Latest on Wy Region G Deer success rates

[CorbLand]

I'm under the impression that best practice when under population carrying capacity is to save does and shoot more bucks.

The best I could read through all the comments was @amassi pointing that out, and then things got off track.

Why isn't there more folks wanting to shoot more bucks now to help improve the population health now and in the long term? This is where I scratch my head at some double speak of conservation efforts because it seems the concern is more for antlers. Calling for a reduction in buck tags is directly adding competition for does and fawns.

Over population = kill does/cows
Under population = kill bucks/bills

I also wonder if populations weren't well over carrying capacity when there's an increase in winter kill like occured in this thread and with the elk in NW Colorado.

Because most people dont really care about the overall herd, they care about the bucks. They want big bucks around every tree. Its why they always advocate for cutting tag, antler point restrictions, etc.

 

[KHNC]

All these replies and just over hear waiting for @Indian Summer to reply whether or not he killed a buck in G. I assume he did because he "always finds a way to fill a tag" . Not anything wrong with that, but seemed odd to me he didnt respond or mention if he tagged out or not.

 

[sndmn11]

Because most people dont really care about the overall herd, they care about the bucks. They want big bucks around every tree. Its why they always advocate for cutting tag, antler point restrictions, etc.

Yep!
There's no coincidence that Colorado's trophy elk units also don't have antler point restrictions. Similarly, mule deer herd health went up when antler point restrictions went away...

 

[jmez]

Deer herd management and trophy deer management are two completely different things. Enter the QDMA zealots.

Regardless of what people claim, very few on sites like this are interested in the herd. Guys that value opportunity tend not to spend a lot of time on forums.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

Deer herd management and trophy deer management are two completely different things. Enter the QDMA zealots.

Regardless of what people claim, very few on sites like this are interested in the herd. Guys that value opportunity tend not to spend a lot of time on forums.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

QDMA is ranching whitetails, it's a complete joke, IMO. Nowhere in nature would a such a protein-rich habit like that exist.

Habitat is king with mule deer, for herds and antler size. Everyone talks about elk and habitat competitions with mule deer. IMO, elk are a consequence of the shift in habitat type across the West, from early successional habitat types dominated by woody browse, to later stage habitats dominated by grasses and conifers. Those early successional habits were produced by landscape wide disturbance in the form of logging, fire, etc. Until we start turning over these decadent habitats, it will continue to be a losing battle. But, I guess we can continue to argue about season structure and allocations....proceed

 

[Archer86]

I'm under the impression that best practice when under population carrying capacity is to save does and shoot more bucks.

The best I could read through all the comments was @amassi pointing that out, and then things got off track.

Why isn't there more folks wanting to shoot more bucks now to help improve the population health now and in the long term? This is where I scratch my head at some double speak of conservation efforts because it seems the concern is more for antlers. Calling for a reduction in buck tags is directly adding competition for does and fawns.

Over population = kill does/cows
Under population = kill bucks/bills

Just curious where you seen this? I could see that in a situation where the deer numbers are low due to bad habitat.

killing more bucks after a winter where over 50 percent of the deer herd didn't survive I wouldn't think applies the same.

If you spent anytime in western wyoming this year i think everyone would agree there are so few deer and plenty of feed the bucks are not going to be competing for a food source with does and fawns for the next few years. So how would killing more bucks help the population?

 

[sndmn11]

Just curious where you seen this? I could see that in a situation where the deer numbers are low due to bad habitat.

killing more bucks after a winter where over 50 percent of the deer herd didn't survive I wouldn't think applies the same.

If you spent anytime in western wyoming this year i think everyone would agree there are so few deer and plenty of feed the bucks are not going to be competing for a food source with does and fawns for the next few years. So how would killing more bucks help the population?

I don't have a peer-reviewed study ready to go off-hand. I believed the principle to be common knowledge. Does can only produce one or two fans per year, while bucks can service many does. Therefore, does have the biggest influence on population growth or decline. When the carrying capacity of habitat is X and the population is X+1, that one extra mouth endangers far more animals than a +1 because to feed it takes a little bit from X and all end up undernourished. That endangerment rears its head drastically when winter "conditions" are abnormal. Just like a hypothetical submarine crash where there's enough oxygen for 10 to survive for a week, but the rescue will take a week and an hour. The crew might be very optimistic halfway through the first day, but if they brought 9 instead of 10 they would have survived for a week and 3/4 of a day.

I have not been to WY but it sounds like you have. If the habitat was suitable for the population, why did they die?

 

[CorbLand]

I don't have a peer-reviewed study ready to go off-hand. I believed the principle to be common knowledge. Does can only produce one or two fans per year, while bucks can service many does. Therefore, does have the biggest influence on population growth or decline. When the carrying capacity of habitat is X and the population is X+1, that one extra mouth endangers far more animals than a +1 because to feed it takes a little bit from X and all end up undernourished. That endangerment rears its head drastically when winter "conditions" are abnormal. Just like a hypothetical submarine crash where there's enough oxygen for 10 to survive for a week, but the rescue will take a week and an hour. The crew might be very optimistic halfway through the first day, but if they brought 9 instead of 10 they would have survived for a week and 3/4 of a day.

I have not been to WY but it sounds like you have. If the habitat was suitable for the population, why did they die?

The habitat wasnt good leading up to this last winter. Years of drought took its toll and then smashed already stressed deer with a record winter. Its bad in SE Idaho, N Utah and W Wyo, like 50% less deer. If there is a year to let bucks walk, this would be it.

There is plenty of feed for them to go into winter in good condition but if we get another one like we did, its going to be real bad. The farmers almanac seems to say we are in for another bad one.

I helped feed this year in N Utah. After green up I did a three mile loop in the area that I helped feed in. I counted 38 dead deer in that loop. That is the ones that I found, I wasnt really trying to find them. We were putting down 200 pounds of feed a day. The deer were walking through tunnels to get to the feed. You could just see their backs as they walked along the mountain sides.

 

[S.Clancy]

The habitat wasnt good leading up to this last winter. Years of drought took its toll and then smashed already stressed deer with a record winter. Its bad in SE Idaho, N Utah and W Wyo, like 50% less deer. If there is a year to let bucks walk, this would be it.

There is plenty of feed for them to go into winter in good condition but if we get another one like we did, its going to be real bad. The farmers almanac seems to say we are in for another bad one.

Considering they likely had unbelievably good summer conditions, and numbers were significantly lower, I suspect that body fat % is very, very high. Basically, according to researchers in WY, if body fat % is high enough basically they can survive very extreme winter conditions. For that reason, IMO, the chance of a consecutive year winter kill is very low.

 

[Archer86]

I have not been to WY but it sounds like you have. If the habitat was suitable for the population, why did they die?

I don't know maybe due to one of the harshest winters we have seen in 50 years had something to do with it?

 

[CorbLand]

Considering they likely had unbelievably good summer conditions, and numbers were significantly lower, I suspect that body fat % is very, very high. Basically, according to researchers in WY, if body fat % is high enough basically they can survive very extreme winter conditions. For that reason, IMO, the chance of a consecutive year winter kill is very low.

I more worry about fawn recruitment with another bad winter. I do think they will fair far better this go around but if another bad winter causes bad fawn recruitment, rebuilding the deer herd will be set back significantly.

I do agree that the chance of another significant winter kill is low, barring some major winter but losing another 10-15% this year would not be good.

 

[sndmn11]

I don't know maybe due to one of the harshest winters we have seen in 50 years had something to do with it?

Did one of the harshest winters in 50 years limit their food?

 

[sndmn11]

I helped feed this year in N Utah.

My opinion is that when we have to feed wildlife to keep them alive, the wildlife is over capacity. I get that "we" want more animals to hunt and we want them to have bigger antlers or horns, but supplementing their resources with artificial nutrition also artificially increases what the capacity is. Most years it works out great, but when the supplementation can't keep the damage is magnified

I don't have a right answer, but I do think that it shouldn't surprise anybody when a population is over capacity that there will be a natural correction and Mother Nature doesn't play around.

 

[blakees307]

I don’t normally chime in on these conversations but since this is my backyard and have seen this throughout my life here are my thoughts. First I am all in favor of making changes based on science and what our biologists recommend for the betterment of our deer herd and not on people’s knee jerk opinions. Our population has been growing the past few years and have provided great opportunities. Not as good as 20 years ago but as good as most people can remember. I think that whatever percentage of the population of bucks that have been shot during hunting season has been fine with the herd and allowed it to grow. Now not as many deer were killed this year but percentage of the herd i would like to know. If it was the similar percentage to the herd as the past i think it is fine then since the remaining does should still get bred which will help the deer herd grow. Does and fawns will grow the herd and bucks have some but little to do with it. I want wyoming to implement mandatory reporting in my opinion so we can have the best information to make sound changes. And in the mean time hope for a mild winter this year to allow our deer and antelope to recover which for as long as I can remember is the determining factor on our deer herd. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steve O]

Read it again, maybe tomorrow.
I do all the things I propose others do
Even in states I don’t live in, often on my own dime and time as a volunteer.
Respect and awe of a resource aren’t stopped by lines on a map
You just sound an awful lot like another of Wyomings finest. Eerily similar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He has not 10% of the condescension of Buzz…

 

[Archer86]

Did one of the harshest winters in 50 years limit their food?

Absolutely. They can have the best food source around and if it's covered in ice and snow and they cant get to it it does them no good. Are you really trying to say the winter had no impact on winter kill

 

[sndmn11]

Absolutely. They can have the best food source around and if it's covered in ice and snow and they cant get to it it does them no good. Are you really trying to say the winter had no impact on winter kill

I am implying that the habitat wasn't adequate for the number of animals that were on it. Food, cover, etc. In other words, it was over capacity. It wasn't polar bears and Frosty on a rampage and it seems you are implying they starved. Starvation = the habitat wasn't adequate....

 

[eye_zick]

Considering they likely had unbelievably good summer conditions, and numbers were significantly lower, I suspect that body fat % is very, very high. Basically, according to researchers in WY, if body fat % is high enough basically they can survive very extreme winter conditions. For that reason, IMO, the chance of a consecutive year winter kill is very low.

Isnt this why it makes sense to cut tags? Fewer hunters, less pressure, less energy spent, more time feeding. etc...

 

[Archer86]

I am implying that the habitat wasn't adequate for the number of animals that were on it. Food, cover, etc. In other words, it was over capacity. It wasn't polar bears and Frosty on a rampage and it seems you are implying they starved. Starvation = the habitat wasn't adequate....

They did starve because they couldn't get to the food that was there when you get close to 70 inches of snow on the winter range no habitat is adequate If there was no snow and the winter wasn't as bad the winter kill wouldn't have been as bad. If the habitat was not adequate the last 3 years we would have seen high rates of winter kill with a lesser winter.

 

[sndmn11]

They did starve because they couldn't get to the food

Right, so, the habitat wasn't adequate? The demands of the winter were greater than the habitat could provide the population.

Better habitat would have helped.
An easier winter would have helped (maybe like "the last three years"?).
Lower population would have helped.

The surviving animals are proof that the habitat had some food, and the mortalities from starvation are proof the habitat couldn't provide enough food for all. That doesn't mean the habitat is bad, nor that similar results will occur from now on, it just means that it came up short this time. Different timing of snow, more wind, less freeze/thaw, different cloud cover, vehicle traffic, vegetation germination, there's an endless list of variables that go into the result. The one-sentence summation still ends up being that the habitat couldn't support the population.

You and I are off-topic, and I need to go load the truck. 6 bucks are living their last Thursday.