Proposed 2022 WY Seasons and Regulation Changes

[BuzzH]

There actually used to be a late hunt on the west side of the range but they closed it down about a decade ago as the Platte River herd diminished.

To answer your question, “What’s the harm in not hunting them?”

Nothing at all. Thats the way it’s been for a long time. According to the G&F rationale though the harm is those older bucks are spreading CWD which is flawed Science at best. One small advantage of a late hunt though would be at least a few Wyoming sportsmen would have a chance at those bucks but it would be advantageous to the overall herd to keep the hunt to a very small number like 10-15 only. If they plan on increasing it in the future then it would most certainly harm the overall herd. It sounds like it’s a foregone conclusion the season will be implemented as such but maybe we can guard the resource to at least try and keep the number down to 10-15 and never increase it.

Another big factor in why the late Platte hunt was done away with was that commission and governors tag holders were deeply impacting opportunity.

There was a rash of leasing and conflicts with the commoners who were out hunting those late deer.

The trouble with these hunts are many and not just limited to the damage they do to the resource.

The unit 78 late tag specifically did long term damage to the age class of mule deer in a very short time frame with very few tags issued.

Don't worry, you'll soon get to apply there for late seasons again, after last night's meeting I'm betting 2024....

 

[Oak]

One very inconclusive study out of Colorado is what they're hanging their hat on...and the fact the cwd working group is on board.

Here's the paper if anyone wants to read it.

 

[TOGIE]

Here's the paper if anyone wants to read it.

"The average number of licenses sold inversely correlated with prevalance among deer harvested 1-2 yr later in six of the 12 areas. In those six areas, changes in license numbers positively correlated with the chance of deer harvested 1-2 yr later being free from apparent infection...

As an example hun area 004 had an OR of 1.71, meaning that for every 100 licenses added on average in the prior 2 yr, adult male deer had a 71% greater chance of being disease free in the year of harvest or, for every 100 licenses subtracted, adult male deer subsequently harvested had a 71% greater chance of being infected"


i know i'm cherry picking there, but, and all due respect to the authors, as i know they're scientists and understand this, but i mean, come on, correlation vs. causation much?

seems like this is information to then go take and hypothesize over further, and test even further, to actually figure out wtf is going on here. and i suspect that the authors weren't exactly making cut and dry management recommendations from this entirely correlative statistical analysis? maybe i should finish reading it.

 

[DFS]

"The average number of licenses sold inversely correlated with prevalance among deer harvested 1-2 yr later in six of the 12 areas. In those six areas, changes in license numbers positively correlated with the chance of deer harvested 1-2 yr later being free from apparent infection...

As an example hun area 004 had an OR of 1.71, meaning that for every 100 licenses added on average in the prior 2 yr, adult male deer had a 71% greater chance of being disease free in the year of harvest or, for every 100 licenses subtracted, adult male deer subsequently harvested had a 71% greater chance of being infected"


i know i'm cherry picking there, but, and all due respect to the authors, as i know they're scientists and understand this, but i mean correlation/causation much?

seems like this is information to then go take and hypothesize over further, and test even further, to actually figure out wtf is going on here. and i suspect that the authors weren't exactly making cut and dry management recommendations from this entirely correlative statistical analysis?

“Might control CWD”. Yikes, and we are going to put all our eggs in that basket. Also what’s the end game?

 

[BuzzH]

“Might control CWD”. Yikes, and we are going to put all our eggs in that basket. Also what’s the end game?

Exactly...there isn't one that I heard.

 

[MTLabrador]

One very inconclusive study out of Colorado is what they're hanging their hat on...and the fact the cwd working group is on board.

This same depopulation has been tried in Canada and other states with cwd and has not worked.

The excuse given is because the depopulation didn't go on long enough and was abandoned before the results could be truly known.

I've tried really hard to be supportive of their killing the living shit out if bucks and willing to give up 20 years of any kind of decent hunting if that's what is best for the resource.

But in my opinion the science they provide is full of holes, maybes, perhaps, etc for me to conclude that this idea of "having to do something" is not the answer at this time.

The fact that CWD has managed to spread through some of the most piss pounded populations in Montana makes me really leery that November buck hunts will have any kind of a positive impact.

 

[DFS]

The fact that CWD has managed to spread through some of the most piss pounded populations in Montana makes me really leery that November buck hunts will have any kind of a positive impact.

Very good point how could we even harvest more bucks than we are now, and it’s still showing up.

 

[Oak]

I'm not a statistician/researcher, but it seems odd to design this study solely around the number of licenses sold with no regard to population sizes, harvest rates, success rates, etc. Someone with the free time of @wllm1313 could easily look up these variables for the study units.

 

[RobertD]

I'm not a statistician/researcher, but it seems odd to design this study solely around the number of licenses sold with no regard to population sizes, harvest rates, success rates, etc. Someone with the free time of @wllm1313 could easily look up these variables for the study units.

But on a serious note, you're right and I noticed the authors addressed that point directly in their conclusion. Even the authors of the paper seem to exhibit some trepidation towards its findings.

 

[TOGIE]

I'm not a statistician/researcher, but it seems odd to design this study solely around the number of licenses sold with no regard to population sizes, harvest rates, success rates, etc. Someone with the free time of @wllm1313 could easily look up these variables for the study units.

even the title threw me...

"Hunting Pressure Modulates Prion Infection Risk In Mule Deer Herds"

pressure? how do we measure pressure?

licenses sold apparently.

so we're correlating "pressure" and disease prevalence and now making management decisions form that?

it's interesting, but i fail to see the utility of this data in management, honestly.

 

[Oak]

I'm not a statistician/researcher, but it seems odd to design this study solely around the number of licenses sold with no regard to population sizes, harvest rates, success rates, etc. Someone with the free time of @wllm1313 could easily look up these variables for the study units.

I'll qualify this by saying that I know 3 of the 4 authors, and respect their work. And they are far more qualified that me to write a paper like this.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

When are ya''ll going to realize its a $$$ thing....LOL

 

[HiMtnHntr]

Yikes.... is a compromise possible? Reduction of proposes tags and mandatory cwd every deer? You know, a "prove it" sort of thing...

 

[QuazyQuinton]

We want science-based management, but then we complain when they try it. The thing about science-based management is that it's always "best available" science. In the cases where we don't know a lot, that "best available" may not be great. Do we do nothing until something definitive comes along, or do we try a few (imperfect) things to see what might happen? I'm pretty doubtful that hitting the bigger bucks harder is going to improve things in the field, but I also don't have better science to back up any other plan.

QQ

 

[rogerthat]

Come on guys it's "science"... we just have to do it to prove it works. Crazy how fast the game agencies are all jumping on to the idea of killing bucks to control cwd...utter madness

 

[rogerthat]

We want science-based management, but then we complain when they try it. The thing about science-based management is that it's always "best available" science. In the cases where we don't know a lot, that "best available" may not be great. Do we do nothing until something definitive comes along, or do we try a few (imperfect) things to see what might happen? I'm pretty doubtful that hitting the bigger bucks harder is going to improve things in the field, but I also don't have better science to back up any other plan.

QQ

When you get shot in the leg is it better to lay still and hope for help or run in circles as fast as you can? Although sometimes its the hardest, doing nothing is an option. Both options will end up the same.

 

[Addicting]

16% of the 25 is 4 NR tags. Will 2 go in the special, 1 regular, and 1 random? Or will they all be used up thru commissioner tag holders?

 

[Deleted member 18333]

16% of the 25 is 4 NR tags. Will 2 go in the special, 1 regular, and 1 random? Or will they all be used up thru commissioner tag holders?

Comm tags don't come out of the allocation, they are in addition to.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

But the good thing is the pronghorn are doing like shit all over SE Wyoming and soon we will wreck a good LQ elk area by making it general.

Which elk area?

 

[seeth07]

Dang rewording of the cool youth bull tag perk....crap, I hope that doesn't get accepted!