disappointing hunt in G

[robby denning]

It has been initially studied but this working group in Wyoming Game and Fish recognized the problem but as always in Wyoming hunting, politics gets involved so the Conclusion is further study required. Here were just a few of the aspects they identified as affecting harvest and the ethical and moral implications of such advanced technology. It is a worthy study of review but certainly just in its infancy.
aspects of modern detection include the following:
● Significantly reduces an animal’s innate ability to avoid detection.
● May significantly enhance a hunter’s ability to avoid being detected themselves by their quarry.
● Remote monitoring that allows 24-hour, seven and day a week coverage in the field, including detection in the dark. Maybe include use of single or multiple trail cameras. Cameras may or may not be synced in real time to personal electronic devices.
● Real time, remote detection and notification, wherein a hunter is notified of an animal’s presence someplace other than within range of the hunter’s vision or hearing.
● Use of drones or other aircraft to detect game.
● Use of electronics in relation to finding a place to hunt and aiding in navigation (GPS, cell phone maps, Google Earth, etc.).
● Electronic or radio communication between hunters in the field is common and may be used to coordinate actual stalking.
● Contract scouting services solicited to find and keep track of a specific game animal over an extended period of time – outside of the services normally provided by a
guide or outfitter.
● Use of advanced off-road vehicles is common, and hunters may travel off established roads where the older generations of hunters were prohibited from doing so due to the types of vehicles in use.
● Use of ultra-light aircraft or helicopters to access landlocked public lands.
● Use of analog and digital electronic calls.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e628a1e2f7e2a06d692edd6/t/5e683bcab440f5292d893227/1583889359855/Exploring_New_Technologies_for_Hunting.pdf

good stuff
Wyoming outlawed scouting packages this year and aircraft scouting Aug 1st and on many years back.

the other list of stuff was not even possible 10-20 years ago.

I've ran trail cameras in high country and at least for me, can't say it's led to more harvest. But I'm not very good at them either.

So where do we start?

I heard one state is thinking on a "straight-walled cartridge only" hunt (think 45-70 gov't).

 

[MallardSX2]

Great read right there.

"Extreme range hunting compromises the hunter-prey relationship, as an animal can be harvested at distances where the prey’s senses of sight, smell and sound are ineffective at alerting them to a hunter’s presence. Such a tip in the balance of the hunter-hunted relationship could be a detriment to the long term acceptance of sport hunting."

 

[robby denning]

Great read right there.

"Extreme range hunting compromises the hunter-prey relationship, as an animal can be harvested at distances where the prey’s senses of sight, smell and sound are ineffective at alerting them to a hunter’s presence. Such a tip in the balance of the hunter-hunted relationship could be a detriment to the long term acceptance of sport hunting."

Yes, that's been stated for a while (I think B&C put that out there first?) but at what range?

What I mean is a 4x scope let's me get out of their range of detection too.

That's why I've always thought that statement isn't the end-all to the debate.

Heck, even a peep sight in some guys hands can keep them hundreds of yards from their quarry.

 

[Ridge Reaper]

I’d support banning rangefinders for long gun seasons. I think that would be a good start that doesn’t limit opportunity.

 

[blacktail sniper]

Recently the things I see on G make me question drawing that tag. I have 9 points and planned to hunt G but not sure what I will do now. Sadly it appears to be the same trend in a lot of areas.

Man i am in the same boat with 10!! I was in a hurry to burn them due to maybe being a WY residnent in two yars but dont know what to do. Maybe hold off an another limited area but dont know

 

[BRTreedogs]

I do not think long range kills more of anything.
I think I may kill them faster.
But I believe the same individual that put in the time to get good at distance and find a trophy animal will find a way to kill it no matter the weapon you give them.

Also 45-70 sharps with the slider peep thing.
800 no problem let's do it.

 

[The Ri Guy]

I do not think long range kills more of anything.
I think I may kill them faster.
But I believe the same individual that put in the time to get good at distance and find a trophy animal will find a way to kill it no matter the weapon you give them.

Also 45-70 sharps with the slider peep thing.
800 no problem let's do it.

I agree with you -- my Grandfather was renowned for being a deadeye out to 300 yards with his iron-sight .30-06. Didn't even hunt with binoculars back in the day, but still piled up deer like cords of wood.

Not sure banning rangefinders or long range guns would have any impact on the hardcore crowd. I think it may actually increase the barrier to entry so much that hunter numbers would suffer.

 

[MuleyFever]

I have had deer at “long range” and I had no ability to get closer in time before they moved off. I have also had deer out there further than I wanted to shoot and tried to get closer and they were gone. Had I been proficient at 600+ I could have killed those animals but I did not. The ability to kill at extended distance absolutely increases opportunities.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I have had deer at “long range” and I had no ability to get closer in time before they moved off. I have also had deer out there further than I wanted to shoot and tried to get closer and they were gone. Had I been proficient at 600+ I could have killed those animals but I did not. The ability to kill at extended distance absolutely increases opportunities.

And that was dark on the very last day?
You had absolutely no way of ever locating them again?

 

[IdahoHntr]

I do not think long range kills more of anything.
I think I may kill them faster.
But I believe the same individual that put in the time to get good at distance and find a trophy animal will find a way to kill it no matter the weapon you give them.

Also 45-70 sharps with the slider peep thing.
800 no problem let's do it.

I think most dedicated big buck hunters would disagree with you. Getting within 500 yards of a mature mule deer buck is exponentially more difficult than getting within that 500-1000 yard range. Most big bucks you don't get second chances and that one chance is what you get for the season.

Almost every hard core buck hunter who I know who has killed a deer over 600 yards has told me they took that shot cause there was no other way they could figure out how to kill them. To me that means EVERY single one of those big bucks would have lived to see another winter 20-30 years ago.

What's funny is the guys who actually kill mature deer consistently are the same guys who don't take long range shots because they can, but because they have no other option. Go listen to the Rokcast with @ntrlbrnhunter and his story with Scar. Getting close is still the priority for most it seems.

I think long range shooting specifically hurts big bucks at a higher percentage than any other population group, because their survival strategy is to live on the edge. Their instincts are to stay close enough to know whats going on and avoid predators, but far enough away that they don't get killed. It's why they often look back for one last look. It's why they often circle back as soon as they go out of sight. Of course there are always exceptions, but predominantly that is how they are programmed to survive. For so long they could live in that 600-1000 yard distance and never have to worry about being killed, but that ain't the case anymore.

Edited: Wanted to say I'm not specifically against long range hunting, but I am for thriving mule deer herds and opportunity hunting. I would like to see reductions in technology being implemented before reductions in tags.

 

[IdahoHntr]

And that was dark on the very last day?
You had absolutely no way of ever locating them again?

I have two bucks that are anecdotal for this. First day of season a few years ago I saw one of the biggest deer I've seen of my life. I had him at about 800 yards. I watched him for 5 minutes until I couldn't see him anymore as he fed over the ridge. I had spent 10 or so days scouting that summer and never seen him. I spent something like 15 of the 21 days of that season looking for him all over that mountain and never saw him again. Had I at the time been proficient at that distance, he would likely have been dead.

Second deer I saw at about 1600 yards not to long before last light on the last day of the hunt. He was a great buck, everything I'd been holding out for all hunt. I was able to cut the distance to about 700 before I just ran out of time and cover. I was able to watch him feed away. Again, had I been proficient at the time at that distance, the deer would likely be dead.

My anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that not being able to shoot long range like I currently can at least saved 2 big bucks in my lifetime. Probably more as those are just the most direct examples. I have to believe I'm not the only one with a story or two about bucks that got away that would have been dead if you could have shot out to 800 yards.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I think most dedicated big buck hunters would disagree with you. Getting within 500 yards of a mature mule deer buck is exponentially more difficult than getting within that 500-1000 yard range. Most big bucks you don't get second chances and that one chance is what you get for the season.

Almost every hard core buck hunter who I know who has killed a deer over 600 yards has told me they took that shot cause there was no other way they could figure out how to kill them. To me that means EVERY single one of those big bucks would have lived to see another winter 20-30 years ago.

What's funny is the guys who actually kill mature deer consistently are the same guys who don't take long range shots because they can, but because they have no other option. Go listen to the Rokcast with @ntrlbrnhunter and his story with Scar. Getting close is still the priority for most it seems.

I think long range shooting specifically hurts big bucks at a higher percentage than any other population group, because their survival strategy is to live on the edge. Their instincts are to stay close enough to know whats going on and avoid predators, but far enough away that they don't get killed. It's why they often look back for one last look. It's why they often circle back as soon as they go out of sight. Of course there are always exceptions, but predominantly that is how they are programmed to survive. For so long they could live in that 600-1000 yard distance and never have to worry about being killed, but that ain't the case anymore.

Edited: Wanted to say I'm not specifically against long range hunting, but I am for thriving mule deer herds and opportunity hunting. I would like to see reductions in technology being implemented before reductions in tags.

I think development of winter range, cheat grass, poaching and shooting fork bucks really puts a hurt on things.

Id still say that the majority of big bucks killed at long range is ether such an added small percentage or would have died anyway.

 

[IdahoHntr]

I think development of winter range, cheat grass, poaching and shooting fork bucks really puts a hurt on things.

Id still say that the majority of big bucks killed at long range is ether such an added small percentage or would have died anyway.

I agree with you there as far things hurting the deer population.

I'm just saying long range is still a factor and like I said it hits the percentage of big bucks harder than any other age class of deer.

It just makes way more sense to me to cut back on technology than to cut back on tags first. At least try it in some areas. If it doesn't help then long range shooting was never hurting anything anyway. If it does, then maybe it was a factor.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I have two bucks that are anecdotal for this. First day of season a few years ago I saw one of the biggest deer I've seen of my life. I had him at about 800 yards. I watched him for 5 minutes until I couldn't see him anymore as he fed over the ridge. I had spent 10 or so days scouting that summer and never seen him. I spent something like 15 of the 21 days of that season looking for him all over that mountain and never saw him again. Had I at the time been proficient at that distance, he would likely have been dead.

Second deer I saw at about 1600 yards not to long before last light on the last day of the hunt. He was a great buck, everything I'd been holding out for all hunt. I was able to cut the distance to about 700 before I just ran out of time and cover. I was able to watch him feed away. Again, had I been proficient at the time at that distance, the deer would likely be dead.

My anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that not being able to shoot long range like I currently can at least saved 2 big bucks in my lifetime. Probably more as those are just the most direct examples. I have to believe I'm not the only one with a story or two about bucks that got away that would have been dead if you could have shot out to 800 yards.

Sure a few but I still say its a small percentage.
Thats 2 deer.
How many more guys did even see a deer in that unit. Or anything better then a 3 pt?

My brother hunted Se Idaho in the 80 and said they would see 2000 deer a day and like 25 170 bucks all in a 10x10 mile area.

I do not believe the tag allotment is enough to have reduced the big bucks by that much.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I also think there is wayy more poaching then anyone knows.
When I ran into an officer in the famous Metolius unit he said they had just brought charges for 37 counts on one pair of high school kids.

If they shot 37 bucks over 140 out of that unit.
Well that's all of them in my opinion.

 

[robby denning]

Sure a few but I still say its a small percentage.
Thats 2 deer.
How many more guys did even see a deer in that unit. Or anything better then a 3 pt?

My brother hunted Se Idaho in the 80 and said they would see 2000 deer a day and like 25 170 bucks all in a 10x10 mile area.

I do not believe the tag allotment is enough to have reduced the big bucks by that much.

is 2000 a typo?

 

[BRTreedogs]

is 2000 a typo?

No he has many famous stories of SE in the early 80s. It was Nov muzzleloader back then.
They would only pursue bucks with 11" or bigger forks.
He has a 183 buck mounted he shot on last day after camp was loaded. After passing him daily for 10 days.
It got so cold back then they had to put a trash bag over the radiator and the heater still was hardly blowing warm enough to feel heat on 1 hr drive to town.
Apparently my pops drove thru a creek and set his e brake over night.
It took most day to get it broke loose.

 

[Laramie]

I would argue that the single piece of equipment that has influenced hunters & success rates (in the rocky mountains) over the last 20 years is the GPS. 20+ years ago there were very few people going into the back country. Those that did, really knew the areas. It was extremely rare to run into somebody even a mile off of a know trail or road. Now a guy who has never set foot in an area can scout on google earth and program his GPS to lead him many miles in and out of remote areas without so much a single wrong turn. Outlaw the GPS in a western state and see what happens to the application pool...

 

[MuleyFever]

And that was dark on the very last day?
You had absolutely no way of ever locating them again?

First you said long range doesn’t kill more of anything. Then after a couple of examples you say it’s a small percentage. Then you shift to other reasons numbers are down. I’m not going to debate with you while you keep moving the goalposts.

 

[BRTreedogs]

First you said long range doesn’t kill more of anything. Then after a couple of examples you say it’s a small percentage. Then you shift to other reasons numbers are down. I’m not going to debate with you while you keep moving the goalposts.

Haha
Anything and such a small percentage to not even be measurable is the same thing to me.