Wyoming Elk Survey

Watts307

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2022
Messages
257
Location
Wyoming
Just got an email that WY Game and Fish has decided not to implement a general tag for Elk Unit 7 here in Wyoming.

Attached is the Survey Results if anyone cares to read it that didn't do the survey or get one...

IMG-5010.PNG
 

Attachments

  • ElkArea7-OpinionSurvey-Results.pdf
    962.7 KB · Views: 23
Boooo Wyoming suckksss 👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽




Totally kidding, I like Wyoming.
Never hunted there.
What’s best for the elk, is best for the sportsman. (And woman) 😉🤪
 
Trying to understand what they were getting ready to do:

Were they thinking of changing it from a Limited Entry unit to a General Tag?
 
Trying to understand what they were getting ready to do:

Were they thinking of changing it from a Limited Entry unit to a General Tag?

The answer to your question is in the original post of this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAG
Wow they listen to people and adjust? What kind of nonsense is that?

Nebraska can’t figure out why our deer numbers are plummeting while advertising “it’s tag season” all over.

Hunters: deer numbers are way down.

NGPC: thanks for the feedback! We’ll increase antlerless tags to kill them off, when nobody can hunt, nobody can complain!
 
Wow they listen to people and adjust? What kind of nonsense is that?

Nebraska can’t figure out why our deer numbers are plummeting while advertising “it’s tag season” all over.

Hunters: deer numbers are way down.

NGPC: thanks for the feedback! We’ll increase antlerless tags to kill them off, when nobody can hunt, nobody can complain!
Nebraska must be following the Montana management program for mule deer
 
I think it's a dangerous thing to make conservation decisions on public surveys. These decisions need to come from wildlife biologists who study the data for a living, not on respondents preferences or desires.
 
If it were entirely up to the bio it would probably be general, which would be a bad deal for that area.
 
I think it's a dangerous thing to make conservation decisions on public surveys. These decisions need to come from wildlife biologists who study the data for a living, not on respondents preferences or desires.
They survey was for public opinion on the proposal, not to make the decision. WG&F actually talks with stake holders in some instances on changes, LOs were not in favor.
 
My biggest concern is that at some point emotion will start to become the reason for how game is managed. It has already happened in some states, and that is all the anti hunting groups need. After that it's all about lobbying, and science goes out the window. Land owners, hunters, anti hunters, or and other groups have their own reasons or agendas, but there has to be a standard for what is best for the health of our wildlife as a resource, regardless of who is happy or not. We cannot allow emotions to rule out a sound conservation plan.
 
If it were entirely up to the bio it would probably be general, which would be a bad deal for that area.
Correct, there were a ton of issues with making that unit general.

Lots of unintended consequences that elk hunters would be throwing a fit about.

Not to mention making the harboring problem worse, decreasing hunter success, and killing fewer elk.
 
My biggest concern is that at some point emotion will start to become the reason for how game is managed. It has already happened in some states, and that is all the anti hunting groups need. After that it's all about lobbying, and science goes out the window. Land owners, hunters, anti hunters, or and other groups have their own reasons or agendas, but there has to be a standard for what is best for the health of our wildlife as a resource, regardless of who is happy or not. We cannot allow emotions to rule out a sound conservation plan.
How much do you know about unit 7? How many elk do you kill a year in that unit? How many of the landowners do you know? How many days a year you spend hunting it?

Did you realize it's been general in the past and didn't work?

The people hunting 7 know what the problems would have been and why it didn't happen.

It was a bad idea that was being driven by the very things in your post that you're complaining about.
 
I'm not complaining about anything. I am stating that it is a slippery slope to manage wildlife with the use of poling data rather than scientific data. It makes no difference what the area is.
 
I'm not complaining about anything. I am stating that it is a slippery slope to manage wildlife with the use of poling data rather than scientific data. It makes no difference what the area is.
Right, so you have no experience in the area, have no idea who was pushing the general tag idea, but you're positive it's a slippery slope...and hunters should kneel to those that pushed the idea.

For the record, you don't need a degree in wildlife biology to understand what's going on. As strange as it seems, some hunters pay very close attention to what's going on. They know what they see...and in many cases spend more time in units than the biologists.

But, it's your story make it as big as you want.

Bottom line the correct decision was made...bad idea is a bad idea no matter who dreams them up.

Finally if you believe that biologists make decisions strictly on biological reasons and science....you're in serious denial.

I can show you numerous decisions being made by biologists that have no biological reasons for them.
 
Last edited:
How much do you know about unit 7? How many elk do you kill a year in that unit? How many of the landowners do you know? How many days a year you spend hunting it?

Did you realize it's been general in the past and didn't work?

The people hunting 7 know what the problems would have been and why it didn't happen.

It was a bad idea that was being driven by the very things in your post that you're complaining about.
When was it general?
 
Back
Top