disappointing hunt in G

[highfastflyer]

One major point to consider in all this as Mule Deer afficcianados is the fact as deer have gone downhill in many of these high alpine areas the Elk have dramatically increased. Study after study demonstrates how these elk are eating the very same forage we were once taught browsers and grazers rarely interact. Dr. Monteith from University of Wyoming and the Oregon studies document well how the elk are eating the same forage and directly competing and displacing the deer. Most states have far more elk than their objectives call for. We would not want to place any restrictions on elk harvest as we can’t keep up with proper harvest with the very liberal and high tech devices we already have. If we are going to limit technology ie go to a straight 9 X scope maximum then we would NOT want to do that with elk. We need elk harvested dramatically, especially COW ELK as they are literally one of the main reasons the Wyoming Range deer numbers have plummeted. If you went to those high mountain basins 25 years ago you rarely if ever saw an elk. Now literally every basin is teeming with elk and hunter orange and the mule deer have plummeted. Keep up the pressure with every known aid we have on the elk, but for deer it’s time to start placing some limits on technology. It’s easiest to do if we have separate seasons like we do in the Wyoming Range, especially for Law enforcement officers.

 

[BRTreedogs]

One major point to consider in all this as Mule Deer afficcianados is the fact as deer have gone downhill in many of these high alpine areas the Elk have dramatically increased. Study after study demonstrates how these elk are eating the very same forage we were once taught browsers and grazers rarely interact. Dr. Monteith from University of Wyoming and the Oregon studies document well how the elk are eating the same forage and directly competing and displacing the deer. Most states have far more elk than their objectives call for. We would not want to place any restrictions on elk harvest as we can’t keep up with proper harvest with the very liberal and high tech devices we already have. If we are going to limit technology ie go to a straight 9 X scope maximum then we would NOT want to do that with elk. We need elk harvested dramatically, especially COW ELK as they are literally one of the main reasons the Wyoming Range deer numbers have plummeted. If you went to those high mountain basins 25 years ago you rarely if ever saw an elk. Now literally every basin is teeming with elk and hunter orange and the mule deer have plummeted. Keep up the pressure with every known aid we have on the elk, but for deer it’s time to start placing some limits on technology. It’s easiest to do if we have separate seasons like we do in the Wyoming Range, especially for Law enforcement officers.

Dang how hard is a non resident elk tag to get for that area? I'm all about it.

 

[dukxdog]

I guided hunters in Regions G & H from 1977-1982. Three different camps in Greys, Little Greys and Salt Rivers. We rarely saw any hunters resident or nonres who were hunting deer. We would fill 8 hunters in camp every four days and got many great bucks along with medium size. During that time it went to 4 points or better. One year in particular I guided 32 deer hunters and filled 28. We started hunting September 10 and finished deer November 30. I hardly ever saw camp in the daylight.

I have great memories and photos of my time there. Sure has gone to hell compared to the times I enjoyed. I don't apply for WY since the Point system started. Just greed running the show now. Glad I got to experience western Wyoming when I did.

My friend who I guided with grew up in Smoot and still lives in Star Valley. That whole valley has changed dramatically. Just sad to see how things turned out compared to the "good ol' days".

Oh yeah...we didn't have the long range shooting rigs in those days. 7mag, 30-06, 270, 300wby, 308, 243 were all the popular calibers. 400yds was rare. Most shots 100-maybe 300yds. Way different conversations these days. I used a 280 and 338(still do).

 

[IdahoHntr]

Sure a few but I still say its a small percentage.
Thats 2 deer.
How many more guys did even see a deer in that unit. Or anything better then a 3 pt?

My brother hunted Se Idaho in the 80 and said they would see 2000 deer a day and like 25 170 bucks all in a 10x10 mile area.

I do not believe the tag allotment is enough to have reduced the big bucks by that much.

Idaho sells like 150,000 deer tags a year. If 10,000 of those hunters (1 out of 15) have 2 deer stories like mine that's 20,000 deer over a 5-10 year period. 20,000 is pretty significant.

I understand that this is anecdotal evidence entirely, but that's all we have to rely on in terms of long range hunting because nobody has any statistics on the subject.

One fact we do know is that success rates are almost always lower in both archery and other short range weapons hunts when compared with rifle hunts. I think this at least shows that shooting further almost always results in more dead animals. Why wouldn't that same logic translate to comparing a time when rifle shots were typically under 400 yards, to a time where people seem to shoot past 500 yards accurately and frequently? It's so easy to see when comparing a bow to a rifle that increasing your range increases opportunities and dead animals, that I just don't understand why it's so hard for people to connect that increasing your rifles shooting range by 3-4X would also have a similar effect on animals?

 

[highfastflyer]

Cow tags are available in the leftover drawing. For bulls it is a General area so about every 3 years or so you can draw as a nonresident. If you have never hunted the Wyoming Range you will quickly learn why critters grow old up there. It is essentially a huge area with some of the steepest and nastiest basins and hardest hunting you will ever find. Having said that please come help Wyoming with its over abundance of elk as they are a real threat to mule deer herds. I highly recommend you bring horses for packing.

 

[highfastflyer]

I guided hunters in Regions G & H from 1977-1982. Three different camps in Greys, Little Greys and Salt Rivers. We rarely saw any hunters resident or nonres who were hunting deer. We would fill 8 hunters in camp every four days and got many great bucks along with medium size. During that time it went to 4 points or better. One year in particular I guided 32 deer hunters and filled 28. We started hunting September 10 and finished deer November 30. I hardly ever saw camp in the daylight.

I have great memories and photos of my time there. Sure has gone to hell compared to the times I enjoyed. I don't apply for WY since the Point system started. Just greed running the show now. Glad I got to experience western Wyoming when I did.

My friend who I guided with grew up in Smoot and still lives in Star Valley. That whole valley has changed dramatically. Just sad to see how things turned out compared to the "good ol' days".

Oh yeah...we didn't have the long range shooting rigs in those days. 7mag, 30-06, 270, 300wby, 308, 243 were all the popular calibers. 400yds was rare. Most shots 100-maybe 300yds. Way different conversations these days. I used a 280 and 338(still do).

You may have hunted as I did in the 1970s heyday for mule deer in the Wyoming Range but now it’s the heyday for elk. Back then we rarely saw an elk, kinda like a novelty back then, especially in those high mountain basins. Now during September it’s Elk Central during the deer hunt and few deer to be found. It’s literally the heyday of elk hunting.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Idaho sells like 150,000 deer tags a year. If 10,000 of those hunters (1 out of 15) have 2 deer stories like mine that's 20,000 deer over a 5-10 year period. 20,000 is pretty significant.

I understand that this is anecdotal evidence entirely, but that's all we have to rely on in terms of long range hunting because nobody has any statistics on the subject.

One fact we do know is that success rates are almost always lower in both archery and other short range weapons hunts when compared with rifle hunts. I think this at least shows that shooting further almost always results in more dead animals. Why wouldn't that same logic translate to comparing a time when rifle shots were typically under 400 yards, to a time where people seem to shoot past 500 yards accurately and frequently? It's so easy to see when comparing a bow to a rifle that increasing your range increases opportunities and dead animals, that I just don't understand why it's so hard for people to connect that increasing your rifles shooting range by 3-4X would also have a similar effect on animals?

Has rifle success increased?

Typically I run into two entirely different kind of hunters.
Ones that kill
And ones that don't see anything.
I think its 80% that do not.

I think that the 20% was pretty much filling the tag no matter what.

I just think all the mystery is gone and there are just alot more killers out there then there was.

Alot more putting in the work.

The work has gotten easier.
So much info on the web.
For instance. Doesn't matter how far you can shoot how many big bucks are people shooting from the road?

Back in the day thats how it was done alot of the time. From the road or pretty dang close.

 

[IdahoHntr]

Has rifle success increased?

Typically I run into two entirely different kind of hunters.
Ones that kill
And ones that don't see anything.
I think its 80% that do not.

I think that the 20% was pretty much filling the tag no matter what.

I just think all the mystery is gone and there are just alot more killers out there then there was.

Alot more putting in the work.

The work has gotten easier.
So much info on the web.
For instance. Doesn't matter how far you can shoot how many big bucks are people shooting from the road?

Back in the day thats how it was done alot of the time. From the road or pretty dang close.

I honestly don't know if rifle success has increased or decreased, but I do know that comparing rifle success to previous years has too many variabilities on the cause to make a statistical comparison. Not to mention there is no specific year that long range hunting started happening. It has been developing incrementally for years and will continue to develop incrementally for years. It would be impossible to make anything of statistical significance from just comparing rifle success rates.

The fact that no one argues is that a rifle is more effective at killing than it's shorter range counterparts. You can't argue that, it is a fact and yet, you make it sound like you could let everyone loose with a rifle on all the muzzy and archery hunts next year and it wouldn't make a difference on success rates. That's laughable at best.

I'd even say Utah is another good example that it is the range capability of the weapon and not the weapon itself making a difference as without any regulations on muzzleloaders, the muzzy success rate is approaching, even surpassing, the rifle success rate in a lot of areas. As technology allows a person to shoot muzzleloaders further, the success rate increases. Imagine that. It isn't rocket science. Ask any hunter if he could double his range if he'd kill more animals and he'd say yes. If long range shooting didn't help a person kill more animals, nobody would do it. It definitely makes a hunter more effective, we just don't know how much more effective.

How hard people work has nothing to do with whether shooting further kills more deer or not. I agree that killers work hard, but again, that has nothing to do with this subject.

The question is, How many less deer, big bucks specifically, would have been killed in 2020 if people couldn't consistently and easily shoot past 400 yards?

The next question I'd ask is, How many tags could we save (not have to cut, and still see a reduction in harvest) if we instead limited technology?

 

[BRTreedogs]

Yes
Rifles are more effective.
Long range even more effective.
What I'm saying is its all the same hunter doing the killing. No matter the weapon he is gonna end up with a dead deer.

I believe the amount of hunters whose only trick is long range. And who's archery and muzzleloader tags go un filled.
But yet they stumble on a big buck and pop him long is small, to small to make a difference.

And if all the other limitations the deer fave where whelmed ( which i know is a fantasy)
There would be more then enough big bucks to circumvent the 1000 yard out if the box guys that harvest one big buck in there life.

But like you said its really semantics and un measurable.

 

[highfastflyer]

Yes
Rifles are more effective.
Long range even more effective.
What I'm saying is its all the same hunter doing the killing. No matter the weapon he is gonna end up with a dead deer.

I believe the amount of hunters whose only trick is long range. And who's archery and muzzleloader tags go un filled.
But yet they stumble on a big buck and pop him long is small, to small to make a difference.

And if all the other limitations the deer fave where whelmed ( which i know is a fantasy)
There would be more then enough big bucks to circumvent the 1000 yard out if the box guys that harvest one big buck in there life.

But like you said its really semantics and un measurable.

Actually it could be measurable if we placed a limit on the technology. Placing a 9 X scope limit, no trail cams, no drones, aerial scouting, and mandatory ethical training on teaching the ethics of keeping shots under 500 yards then try it for 5 years and see if the harvest numbers drop. If they do, which many believe they would, then it is directly observable and measured. If not, then reevaluate.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Actually it could be measurable if we placed a limit on the technology. Placing a 9 X scope limit, no trail cams, no drones, aerial scouting, and mandatory ethical training on teaching the ethics of keeping shots under 500 yards then try it for 5 years and see if the harvest numbers drop. If they do, which many believe they would, then it is directly observable and measured. If not, then reevaluate.

You don't know how far we can shoot w 9x do ya.

 

[robby denning]

You don't know how far we can shoot w 9x do ya.

I have to second that.

As said above, if we wanna bring yardages down, take away laser rangefinders. In my mind, that was the game changer.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I have to second that.

As said above, if we wanna bring yardages down, take away laser rangefinders. In my mind, that was the game changer.

There's also way to estimate yardage with you're reticle.
You can estimate yardage on your phone.
You can go in pre season lazer range find and draw pictures like a snipe does.

Sure its slower, and you'll probably end up with more wounded animals.

Make it trad bow only. People will still be successful.

But then your turning the barriers to entry so high you will turn away new hunters.

No great solution really.
Id much rather see a ban on atvs then any type of weapons.

 

[robby denning]

There's also way to estimate yardage with you're reticle.
You can estimate yardage on your phone.
You can go in pre season lazer range find and draw pictures like a snipe does.

Sure its slower, and you'll probably end up with more wounded animals.

Make it trad bow only. People will still be successful.

But then your turning the barriers to entry so high you will turn away new hunters.

No great solution really.
Id much rather see a ban on atvs then any type of weapons.

we could do all that with reticles and non-lazer RF before lazers hit the market, and still couldn't do much beyond 400 yards rifle, 40 bow, 100 muzz IMO

 

[204guy]

Seems this turned into the thread with the old guys bitching about what once was, and the solution is to limit everybody else.

 

[Riflehuntr19]

Yes
Rifles are more effective.
Long range even more effective.
What I'm saying is its all the same hunter doing the killing. No matter the weapon he is gonna end up with a dead deer.

I believe the amount of hunters whose only trick is long range. And who's archery and muzzleloader tags go un filled.
But yet they stumble on a big buck and pop him long is small, to small to make a difference.

And if all the other limitations the deer fave where whelmed ( which i know is a fantasy)
There would be more then enough big bucks to circumvent the 1000 yard out if the box guys that harvest one big buck in there life.

But like you said its really semantics and un measurable.

This is comical. BR, you’ve said 100 times that long range shooting doesn’t kill more bucks and the guys would get the deer anyways. It’s glaringly clear that you desperately want to keep long range shooting because, whether you realize it or not, it would help you kill more bucks.

 

[BRTreedogs]

This is comical. BR, you’ve said 100 times that long range shooting doesn’t kill more bucks and the guys would get the deer anyways. It’s glaringly clear that you desperately want to keep long range shooting because, whether you realize it or not, it would help you kill more bucks.

Yes as an American I want to keep and use every privilege I have so what.

But I still don't think if you take it away there will be any more measurable amount of big bucks on the land scape.

Limiting tags and improvements to habitat are the only things I believe will have a measurable impact.
Long as Residents can just go buy an unlimited amount of tags the deer won't rebound.
Restricting rifles to left say 400 yards does not help when there is a hunter every 400 yards.

 

[wyoguy]

If its limited tags and hunt that unit once every 5 years for a trophy hunt or hunt every year in OTC with a chance. I'll take the chance. Everyone wants limited entry and i don't, if you want limited entry then go hunt somewhere else collect your points and hunt limited entry. Once tags are limited they'll just continue to restrict them over time the same way they've continued to limit non residents over the years.

The deer heard is down this year for sure hunting was extremely tough this year but i understand that. Start with having hunters pick a unit and not be able to jump around. Delay the start or the season a week and open the other units in G at thw same time to spread out the pressure.

The technology and knowledge we have now to use towards hunting is unreal compared to years past, mule deer have a huge disadvantage now compared to before.

 

[highfastflyer]

You don't know how far we can shoot w 9x do ya.

Well, we can go lower but things get very very heated and political when you do drastic restrictions. Ok, I’ll bite. How many long range hunters only use 9X on a 800 yard shot? They now use those extreme magnification gain like 24X or even 32X on anything beyond 500 yards. Of course we could try for a 6X restriction later on or even 4X and ultimately iron sights only but 9X is a good starting point which likely could save a few hundred bucks per year. Funny how all the non-residents jump up and down calling for a limited quota hunt. Go sit in a Western Wyoming wildlife commission meeting and bring that point up. I got news for you, last guy that tried hasn’t been seen alive since. The almost riots and vitriol protests every time that gets brought up is like trying to start a state income tax in Wyoming. Ain’t gonna happen. There are other ways to restrict harvest. Another idea is a two year license which must be purchased but only has one tag coupon attached so if you kill in year one you cannot hunt year two. There are other similar ideas.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Well, we can go lower but things get very very heated and political when you do drastic restrictions. Ok, I’ll bite. How many long range hunters only use 9X on a 800 yard shot? They now use those extreme magnification gain like 24X or even 32X on anything beyond 500 yards. Of course we could try for a 6X restriction later on or even 4X and ultimately iron sights only but 9X is a good starting point which likely could save a few hundred bucks per year. Funny how all the non-residents jump up and down calling for a limited quota hunt. Go sit in a Western Wyoming wildlife commission meeting and bring that point up. I got news for you, last guy that tried hasn’t been seen alive since. The almost riots and vitriol protests every time that gets brought up is like trying to start a state income tax in Wyoming. Ain’t gonna happen. There are other ways to restrict harvest. Another idea is a two year license which must be purchased but only has one tag coupon attached so if you kill in year one you cannot hunt year two. There are other similar ideas.

Hahaha man.
I didn't say I wanted limited entry.
I said that what would work.
I'm all for shooting smaller bucks every year.

My 6.5 training rifle is wearing a 10x fixed scope rite now and I can shoot 800 no problem.

How many can shoot a deer plenty far with 9x? All of them that would otherwise kill a big dear anyways.

Ohh any you bunch of bad asses murdered someone for bring up limited entry? Sure thing pops.