Wyoming draft regulations 2024

[CorbLand]

More deer on the landscape helps the buck to doe ratio. The data also shows after 3 years its not beneficial to keep apr in place and they should be removed if that's the case. But to do nothing or suggest we take the buck to doe ratios down to single digit ratio is crazy. Try that in your state and get back to us on that.

Either way no real point t in arguing about it its implemented and that not going to change this year so I guess we will see. one thing I am sure about is reducing tags and shortening season should be more important then apr all I see with the guys arguing against apr is that it's going to cause other hunters to target the bucks they want to hunt in a few more years.....

I am not advocating to decrease the buck to doe ratio in any state. I am saying that APRs are a feel good measure that largely do not have the intended results.

People also don’t understand that buck to doe ratios are not a good metric of the overall quality/quantity of a deer herd. APRs help raise the buck to doe ratio, but it doesn’t mean that it’s helping the deer herd.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

Yeah I think the southern end of the range has had antler point restrictions. But some areas have not

Would you rather hunt region g in wyoming in a unit that has and an apr or an idaho general unit with no apr?

If I had to pick, under current conditions and season dates, I'll take the Idaho tag with a 30 day archery season and the 2 week rifle season.

 

[Archer86]

I am not advocating to decrease the buck to doe ratio in any state. I am saying that APRs are a feel good measure that largely do not have the intended results.

People also don’t understand that buck to doe ratios are not a good metric of the overall quality/quantity of a deer herd. APRs help raise the buck to doe ratio, but it doesn’t mean that it’s helping the deer herd.

Then what's the best metric to go off of. You keep making the comment that apr are a feel good measure when there is data that shows short term benefits to apr. Long term no I agree

Do you hunt bucks or does? For hunters a higher buck to doe ratio puts more huntable deer on the landscape doesn't matter if your a trophy hunter or a meat hunter more bucks equals more opportunities. The only argument I see against apr on here is other hunters will shoot the deer that will get big before I get to shoot it. Apr might not increase the number of mature deer but it doesn't hurt them either if used sparingly when needed to Increase the number of bucks.

 

[MuleyFever]

You keep making the comment that apr are a feel good measure when there is data that shows short term benefits to apr.

I would say that data is more mixed than squarely in favor of APR, even in the short term.

 

[CorbLand]

Then what's the best metric to go off of. You keep making the comment that apr are a feel good measure when there is data that shows short term benefits to apr. Long term no I agree

Do you hunt bucks or does? For hunters a higher buck to doe ratio puts more huntable deer on the landscape doesn't matter if your a trophy hunter or a meat hunter more bucks equals more opportunities. The only argument I see against apr on here is other hunters will shoot the deer that will get big before I get to shoot it. Apr might not increase the number of mature deer but it doesn't hurt them either if used sparingly when needed to Increase the number of bucks.

I don’t know what the best metric to use is but buck to doe ratio is not indicative of the herd.

APRs work, in the short term, when coupled with other factors. Good fawn recruitment and a decrease in hunters being two of the big ones.

I hunt bucks, but if the population was stable enough, I would have zero heartburn shooting does. More bucks on the landscape doesn’t directly correlate to more opportunity. Utahs limited entry units have some of the highest buck to doe ratios in the West. Would anyone say those are increasing opportunity? I would argue that those high buck to doe ratios are leaving far more opportunity on the table then they are providing.

Back to the original post I quoted, it said that APRs help the herd. APRs help the buck to doe ratio and the buck to doe ratio is not indicative of the herd. My argument against APRs has and never will be about the antler size of deer. It’s that they largely have little to no effect, so they aren’t worth doing, even in the short term. Deer are the resource, not big deer.

It’s my opinion, not law, gospel or any of the like.

 

[Archer86]

I don’t know what the best metric to use is but buck to doe ratio is not indicative of the herd.

APRs work, in the short term, when coupled with other factors. Good fawn recruitment and a decrease in hunters being two of the big ones.

I hunt bucks, but if the population was stable enough, I would have zero heartburn shooting does. More bucks on the landscape doesn’t directly correlate to more opportunity. Utahs limited entry units have some of the highest buck to doe ratios in the West. Would anyone say those are increasing opportunity?

Utah limited areas have the highest buck to doe ratio in the west and probabaly some good buck hunting. My guess they have not increased opportunity because the public hasn't asked for it they want to keep the hunting the way it is? Maybe utah sportsman need to speak up

Back to the original post I quoted, it said that APRs help the herd. APRs help the buck to doe ratio and the buck to doe ratio is not indicative of the herd. My argument against APRs has and never will be about the antler size of deer. It’s that they largely have little to effect so they aren’t worth doing, even in the short term. Deer are the resource, not big deer.

It’s my opinion, not law, gospel or any of the like.

Seams to me even if we can make a small positive change it is worth doing no matter how small if it's positive as long as it follows the data and they make the necessary changes when needed To not hurt the deer herd.

It's something that can be utilized on a as needed basis with no cost attached to it and if it increases buck to doe ratios that's a positive once it level out it goes back to any buck.

 

[Laramie]

Listen to the Gohunt podcast they just put out. Granted every unit/region is different but Brock stated that it has to get down to around 8/100 before there is issues with does not being bred. It starts around the 45 minute mark.

I appreciate you posting that. I am learning more, even in my old age lol.

I did visit again with my contacts. I am told the 8/100 is not a guarantee of all being bred but I am told the concern not being discussed enough is does being bred late, lowering fawn survival percentages. At 8/100, this is very likely. Even at 10-12 it's a concern according to a friend with the state.
Would love to hear other biologist view points.

 

[CorbLand]

I appreciate you posting that. I am learning more, even in my old age lol.

I did visit again with my contacts. I am told the 8/100 is not a guarantee of all being bred but I am told the concern not being discussed enough is does being bred late, lowering fawn survival percentages. At 8/100, this is very likely. Even at 10-12 it's a concern according to a friend with the state.
Would love to hear other biologist view points.

It’s a very interesting podcast.

 

[idelkslayer]

Utah limited areas have the highest buck to doe ratio in the west and probabaly some good buck hunting. My guess they have not increased opportunity because the public hasn't asked for it they want to keep the hunting the way it is? Maybe utah sportsman need to speak up

Seams to me even if we can make a small positive change it is worth doing no matter how small if it's positive as long as it follows the data and they make the necessary changes when needed To not hurt the deer herd.

It's something that can be utilized on a as needed basis with no cost attached to it and if it increases buck to doe ratios that's a positive once it level out it goes back to any buck.

In post #37 you put up a list of APR research findings but I'm not sure you and I are reading the same thing. I'm also not certain that you understand what Corbland is saying about the buck:doe ratio not being indicative of herd health or good buck hunting. You can have a 50:100 buck:doe ratio with only 5 bucks and 10 does in the entire Wyoming range but that doesn't mean the herd is doing well or that hunting is amazing. It is a metric that has nothing to do with overall population or buck numbers.

Here are some points from the APR info you posted.

1. "No APR strategy produced a long-term increase in adult(mature) male: female ratios, or an increase in the number of adult bucks, except in a handful of cases where hunter participation declined significantly, coupled with good fawn production."
No APR strategy will increase the number of bucks unless there is also good fawn production. Good fawn production occurs independently from factors that have anything to do with buck harvest, as is stated in one of the next quotes. What that tells me is that fawn production is the main driver in increasing not only population but also buck:doe ratios.

2. "Temporary APRs are most effective following a year of high fawn production and recruitment or when doe harvest is increased"
Does our current situation sound like those two criteria occurred? Or did we just have a really bad fawn production year? Have we increased doe harvest? So it sounds like we are implementing APRs in the exact wrong situation.

3. "Managers have found most effective way to recover from chronically low buck:doe ratios is through a dramatic reduction is harvest on males >2 years of age (through a conservative limited quota season or very short season length). Available data also supports this."
If the goal is to recover buck:doe ratios, then the correct way to do it is by not killing the 4 pt bucks. A 4 pt APR will put harvest pressure entirely on the age class of bucks that should be protected. This shows that if any APR should be implemented it should be a 2-pt only season to allow the >2 yr old bucks to survive. Why? Because 1.5 year old bucks (2 pts) die naturally at a higher rate than older bucks anyway. But all of this doesn't matter if the goal is to increase population because...

4. "APRs do not increase fawn production or population size."
I'll just repeat what they said. APRs do not increase fawn production or population size.

5. "Even in herds with single digit buck:doe ratio, pregnancy rates are well over 90%.

We are all interested in hunting the most mature bucks possible. That can only occur with increasing the overall population of deer. APRs do not increase the deer population and a high buck:doe ratio doesn't matter if the overall population is low.

Buck:doe ratio is meant as an indicator of hunting pressure. A high deer population with a low buck:doe ratio can mean that too many bucks are being killed. That impacts hunter satisfaction and means that fewer bucks will reach maturity. A higher ratio means that enough bucks are escaping hunting pressure and some percentage of them will live to maturity and become the big bucks we all like to see and harvest.

It seems pretty clear that the short term "benefits" in APRs are artificial. A brief reduction in buck harvest augments the ratio but does nothing for the overall population and it is the population that matters when determining long term benefits.

It comes down to what your goal is. If your goal is a higher buck:doe ratio, then APRs will get you there for a short time. If your goal is higher deer population then no APR strategy will help. If your goal is long term population and buck:doe increases, then no APR strategy will help.

If manager's goal is just to reduce the number of hunters in these units then I guess APRs might do that, but it is not beneficial in the way that most hunters think it is. This feels like managers caving in to public pressure to give the appearance of doing something.

"APRs are very popular with the hunting public. However public understanding of the pros and cons appears to be limited..."

 

[Archer86]

In post #37 you put up a list of APR research findings but I'm not sure you and I are reading the same thing. I'm also not certain that you understand what Corbland is saying about the buck:doe ratio not being indicative of herd health or good buck hunting. You can have a 50:100 buck:doe ratio with only 5 bucks and 10 does in the entire Wyoming range but that doesn't mean the herd is doing well or that hunting is amazing. It is a metric that has nothing to do with overall population or buck numbers.

Here are some points from the APR info you posted.

1. "No APR strategy produced a long-term increase in adult(mature) male: female ratios, or an increase in the number of adult bucks, except in a handful of cases where hunter participation declined significantly, coupled with good fawn production."
No APR strategy will increase the number of bucks unless there is also good fawn production. Good fawn production occurs independently from factors that have anything to do with buck harvest, as is stated in one of the next quotes. What that tells me is that fawn production is the main driver in increasing not only population but also buck:doe ratios.

2. "Temporary APRs are most effective following a year of high fawn production and recruitment or when doe harvest is increased"
Does our current situation sound like those two criteria occurred? Or did we just have a really bad fawn production year? Have we increased doe harvest? So it sounds like we are implementing APRs in the exact wrong situation.

3. "Managers have found most effective way to recover from chronically low buck:doe ratios is through a dramatic reduction is harvest on males >2 years of age (through a conservative limited quota season or very short season length). Available data also supports this."
If the goal is to recover buck:doe ratios, then the correct way to do it is by not killing the 4 pt bucks. A 4 pt APR will put harvest pressure entirely on the age class of bucks that should be protected. This shows that if any APR should be implemented it should be a 2-pt only season to allow the >2 yr old bucks to survive. Why? Because 1.5 year old bucks (2 pts) die naturally at a higher rate than older bucks anyway. But all of this doesn't matter if the goal is to increase population because...

4. "APRs do not increase fawn production or population size."
I'll just repeat what they said. APRs do not increase fawn production or population size.

5. "Even in herds with single digit buck:doe ratio, pregnancy rates are well over 90%.

We are all interested in hunting the most mature bucks possible. That can only occur with increasing the overall population of deer. APRs do not increase the deer population and a high buck:doe ratio doesn't matter if the overall population is low.

Buck:doe ratio is meant as an indicator of hunting pressure. A high deer population with a low buck:doe ratio can mean that too many bucks are being killed. That impacts hunter satisfaction and means that fewer bucks will reach maturity. A higher ratio means that enough bucks are escaping hunting pressure and some percentage of them will live to maturity and become the big bucks we all like to see and harvest.

It seems pretty clear that the short term "benefits" in APRs are artificial. A brief reduction in buck harvest augments the ratio but does nothing for the overall population and it is the population that matters when determining long term benefits.

It comes down to what your goal is. If your goal is a higher buck:doe ratio, then APRs will get you there for a short time. If your goal is higher deer population then no APR strategy will help. If your goal is long term population and buck:doe increases, then no APR strategy will help.

If manager's goal is just to reduce the number of hunters in these units then I guess APRs might do that, but it is not beneficial in the way that most hunters think it is. This feels like managers caving in to public pressure to give the appearance of doing something.

"APRs are very popular with the hunting public. However public understanding of the pros and cons appears to be limited..."

Your post proves you can manipulate that data the way you see fit I can do the same at the end if the day apr are in place and there is nothing we can do about it so it's not worth discussing.

 

[Jaden Bales]

What Wyoming is doing with these recommendations is similar to a rancher losing 80% of all his cattle, and only selling a portion of his “bull calves” at the auction for 3-4 years to “build his herd”. Sure, he’s got “more animals”, but at what cost? A pasture full of bulls, consuming resources when it could be mother cows isn’t good practice.

This is the analogy we really need to drive home with bucks and buck hunting. Well said.

 

[Jaden Bales]

If I had to pick, under current conditions and season dates, I'll take the Idaho tag with a 30 day archery season and the 2 week rifle season.

I stopped hunting Region G (as a resident) because I found out the hard way that I'm a pretty mediocre deer hunter, and it takes me a lot more time to kill bigguns than my time off afforded to me.

So, instead, I now look for the one needle in the haystack close to home so that when I find them I can actually put the time in to kill them. Long story short, I am in Travis's camp here.

 

[idelkslayer]

Your post proves you can manipulate that data the way you see fit I can do the same at the end if the day apr are in place and there is nothing we can do about it so it's not worth discussing.

I didn't manipulate anything. All the data there clearly states that APRs do not increase the number of bucks. The only thing that can increase the number of bucks is fawn recruitment, and increasing the buck:doe ratio does not increase the number of fawns. Unless bucks develop the ability to birth fawns that won't change.

You are right that it has been implemented and nothing we say here will change that, now we sit back and see what happens. The big question is whether or not hunters will allow the WYGF to discontinue the APR in the coming the coming years or if pressure from hunters and ignorance of the detriments of long term APRs will keep them in place.

 

[CorbLand]

I didn't manipulate anything. All the data there clearly states that APRs do not increase the number of bucks. The only thing that can increase the number of bucks is fawn recruitment, and increasing the buck:doe ratio does not increase the number of fawns. Unless bucks develop the ability to birth fawns that won't change.

You are right that it has been implemented and nothing we say here will change that, now we sit back and see what happens. The big question is whether or not hunters will allow the WYGF to discontinue the APR in the coming the coming years or if pressure from hunters and ignorance of the detriments of long term APRs will keep them in place.

Discussing it also helps shape what happens in the future. Not talking allows for bad decisions/ineffective measures to continue to happen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What's getting lost in all this is the impact the very shortened season will have on the hunt. 9 days is not alot of time at all. Crowding is going to be a very real thing for the duration of the hunt, consider two years ago these units had over 3 weeks to spread everyone out in. Bunch more guys will be sitting on bucks for 3-4 days before the opener.

 

[Archer86]

I didn't manipulate anything. All the data there clearly states that APRs do not increase the number of bucks. The only thing that can increase the number of bucks is fawn recruitment, and increasing the buck:doe ratio does not increase the number of fawns. Unless bucks develop the ability to birth fawns that won't change.

You are right that it has been implemented and nothing we say here will change that, now we sit back and see what happens. The big question is whether or not hunters will allow the WYGF to discontinue the APR in the coming the coming years or if pressure from hunters and ignorance of the detriments of long term APRs will keep them in place.

Not sure if you understand biology but there is no way to produce a fawn with out a buck and there has been no significant study that shows single digit buck to doe ratios are good for the herd either its alot of I think currently that. The best think that could come of this discussion is for robby or Travis to get Gary the biologist from the wyiming range on the rokcast and ask him why they changed the 3 point to a 4 point apr I am sure they guy that has been watching that herd for decades has a reason. There wasn't much discussion about this current change for this year so I bet he can shed some light on it vs all the internet biology going on in here

 

[MuleyFever]

Not sure if you understand biology but there is no way to produce a fawn with out a buck and there has been no significant study that shows single digit buck to doe ratios are good for the herd either its alot of I think currently that. The best think that could come of this discussion is for robby or Travis to get Gary the biologist from the wyiming range on the rokcast and ask him why they changed the 3 point to a 4 point apr I am sure they guy that has been watching that herd for decades has a reason. There wasn't much discussion about this current change for this year so I bet he can shed some light on it vs all the internet biology going on in here

Where are you seeing single digit buck to doe ratios?

Didnt WY just release the last aerial survey data last month that put the count at 24 bucks per 100 does? So this whole APR thing is not needed at all.

 

[idelkslayer]

Not sure if you understand biology but there is no way to produce a fawn with out a buck and there has been no significant study that shows single digit buck to doe ratios are good for the herd either its alot of I think currently that. The best think that could come of this discussion is for robby or Travis to get Gary the biologist from the wyiming range on the rokcast and ask him why they changed the 3 point to a 4 point apr I am sure they guy that has been watching that herd for decades has a reason. There wasn't much discussion about this current change for this year so I bet he can shed some light on it vs all the internet biology going on in here

Nobody wants single digit buck:doe ratios but when it comes to producing fawns it is not an impediment to population growth.

"Even in herds with single digit buck:doe ratio, pregnancy rates are well over 90%"

More bucks does not equal more fawns, but more fawns does equal more bucks.
I would be very interested to hear Gary's rationale behind the APR decision whether it was a biological or social decision. I hope they do a good job of documenting the results so that in a few years we can all look back and see how the data trends and have more information for next time.

In the meantime, he has discussed it with Robby in the past. Jeff Short also had a discussion with Robby that was primarily about APRs.

The Greatest Mule Deer Herd? with Gary Fralick

Robby hosts Gary Fralick, biologist for the Wyoming Range Mule Deer herd. They discuss and all that goes into managing the world’s greatest mule deer herd

www.rokslide.com

Antler Point Restrictions with Wyo Bio Jeff Short

Jeff Short is an expert on Antler Point Restrictions effectiveness in several western states. He explains how and when they help mule deer

www.rokslide.com

 

[bdan68]

Maybe listen to this.

 

[Archer86]

Nobody wants single digit buck:doe ratios but when it comes to producing fawns it is not an impediment to population growth.

"Even in herds with single digit buck:doe ratio, pregnancy rates are well over 90%"

More bucks does not equal more fawns, but more fawns does equal more bucks.
I would be very interested to hear Gary's rationale behind the APR decision whether it was a biological or social decision. I hope they do a good job of documenting the results so that in a few years we can all look back and see how the data trends and have more information for next time.

In the meantime, he has discussed it with Robby in the past. Jeff Short also had a discussion with Robby that was primarily about APRs.

The Greatest Mule Deer Herd? with Gary Fralick

Robby hosts Gary Fralick, biologist for the Wyoming Range Mule Deer herd. They discuss and all that goes into managing the world’s greatest mule deer herd

www.rokslide.com

Antler Point Restrictions with Wyo Bio Jeff Short

Jeff Short is an expert on Antler Point Restrictions effectiveness in several western states. He explains how and when they help mule deer

www.rokslide.com

Have listened to both those podcast but its been a while but I belive the Jeff short one he talks about the benefits of using a apr the years following a bad winter. The first year is not as important as the couple years following obviously we want a mild winter with that as well. I will have to go back and listen to the one with Gary when I have time