• Just a heads up: On November 13th, we'll be performing some updates on the website. You might experience some unresponsive pages, though we’re hoping for minimal disruption. Thanks for your understanding!

Wyoming Range Mule Deer

SS! said:
Such as?
Click to expand...
More focus on predator management,(more aerial gunning on coyotes), up the lion quota’s, increas the bear quota’s.
Less pressure on the younger age class bucks (they are the ones more opt to survive the hard winters ). There not a one fix all answer. Tough subject, but so many feel so strongly cause of there love for this deer herd
 
SS! said:
Make it so if you don’t report you are not eligible for applying for the draw the following year and I bet you get 99.99% of the reports back.

Wyoming already has mandatory reporting for other species so why not deer?

What’s the worst that can happen with having more data?
Click to expand...
Name me one situation where 99.99% of people accurately respond to any request for information, regardless of the circumstances or penalty?
 
It’s pretty tough to manage hunting pressure and harvest with general tags. What happens after years with winterkill and poor fawn recruitment? A few years after Colo went to all limited for deer Colo became the mecca for B&C bucks. It’s a bummer that this is changing in Colo with higher tag allotments and rifle rut hunts but that’s the cpw fault for issuing more tags.

Can you imagine the quality of bucks that would be available if the wg&f could manage hunting pressure and harvest in g and h…especially in years with poor winters? Just because tags are limited doesn’t mean that draw odds are horrible. They could set quotas similar to what they currently are guessing the numbers are for res. At least they could manage deer numbers in poor years!

As Wyo’s human population grows tough decisions will need to be made!
 
jims said:
It’s pretty tough to manage hunting pressure and harvest with general tags. What happens after years with winterkill and poor fawn recruitment? A few years after Colo went to all limited for deer Colo became the mecca for B&C bucks. It’s a bummer that this is changing in Colo with higher tag allotments and rifle rut hunts but that’s the cpw fault for issuing more tags.

Can you imagine the quality of bucks that would be available if the wg&f could manage hunting pressure and harvest in g and h…especially in years with poor winters? Just because tags are limited doesn’t mean that draw odds are horrible. They could set quotas similar to what they currently are guessing the numbers are for res. At least they could manage deer numbers in poor years!

As Wyo’s human population grows tough decisions will need to be made!
Click to expand...
Slowest population growth in the Nation I believe, and the easiest way to control hunting pressure in G&H is to reduce NR tags.

IMO, before we go LQ for residents there should be no NR hunting in G&H at all.
 
BuzzH said:
Slowest population growth in the Nation I believe, and the easiest way to control hunting pressure in G&H is to reduce NR tags.

IMO, before we go LQ for residents there should be no NR hunting in G&H at all.
Click to expand...
With the good buck to doe ratios we have in G&H, I'll take the opportunity to hunt each fall with my family. My 12 and 13 year old sons are excited to get out there this fall and look for a nice buck, even if it's not B&C.
 
Last edited:
BuzzH said:
Slowest population growth in the Nation I believe, and the easiest way to control hunting pressure in G&H is to reduce NR tags.

IMO, before we go LQ for residents there should be no NR hunting in G&H at all.
Click to expand...
Easiest way to control hunting pressure in G&H is to reduce NR hunting? In units where 80%+ of the hunters are Residents, and no harvest reporting is required??? Are you high or do you just hate NRs bc your logic makes zero sense…
 
I really can not imagine a good reason to be against mandatory reporting? It makes no sense why a person would support the current system random and voluntary over mandatory. From a social or a data perspective, the more responses you have the better the picture becomes. For example, 2 years ago I got a survey for my lope hunt. I worked hard and was way too picky and spent over 30 days hunting in the unit. It was dumb, but when my survey went in I am certain that very few others in the unit spent more than 5 days... The next next year I drew the same area and killed a buck on the second. Did not receive a survey. Elk limited, my daughter got a survey this year and my wife did not. My daughter only got to hunt 1 day was not successful, on the flip side my wife was out like 2 days and tagged out in the archery. The year before my wife was not surveyed and on the same hunt she was out for 16 days and never filled... No matter how you cut it, more data gives the data more reliability and validity...
 
Ltsheets said:
Easiest way to control hunting pressure in G&H is to reduce NR hunting? In units where 80%+ of the hunters are Residents, and no harvest reporting is required??? Are you high or do you just hate NRs bc your logic makes zero sense…
Click to expand...
He is correct and I agree that the last thing that should happen anywhere are cuts to resident opportunity. There is a lot of low hanging fruit to be had before we screw over residents. It would be easy and relatively painless to reduce NR hunters or better yet, just have a separate start date for NR. say have a 5 day resident season before the NR tag opens.... BUUWAHAHA...
 
jims said:
It’s pretty tough to manage hunting pressure and harvest with general tags. What happens after years with winterkill and poor fawn recruitment? A few years after Colo went to all limited for deer Colo became the mecca for B&C bucks. It’s a bummer that this is changing in Colo with higher tag allotments and rifle rut hunts but that’s the cpw fault for issuing more tags.

Can you imagine the quality of bucks that would be available if the wg&f could manage hunting pressure and harvest in g and h…especially in years with poor winters? Just because tags are limited doesn’t mean that draw odds are horrible. They could set quotas similar to what they currently are guessing the numbers are for res. At least they could manage deer numbers in poor years!

As Wyo’s human population grows tough decisions will need to be made!
Click to expand...
Colorado cheatgrass,
What does B&C have anything to do with herd health? Did you take into account in your arts and crafts charts that maybe CO has more B&C entries because CO is full of self promoters? If a buck is killed that makes record book but no one enters it is it still a B&C buck?

We can imagine the quality of bucks in Western Wyoming. They are there and will always be there. And the fact its over the counter makes it better for 1 reason alone. It gets so many of you cheatgrassers panties in knot.

Also the above questions are rhetorical. We all know you like ask questions but not answer them. My kids are the same way so no big deal.
 
elks96 said:
He is correct and I agree that the last thing that should happen anywhere are cuts to resident opportunity. There is a lot of low hanging fruit to be had before we screw over residents. It would be easy and relatively painless to reduce NR hunters or better yet, just have a separate start date for NR. say have a 5 day resident season before the NR tag opens.... BUUWAHAHA...
Click to expand...
I've always pondered a staggered opening day for NR like 3 days after the resident hunt opens. The outfitters would flip **** with how many mature bucks would be in the deep timber....
 
SS! said:
I've always pondered a staggered opening day for NR like 3 days after the resident hunt opens. The outfitters would flip **** with how many mature bucks would be in the deep timber....
Click to expand...
Hahaha that made me chuckle a bit. Yes outfitters and non residents would scream and cry. But in my opinion that really won’t make a big impact on helping the deer herd out, just be self satisfaction for the resident hunter.
 
I'm 100% against any NR tag cuts at this time. I'm not going to say some BS excuse like its because of revenue I spend in a small town. I'll be honest. It's because I want to hunt those areas again...and again.

NR tags were cut after the 2016 season. What affect did that have? No one knows. Still people bitching about the same issues as before. Is there really a problem? AND is it a problem we can fix? I feel many of the people complaining are trying to grasp onto something they once had but is no longer available. And changing some laws/quotas are not going to bring it back. The way of the buffalo I suppose....

How does one change the laws to fulfill a hunter's nostalgia for an area?

I know there's been some impressive data presented in the last 10 years or so regarding the migration of the deer. That's really great. IT wasn't anything a lot of people didn't already know. But before you couldn't "see" it on a map. You saw it in person when there was an extra 500 deer north of superior wyoming (a place most of you couldn't find on a map). Or why there was a group of giant bucks near the tables out in the dunes. Anyone with half a firing brain cell knew those deer with their dark antlers didn't live in the sagebrush and came from the wind rivers. My point is so much of the focus and funds are spent on that research which is great don't get me wrong. It helps to figure out where we can adjust highways/roads to help the process. But I feel like for a lot less money we could figure out how many mule deer bucks (and does) are killed by their #1 predator. Hunters.
 
It really does boggle my mind there isn't mandatory reporting. @SS! Is spot on that if people didn't report they couldn't apply or get a tag the next year, pretty sure everyone would report. I'm not 100% sure why people would lie with their reporting either. Maybe I am just honest.

I think it has been said but do we even know if there is a problem? And what objectives are we trying to achieve, more deer, bigger deer, buck to doe ratio, fawn survival? Saying I want the good old days back isnt an objective.
 
Tre heiner said:
Hahaha that made me chuckle a bit. Yes outfitters and non residents would scream and cry. But in my opinion that really won’t make a big impact on helping the deer herd out, just be self satisfaction for the resident hunter.
Click to expand...
I guess if residents need a "head start" in order to level the playing field, then so be it. When my son was younger and not as good at basketball as me, I would often give him a "head start" or shoot with my left hand to level the playing field. :)

On the serious topic, LaBarge Winter range is reported to be at 45 bucks per 100 does, and 79 fawns per 100 does. That is an incredibly healthy herd! In fact, it's probably too many bucks and a bad winter hurts the deer herd much more when there are too many bucks out there competing for the same feed as does and fawns.

I know some don't trust those numbers out of the G&F, but I do. Of course I think very highly of Gary Fralick and I think he'd have to be in on the whole conspiracy theory that the G&F is inflating numbers, and I don't believe that for a moment. He's one of the most honest and inteligent biologists I've ever spoken to.

So if I trust the numbers being reported, then I have to say that I don't think there is anything wrong with that deer herd right now and tag cuts, whether resident or non-resident, are absolutely not needed. In fact, one could argue that with such a high buck to doe ratio and many years of drought that is taking its toll on the winter range vegitation, that a lower buck to doe ratio wouldn't be all that bad.

Now, Tre and I visited on the phone for over an hour the other day sharing our opinions and talking hunting, and I will agree with him that the top end bucks in that country are suffering a bit (top end isn't as big as in the past). I don't believe however that too many hunters is the cause. The problem in my opinion is time, money and technology. Diehard DIY guys, along with guides and outfitters have more time, money, gear and desire than every before in history. Some DIY hunters and many guides are scouting 20-30 days a year and finding the biggest bucks. Then we/they have 5 weeks to get that buck. 5 weeks!!! It's extremely difficult for a buck to avoid making a mistake for 5 weeks. We're just asking too much of those "special" bucks to avoid death for such a long time so that they're a bit bigger next year.

In addition to diehard DIYers and guides, even just the average guy has the technology to take those bucks with the potential to be very special long before they're even mature. Many bucks with potential to be "special" begin to show it at young ages of 3 or 4. They may have a slightly wider frame than the average 5 year old buck, or sport a cheater or two. With high powered optics those small features can be seen and make those bucks slightly more desirable than others of the same age class and are being killed before they ever reach maturity. So of course we're going to see fewer and fewer of the really special bucks when they're getting shot when they are 20 inches wide with a couple cheaters at 3 years old.

Our advantages over the game is what's hurting the top end bucks, not too many hunters. In fact, tag cuts for non-residents have probably put more pressure on those top end bucks because when someone has to wait 7-8 years for a tag, the tags value increases and hunters are more willing to invest more time scouting themselves, invest in a longer range rifle, pay $7000 for a guide who finds the top end bucks, or gets help from a consultant, or spends twice as much time hunting. Even the motivation to hunt longer and harder increases. (I can speak from personal experience. I know my time hunting western Wyoming is limited because it's so difficult to get a tag, so I invest far, far, far more time and effort into scouting and hunting than I would otherwise.)

Currently, there are plenty of bucks in those areas to not only support the current number of people hunting, but probably even a few more with buck to doe ratios that high.
As far as 200 inch bucks for everyone.......no, there's not one for everyone and opportunity shouldn't be taken from anyone in an effort to have more giants. There are plenty of bucks that 99% of hunters consider a trophy.

BTW, I see nothing wrong with opening date changes to reduce some of the crowding as Tre suggested, or mandatory harvest reporting.
 
For those who are interested, here's a graph Gary sent over. My understanding is that some are skeptical of this data, but until maybe this new organizations future biologist proves it to be wrong/inflated, it's what I trust. Mostly because I trust Gary. He's a smart dude. He and I think alike....ha ha ha :LOL:

1647446089569.png
 
^ Great post. It’s encouraging to hear the high buck to doe ratio and high fawn survival. But what about total number of deer? I know that data is out there but is the population trending up or down? High buck to doe ratios to me are meaningless if we have a 1/3 the deer we had 15 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Founder said:
On the serious topic, LaBarge Winter range is reported to be at 45 bucks per 100 does, and 79 fawns per 100 does. That is an incredibly healthy herd! In fact, it's probably too many bucks and a bad winter hurts the deer herd much more when there are too many bucks out there competing for the same feed as does and fawns.
Click to expand...
100%
 
SS! said:
^ Great post. It’s encouraging to hear the high buck to die ratio and high fawn survival. But what about total number of deer? I know that data is out there but is the population trending up or down? High buck to doe ratios to me are meaningless if we have a 1/3 the deer we had 15 years ago.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that there are less mule deer now than 15 years ago, but that's the case nearly everywhere. And, it's quite likely never again in our lifetimes that we'll see an upward trend in overall mule deer numbers for any extended periods of time, so for the most part, we have to make the most of what we have.

Buck to doe ratios do have meaning, because in the event of a bad winter, doe and fawn mortality is the cost of that high buck to doe ratio. Herd population, along with buck to doe ratio has increased over the past 5 years on the range we're speaking of. Obviously, more and more bucks are surviving the hunts to make it to the winter range. Increasing buck to doe ratio tells us that a greater ratio of bucks are surviving from one year to the next than does.

My point is, if buck numbers are increasing, and in fact far beyond management minimum, then why cut tag numbers? Maybe cutting tags would result in even higher buck to doe numbers and maybe more 200 inch bucks, but it comes at the cost of opportunity.
We're not talking about some area that is the land of 2 and 3 year old bucks. There is a good ratio of bucks in all age classes. And, there's actually a very good number of bucks in that 170-180 range, which are real trophies for 99% of hunters.

Does are what grow a herd. 30 bucks per 100 does is plenty to grow a deer herd, and any additional bucks competing with does and fawns for feed in the winter, may be hurting the effort to grow a herd. And it definitely hurts the growth of a herd if a bad winter occurs.

Clearly I'm no fan of taking opportunity so that instead of hunting 180 bucks a fewer number of hunters get to hunt 200 inch bucks while others sit at home with no hunt opportunity at all. When it reaches the point of plenty of 200 inch bucks, should tags continue to be cut so that there are more 240 bucks? Not in my opinion!
 
In regards to mandatory reporting I support it for all states. I think New Mexico has the best approach also. Don’t submit and you can’t apply next year.
Even if someone chooses to lie and claim they killed a 200” 4x4 buck when they really killed a small buck it’s still data that is useful. It’s another buck killed regardless of size and still adds data to the totals.
 
Already know that I have no business expressing an opinion on something that is none of my business, so to save being reminded that it’s none of my business, l’ll just say this, “this is none of my business”.

Utah refuses to collect 100% harvest data, they claim it’s unnecessary because a statistical valid survey is sufficient.

Regarding sportsmen lying, attempting to influence a personal agenda. I believe many do, because many have told me they have.

Personally, I believe a 100% harvest report is important. Accurate data has significant value, if nothing more than to garner more trust from the public. Of course, the keeper and collector of the data will always be suspect by some of the public.

Suppose the agency require 199% reporting. How can the accuracy of the data given by the hunter be secured?

While it wouldn’t stop it entirely because some “sportsmen” will go to great lengths to misrepresent their report. Making it more difficult lie would help.

Most liars are not all that ambitious so if it’s made harder to lie they won’t bother. Therefore, providing a photo with your report, in today’s digital world, it wouldn’t be that difficult or unreasonable to require. A picture of the animal, a picture of the tag, filled or unfilled, could be included with the report. Yup, it would be a change in process, inconvenient, as opposed to doing nothing, and a demonstration of mistrust, etc, etc, but no more so than a required report at a check station or a plug for a sheep or a tag for a cat or a bear.

Changing times, changing conditions, require changing data needs, to help keep big game herds viable and are worth the investment, for both the hunter and the game agency. It would be worth to me, if I the King of the world.

Your experience may require different changes and produce different results.
 
2lumpy said:
Already know that I have no business expressing an opinion on something that is none of my business, so to save being reminded that it’s none of my business, l’ll just say this, “this is none of my business”.

Utah refuses to collect 100% harvest data, they claim it’s unnecessary because a statistical valid survey is sufficient.

Regarding sportsmen lying, attempting to influence a personal agenda. I believe many do, because many have told me they have.

Personally, I believe a 100% harvest report is important. Accurate data has significant value, if nothing more than to garner more trust from the public. Of course, the keeper and collector of the data will always be suspect by some of the public.

Suppose the agency require 199% reporting. How can the accuracy of the data given by the hunter be secured?

While it wouldn’t stop it entirely because some “sportsmen” will go to great lengths to misrepresent their report. Making it more difficult lie would help.

Most liars are not all that ambitious so if it’s made harder to lie they won’t bother. Therefore, providing a photo with your report, in today’s digital world, it wouldn’t be that difficult or unreasonable to require. A picture of the animal, a picture of the tag, filled or unfilled, could be included with the report. Yup, it would be a change in process, inconvenient, as opposed to doing nothing, and a demonstration of mistrust, etc, etc, but no more so than a required report at a check station or a plug for a sheep or a tag for a cat or a bear.

Changing times, changing conditions, require changing data needs, to help keep big game herds viable and are worth the investment, for both the hunter and the game agency. It would be worth to me, if I the King of the world.

Your experience may require different changes and produce different results.
Click to expand...
Hymmm a digital carcass tag. That when you kill you must validate and provide basic information. Run it the same as a paper tag. The second you tag out you open the app, validate your kill. Then when you get proper service the app automatically up loads/registers you kill and could include a picture of the animal harvested...

I suggest this half being a smart ass and half being serious. I know many states are accepting digital licenses for fishing small game etc.
 
elks96 said:
Hymmm a digital carcass tag. That when you kill you must validate and provide basic information. Run it the same as a paper tag. The second you tag out you open the app, validate your kill. Then when you get proper service the app automatically up loads/registers you kill and could include a picture of the animal harvested...

I suggest this half being a smart ass and half being serious. I know many states are accepting digital licenses for fishing small game etc.
Click to expand...
If no one thinks out side the box, you will alway get what you already have. I like the idea that says, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”……. Will it’s broke!
 
elks96 said:
Hymmm a digital carcass tag. That when you kill you must validate and provide basic information. Run it the same as a paper tag. The second you tag out you open the app, validate your kill. Then when you get proper service the app automatically up loads/registers you kill and could include a picture of the animal harvested...

I suggest this half being a smart ass and half being serious. I know many states are accepting digital licenses for fishing small game etc.
Click to expand...
New Mexico has E tags and you update/validate your kill on the app.
 
2lumpy said:
Already know that I have no business expressing an opinion on something that is none of my business, so to save being reminded that it’s none of my business, l’ll just say this, “this is none of my business”.

Utah refuses to collect 100% harvest data, they claim it’s unnecessary because a statistical valid survey is sufficient.
Click to expand...
I'll say the same: “this is none of my business”. I'll add that I'll hate myself in the morning. :cool:

Until there is complete & accurate POPULATION data, which will never happen, 100% harvest data won't be any more accurate than statistical analysis of random surveys used in hand with ESTIMATED population figures. IOW, it would be like comparing apples to oranges rather than apples to apples as is currently the case.
 
OutdoorWriter said:
I'll say the same: “this is none of my business”. I'll add that I'll hate myself in the morning. :cool:

Until there is complete & accurate POPULATION data, which will never happen, 100% harvest data won't be any more accurate than statistical analysis of random surveys used in hand with ESTIMATED population figures. IOW, it would be like comparing apples to oranges rather than apples to apples as is currently the case.
Click to expand...
I can’t say that I’d argue with you on that. So……… here’s a not so novel nor outside the box suggestion, rather than agreeing complete and accurate population data will never happen, let’s add that to bobcats “Western State 50 Shades of Not Grey” list of thinks that have to be done to save our mule deer.

There, now you’ll like yourself tomorrow! ?
 
2lumpy said:
I can’t say that I’d argue with you on that. So……… here’s a not so novel nor outside the box suggestion, rather than agreeing complete and accurate population data will never happen, let’s add that to bobcats “Western State 50 Shades of Not Grey” list of thinks that have to be done to save our mule deer.

There, now you’ll like yourself tomorrow! ?
Click to expand...
As you and I have probably both learned over our long, sorry-ass lives, much of 'wildlife management' is guess & by golly, even though it's supposedly based in science.

Indeed, it would be a sight to see all the 'counters' hit the hills to get that accurate count in all the nooks & crannies. I bet it would kind of resemble when they tried the deer drive on the N. Kaibab.

I'm done here.
 
OutdoorWriter said:
Until there is complete & accurate POPULATION data, which will never happen,...
Click to expand...
Who told you it will never happen? Sightability studies are where G&F fly areas(every square foot we are told) and count every animal. This is to get a true and accurate base number.

By the way, if people lie on surveys, what difference does it make if it's a mandatory or random survey?

With that kind of thinking, we shouldn't do any surveys.
 
Mandatory harvest reporting is also going to allow you to follow trends.

There's a reason when success rates increase or decrease substantially, not all of them having to do with populations.

There's a lot more information to learn about with harvest data rather than simply comparing it to total populations.

Its 2022...not 1962, our thinking and way we do business needs to change. We can't just rely on crap some old dude learned in Wildlife Biology in College circa 1950.
 
jm77 said:
Who told you it will never happen? Sightability studies are where G&F fly areas(every square foot we are told) and count every animal. This is to get a true and accurate base number.

By the way, if people lie on surveys, what difference does it make if it's a mandatory or random survey?

With that kind of thinking, we shouldn't do any surveys.
Click to expand...
It’s not if they lie. They do. They either lie when they tell you they lied and didn’t or they lie when they say they didn’t, and they did. Some lie.

Having said that, Regardless if it’s random or mandatory, only accurate data is viable data……you know…… junk in, junk out.

Only looking for some way to produce valid data, what every the method used.

Not looking to belittle anyones ideas, just hoping to simulate something better.
 
BuzzH said:
Mandatory harvest reporting is also going to allow you to follow trends.

There's a reason when success rates increase or decrease substantially, not all of them having to do with populations.

There's a lot more information to learn about with harvest data rather than simply comparing it to total populations.

Its 2022...not 1962, our thinking and way we do business needs to change. We can't just rely on crap some old dude learned in Wildlife Biology in College circa 1950.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. No looking to blame the biologists from the 50s and 60s, they did the best they could do, with the knowledge and conditions at the time but I am highly, highly critical of current biologists, that are not using current solutions to solve current conditions. Highly critical and disgusted beyond words. When I see what private operators can do on private lands as compared to what our agencies are doing or not doing on public lands is enough to drive us crazy. As if we aren’t already!
 
Does anyone know the statistical difference of random surveys vs. mandatory reporting? Or the margin of error and confidence level of the random surveys? I have not been able to find that information.

Once again, I have no problem with mandatory reporting but I also do not believe it will solve anything in regards to Wyo range deer populations. Random samples seem to work well on elk. They keep expanding. Mandatory reporting isn't doing anything for bighorns. The only thing I am confident of is that the decline of MD across the west has little if anything to do with the method of hunter success reporting.
 
I think there is some confusion going on here mandatory harvest reporting is not the same as a mandatory survey. If mandatory harvest teporting.is implemented at the time of harvest it will be impossible for a law abiding hunter to lie about it, it's the same as notching your tag. Yea some people still won't do it and those people will get tickets simple as that
 
A survey would be good too but the only real important thing In my opinion is knowing how many deer are being taken off the landscape I don't really care if Mike from New Jersey was satisfied with his hunt or how many days he hunted
 
mulecreek said:
Does anyone know the statistical difference of random surveys vs. mandatory reporting? Or the margin of error and confidence level of the random surveys? I have not been able to find that information.

Once again, I have no problem with mandatory reporting but I also do not believe it will solve anything in regards to Wyo range deer populations. Random samples seem to work well on elk. They keep expanding. Mandatory reporting isn't doing anything for bighorns. The only thing I am confident of is that the decline of MD across the west has little if anything to do with the method of hunter success reporting.
Click to expand...
To use elk as example of random survey's working is laughable...at best.

I don't see anyone claiming MR as being the solution to the mule deer issue but what is the harm in getting the information? It would help understand ACTUAL harvest rates, hunting pressure etc.
 
SS! said:
To use elk as example of random survey's working is laughable...at best.

I don't see anyone claiming MR as being the solution to the mule deer issue but what is the harm in getting the information? It would help understand ACTUAL harvest rates, hunting pressure etc.
Click to expand...
Agree. Just pointing out that elk are doing great in spite of what is deemed insufficient reporting.

No harm in MR I would just need to see proof that it would be markedly better than the current random. Also, would like to see how the bios would intend to use it before I would be willing to say the added costs would justify.
 
Founder said:
There is no doubt that there are less mule deer now than 15 years ago, but that's the case nearly everywhere. And, it's quite likely never again in our lifetimes that we'll see an upward trend in overall mule deer numbers for any extended periods of time, so for the most part, we have to make the most of what we have.

Buck to doe ratios do have meaning, because in the event of a bad winter, doe and fawn mortality is the cost of that high buck to doe ratio. Herd population, along with buck to doe ratio has increased over the past 5 years on the range we're speaking of. Obviously, more and more bucks are surviving the hunts to make it to the winter range. Increasing buck to doe ratio tells us that a greater ratio of bucks are surviving from one year to the next than does.

My point is, if buck numbers are increasing, and in fact far beyond management minimum, then why cut tag numbers? Maybe cutting tags would result in even higher buck to doe numbers and maybe more 200 inch bucks, but it comes at the cost of opportunity.
We're not talking about some area that is the land of 2 and 3 year old bucks. There is a good ratio of bucks in all age classes. And, there's actually a very good number of bucks in that 170-180 range, which are real trophies for 99% of hunters.

Does are what grow a herd. 30 bucks per 100 does is plenty to grow a deer herd, and any additional bucks competing with does and fawns for feed in the winter, may be hurting the effort to grow a herd. And it definitely hurts the growth of a herd if a bad winter occurs.

Clearly I'm no fan of taking opportunity so that instead of hunting 180 bucks a fewer number of hunters get to hunt 200 inch bucks while others sit at home with no hunt opportunity at all. When it reaches the point of plenty of 200 inch bucks, should tags continue to be cut so that there are more 240 bucks? Not in my opinion!
Click to expand...

I hope you're wrong. I believe mule deer in Western Wyoming can bounce back to late 90's numbers. Is that the case in utah or colorado? Hell no. Too many people. But I hold out hope for western wyoming...

I'm not sure why inches of antler should ever come into play regarding how well a deer herd is doing. A well represented age class is more important and a better indicator of herd heath than scores based off antler growth. Sorry cheatgrass Jims!
 
mulecreek said:
Agree. Just pointing out that elk are doing great in spite of what is deemed insufficient reporting.

No harm in MR I would just need to see proof that it would be markedly better than the current random. Also, would like to see how the bios would intend to use it before I would be willing to say the added costs would justify.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Its a shame elk have been able to prevail after so many people told us the wolves would kill them all. ;)
 
I will not elaborate on what SS stands for? And if I had shot in there it would be ONESHOTWONDER, I hate to admit it but the governor seen me hunting and named the one shot antelope hunt after me!!
 
Last edited:
SS! said:
Agreed. Its a shame elk have been able to prevail after so many people told us the wolves would kill them all. ;)
Click to expand...
Elk are overrated, I think they should do the fly over and shoot them all, kinda like a mountain goat hunt that took place or maybe round them up like the wild horses and move them all to the high fence ranches. Maybe thunder mountain in Idaho would be a nice place!!
 
@Tre heiner apparently one of your member outfitters spoke for your group at the TF meeting and told everyone how the group is unanimous on region tags.

Yeah, sounds to me like you want to listen to everyone's idea.

​

 
All regions will do is kill more deer. There's allot more pressure to fill your tag during the seasons for that region then there is the way it is now being able to use a general tag for whitetail in many areas across the state well into November
 
Feedback for Tre from a Wyoming resident:

That herd means the world to many of us. I agree it’s the best damn herd in the world and I respect your passion. Reading between the lines, I feel like your organization’s priority is focusing on there are too many deer hunters. Is your organization’s main objective to limit resident deer opportunity in Wyoming, whether through picking a region?

I agree across the west, especially in areas with more roads, easy accessibility with atvs and other equipment advancements has raped the mtns of their older bucks. This is a growing issue; however, with buck to doe ratios where they are in western Wyoming, and a lot less road access than most of the west, there are bigger issues impacting this herd than hunters. I think the hunt management for this area is fine and is where it needs to be. I don’t support picking a region.

Between bad winters, fawn mortality through predation and disease, habitat fragmentation, and vehicle collisions. I believe these are the items that need to be focused on. Focus on the does and fawns.

What I hear you saying is let’s limit more buck harvest and make the buck:doe ratio even higher than it is. What do you want, 50-60 bucks:100 does? sounds awesome but it’s not the fix nor healthy for building a herd.

I appreciate and share the same love for these deer, my feedback is: use your time, money, effort and help save the entire population by looking what you can do legislatively to help protect migration corridors, core habitat, increase local predator quotas and seasons where it will help the deer, and how to deal with more and more vehicles and idiot drivers on our highways killing an extraordinary amount of deer.

Thanks again for stepping up and helping the deer.
 

Similar threads

S
Mule Deer Hunt Wyoming '25
Replies
4
Views
812
Slat338-378
S
B
CO Unit 67 2nd Rifle Mule Deer - take trailer?
Replies
17
Views
1k
bcmulie
B
M
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/news-events/game-and-fish-host-mule-deer-community-conversations
Replies
5
Views
327
jims
J

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

B17C93CA-32AD-4F3E-B75E-4E13A6630658.jpeg
20170923_121244.jpg
elk.jpg
IMG_4275.jpeg
Heavy Buck!!
A0CDA5F0-7F7B-4BE4-9B10-2C6054BFD5AC.jpeg
121487376_650293995849129_8652746852894935047_n.jpg
IMG_4657 Copy.jpeg
IMG_9976.jpg
B686AF51-1E15-4AFE-BA5F-8A879619B441.jpeg
IMG_3489.jpeg
Screenshot_20230903-225245_Gallery.jpg

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