with or without the type 9 license.

By the way, my family's property is 10 minutes outside of Casper in a general deer area.
 
I'm not talking general units. There is no need for this for general areas, at least for residents. I'm talking limited quota licenses.

Mathematically speaking please show me how I will be in the field with more hunters by taking a % of hunters out of the rifle pool and designating that they hunt with archery equipment. The archery hunters are out of the rifle hunt whether their successful or not. The rifle hunters will not be hunting archery.
I know some pretty diehard archery hunters but I'll tell you that I only know 1 or 2 that won't eventually pick up a rifle.

For the record I'm a very casual bow hunter mostly because my hunting season generally revolves around high country Sept rifle seasons. I see a ton of opportunity and additional tags left on the table that's why I'm a huge advocate of Type 9 permits for LE units.
The G&F is finally listening with a bunch of Type 9 coming our way for limited quota areas and additional late season type 9 permits for 2015 being unveiled at the green river license meeting. About time.
 
If you believe that type-9s are a slam dunk, you better think again. Thats not what I'm hearing, most of the guys I talk with are opposed to this crap.

The amount of extra revenue generated by taking type-1 and type-2 tags and creating type-9s isnt worth the effort. We're talking a handful of additional permits that sell for $52 each, and possibly a few NR permits that sell for $580.

With no biological reason to add type-9 tags this idea is going to face fierce opposition. It drastically reduces opportunity for all hunters across the board...archery, rifle, and those that want to do both.

It wont increase the quality of either hunt, in fact, could potentially reduce the quality for both.

Bad idea that likely wont happen when its given more than a casual "thought".
 
Fedup, one more thing to add to your 2nd grade math is how many wounded and lost animals come from archery. And yes I pack a bow too.

DZ
 
fedup said: "Mathematically speaking please show me how I will be in the field with more hunters by taking a % of hunters out of the rifle pool and designating that they hunt with archery equipment."

This answer uses common sense and not 2nd grade math.

The way the system works right now, if a hunter fills out during special archery season they are not hunting during the regular season. The type 1&2 tags would have to be reduced by the number of archery kills(that were found and tagged of course) plus the number of bow hunt only guys just to make the hunter density the same. Type 9 tags are no advantage to type 1&2 hunters. They take away the archery season option and also restrict opportunity for youth hunters to hunt both seasons.
 
Buzz,

I know you think your in the "know"of everything that is Wyoming g&f and I know your the rep of the 450,000,000 member sportsman group (most of which don't know their members) but what was stated at the meeting last night is due to "overwhelming" public support for increased archery opportunities. The local g&f Was asked to identify these additional opportunities by Cheyenne. There were 20ish people at the meeting 4 or 5 people vocally commented in support and no one spoke in opposition. I also spoke to several people after the meeting who were in support. I've attended a majority of g&f meetings in the last 10 yrs and have only heard one person in opposition (the owner of a local car dealer who buys a couple commissioner tags every year).
I know that there is some opposition from the "I'm a Wyoming resident I should have 90 days to harvest 12 deer a year crowd" and the "commissioner/landowner tag group" but in sweetwater county there us strong support at least from those who show up to meetings.
 
Want to see opposition? Come to my town. A lot of people around here want to know why we should give up anything we have to satisfy a group who just wants better draw odds and the place to themselves.

And I won't believe it till I see it when the G&F issues late season archery tags to hunt mule deer. But that's just typical of this whole idea. Bow hunters(including myself) have all Sept to chase bull elk when they are most vulnerable. It doesn't surprise me that the 'I bow hunt, so I should get extras' crowd wants to chase the last few big buck mulies, in the rut, with their very own type 9.
 
Jm77

We can keep this argument going for months. I show you mathmetically how we can increase the amount of le tags (same impact on resource), improve draw odds, increase g&f revenue,and decrease hunter overcrowding. You start claiming that I'm throwing common sense out the window and stripping youth hunters of their god given right to 60 day elk seasons.
At the end of the day if given the choice between 100 guys having a 60 day elk season or 116 guys having a 30 day season I'll pick the latter any day. Also important to remember what is being proposed in sweetwater county is No where near what I propose. Well agree to disagree.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-14 AT 10:37PM (MST)[p]Its not the "I bow hunt I deserve extra" its the "i bow hunt thats my only hunt".

The selfishness is the "I bow hunt and I rifle hunt and I deserve both".

132/133 can easily support 10 tags for buck mule deer.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-14
>AT 09:22?PM (MST)
>
>Its not the "I bow hunt
>I deserve extra" its the
>"i bow hunt thats my
>only hunt".
>
>The selfishness is the "I bow
>hunt and I rifle hunt
>and I deserve both".
>
> 132/133 can easily support 10
>tags for buck mule deer.
>


No, it's "I bow hunt, so I deserve better drawing odds."
It's "I bow hunt, so I deserve to hunt mule deer bucks in the rut."

The truth is I do bow hunt and rifle hunt, that's the way it's always been and there's never been anything selfish about it. That is until bow hunters wanted their own tags and seasons.

And, by the way feduptwo, with type 9 tags there is no archery license needed, so your increased revenues got gobbled up in some more of your 2nd grade math.
 
feduptwo,

So when bowhunters made a run at 10% of all the available tags in Wyoming in the 2013 session...would you consider that a "I'm a bowhunter I deserve special draw odds, more tags, etc." type of deal?

Was that a selfish run at tags?

Your half baked idea about having archery tags for the mule deer rut is outlandish, as a best case.

You and others on this board have whined about the poor quality mule deer hunting, then come up with archery rut hunts for mule deer?

WOW!

Its pretty selfish of any hunter, regardless of weapon, to be asking for increased pressure on mule deer these days. In particular during the rut.

Also, archery hunters need to quit with the "we dont impact the resource" B.S. With their advances in compound bows, 100+ yard shots, and everything else, its pretty tough to call modern archery equipment "primitive" weapons.

Bad idea and it wont take much to stop the type-9 madness.
 
Really? Let's just say we look at the proposed 10 additional tags for 132/133. How is revenue lost? The two nr tags (assuming a 20% split) will more than make up for any lost revenue. If you want to look at the le model that I've referred to the additional 10-15% in permits will more than make up for lost archery license money. But maybe buzz is right. If its not on the backs of average sportsmen for low quality general permits we don't need the revenue anyway.

The "I bow hunt and I deserve better odds statment" is also not true because we are improving overall odds both for Archery and rifle hunters

I prefer the "I'm the entitled resident hunter who bitches about shitty hunting and never drawing a tag but will sacrifice nothing to change it"
 
Buzz,
I've whined about poor quality hunting mostly related to hunter overcrowding. Any opportunities that allow us to spread out the amount of hunters are any given time is a good thing. 10 hunters hunting a late season archery are ten less guys I'm bumping into on the general season.
 
I've never hunted a LE area that I felt the quality of the hunt was degraded by over crowding.

Your idea of adding additional LE permits via type-9's is a solution to an over crowding problem that doesnt exist for the vast majority of LE areas.

I can think of exactly one LE elk area (7) where overcrowding is an issue and I'd have no problem with trying to work up a solution. However, the problems with over-crowding in that area is related to a high elk population, limited public land, part of the landowners whining about too many elk, other landowners harboring elk and not allowing hunting, and the GF reacting by issuing a boatload of tags.

IMO, that situation will not right itself by simply issuing type-9 tags. It would likely result in even more crowding during the rifle seasons as I dont see the GF issuing fewer rifle tags until the elk populations are reduced significantly. The population wont be reduced unless we kill a lot of cow elk (something archery hunters kill very few of).

I dont see the biologic or economic value of type-9 tags. I also dont believe that in a vast majority of LE areas the crowding problems exist.

I have no trouble finding quality places to hunt even in general areas...and it doesnt take much effort to leave 99% of hunters in the dust and have the place to yourself.
 
The tag cuts for the main 3 species are pretty widespread this year. I would hate to see more tags taken out of type 1-2 with this trend, especially since there is already a 30 day archery season. Some people don't seem to acknowledge how good we have it compared to other states. It appears that gap is shrinking, however . . . As noted above, I guess in some cases "agree to disagree" is the only thing we can do . . .
 
You've never hunted 102 with 400 permits. It is overcrowded. 102 could probably handle the 400 hunters but just not all at the same time. I haven't personally hunted any le for deer and elk since 2003. I haven't drawn a antelope permit for 6 years. Yes Buzz I know I could drive 5 hr's and kill a half a dozen goats a year. The western side of the state has very crowded general season hunting.
Every additional le tag provided takes more people out of the general areas that
the rest of us hunt.
 
>You've never hunted 102 with 400
>permits. It is overcrowded.
>102 could probably handle the
>400 hunters but just not
>all at the same time.
>I haven't personally hunted any
>le for deer and elk
>since 2003. I haven't
>drawn a antelope permit for
>6 years. Yes Buzz
> I know I could
>drive 5 hr's and kill
>a half a dozen goats
>a year. The western
>side of the state has
>very crowded general season hunting.
>
> Every additional le tag
>provided takes more people out
>of the general areas that
>
> the rest of us hunt.
>


Putting out more tags when they are not needed doesn't solve anything. Do you really think a few extra tags will make a difference? Doubt it...

I just go the extra mile, works for me every time.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-14 AT 09:22PM (MST)[p]Feduptwo,

So, in your opinion, we need to completely revamp the license structure because you think 102 is overcrowded?

Heres a real novel idea...split the season between type 1 and type 2 tags...200 per season. Make both hunts one week each, with an archery only season the entire month of September for both type-1 and type-2.

BTW, I'm assuming you're in the Rock Springs area...you dont need to drive 5 hours to hunt pronghorn every year, in some damn good units. You're simply choosing to not hunt them, and the 5 hour drive is the reddest of red herrings I've ever seen.

If the Western Side of the state is so over-crowded, why then have I only seen a grand total of 2 other hunters since I started hunting deer over there in 2005? Those 2 guys were wayyy off in a distant drainage.

Yes, there is quality deer to be had where I hunt...like this one that I passed up and a friend shot, IIRC, scored 193 and change gross:

2005WyomingDeer4.jpg


If I would have had my chit together this last season, I would have another picture of buck thats in the same league as this one, if anything 5-10 inches bigger. Dont ask, I still dont like thinking about it.

There is plenty of good areas to hunt in Wyoming...just takes some effort.
 

Similar threads

M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
808
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
W
Wyoming elk 62
Replies
11
Views
1k
Traveler
T
tmbr_hntr
Have to use 14 deer points this year
Replies
26
Views
2k
SS!
SS!

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

100_1460.JPG
IMG_4307.jpg
IMG_0481.JPG
F22EDE90-BD94-47A1-87B5-BB7A927B4965.jpeg
IMG_9628.jpeg
IMG_20240415_132756.jpg
IMG_9629.jpeg
DSCN3691.JPG
Screenshot_20230122_171419_Gallery.jpg
20141127_131824-1.jpg
F39053A6-A54A-4BB1-A4DD-3B1E2BD4955A.jpeg
58358513-427B-46FE-86A5-DB9841610AF5.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