Are we really hunting?

[Predator_SD]

Same with almost every other state out there. And yes, they changed the reg to reduce the barrier to entry for new hunters (ie “appease a certain crowd”). There were also multiple other reasons in my state and the other states Im familiar with, one of them being unequivocal data that hunting participation was declining, combined with repeated harvests below target—based on data they were looking for a way to increase harvest. My understanding of your post is that you clearly have a problem with crossbows, my entire point was about people complaining with no statement about what they want to see happen differently as far as the results of a hunting season. If the harvest is too high, there is a mechanism to correct that built in. So what is the result YOU are looking for in allowing or not allowing crossbows? Or are you just bitching about crossbows because its not how you prefer to hunt? Post #209 above is bringing data and a desired outcome. There is no data to support causation, but theres a correlation and a desired outcome that could be brought to a regulatory commission and discussed to make a change if it was warranted. So what are you bringing?

No, not crossbows. The ever more prevalent attitude in society that we need to continually lower the bar for those unwilling to put in the effort to earn what they want is what i have a problem with. Killing a deer during bow season for example.

Crossbows are simply one of the many results of this ever more prevalent attitude eroding the work ethic and resolve of entire generations of Americans.

There isn’t a fix for this as a whole. We now have parents that grew up with these ideals instilling them in their children. So the populace is becoming increasingly entitled to things once earned with each successive generation.

What it HAS resulted in which does in fact bother me, and it should you if you value bow hunting, is the death of bow hunting. Hunting with a crossbow is not bow hunting it’s crossbow hunting. And it’s replacing bow hunting at an extremely fast rate. Now, i don’t have a problem with killing a deer with a crossbow at all but i do have a problem with them replacing bow hunting altogether. So they should absolutely have a separate and much shorter season. That way those unwilling to put in the needed effort to become proficient with a bow can still use their crossbows to hunt.

If you don’t believe allowing entire generations of people brought up believing they shouldn’t have to put in much effort in anything really therefore it’s ok to use easier tools (crossbows) to kill deer during bow season please look at the data from WI. They are absolutely replacing bow kills.

Wisconsin deer harvest summary | | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

Interestingly enough the WI DNR STILL separates Archery from Crossbow. So though they bowed to pressure from a certain demographic the powers that be in the DNR still clearly do not consider crossbows to be “Archery” or they wouldn’t have a separate tab for “Crossbow season summary” would they. At the rate it’s going in WI and as the increasingly entitled generations come of age bow hunting will be gone in my lifetime, which imo is a shame.

 

[Slickhill]

If we allow Joe to use a crossbow because using a vertical bow is too much practice or too hard to master or whatever just because the F&G department wants more does killed why not just say F it and let him use a rifle? It will get more deer killed, still not more does because that’s not what Joe wants to shoot regardless of F&G’s wishing and making catchy slogans. And it’s easier plus you don’t have to use a winch to cock the darn thing.

I hear all the time in my state about how we really need to go to one buck, “so we can kill monsters”. But none of the proponents for it want to have a discussion about keeping it 2 bucks like it has been for most of my life but maybe not letting everyone use a crossbow or arrow rifle (it’s apparently a real thing that runs on compressed air and it’s legal here). Or all the 15-17 year old kids that don’t need handheld who are whacking bucks with a rifle in the early youth season and then another one during regular season. Or the scoped muzzleloaders using 209s and modern powders that make them perform better than a 45/70. Cell cams on feeders allowing guys to pattern bucks they might never have known existed 20 years ago because they didn’t get live updates from their pocket computer. Try as F&G might none of this is getting people to shoot does, because that’s not what guys want to hunt.


Maybe the guys who have issue with all the tech view it like letting someone ride a dirt bike in the 100 yard dash at the track meet.

 

[Macintosh]

there is a level of pragmatism necessary when you go from armchair quarterbacking something, to actually taking responsibility for achieving a specific outcome. I hear what you guys are saying, but those things are happening before and completely separately from crossbows. There is no world where it isnt a stretch to blame crossbows for the degradation of American society, or to think that denying people the opportunity to use a crossbow is going to somehow make a meaningful difference in restoring the American work ethic. You are taking your biases and disgruntlement with society and projecting it onto this issue with nothing to back up the connection. And, even if there is a connection, is that not the world we still have to manage our deer herds within?

If using a crossbow is a stand-in for all of our societal ills, it seems no less of a stretch to say that whining about people using a “lesser” weapon(ie a crossbow) isnt equally representative of our sense of entitlement.

Also:



Seriously. Show me with data how crossbows are actually causing a problem or hurting you. I’ll argue just as vocally against them if thats true. But you’re not illustrating a connection, all you’re doing is showing the same sense of entitlement that you are railing against, ie “my way is more pure, therefore those other people shouldnt be allowed to do it any other way”.

 

[GotDraw?]

What are your thoughts. All is legal. Whitetail deer hunting, over bait with cell cameras and a crossbow. Personally I think this going to far and not hunting, harvesting. This is night and day from when I grew up bowhunting deer, no bait, no cameras. Killing a mature hunted whitetail was HARD and required a lot of work to do it consistently. Now you dump corn, set a camera, pattern a deer, check the camera before you walk into your stand so you do not spook deer, and then kill him. To easy?

You make a point that needs further discussion-

Hunting vs Harvesting vs Porn

In Maryland, we have so many deer that they're overbrowsing in many suburban places. So many and so well socialized that you almost have to slap them on the ass to get them out of your garden.

HARVESTING-- Maryland archery season runs mid-Sept through the end of January. DNR effectively has no limit on the number of does you can harvest with archery. They want does HARVESTED, as many as possible. Over corn on private land, in public parks by archers (no bait/by approved hunters that meet accuracy capabilities). Crossbows are encouraged due to accuracy. Maximum shot range is typicallly limited to 30yds or less by regulation. I have zero problem with this type of harvesting.

HUNTING-- Modern day advantages of 300+ yard muzzleloaders ("primitive" my ass), 1000+ yard rifles, 100 yard crossbows, compound bows easily capable of 80yds. Bait, trailcams with AI to identify bucks, the evolution won't end and folks will adopt it. I hunt with a compound bow and won't point fingers.

PORN/FAIR CHASE/TROPHY HUNTING-- Here's the problem in my mind: Back when I started hunting in the 70's ANY deer down was a great day. Today, social media bragging rights and semi-professional/professional social media hunter have upped the ante so all that matters to many is killing a big "Target" buck- by any legal means. Then bragging your ass off about it and getting all chuffed that it's on your wall. Almost all of us are guilty. I know I'm proud of one big buck in particular and moose of a lifetime, both were fair chase by any definition.

TROPHY PORN -- the definition of "fair chase" from a regulatory aspect has become very wide indeed thanks to lobbyists. But even among purist hunters, defining fair chase is like defining porn, the definition is different for each hunter. Hopefully we know porn when we see it and try to avoid it. Is it shooting an elk at 1,200 yards with a rifle when the elk has zero odds of evading the "hunter", killing a deer at 300yds with a "primitive" muzzleloader, killing a deer that your cell cam just told you to go chase? All are legal in most states, but at some point you cross they line of fair chase and perhaps shouldn't brag quite so boldly.

If it's legal, its a personal decision about where the ethical line that defines hunting/fair chase becomes a bright line.

JL

 

[TWoch]

Nobody is “running the data” at a state level to prove that/extent crossbows or cell cams cause this. How could you? Illinois has the most stringent harvest reporting that I’m aware of. I think the hope is doing something about the overall decline instead of blissfully being part of the degradation. And that goes for all ungulates. The cats outta the bag with technology, so we must catch up.

 

[Lawnboi]

Nobody is “running the data” at a state level to prove that/extent crossbows or cell cams cause this. How could you? Illinois has the most stringent harvest reporting that I’m aware of. I think the hope is doing something about the overall decline instead of blissfully being part of the degradation. And that goes for all ungulates. The cats outta the bag with technology, so we must catch up.

I’ll also point out that I don’t think the states have the same stake in hunting as hunters do. They are mostly managing to make money at this point it seems.

 

[TWoch]

Glaring conflict of interest for the animals

 

[Macintosh]

Actually, there are plenty of people running that data. Its not always as granular as we’d want, but there is a lot more data than folks give credit for, and a lot more decisions are made based on data than folks think.
Also, the entire reason we have hunting the way we do, and the entire reason we have significant populations of game animals again across much of the US, is because hunting IS a funding mechanism in and of itself. Be awfully clear-eyed about the implications of dismissing that as merely “making money”. The other side of that same coin is “making habitat”, “making opportunity”, as well as “hunting providing societal value”.

 

[TWoch]

Could you share? Because Wyoming cell cams are illegal. But not Colorado. But Arizona. Wheres the data backing those decisions? Is it granular?

I might add the varying rules concerning crossbows/archery…was there data behind those decisions?

 

[Macintosh]

Did harvest rate go up, down or stay the same concurrent with cell cams being banned in AZ? That is data that Az game and fish 100% has at their fingertips. What is the game commission in AZ hearing about the reg afterward with regard to the rationale they used (ie conflict and disturbance at water holes)? This is not rocket surgery. This is merely pointing out that if you have a concrete reason for wanting something specific based on data or a specific experience, say it and provide your proposed solution and what you think it will accomplish. Because anything less is just bitching. What Im hearing is mostly a lot of bitching with nothing to back it up other than “because I dont like it”. There is a social component, if a lot of people have a specific reason for not wanting crossbows allowed during an archery season, that matters. But just because you dont like crossbows or the people that use them, is not a reason.
data is archery tags sold increasing by x% the year they were allowed for anyone, and the average harvest rate increasing by x%, and that is or isnt within our target. Every single state has that EASILY. Many have required reporting that specifies crossbow or vertical bow. Look at a trend over a few years, and there is plenty you can tease out from that. This is simple stuff that every single state has via one means or another.

Theres also a significant difference between a state like AZ with extremely limited opportunity (WAY more people who want tags than there are tags available), versus a urban mid-atlantic state with 40+ deer per sq mile that is desperate to get as many as possible off the landscape, vs just about every step in between. One states rationale may or may not hold water elsewhere.

 

[TWoch]

This is the same agency that has witnessed the decline under their own care/management. They have no causation either. And I encourage you to provide any data similar to Illinois harvest data that proves your causation. It’s a moot point. We’re arguing semantics as the obvious decline happens on their watch and our dime. Just do something for God’s sake.

It’s sportsmen, not government, that made/make hunting what it is. Illinois archery season dates and bags limits (2 bucks unlimited does) remain unchanged in last 30 years. It’s appears little is being done to address the obvious decline. Trophy quality and herd objectives shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.

 

[TWoch]

I think it’s very similar to say unit 7 or 117 in Wyoming. Limit anterled tags until anterless population are where they belong. Talk about incentivizing harvests, while still protecting trophy quality. Am I wrong thinking this about areas with overpopulation and great trophy potential?

Illinois is the same state that requires I ask permission and pay a fee to the State Police to legally possess a firearm. I can imagine limiting bucks tags shouldn’t be an issue.