Get better at windcalls

[SDHNTR]

What does that conversation look like? Because what it actually looks like is more videos of influencers telling and showing you where animals are, how to find them, and how to kill them- I.E., “making it easier”.

The shooting part helps to reduce the wounding rate.

The “hunting” part is way more simple than the shooting- find bedding, feeding and transition areas. Move slowly, stop and glass often and keep the wind in your face.

What more is there to it? It’s not something that can be taught online because it doesn’t change.

Interesting how we can have different perspectives. We can obviously agree to disagree, but I actually feel the same way about the shooting part. To me, there is far more involved to the woodmanship than there is to the shooting.

Know your drops, dial and shoot. What more is there to it? (Tongue in cheek)

 

[Formidilosus]

Interesting how we can have different perspectives. We can obviously agree to disagree, but I actually feel the same way about the shooting part. To me, there is far more involved to the woodmanship than there is to the shooting.

Know your drops, dial and shoot. What more is there to it? (Tongue in cheek)

Ok- but you want to make “hunting hard again”, correct?

So let’s go ahead and give away every detail to everyone everywhere about how animals live and move?

 

[svivian]

Interesting how we can have different perspectives. We can obviously agree to disagree, but I actually feel the same way about the shooting part. To me, there is far more involved to the woodmanship than there is to the shooting.

Know your drops, dial and shoot. What more is there to it? (Tongue in cheek)

Removing the ability to use a rangefinder would be by far a better point than saying guns are too "tactical"

 

[SDHNTR]

It doesn’t though- because it’s wrong. I’m being a bit pedantic because the conversation needs to start in earnest, but it will get stopped immediately with that kind of argument.

Shooting isn’t the problem- remove every rifle/scope from after 1995, and kill rates in gun season won’t change much. However, remove all electronics and kill rate will plummet. Thats just one example.





Too lethal isn’t the problem; when someone shoots at an animal the outcome should be near certain- that’s “lethal”. The issue is too many people and it being too “easy”. There has been an artificial increase in will hunting the west due to R3, marketing, and consumerism. That is the real issue.

As an example from above- removing all post 1995 tech from rifles won’t change kill rates very much during gun season; however, removing compounds from archer season absolutely would. So would/does making ML season truly tradition- no scope, no inlines, full diameter projectiles only, etc. So too would eliminating electronics- no GPS. Etc, etc.

I somewhat disagree with the statement that removing advancements from rifles wouldn’t have a reduction in lethality. Perhaps not to the same degree as removing compounds or going back to traditional ML’s, but something like a 4x limitation on scope mag and no exposed turrets would help.

Yes there would still be some a-holes that would still fling away, but you’re never going to remove that small element, regardless of the equipment. And as a lot, I think hunters are a mostly honorable group and would refrain from unethically pushing the envelope. I believe a meaningful amount of bucks and bulls would live to see next season that wouldn’t otherwise.

 

[SDHNTR]

Ok- but you want to make “hunting hard again”, correct?

So let’s go ahead and give away every detail to everyone everywhere about how animals live and move?

Uggh, the influencer element makes my skin crawl too. I hate that chit! With a passion far greater than my disdain for overuse of “tactical” shooting equipment.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I somewhat disagree with the statement that removing advancements from rifles wouldn’t have a reduction in lethality. Perhaps not to the same degree as removing compounds or going back to traditional ML’s, but something like a 4x limitation on scope mag and no exposed turrets would help.

I don't dig into this stuff too deep but I'm unaware of any actual data showing that rifle success rates have significantly increased in the last 20-30 years at all. Archery and muzzeloader have, that's indisputable. You don't seem very inspired to change the two types of weapon that we have actual proof of increased success due to technology though.

 

[Formidilosus]

I somewhat disagree with the statement that removing advancements from rifles wouldn’t have a reduction in lethality. Perhaps not to the same degree as removing compounds or going back to traditional ML’s, but something like a 4x limitation on scope mag and no exposed turrets would help.

Rifle success rates haven’t changed in decades.

What I am saying is that you emotion of not liking something, is convincing you that it is the answer- it isn’t. How are you not going to have exposed turrets? Literally 100% of scopes currently made have them. As for 4x, wouldn’t change a thing- dudes with 4x scopes are smoking animals with MZ way past 500 yards.

A fixed 4x and a reticle, is still a legit 600 yard system.

And as a lot, I think hunters are a mostly honorable group and would refrain from unethically pushing the envelope.

Yeah…. Not what I see in multiple states a year. Dudes blast at animals when they see them- whether that is across the canyon, or running full bore at 80 yards going away.

I believe a meaningful amount of bucks and bulls would live to see next season that wouldn’t otherwise.

They would because sausages rates of rifle seasons has not functionally changed for decades. The difference is if those same people learned to truly shoot on demand, a lot less animals would be wounded, lost, and later die.

Probably the single best thing for game that could be done right now is to eliminate electronics, the next is to make hunters actually kill and recover every animal they shoot at (reduce wound rates).

 

[SDHNTR]

I don't dig into this stuff too deep but I'm unaware of any actual data showing that rifle success rates have significantly increased in the last 20-30 years at all. Archery and muzzeloader have, that's indisputable. You don't seem very inspired to change the two types of weapon that we have actual proof of increased success due to technology though.

No, not exactly. I think ML’s definitely need regulation if they are going to get more favorable seasons. Only ID gets it right in that regard. IMO, ML’s should have exposed ignitions, loose powder, and no scopes.

As for archery, as a Pope and Young life member and official measurer, I tend to side with the Club and draw the line at hand held bows with no attached electronic devices. Bows will likely never be as lethal as any sort of firearm or be capable of killing beyond short range so I don’t think they need very restrictive regulation beyond what I stated above.

I haven’t seen the data either (there are also way too many other factors to get clean data), and am very much a data driven person, especially professionally, but this is one circumstance where I can personally (just me, not saying anyone else has to agree) come up with a stance without firm data. Personally, all I need is a sense of what’s reasonable. When game can be killed effectively at 4 digits, we need some limits imposed. Whether it shows in the data or not, simply on the basis of reasonableness, we’ve gone too far. Again, JMHO. I’m not looking for argument.

 

[SDHNTR]

Rifle success rates haven’t changed in decades.

What I am saying is that you emotion of not liking something, is convincing you that it is the answer- it isn’t. How are you not going to have exposed turrets? Literally 100% of scopes currently made have them. As for 4x, wouldn’t change a thing- dudes with 4x scopes are smoking animals with MZ way past 500 yards.

A fixed 4x and a reticle, is still a legit 600 yard system.




Yeah…. Not what I see in multiple states a year. Dudes blast at animals when they see them- whether that is across the canyon, or running full bore at 80 yards going away.





They would because sausages rates of rifle seasons has not functionally changed for decades. The difference is if those same people learned to truly shoot on demand, a lot less animals would be wounded, lost, and later die.

Probably the single best thing for game that could be done right now is to eliminate electronics, the next is to make hunters actually kill and recover every animal they shoot at (reduce wound rates).

I’m just stating my opinions man. You don’t have to like or agree with them. You are doing the same thing. And your answers are no more or less valid than mine.

 

[ljalberta]

They would because sausages rates of rifle seasons has not functionally changed for decades.

I think we can at least all agree that references to deer success rates should be changed to sausage rates.

 

[JohnJohnson]

No, not exactly. I think ML’s definitely need regulation if they are going to get more favorable seasons. Only ID gets it right in that regard. IMO, ML’s should have exposed ignitions, loose powder, and no scopes.

As for archery, as a Pope and Young life member and official measurer, I tend to side with the club and draw the line at hand held bows with no attached electronic devices. Bows will likely never be as lethal as any sort of firearm or be capable of killing beyond short range so I don’t think they need very restrictive regulation beyond what I stated above.

I haven’t seen the data either (there are also way too many other factors to get clean data), and am very much a data driven person, especially professionally, but this is one circumstance where I can personally (just me, not saying anyone else has to agree) come up with a stance without firm data. Personally, all I need is a sense of what’s reasonable. When game can be killed effectively at 4 digits, we need some limits imposed. Whether it shows in the data or not, simply on the basics of reasonableness, we’ve got too far. Again, JMHO. I’m not looking for argument.

I'm not particularly emotionally invested in the subject so I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I just think you dislike long range hunting because of notions of what hunting should be in your mind. As opposed to it having a demonstrable effect on game populations. If you frame it like that moving forward then cool. It's just important, especially in the long range subforum we're talking in, to note that there is no evidence other than vibes that it has had any effect on populations or success rate. And trying to frame it in the light of "we're too lethal with rifles now" is not grounded in reality no matter how many 500+ yard killshot montages there are on Youtube.

I'll reiterate, saying stuff like that in the long range subforum is going to lead to disagreements which I'm sure you know.

 

[SDHNTR]

I'm not particularly emotionally invested in the subject so I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I just think you dislike long range hunting because of notions of what hunting should be in your mind. As opposed to it having a demonstrable effect on game populations. If you frame it like that moving forward then cool. It's just important, especially in the long range subforum we're talking in, to note that there is no evidence other than vibes that it has had any effect on populations or success rate. And trying to frame it in the light of "we're too lethal with rifles now" is not grounded in reality no matter how many 500+ yard killshot montages there are on Youtube.

I'll reiterate, saying stuff like that in the long range subforum is going to lead to disagreements which I'm sure you know.

To be clear, I don’t dislike long range hunting, pursuant to my own definition of long range. I have all the equipment and regularly shoot targets out to bla bla bla. I just find more enjoyment in outsmarting the animal and getting in closer rather than shooting farther.

And of course I realize what I said is going to generate disagreement, but as long as it’s kept civil (as was the case with this thread) I think respectful disagreement fosters good conversation.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’m just stating my opinions man.

Ok. But you stated them as fact.

You don’t have to like or agree with them. You are doing the same thing. And your answers are no more or less valid than mine.

I don’t think I have stated what I want at all, or any opinion- for most areas rifle success rates have not increased in decades, in fact in lots of areas it has decreased.
I just looked up harvest rates in Colorado for rifle seasons. From 2005 until 2023, every unit I looked up (popular ones) either the success rate was the same in 5 year increments (2005, 2010, 2015, 2023), or in most cases lower recently.

Rifle technology isn’t what is killing too many animals or making hunters “too lethal”. You like data, it’s there. If you don’t like modern rifles- which is odd because that what you use, then that is one thing. But, it is not correct to say that is the problem.

 

[SDHNTR]

Ok. But you stated them as fact.



I don’t think I have stated what I want at all, or any opinion- for most areas rifle success rates have not increased in decades, in fact in lots of areas it has decreased.
I just looked up harvest rates in Colorado for rifle seasons. From 2005 until 2023, every unit I looked up (popular ones) either the success rate was the same in 5 year increments (2005, 2010, 2015, 2023), or in most cases lower recently.

Rifle technology isn’t what is killing too many animals or making hunters “too lethal”. You like data, it’s there. If you don’t like modern rifles- which is odd because that what you use, then that is one thing. But, it is not correct to say that is the problem.

Not THE problem, but A problem. Again, that’s my opinion.

Separate topic, but success rates lack validity unless there is mandatory reporting and universal participation. And are we looking at absolute harvest numbers or success % as it relates to total tag/licenses sold/quota? Are we talking elk with increasing populations? Or mule deer with decreasing populations? All those nuances matter. I’ve never seen a truly clean and dependable data set that could be used without excess assumptions. Therefore, I’m not sure you can draw any indisputable conclusions to the pro, as I cannot to the con.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Separate topic, but success rates lack validity unless there is mandatory reporting and universal participation.

Why? Are rifle hunters less likely to report than archery or muzzleloader hunters? A lot of statistics is getting some subsample of a population and then extrapolating that to make general conclusions about that population. Do you have reason to believe the subsample of people who are reporting has bias in it? And if so, what kind of bias?

All those nuances matter. I’ve never seen a truly clean and dependable data set that could be used without excess assumptions. Therefore, I’m not sure you can draw any indisputable conclusions to the pro, as I can to the con.

It's up to people saying there's an effect to prove it. Not the other way around.

 

[realunlucky]

Ok. But you stated them as fact.



I don’t think I have stated what I want at all, or any opinion- for most areas rifle success rates have not increased in decades, in fact in lots of areas it has decreased.
I just looked up harvest rates in Colorado for rifle seasons. From 2005 until 2023, every unit I looked up (popular ones) either the success rate was the same in 5 year increments (2005, 2010, 2015, 2023), or in most cases lower recently.

Rifle technology isn’t what is killing too many animals or making hunters “too lethal”. You like data, it’s there. If you don’t like modern rifles- which is odd because that what you use, then that is one thing. But, it is not correct to say that is the problem.

I'd be interested in comparing the numbers somewhere like region G in Wyoming. These deer are hunted earlier where that habitat makes them more vulnerable at longer distances. I also believe( could be wrong since i couldn't find the reference) that I heard the biologist state that long range rifle hunting is having an impact there.

I will say utah going back to a 1x muzzleloader scope will change how I've hunted that season in the past but it won't likely change the outcome.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

I'd be interested in comparing the numbers somewhere like region G in Wyoming. These deer are hunted earlier where that habitat makes them more vulnerable at longer distances. I also believe( could be wrong since i couldn't find the reference) that I heard the biologist state that long range rifle hunting is having an impact there.

I will say utah going back to a 1x muzzleloader scope will change how I've hunted that season in the past but it won't likely change the outcome.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Let’s start a thread about that (where do you suggest?) so we leave Thomas’s thread to get back on track- apologies @THLR.

 

[SDHNTR]

Why? Are rifle hunters less likely to report than archery or muzzleloader hunters? A lot of statistics is getting some subsample of a population and then extrapolating that to make general conclusions about that population. Do you have reason to believe the subsample of people who are reporting has bias in it? And if so, what kind of bias?

It's up to people saying there's an effect to prove it. Not the other way around.

It has nothing to do with weapon preference. Universal reporting is needed because those extrapolations matter. Or the extrapolations need to be narrowed down too. I’ve hunted a couple very limited draw units with few, just a handful of tags. I’ve literally met each and everyone of those hunters in those units, and knew whether they were successful or not. Yet with the reporting of the harvest after the season, the numbers are wildly different than what I personally witnessed. Yes, that is anecdotal, but I only mention it to indicate that whatever extrapolation is used in the absence of universal reporting requirements is often times dramatically inaccurate.

As to your last point, time will tell. I think the tide of opinion is beginning to turn away from the long range hunting crowd. Largely due to greater exposure and some PR black eyes. You are right about the burden of proof, and I suspect that will be forthcoming in due time. This stuff is all still rather new. Let’s revisit this conversation in 10 years. Without some limitations in the form of equipment regulations, or some self-imposed limitations , I think we will soon see a verifiable impact, viewable with data. It just hasn’t happened, or isn’t easily accessible yet.

 

[SDHNTR]

Yes I apologize too @THLR. Let’s get this back on topic.

FWIW, I thought the video was great info.

 

[DangerRanger]

To their credit, the trijicon scopes with that feature are not designed to be dialed for individual shots, they are “set it and forget it” scopes with a mil reticle and CAPPED turrets. They apparently thought offering a mil reticle that could be used for quick holders was worthwhile (Id agree on a low-power scope like that) but perhaps not so lucrative as to manufacture a separate internal erector system for that scope with mil adjustments. While I might prefer mil/mil, if Im adjusting at the range it really doesnt matter. compromise solution Im sure that Im willing to bet financially allowed them to make that scope at all.
Totally different ballgame for a scope designed to dial individual shots.

fwiw my credo has an exposed turret with a zero stop and a SFP mrad reticle with 1/4 mil holds.

So it did come off as confusing to me when OP kept saying I couldn’t do it with a SFP scope, I did however figure out what he meant pretty quickly and understand the point of why OP avoids this combo as I’ve seen exactly what they describe of being on the wrong power and holding happen.

A dialing SFP scope with a mrad reticle is probably a bit of an odd duck, but for forever it was hard to find a reliable scope I could see in the reticle in woods at low power and dial for further shots


Nice video op