Sacrificing weapon quality for buck/herd quality and opportunity

[SDHNTR]

I agree with this 100 percent, I want the opportunity! Rifle, muzzy, compound or recurve I just want the opportunity to stay here.

Absolutely!

 

[CMF]

Yeah limiting archery success is the harder weapon to address. Archery success and participation from 2000 to know is up considerably. Maybe limit it to 1 pin / no slider.

I'm saying its already so limiting, adding regulations to archery sights is just creating unnecessary regulation... Don't mess with it

 

[S.Clancy]

I'm saying its already so limiting, adding regulations to archery sights is just creating unnecessary regulation... Don't mess with it

Exactly, just make archery traditional only. Done deal

 

[SDHNTR]

Exactly, just make archery traditional only. Done deal

How is this even in the same conversation as limiting rifles capable of killing big game at 1000 yards?

An 80 yard weapon like a modern compound bow doesn’t need more limitations.

Again, the need for common sense abounds.

 

[JFK]

It’s nonsense to suggest that rifles that can effectively hit things at 3x the distance they used to havent changed anything with regard to efficacy and success. How could that be possible?

I use one, and don’t feel bad about it. But if a game agency recognized there was an issue and made some changes to address it I don’t think I’d judge them that harshly.

It would hurt opportunity….a lot. Some people would go out and buy a bow or a muzzleloader. Probably quite a few wouldn’t. and they’d stop hunting or go elsewhere. Some of the ones that did adopt primitive gear would learn it’s much harder, not get a deer for multiple seasons and then quit. I’ve hunted in areas that have both rifle and primitive sections and the primitive sections are universally less crowded on every day of season.

 

[S.Clancy]

How is this even in the same conversation as limiting rifles capable of killing big game at 1000 yards?

An 80 yard weapon like a modern compound bow doesn’t need more limitations.

Again, the need for common sense abounds.

I'm saying do both.

 

[NickyD]

I’d like to see a variety of management styles. Some units could be primitive weapons only and others using modern rifles. Majority of people are content with shooting younger bucks and it’s important to allow them to do that. The barrier to entry would also be too high for most people if they weren’t allowed to use a scoped rifle.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I’d like to see a variety of management styles. Some units could be primitive weapons only and others using modern rifles. Majority of people are content with shooting younger bucks and it’s important to allow them to do that. The barrier to entry would also be too high for most people if they weren’t allowed to use a scoped rifle.

Gramps killed plenty of bucks with an iron sight 30-30 in the northern AZ desert mountains… I think we could do the same today

 

[Buglebrush]

I'm against any reduction in hunting opportunities unless it's preceded by increased opportunities and incentives to limit predator numbers. Almost every time we lose an opportunity, it's gone for good. Why is our only reaction always to reduce hunter harvest? How about requiring non residents to buy a predator tag, and put a bounty on Coyotes, bears, wolves, and cats? Make the bounty pool come from a fee attached to hunting licenses. Do those kind of things, and I'm more willing to give up my opportunity for the sake of the herd. Not interested in giving up just so the predators have enough to eat.

 

[Buglebrush]

The biggest issue with Hunter harvest is the increased number of hunters. Idaho is growing so fast, and most people moving in hunt. When I started archery hunting Northern Idaho in the 90's almost nobody did it. We were bugling with vacuum hoses. Now there's people everywhere, but still way less than rifle season. Everyone complains about the non residents, but those tag numbers haven't changed for a very long time. Eventually the entire West will be draw only. That day is coming sooner if we don't kill more predators.

 

[SDHNTR]

I’d like to see a variety of management styles. Some units could be primitive weapons only and others using modern rifles. Majority of people are content with shooting younger bucks and it’s important to allow them to do that. The barrier to entry would also be too high for most people if they weren’t allowed to use a scoped rifle.

Perhaps you’re right to a degree, but I also think we need a weeding out of all but the truly dedicated. The west is too crowded.

 

[go_deep]

How about this hypothetical.
If 1,000 rifle hunt the area today for say 15 days October 1-15th do open sight, no scope, pistol, muzzleloader, or center-fire season from October 1-10, then do a limited quota license draw for October 11-15th for 200 licenses, any weapon.

I don't know what the answer is in Wyoming, but some small changes to at least try and make it better have to be tried.

 

[Ringbill27]

So here in Minnesota the deer seasons go like this
Archery = mid sept-Jan 1st
Rifle/shotgun = first 2 weeks of November
Muzzleloader = thanksgiving weekend through second weekend of December.

I’ve grown to really like the muzzleloader season especially since they allowed the use of scopes. In fact the only deer I’ve shoot in the last 3 years were in a special state park muzzleloader hunt. Also prefer the muzzleloader season to fall after the rifle season because very few hunters take part in it and the deer tend to be back to their unpressured self’s again.

So if this primitive hunt is its own season that does affect the other seasons I’d be game for it.

Will it affect the deer herd? Since the muzzleloader season accounts for 5%ish of the total Harvest each year in MN. Id say it won’t have much effect.

This may not be an apples to apples comparison as I’m talking a Midwest state vs a western state and probably whitetail vs mule deer.

If “Primitive” require flintlocks and balls only I’m out! 209s, sabots and scopes for me.

 

[Weldor]

With some state committees proposing open sight centerfire rifles, and then also banning scopes higher than 1x on muzzleloaders and then other state committees proposing to change general rifle season to a general muzzleloader season, stating that it will help the Buck quality and the herd quality, who is willing to set down there rifle and pick up a more “primitive weapon” to hunt deer and potentially bigger bucks more often.

State agencies are trying to do what they can to keep hunter opportunity high while reducing the amount of bucks killed. I believe that by making hunters use more primitive weapons they can achieve both of those objectives. I do think that there should be general rifle tags but I also think that something should change, and tag cuts are not the way to go. Tag cuts have been tried over and over and all they do is take away opportunity from us.

I have hunted deer with all three, archery, muzzleloader and rifle and I love to hunt with all of them. I’m curious what everyone else thinks!

AZ used to ML hunts in Dec. We killed every year as the rut is going. They quit those hunts after over harvest for years, Just like the otc achery hunts went to quota, over harvest. Don't see any science in it, just money. My 2 cents. There has to be better ways to manage herds other than making income for the game depts.

 

[cbeard64]

I really don’t get some of the debate here because it defies both facts and common sense.

Harvest studies have shown for decades that as you move down from rifle to muzzleloader to bow that success rates drop correspondingly. It’s easier to kill animals with a scoped rifle than with a muzzleloader and it’s easier to kill animals with a muzzleloader than with a bow. That’s just an unarguable fact. To put it bluntly, less animals are taken when the success rate is 15% than when it is 50%.

So moving down the scale allows more animals to survive and thus allows for more tags and more opportunity.

One can argue about whether you want that or not, but you can’t argue the cause/effect.

As for wounding, (even if wound rates were the same with all weapons) the overall number of animals wounded is less because the opportunities are fewer. As someone with common sense pointed out above, a lot more folks can get within 700 yards of an animal than can get within 200 yards or 60 yards.

 

[270Hunter]

AZ used to ML hunts in Dec. We killed every year as the rut is going. They quit those hunts after over harvest for years, Just like the otc achery hunts went to quota, over harvest. Don't see any science in it, just money. My 2 cents. There has to be better ways to manage herds other than making income for the game depts.

The proposed muzzleloader hunts would take place in mid October, in the proposal analysis they are predicting that harvest will drop, not increase.

However I disagree that all State game agencies are just in it for the money. I truly believe that there are a lot of good people in the game departments who are trying their hardest to improve our herds and hunter opportunity.

 

[robby denning]

The proposed muzzleloader hunts would take place in mid October, in the proposal analysis they are predicting that harvest will drop, not increase.

However I disagree that all State game agencies are just in it for the money. I truly believe that there are a lot of good people in the game departments who are trying their hardest to improve our herds and hunter opportunity.

Jeff Short biologist currently with Wy G&F has worked for 3 different state F&G agencies over two decades and said on the Rokcast that not once ever has he been pressured to set a season/create opportunity over finanicial gain. It was laughable to him that I even brought it up.

 

[Hnthrdr]

AZ used to ML hunts in Dec. We killed every year as the rut is going. They quit those hunts after over harvest for years, Just like the otc achery hunts went to quota, over harvest. Don't see any science in it, just money. My 2 cents. There has to be better ways to manage herds other than making income for the game depts.

Completely agree. Game departments should be able to self fund but should not be seen as piggy banks for the state to raid. They should run a balanced budget just like all gov should run… IMO… but the herd health and habitat health should come first, if you have massive surplus that money should be punching in guzzlers, dealing with invasive weeds, bettering habitat or opening up more areas for recreation.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Jeff Short biologist currently with Wy G&F has worked for 3 different state F&G agencies over two decades and said on the Rokcast that not once ever has he been pressured to set a season/create opportunity over finanicial gain. It was laughable to him that I even brought it up.

Did he ever work for CPW? Seems like Colorado cares about dollars over everything
Edit: woofs then dollars…

 

[long hunter]

Jeff Short biologist currently with Wy G&F has worked for 3 different state F&G agencies over two decades and said on the Rokcast that not once ever has he been pressured to set a season/create opportunity over finanicial gain. It was laughable to him that I even brought it up.

Perhaps but then never seen a representative of any state agency that would admit to a situation such as this. Just the issue where you stated it was laughable shows the nervousness of the situation and perhaps the chuckle as a gut reaction to a un-comfortable question. Everything a state can regulate with a attached fee is game now of days.