# Where can I apply for a Yellowstone Bison tag?



## LostLouisianian

Yellowstone wants to take out 1,000 bison....I want to go shoot one!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/1...killing-1000-bison-this-winter/?intcmp=hplnws


----------



## GaryFish

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/huntingGuides/bison/default.html

Application deadline was May 1. Sorry. But note the time for next year.


----------



## LostLouisianian

GaryFish said:


> http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/huntingGuides/bison/default.html
> 
> Application deadline was May 1. Sorry. But note the time for next year.


Does that apply to Yellowstone, I would think there would be a special tag for Yellowstone, maybe I missed it on the link.


----------



## Lonetree

Wow!....on several counts.


----------



## GaryFish

None of the bison will be killed within the park. There is no authorized hunting in YNP. Instead, The Park has the states do the dirty work so they can save face. Montana and Wyoming issue tags, so when the bison migrate out of the park in the winter, they may be hunted, gathered by/for the tribes, and then killed. This has been going on since in Montana at least for more than 15 years. This is the biggest number I've seen - the 1,000 head. But that is only if they leave the park. If they stay inside the boundaries of Yellowstone, then that number is 0. So YNP sets the number of bison they think they need to cull, and then Montana and Wyoming set their harvest numbers based on that. The biggest share of the numbers are out the northern boundary into Montana, so Montana issues the most tags. Basically, you apply in May, and they put your name on the list in the order they are drawn. Once the bison start migrating out, they'll give you a call and let you know the date to come for your hunt. Once the harvest number is reached, then they quit calling the names on the list.


----------



## GaryFish

There are discussions for Idaho to join in the party in the coming years as well. This past year, some bison wandered out of The Park and spent a week or two over near Henry's Lake. IFG tried hazing them back into the Park but ended up just dispatching them next to the road and hauling them off. But there are starting to be enough migrate out and into Island Park that it is becoming, or will soon be enough that it has to be addressed, either through hazing, which is what they've been trying the last few years, or having hunters, or just allowing it to happen. There is a push by one group to form a Caldera National Monument for the Island Park area and the primary thing behind all of that is to allow the bison to establish in Island Park, and eliminate cattle from the area. But that is another discussion for another thread.


----------



## LostLouisianian

GaryFish said:


> None of the bison will be killed within the park. There is no authorized hunting in YNP. Instead, The Park has the states do the dirty work so they can save face. Montana and Wyoming issue tags, so when the bison migrate out of the park in the winter, they may be hunted, gathered by/for the tribes, and then killed. This has been going on since in Montana at least for more than 15 years. This is the biggest number I've seen - the 1,000 head. But that is only if they leave the park. If they stay inside the boundaries of Yellowstone, then that number is 0. So YNP sets the number of bison they think they need to cull, and then Montana and Wyoming set their harvest numbers based on that. The biggest share of the numbers are out the northern boundary into Montana, so Montana issues the most tags. Basically, you apply in May, and they put your name on the list in the order they are drawn. Once the bison start migrating out, they'll give you a call and let you know the date to come for your hunt. Once the harvest number is reached, then they quit calling the names on the list.


Thanks for the heads up and info on how it works and why...I guess I will just have to apply next year.


----------



## bigred

Is it a random draw?


----------



## GaryFish

Yes. The Montana hunt is a random draw - no point system. I'm not sure how the Wyoming thing work. Goob could answer that. He was lucky enough to get at Wyoming bison tag last year and shared his hand gun bison hunt with us here. 
http://utahwildlife.net/forum/41-hunting-outside-utah/105297-goob-s-wyoming-bison.html


----------



## MWScott72

I hear that late hunt is COLD!! Would be cool though to add a bison to the list.


----------



## LostLouisianian

GaryFish said:


> Yes. The Montana hunt is a random draw - no point system. I'm not sure how the Wyoming thing work. Goob could answer that. He was lucky enough to get at Wyoming bison tag last year and shared his hand gun bison hunt with us here.
> http://utahwildlife.net/forum/41-hunting-outside-utah/105297-goob-s-wyoming-bison.html


Is it any weapon, such as muzzie or archery as well as modern rifle?


----------



## GaryFish

No muzzy. Just rifle or archery are allowed. And rifle bullet must be at least 150 grains, so that dictates what size of rifle you can use. 

Also - for Montana, 10% of whatever number of tags are issued each year, are set aside for non-residents.

I don't know about Wyoming.


----------



## Iron Bear

Does anybody know the elk to bison kill rate for wolf in Yellowstone? Does anybody care?


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Does anybody know the elk to bison kill rate for wolf in Yellowstone? Does anybody care?


I don't care.


----------



## GaryFish

I wish I knew Iron Bear. I've read several books about the YNP wolves, and the general theme is that the primary prey base is elk. I can't remember the specific ratios, but it seems like 80-90% elk, and 10% other stuff - deer, moose, bison, and other wolves. And each pack varies in what they kill more of because of other factors within the park. Northern packs killed a lot more bison than the southern packs, that kind of thing. 

Prior to the wolves though, Montana would give out around 2,000 elk tags on the Gardiner unit each year. Since the wolves have leveled off, there are some years Montana gives no tags for that unit. With the drop in elk numbers though, bison numbers have increased and The Park reports record highs right now. I couldn't give you exact numbers. I'm sure you could google something up.


----------



## GaryFish

Just some quick checking on things Iron Bear, turned up the results of one season of monitoring as noted at the following website:
http://www.yellowstonenationalpark.com/wolves.htm

Two excerpts from that site notes:
Composition of Wolf Kills: Project staff detected 132 definite, 206 probable, and 8 possible kills made by wolves in 2002, including 291 elk (84% of total), 21 bison, (6%), 4 deer (1%), 4 coyotes (1%), 4 wolves (1%), 1 badger (<0.5%), 1 Canada goose (<0.5%), and 22 unknown prey (6%). The composition of elk kills was 34% calves (0-12 months), 31% cows, 22% bulls, 5% adult elk of unknown sex, and 8% elk of unknown sex and age. Bison kills included 10 calves (unknown sex), 3 yearlings (2 female, 1 male), and 8 adults (3 female, 3 male, 2 unknown sex). Of the bison kills, 1 was killed during December, 1 in January, 5 in February, 6 in March, 7 in April, and 1 in late May. The Nez Perce Pack made 13 of the bison kills and Mollie's Pack and Druid Peak Pack each killed 2. During winter, wolves residing on the Northern Range killed an average of 1.8 elk per wolf per 30-day study period.​
And

Winter Studies: During the 2002 March winter study (30 days), wolves were observed for 243 hours from the ground. The number of days wolf packs were located from the air ranged from 1 (Yellowstone Delta) to 15 (Leopold, Rose Creek II, Tower, and Sheep Mountain). Seventy-two definite or probable wolf kills were detected, including 65 elk, 3 bison, and 4 prey of unknown species. Among elk, 19 (29%) were calves, 22 (34%) were cows, 18 (28%) were bulls, 4 (6%) were of unknown sex, and 2 (3%) were of unknown sex and age.​


----------



## LostLouisianian

GaryFish said:


> I wish I knew Iron Bear. I've read several books about the YNP wolves, and the general theme is that the primary prey base is elk. I can't remember the specific ratios, but it seems like 80-90% elk, and 10% other stuff - deer, moose, bison, and other wolves. And each pack varies in what they kill more of because of other factors within the park. Northern packs killed a lot more bison than the southern packs, that kind of thing.
> 
> Prior to the wolves though, Montana would give out around 2,000 elk tags on the Gardiner unit each year. Since the wolves have leveled off, there are some years Montana gives no tags for that unit. With the drop in elk numbers though, bison numbers have increased and The Park reports record highs right now. I couldn't give you exact numbers. I'm sure you could google something up.


I can understand them not killing as many bison due to the difficulty but why do you suppose that their primary prey is elk and not deer or moose? Is it a sheer numbers thing where elk are the majority of prey available or is it because of some other reason that the primary prey is elk?


----------



## Lonetree

GaryFish said:


> I wish I knew Iron Bear. I've read several books about the YNP wolves, and the general theme is that the primary prey base is elk. I can't remember the specific ratios, but it seems like 80-90% elk, and 10% other stuff - deer, moose, bison, and other wolves. And each pack varies in what they kill more of because of other factors within the park. Northern packs killed a lot more bison than the southern packs, that kind of thing.
> 
> Prior to the wolves though, Montana would give out around 2,000 elk tags on the Gardiner unit each year. Since the wolves have leveled off, there are some years Montana gives no tags for that unit. With the drop in elk numbers though, bison numbers have increased and The Park reports record highs right now. I couldn't give you exact numbers. I'm sure you could google something up.


In an attempt to reduce elk numbers. Which was another stated goal of wolf reintro.

The elk numbers were already dropping in the Greater Yellowstone area, and were plummeting in a few short years after reintro with very few wolves present. This happened in areas where there were no wolves as well. Parts of Northern Utah saw massive declines, as did parts of Wyoming with no wolves.

You can look to the fires and other land policy use for the declines. And you can look to elk that were not in optimal condition because of these things for the declines, AND for the huge packs that formed feasting on dumb and sick elk.

If wolves were the cause of the GYA elk declines, then those elk numbers would go up when wolf numbers declined, which they have multiple times in dramatic fashion, with NO response upward from elk. And study after study has yet to show that wolves suppress elk numbers. Do wolves eat elk, yep, that's what they were designed to do. Are they responsible for suppressing their numbers? Nope, nothing says so, except some uneducated internet hacks with very myopic views and understandings of what they espouse.


----------



## Lonetree

LostLouisianian said:


> I can understand them not killing as many bison due to the difficulty but why do you suppose that their primary prey is elk and not deer or moose? Is it a sheer numbers thing where elk are the majority of prey available or is it because of some other reason that the primary prey is elk?


Its all about herd structure. It suits the way they hunt. If you look at wolves that target bison in Yellowstone and Canada, they hunt differently. But you see a lot more similarity in terrain, herd structure, and hunting tactics among Bison hunting wolves in Canada.

Pack hunters exploit herd prey based on the same things that normally make herds strong. That being the way the herd interacts with each other. This is seen in African lions as well, which are the only cats to hunt this way.


----------



## GaryFish

Lots of variables at play with the wolves and elk and bison in YNP. The upside, is that whole thing is one of the most researched, documented, and analyzed moves in wildlife management study. More is known about the YNP wolves than any predator base in any ecosystem ever. More are collared, more are tracked, and more data is gathered about their habits, range, interactions, predation, than any other group of animals. If you are really interested, there are numerous books, professional publications, academic pieces, and very well documented studies to check out. Far more data based analysis than most uneducated internet hacks would espouse.


----------



## GaryFish

It is kind of a chicken/egg thing with wolves targeting bison vs. elk. There were more elk, so the wolves learned to hunt the elk, and became really good at it, and adapted to what it takes to effectively hunt the elk. Had it been the other way, you might have seen them hunt the bison more.


----------



## Iron Bear

Thanks Gary


----------



## Lonetree

GaryFish said:


> Lots of variables at play with the wolves and elk and bison in YNP. The upside, is that whole thing is one of the most researched, documented, and analyzed moves in wildlife management study. More is known about the YNP wolves than any predator base in any ecosystem ever. More are collared, more are tracked, and more data is gathered about their habits, range, interactions, predation, than any other group of animals. If you are really interested, there are numerous books, professional publications, academic pieces, and very well documented studies to check out. Far more data based analysis than most uneducated internet hacks would espouse.


Some written by people I work with.


----------



## Iron Bear

Oh come on drop a few names there science guy.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Oh come on drop a few names there science guy.


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235948124

It was not that many years ago, I was getting paid to go to Yellowstone. I could roll through the gates tomorrow free of charge with a phone call.


----------



## Iron Bear

Wow you really must be smart then.


----------



## Iron Bear

I've only been to Yellowstone twice and I had to pay both times. One time in the early 90s right after the burn. I remember it being overrun with elk. Then I went back a couple years ago and although I only spent the day I saw more deer then elk.

My simple mind figured wolf had something to do with that. I didn't conduct a study but it seemed like there was lots of buffalo both times I went. So really that's just conjecture. 

I'd love to hunt a Yellowstone buff. I do recall anti hunters pissing up a storm back in the day when buff would leave the park and get shot. Does that happen anymore?


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Wow you really must be smart then.


Like I've told you before, it comes down to what you can demonstrate, that's your weak point.

Guys like you and me want much of the same things, more deer, more hunting, etc. The problem I have with you is that you pound that 30 something year old, out of tune drum, which is like a sheep bayyying to a wolf.

The predator control thing is just one more piece, of many, in a long line of failed misunderstandings of the bigger picture that has reduced wildlife and hunting for decades now. Do predators eat prey? yes. Do they suppress prey numbers? Under very limited circumstances. Do habitat projects increase deer numbers? Doesn't look like it, yet nutrition does. It is all very complex, and predators are some of the least of it.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> I've only been to Yellowstone twice and I had to pay both times. One time in the early 90s right after the burn. I remember it being overrun with elk. Then I went back a couple years ago and although I only spent the day I saw more deer then elk.
> 
> My simple mind figured wolf had something to do with that. I didn't conduct a study but it seemed like there was lots of buffalo both times I went. So really that's just conjecture.
> 
> I'd love to hunt a Yellowstone buff. I do recall anti hunters pissing up a storm back in the day when buff would leave the park and get shot. Does that happen anymore?


Yep, but not so much because of hunters. Mostly because they are just rounded up and put down for crossing a line. Some people disagree with the city council ;-)


----------



## wyogoob

Iron Bear said:


> Does anybody know the elk to bison kill rate for wolf in Yellowstone? Does anybody care?


I don't think anyone cares anymore. Not too many wolves left in WY anyway; a little over 300 last count I read.

The Park keeps records of big game animal kills. I would call them or ask Mr Google. There was an interesting article on elk mortality in the Game and Fish's Wyoming Wildlife Magazine a few years back. I remember being surprised by the number of elk killed by bears, both Black and Grizzly.


----------



## wyogoob

Iron Bear said:


> ...........................
> 
> I'd love to hunt a Yellowstone buff. I do recall anti hunters pissing up a storm back in the day when buff would leave the park and get shot. Does that happen anymore?


There was a considerable amount of anti-hunters screwing up the WY Bison hunt back in the 80s. They could get away with that behavior because there weren't any specific laws against the practice. Since then WY has legislated some stiff laws against hunter harassment and I rarely hear anything about it here.

The WY bison hunt is a computer draw. The odds for a cow/calf tag are not too bad. Odds to draw a bull tag on the other hand are not very good. Also, starting last year, you have to put up the tag money when you apply for the bison tag and the tag for non-residents is pretty expensive, so that took a lot of applicants out of contention and made the draw odds better.

All the bison hunt application info you need is on the WY Game & Fish website.

I drew a WY bull bison tag last year. My odds were 1 in 72.

.


----------



## Iron Bear

Lonetree said:


> Like I've told you before, it comes down to what you can demonstrate, that's your weak point.
> 
> Guys like you and me want much of the same things, more deer, more hunting, etc. The problem I have with you is that you pound that 30 something year old, out of tune drum, which is like a sheep bayyying to a wolf.
> 
> The predator control thing is just one more piece, of many, in a long line of failed misunderstandings of the bigger picture that has reduced wildlife and hunting for decades now. Do predators eat prey? yes. Do they suppress prey numbers? Under very limited circumstances. Do habitat projects increase deer numbers? Doesn't look like it, yet nutrition does. It is all very complex, and predators are some of the least of it.


So predators are almost never a limiting factor. Then what do you make of the millions of dollars and all the man power put into making sure the DWR knows exactly how many animals were harvested. Not to mention the millions spent on investigating apprehending and convicting poachers. Does it serve a biological benefit?


----------



## Lonetree

wyogoob said:


> I don't think anyone cares anymore. Not too many wolves left in WY anyway; a little over 300 last count I read.
> 
> The Park keeps records of big game animal kills. I would call them or ask Mr Google. There was an interesting article on elk mortality in the Game and Fish's Wyoming Wildlife Magazine a few years back. I remember being surprised by the number of elk killed by bears, both Black and Grizzly.


That was one of the things seen over and over again in wolf/elk studies, that bears were a much bigger part of calf mortality than anyone had realized.

Talking with a bear biologist in Yellowstone, I know one........ He commented on a bears ability to smell playing into this. They had a really hard time separating out if the calves were live born, sick, weak etc, because the bears would find them so quick. This has been one of the scenarios driving VIT technology.

Beyond the amazing ability of smell, it was also observed that some bears were simply watching from a distance and moving in right after. This plays out with elk more so than moose or deer, because of calving strategy. Elk following herd behavior calf in groups for protection. So in the same way wolves exploit herd behavior when hunting elk, bears exploit it during calving. This same strategy does not work with deer and moose where does and cows separate off to fawn and calf.


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> So predators are almost never a limiting factor. Then what do you make of the millions of dollars and all the man power put into making sure the DWR knows exactly how many animals were harvested. Not to mention the millions spent on investigating apprehending and convicting poachers. Does it serve a biological benefit?


You could say no, this way. Buck, bucks, and more bucks.......they don't have fawns. Therefor the killing of bucks does not drive population trends, unless you can drive buck to ratios below 7:100. Why do we hunt does? To reduce numbers.

Biological benefit? Define it? You have some pretty big disconnects going on there.


----------



## Iron Bear

Well I'm assuming I guess. Your all for management practices based on biological science. Like science tells you predators don't really matter and pesticides do. 

Should the DWR employees trade their pencils and handcuffs in for shovels and rakes. Buy more tractors and less trucks. Or is it important to know weather or not I shot a deer?


----------



## Lonetree

Iron Bear said:


> Well I'm assuming I guess. Your all for management practices based on biological science. Like science tells you predators don't really matter and pesticides do.
> 
> Should the DWR employees trade their pencils and handcuffs in for shovels and rakes. Buy more tractors and less trucks. Or is it important to know weather or not I shot a deer?


Because this relates to wolves and predation how? Seriously, this is a lot of disconnect.

I can show you how pesticides influence predation. Can you show me.....well.....anything.....like a coherent thought process, you are all over the place.

No, the DWR does not need to know if you shot a deer, in the big scheme of things it has no biological bearing. What the deer population is doing is what matters, that's where the biology part of things comes into play. That is one of the big mistakes that people make about "wildlife management" verse "hunter management". While the two are not mutually exclusive, they most certainly are not interchangeable. To think that it starts and ends with hunters, is very backwards.

Anymore straw man tangents?


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

wyogoob said:


> There was a considerable amount of anti-hunters screwing up the WY Bison hunt back in the 80s. They could get away with that behavior because there weren't any specific laws against the practice. Since then WY has legislated some stiff laws against hunter harassment and I rarely hear anything about it here.
> 
> The WY bison hunt is a computer draw. The odds for a cow/calf tag are not too bad. Odds to draw a bull tag on the other hand are not very good. Also, starting last year, you have to put up the tag money when you apply for the bison tag and the tag for non-residents is pretty expensive, so that took a lot of applicants out of contention and made the draw odds better.
> 
> All the bison hunt application info you need is on the WY Game & Fish website.
> 
> I drew a WY bull bison tag last year. My odds were 1 in 72.
> 
> .


Probability - is the likeliness an event will occur. Using a dice your probability of rolling a 6 is 1/6 ~16.67%.

Odds - is the likeliness an event will occur and not occur expressed in a ratio. Using the dice analogy your odds in favor of rolling a six are 1:5 and your odds against rolling a six are 5:1.

Most big game draws mix these terms or create a system of their own to express the numbers in a way to encourage people to apply.

Probability is the likelihood you will draw the tag.
Odds are the amount of people that will draw the tag against the amount of people that will not draw the tag.

NR Bull Bison *1.1% probability* of drawing the tag, the odds for drawing are *8:686 *

NR Cow/Calf Bison *27.6% probability* of drawing the tag, the odds for drawing are *53:139 *

R Bull Bison *1.4% probability* of drawing the tag, the odds for drawing are *32:2174*

R Cow/Calf Bison *23.9% probability* of drawing the tag, the odds for drawing are *212:674*

Neither draw is a good bet to draw, but the cow/calf has better numbers. Another way to look at it is as a NR you have a 72.4% probability of not drawing the tag.

Math is math.


----------



## wyogoob

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Probability - is the likeliness an event will occur. Using a dice your probability of rolling a 6 is 1/6 ~16.67%.
> 
> Odds - is the likeliness an event will occur and not occur expressed in a ratio. Using the dice analogy your odds in favor of rolling a six are 1:5 and your odds against rolling a six are 5:1.
> 
> Most big game draws mix these terms or create a system of their own to express the numbers in a way to encourage people to apply.
> 
> Probability is the likelihood you will draw the tag.
> Odds are the amount of people that will draw the tag against the amount of people that will not draw the tag.
> 
> NR Bull Bison *1.1% probability* of drawing the tag, the odds for drawing are *8:686 *
> 
> NR Cow/Calf Bison *27.6% probability* of drawing the tag, the odds for drawing are *53:139 *
> 
> R Bull Bison *1.4% probability* of drawing the tag, the odds for drawing are *32:2174*
> 
> R Cow/Calf Bison *23.9% probability* of drawing the tag, the odds for drawing are *212:674*
> 
> Neither draw is a good bet to draw, but the cow/calf has better numbers. Another way to look at it is as a NR you have a 72.4% probability of not drawing the tag.
> 
> Math is math.


That's hilarious, thanks.

.


----------



## wyogoob

GaryFish said:


> None of the bison will be killed within the park. There is no authorized hunting in YNP. Instead, The Park has the states do the dirty work so they can save face. Montana and Wyoming issue tags, so when the bison migrate out of the park in the winter, they may be hunted, gathered by/for the tribes, and then killed. This has been going on since in Montana at least for more than 15 years. This is the biggest number I've seen - the 1,000 head. But that is only if they leave the park. If they stay inside the boundaries of Yellowstone, then that number is 0. So YNP sets the number of bison they think they need to cull, and then Montana and Wyoming set their harvest numbers based on that. The biggest share of the numbers are out the northern boundary into Montana, so Montana issues the most tags. Basically, you apply in May, and they put your name on the list in the order they are drawn. Once the bison start migrating out, they'll give you a call and let you know the date to come for your hunt. Once the harvest number is reached, then they quit calling the names on the list.


There are a small number of bison that live on the National Elk Refuge and the Grand Teton NP also.

.


----------



## Lonetree

So you are saying there is a chance?


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Breaking down odds into smaller number approximations, not accurate though it paints the picture. 

8:868 ~ 1:85.75 ~1:86

53:139 ~ 1:2.62 ~ 1:3

32:2174 ~1:67.94 ~ 1:68

212:674 ~1:3.18 ~ 1:4

Remember with odds it is expressed in 1 per getting the tag for every 4 people that do not get the tag. You cannot say 1:4 is 25% probability, 1:4 is 20% probability. 

Probability = wanted outcome/total outcomes

Odds = wanted outcome : unwanted outcome.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Lonetree said:


> So you are saying there is a chance?


That's how I feel with all big game draws, it is just the innumeracy of the way the statistics are displayed the bothers me.


----------



## wyogoob

Lonetree said:


> So you are saying there is a chance?


That's somewhat humorous, thanks.

.


----------



## wyogoob

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Breaking down odds into smaller number approximations, not accurate though it paints the picture.
> 
> 8:868 ~ 1:85.75 ~1:86
> 
> 53:139 ~ 1:2.62 ~ 1:3
> 
> 32:2174 ~1:67.94 ~ 1:68
> 
> 212:674 ~1:3.18 ~ 1:4
> 
> Remember with odds it is expressed in 1 per getting the tag for every 4 people that do not get the tag. You cannot say 1:4 is 25% probability, 1:4 is 20% probability.
> 
> Probability = wanted outcome/total outcomes
> 
> Odds = wanted outcome : unwanted outcome.


Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's called the "sausage conundrum" 25 lbs of fat added to 100 lbs of meat is not 25%.

Are you done? Take a deep breath and let it go.

.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

wyogoob said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's called the "sausage conundrum" 25 lbs of fat added to 100 lbs of meat is not 25%.
> 
> Are you done? Take a deep breath and let it go.
> 
> .


Like this 



 ?


----------



## wyogoob

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Like this
> 
> 
> 
> ?


yeah


----------



## wyogoob

wyogoob said:


> There are a small number of bison that live on the National Elk Refuge and the Grand Teton NP also.
> 
> .


As a matter of fact the Wyoming bison hunt starts on August 15th, long before the buffalo migration out of YNP. Some of the biggest (oldest) bison are "resident" bison and are shot during the first week of the bison season.

Besides the huge track of National Forest surrounding the YNP and Jackson Hole, Wyoming has a bison archery only area and a bison hunt area for "limited range weapons" i.e. shotguns, muzzleloaders and handguns.

.


----------



## Iron Bear

Sounds a great deal better than Antelope Island.


----------



## CPAjeff

Goob, did you get a blanket made from your buffalo last year? If so, how'd it turn out?


----------



## LostLouisianian

wyogoob said:


> As a matter of fact the Wyoming bison hunt starts on August 15th, long before the buffalo migration out of YNP. Some of the biggest (oldest) bison are "resident" bison and are shot during the first week of the bison season.
> 
> Besides the huge track of National Forest surrounding the YNP and Jackson Hole, Wyoming has a bison archery only area and a bison hunt area for "limited range weapons" i.e. shotguns, muzzleloaders and handguns.
> 
> .


Goob what seems to be the preferred caliber of muzzie for bison over there. Would be really interested in taking one with a muzzie.


----------



## wyogoob

CPAjeff said:


> Goob, did you get a blanket made from your buffalo last year? If so, how'd it turn out?


big


----------



## wyogoob

LostLouisianian said:


> Goob what seems to be the preferred caliber of muzzie for bison over there. Would be really interested in taking one with a muzzie.


I don't know. The guy that runs one of the locker plants in Jackson showed me quite a selection of bullets taken from bison; some were muzzy sabots but I don't know what caliber.

My handgun load was .460 275 gr @1825 fps if that helps.

.


----------



## CPAjeff

wyogoob said:


> big


Wow, that is ginormous!


----------



## LostLouisianian

I guess it's my native American heritage calling out to me but man I want to go hunt one. I am going to have to put in when it opens up. Here is my direct line of lineage. My wife is also a direct descendant of the Creek tribe and her family ancestors were relocated to the Oklahoma territory from Alabama.

"Mamenthoüensa was Chief of the Kaskaskia ("Kaskaskahamwa") Tribe and rose to the position of Chief of the Illini Confederation. Today, he is most often referred to simply as Rouensa. Alternate names include Francois-Xavier Rouensa,, Mamentouensa, Mamantouensa, Mamenthousensa.

Many Louisianians with ties to Pointe Coupee and Avoyelles Parishes, can claim descendency from Rouensa, Chief of the Illiniwek Indian tribe in the late 17th/early 18th century, via his daughter,Marie.

The Illiniwek Indians (aka: Illini) were part of the Algonquin Indian nation that eventually relocated to the vicinity of Fort de Chartres."

I am a direct descendant of this chief. Maybe I can get a free hunt in WY by being a native american.... ;-)


----------



## Iron Bear

LostLouisianian said:


> Goob what seems to be the preferred caliber of muzzie for bison over there. Would be really interested in taking one with a muzzie.


You could go with one of these.

http://whitemuzzleloading.com/bullets/


----------



## GaryFish

LostLouisianian said:


> Goob what seems to be the preferred caliber of muzzie for bison over there. Would be really interested in taking one with a muzzie.


I'm a huge Lewis & Clark buff, so if I were ever to draw a bison tag, I'd want to use the 1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle, in 54 caliber. But that's getting a bit geeky about it. But if you have a chance to shoot a bison, why not? And if not the 1803 Harpers Ferry, then a Sharps 45-70 would be in order.


----------



## Gumbo

I read on Eastmans that of the 1,000 tags, 700 are going to slaughter for research purposes. That's a lot of research!!

Eastmans - Going the Way of the Buffalo


----------



## wyogoob

The whole situation is a mess, a biological guagmire. 

Montana and the Park and the Tribe and the Cattlemen and the State of Wyoming have forever hassled over the bison. 

We need to round up all the wolves in Utah and haul them back to Yellowstone.

.


----------

