Technology & efficacy = lost opportunity?

[wesfromky]

If you are not using an atlatl, are you really even hunting?

 

[KurtR]

I think banning good clothes would save more deers. Wranglers and cotton flannel is all the real hunters of the world wear.

Sorrel pack boots should be the only boots allowed to many people walking to far with these new fangled boots of today

 

[xcskier_hunter]

The average hunter is not represented on this forum and that is an important thing to remember in threads like this. The average hunter, while wanting to kill a big buck, really just wants to get "their buck" so they can tell everyone about it. They dont care about much else. They want to be successful. This will lead them to accept every and any advantage they can get. So, when you get surveys like the one UT is doing now that asks about reverting to primitive weapons and shortened seasons the vast majority will say they want all the tech and longer seasons/more opportunity they can get. And its the departments job to listen. Its unfortnate.

I agree. The sad thing is that I believe these people are going against their own self-interest even if they don't realize it. Sort of like how in many eastern/midwestern states that implemented antler point restrictions initially faced huge opposition but suddenly in a few years everyone loved antler point restrictions when the quality deer had increased.

The other problem is that when hunters seeking "quality" opportunities can no longer find it on public land, the incentive is much greater for those that can afford it to lease/buy hunting land to keep others out is increased. The losers in this scenario are the casual hunters that are more inclined to make hunting easier and those serious hunters that can't afford to lease/buy land or buy LO tags.

Ultimately, it's everyone's right to advocate for what they want. I don't believe my views are necessarily "correct" although I do tend to believe that not limiting technology will hurt hunter participation and satisfaction long term.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Would you list what technology you use, I need to make sure I’ve got the correct amount. I definitely don’t want to do a disservice or take undo advantage to any animals I hunt.

I'm glad you asked. I'll present a list of my ethical opinions based on which weapon I use. It's important to remember that I am the moral arbiter of what is ethical in hunting and that it's just a massive coincidence that whichever weapon/technology I use is the most ethical choice. Technology would make this list too long but it's a good guide for weapon choice.

Traditional archery:

• People who use compound bows are overly reliant on technology and are missing the spirit of archery passed down from the native americans
• People who use firearms don't have the connection with the animals I have because the physicality of the shot process is missing from their hunting and they don't have to get close to them

Compound bow:

• People who use traditional recurves are playing with fire when it comes to wounding animals and my use of a compound is because I care more about the animals than they do.
• People who use firearms don't have the connection with the animals I have because the physicality of the shot process is missing from their hunting and they don't have to get as close as I do

Traditional muzzleloader:

• I am carrying on a tradition of hunting passed down by people like Daniel Boone. It gives me more of a connection to American history than people using newfangled technology like centerfire rifles. They have lost one of the fundamental spiritual aspects of what hunting should be about in this country.

Normal centerfire rifle:

• People who do archery have to deal with the flight time of the arrow, animals jumping the string, less forgiving range estimation, worst terminal performance of arrows vs bullets, and other variables that increase the chance of them wounding an animal. My choice of weapon is more humane to the animal.
• Same goes for muzzleloaders. They're not as accurate so, again, I am morally superior to them.
• People who do long range hunting (AKA any hunting past the longest distance I've killed an animal at) are doing more shooting than hunting. I am morally superior to them because I haven't lost that spiritual aspect of the hunt where I pit my stealth against the animal's senses. And they're not considering the variables they are introducing that could result in wounded or unrecovered animals.
• Ballistic rangefinders make rifle hunting too effective. I miss the days when people would just guesstimate where to shoot at an animal 500 yards away and lob a hail mary shot hoping it would connect. I do mental gymnastics as to why this is more ethical and would rather you didn't bring up the fact that a lot of my opinions on technology (if implemented) would result in more wounded animals.
  • Side point: I think discussions of habitat loss and environmental factors are just too boring to get into. I saw a Youtube video of someone killing an elk at 800 yards and, since that could actually hold my attention, it is now my focal point as to why certain game populations aren't doing well.

Long range centerfire:

• That guy's using a 300WM? It's nice that he's keeping the 1980s alive. I can't relate though since I wasn't born yet.
  • Bet he hasn't even read the .223 for elk thread on Rokslide. What a fudd.
• Using "more gun" than I do is unnecessary and increases chances of wounding animals due to bad form and flinching.

 

[SDHNTR]

I like to turret twist as much as the next guy, but I think if we’re genuinely honest with ourselves, the LR hunting trend has done far more harm than good. If for no other reason than the Gunwerks marketing mentality that equipment makes the marksman. Way too many bros hitting the field attempting to compensate for lack of skill with fancy tactical equipment.

 

[Rich M]

Not to mention we also have less days to hunt.

This is what they are doing down here in FL. We had a couple areas with 9 day seasons and this year they cut em to 3 3-day seasons. Some guys were taking some nice for FL bucks and some guys got whining & complaining so they changed it to allow more folks opportunity and to make it harder to kill the bucks.

Most of our quota hunt seasons down here are 3 days for ML & rifle, 5 days for archery. When asked, they say you are getting an opportunity - we don't care if you kill anything.

Part of why many FL hunters head north to GA to hunt WT deer.

 

[Macintosh]

Harvest rates are bunk unless there’s mandatory reporting, and many states don’t have that.

Well that may be true—Ive never hunted in a state that didnt have mandatory reporting of some sort, so it is easy in lots of places. But its a good point elsewhere for sure.

So the question remains…who is in support of mandatory reporting as a data tool to make sure that efficacy is balanced with opportunity?

 

[BFR]

I'm glad you asked. I'll present a list of my ethical opinions based on which weapon I use.

Traditional archery:

• People who use compound bows are overly reliant on technology and are missing the spirit of archery passed down from the native americans
• People who use firearms don't have the connection with the animals I have because the physicality of the shot process is missing from their hunting and they don't have to get close to them

Compound bow:

• People who use traditional recurves are playing with fire when it comes to wounding animals and my use of a compound is because I care more about the animals than they do.
• People who use firearms don't have the connection with the animals I have because the physicality of the shot process is missing from their hunting and they don't have to get as close as I do

Traditional muzzleloader:

• I am carrying on a tradition of hunting passed down by people like Daniel Boone. It gives me more of a connection to American history than people using newfangled technology like centerfire rifles. They have lost one of the fundamental spiritual aspects of what hunting should be about in this country.

Normal centerfire rifle:

• People who do archery have to deal with the flight time of the arrow, animals jumping the string, less forgiving range estimation, worst terminal performance of arrows vs bullets, and other variables that increase the chance of them wounding an animal. My choice of weapon is more humane to the animal.
• Same goes for muzzleloaders. They're not as accurate so, again, I am morally superior to them.
• People who do long range hunting (AKA any hunting past the longest distance I've killed an animal at) are doing more shooting than hunting. I am morally superior to them because I haven't lost that spiritual aspect of the hunt where I pit my stealth against the animal's senses. And they're not considering the variables they are introducing that could result in wounded or unrecovered animals.

I’m going to highlight my response here.

You use a compound bow, therefore are overly reliant on technology, your words. Archery hunters have to deal with variables, don’t you when you use your compound bow?

Since you follow Daniel Boone you must use a flintlock rifle and cast your own bullets right? Can you also gather your own chemicals and make your own powder? Just curious.

You don’t say how far away you killed an animal so I don’t know what is considered “long range” hunting.
Personally I’ve killed game from 10 yds to 600yds with a rifle and not lost one, most never went beyond 20 yds. With archery it’s 3yds to 60 yds, I commonly practiced to 80yds and still was in a 10” plate.
Guess I’ll just admit that you are MORALLY SUPERIOR and go my merry way.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I’m going to highlight my response here.

You use a compound bow, therefore are overly reliant on technology, your words. Archery hunters have to deal with variables, don’t you when you use your compound bow?

Since you follow Daniel Boone you must use a flintlock rifle and cast your own bullets right? Can you also gather your own chemicals and make your own powder? Just curious.

You don’t say how far away you killed an animal so I don’t know what is considered “long range” hunting.
Personally I’ve killed game from 10 yds to 600yds with a rifle and not lost one, most never went beyond 20 yds. With archery it’s 3yds to 60 yds, I commonly practiced to 80yds and still was in a 10” plate.
Guess I’ll just admit that you are MORALLY SUPERIOR and go my merry way.

Sarcasm, man. I have edited the post anyway to better reflect it though.

 

[BFR]

Sarcasm, man. I have edited the post anyway to better reflect it though.

Just messing with you, us OGs,(I’m 77 now) have to get our fun when we can. I had to give up archery and my 30-06 when my shoulder gave out, now it’s a 6.5CM Bergara or my Stag 10. I can’t run all over the mountains either, getting old is rough sometimes.

 

[idelkslayer]

I put this up a month ago after I found a graph made by Idaho Fish and Game.

Success rate by weapon choice as a function of advancing technology

I came across this graph while reading through some Idaho elk management information. The effects of advancing technology on harvest success has been debated in the past but this is the first time I've seen a graph that illustrates how this has changed over time. I did some quick looking at...

rokslide.com

Surprisingly, rifle success rates have not changed much in 40 years despite an increase in rifle technology. I was surprised. It seems that most rifle hunters aren't using the newly available technology. Or they are just bad at it.

Archery success has gone up significantly. I do think technology plays a role there. Many small improvements have made bows easier to tune and shoot accurately, range finders and sights have come a long way too.

I picked an Idaho OTC archery unit that has limited entry rifle tags to do a comparison. I got data going from 2000-2023.

In 2000 - 2007
Archery participation was climbing (from 1,255 to over 2,000) and success rates were in the mid teens.
Rifle tags were numbered at ~600, it fluctuated a little.

In 2008
Rifle tags were cut by 30% and the season is shortened from 14 days to 9 days. No change to archery seasons.

In 2009
Archery tags are capped at ~1800. It had exceeded that number for 6 years, as high as 2,350.
Rifle tags are cut another 20%.

In 2014
Archery success is now in the low 20s. No changes to season structure.
Rifle tags are still 50% less than in 2000. The season is still only 9 days.

In 2015-2023
Archery success is between 22-25%. No changes to archery seasons.

In 2019
Rifle tags are increased from 300 to 400. Season is still 9 days.

Rifle average success rate from 2001-2011 was 39%, Average success from 2013 to 2023 was 46%. Rifle success improved by 12.8%. Rifle harvest from 2001-2011 averaged 180 and from 2013 to 2023 was 150.

Average archery success in 2001-2011 was 16% and from 2013-2023 was 21.7%. Archery success improved by 35%. Archery harvest in 2001-2011 averaged 313 and from 2013-2023 was 394. Hunters days stayed the same.

Even though archery hunters success rates went up and harvest numbers went up, it was the rifle seasons that saw loss of opportunity both in tag numbers and season length. Even after capping the archery tags, archery total harvest was higher than before.

It seems to me that the increase in archery success, negatively impacted rifle opportunity. I imagine that Idaho Fish and Game choose to keep more hunters in the field by continuing to allow more archery opportunity at the expense of the rifle season. It does illustrate that if we are only looking at archery seasons to find how technology and increased success had an affect we might miss how it is impacting other opportunities in the same unit. In this case, increased archery harvest did not reduce archery opportunity, it decreased rifle opportunity.

 

[TaperPin]

I heard of a Utah guide who has a herd of sagebrush elk, along with other open area critters. He has a heavy 300 mag well set up for 1000 yard shots and if the client wants he’ll pack it along, get the bipod and rear bag set, range the animal, dial the scope, and all the client has to do is squeeze the trigger - no need for maps, common sense, or equipment of any kind. Lol

 

[MuleyFever]

Surprisingly, rifle success rates have not changed much in 40 years despite an increase in rifle technology. I was surprised. It seems that most rifle hunters aren't using the newly available technology. Or they are just bad at it.

Rifle average success rate from 2001-2011 was 39%, Average success from 2013 to 2023 was 46%. Rifle success improved by 12.8%. Rifle harvest from 2001-2011 averaged 180 and from 2013 to 2023 was 150.

I think that this shows that it is very possible that the increases in tech has had a substantial effect on rifle success. You list a 12.8% improvement, which by itself is significant. However, the really interesting part is that it was achieved with a 35.7% shorter season. Of course there are many more factors involved but an increase in success with a huge reduction in season length says people are getting better at killing animals.

 

[idelkslayer]

I think that this shows that it is very possible that the increases in tech has had a substantial effect on rifle success. You list a 12.8% improvement, which by itself is significant. However, the really interesting part is that it was achieved with a 35.7% shorter season. Of course there are many more factors involved but an increase in success with a huge reduction in season length says people are getting better at killing animals.

That is a great point. And I agree that 12.8% is significant. There are 200 fewer rifle tags now than there were 20 years ago and it might have something to do with that.

I went back and spot checked average hunter days before and after the season was shortened. The average number of hunter days was pretty consistent 4.7 to 5 days per hunter regardless of season length. There were some outliers of 4.3 days per hunter and 5.4 days per hunter but I don't see a trend, it seems to go up and down. It may be attributable to weather conditions or other factors that made hunting easier or harder in any given year.

 

[TVW]

I put this up a month ago after I found a graph made by Idaho Fish and Game.

Success rate by weapon choice as a function of advancing technology

I came across this graph while reading through some Idaho elk management information. The effects of advancing technology on harvest success has been debated in the past but this is the first time I've seen a graph that illustrates how this has changed over time. I did some quick looking at...

rokslide.com

Surprisingly, rifle success rates have not changed much in 40 years despite an increase in rifle technology. I was surprised. It seems that most rifle hunters aren't using the newly available technology. Or they are just bad at it.

Archery success has gone up significantly. I do think technology plays a role there. Many small improvements have made bows easier to tune and shoot accurately, range finders and sights have come a long way too.

I picked an Idaho OTC archery unit that has limited entry rifle tags to do a comparison. I got data going from 2000-2023.

In 2000 - 2007
Archery participation was climbing (from 1,255 to over 2,000) and success rates were in the mid teens.
Rifle tags were numbered at ~600, it fluctuated a little.

In 2008
Rifle tags were cut by 30% and the season is shortened from 14 days to 9 days. No change to archery seasons.

In 2009
Archery tags are capped at ~1800. It had exceeded that number for 6 years, as high as 2,350.
Rifle tags are cut another 20%.

In 2014
Archery success is now in the low 20s. No changes to season structure.
Rifle tags are still 50% less than in 2000. The season is still only 9 days.

In 2015-2023
Archery success is between 22-25%. No changes to archery seasons.

In 2019
Rifle tags are increased from 300 to 400. Season is still 9 days.

Rifle average success rate from 2001-2011 was 39%, Average success from 2013 to 2023 was 46%. Rifle success improved by 12.8%. Rifle harvest from 2001-2011 averaged 180 and from 2013 to 2023 was 150.

Average archery success in 2001-2011 was 16% and from 2013-2023 was 21.7%. Archery success improved by 35%. Archery harvest in 2001-2011 averaged 313 and from 2013-2023 was 394. Hunters days stayed the same.

Even though archery hunters success rates went up and harvest numbers went up, it was the rifle seasons that saw loss of opportunity both in tag numbers and season length. Even after capping the archery tags, archery total harvest was higher than before.

It seems to me that the increase in archery success, negatively impacted rifle opportunity. I imagine that Idaho Fish and Game choose to keep more hunters in the field by continuing to allow more archery opportunity at the expense of the rifle season. It does illustrate that if we are only looking at archery seasons to find how technology and increased success had an affect we might miss how it is impacting other opportunities in the same unit. In this case, increased archery harvest did not reduce archery opportunity, it decreased rifle opportunity.

For the most part herd numbers have dropped pretty drastically in the last 40 years, yet success rates have stayed the same.

Kinda proves the point that technology increasing has increased success rates doesn't it?

 

[MuleyFever]

That is a great point. And I agree that 12.8% is significant. There are 200 fewer rifle tags now than there were 20 years ago and it might have something to do with that.

I went back and spot checked average hunter days before and after the season was shortened. The average number of hunter days was pretty consistent 4.7 to 5 days per hunter regardless of season length. There were some outliers of 4.3 days per hunter and 5.4 days per hunter but I don't see a trend, it seems to go up and down. It may be attributable to weather conditions or other factors that made hunting easier or harder in any given year.

Interesting. Lots of factors involved.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I put this up a month ago after I found a graph made by Idaho Fish and Game.

Success rate by weapon choice as a function of advancing technology

I came across this graph while reading through some Idaho elk management information. The effects of advancing technology on harvest success has been debated in the past but this is the first time I've seen a graph that illustrates how this has changed over time. I did some quick looking at...

rokslide.com

Surprisingly, rifle success rates have not changed much in 40 years despite an increase in rifle technology. I was surprised. It seems that most rifle hunters aren't using the newly available technology. Or they are just bad at it.

Archery success has gone up significantly. I do think technology plays a role there. Many small improvements have made bows easier to tune and shoot accurately, range finders and sights have come a long way too.

I picked an Idaho OTC archery unit that has limited entry rifle tags to do a comparison. I got data going from 2000-2023.

In 2000 - 2007
Archery participation was climbing (from 1,255 to over 2,000) and success rates were in the mid teens.
Rifle tags were numbered at ~600, it fluctuated a little.

In 2008
Rifle tags were cut by 30% and the season is shortened from 14 days to 9 days. No change to archery seasons.

In 2009
Archery tags are capped at ~1800. It had exceeded that number for 6 years, as high as 2,350.
Rifle tags are cut another 20%.

In 2014
Archery success is now in the low 20s. No changes to season structure.
Rifle tags are still 50% less than in 2000. The season is still only 9 days.

In 2015-2023
Archery success is between 22-25%. No changes to archery seasons.

In 2019
Rifle tags are increased from 300 to 400. Season is still 9 days.

Rifle average success rate from 2001-2011 was 39%, Average success from 2013 to 2023 was 46%. Rifle success improved by 12.8%. Rifle harvest from 2001-2011 averaged 180 and from 2013 to 2023 was 150.

Average archery success in 2001-2011 was 16% and from 2013-2023 was 21.7%. Archery success improved by 35%. Archery harvest in 2001-2011 averaged 313 and from 2013-2023 was 394. Hunters days stayed the same.

Even though archery hunters success rates went up and harvest numbers went up, it was the rifle seasons that saw loss of opportunity both in tag numbers and season length. Even after capping the archery tags, archery total harvest was higher than before.

It seems to me that the increase in archery success, negatively impacted rifle opportunity. I imagine that Idaho Fish and Game choose to keep more hunters in the field by continuing to allow more archery opportunity at the expense of the rifle season. It does illustrate that if we are only looking at archery seasons to find how technology and increased success had an affect we might miss how it is impacting other opportunities in the same unit. In this case, increased archery harvest did not reduce archery opportunity, it decreased rifle opportunity.

You do realize all IDFG harvest stats are just made up anyway, right I spoke with a biologist a few years back who told me they get about 10% reporting on their “mandatory” hunter reporting so they take that info and extrapolate from there. “Mandatory” hunter reports where you have no penalty for not reporting or reporting incorrectly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TSAMP]

No scopes for rifles?

I'll still need to see the drop tests to decide which stock to go with.

 

[Robobiss]

I think the easy button in regards to regulation is to cut rifle and muzzleloader tags, and give more to Archery hunters that see much less success. In fact, I wish my state would do this.

That of course works until you have too many archery hunters and they’re actually making a dent In herd numbers and/or driving the animals all over Timbuktu. Then you have to start limiting archery hunters like Colorado is doing.

For example in my home state we have a lot of moose, 60-70k according to biologists, the most in the lower 48. But our hunt success rates are insanely high, so drawing a moose tag is almost an act of congress. I have been applying since I was 10 with a 4 year hiatus when I joined the military so I lost my bonus points (dumbass).

That said, I’m 29 now. I have 15 years total applying and have never drawn a tag as a resident. My dad has drawn two of them since the 80’s. The last one he drew was when I was in 1st grade in 2000. I get to *go* every couple of years because someone I know draws and I can go be their bitch, but that aside in 15 years as a resident my name hasn’t been drawn,

The state gives out so few tags and there’s so little opportunity to get to hunt them because the success rates for most zones is somewhere between 80% and 90%. Why is the success rate so high? If you draw a tag you can shoot them from the road (dirt roads) with ANY legal hunting weapon you want. Not to mention, these “anything goes” moose seasons (all of ours are “anything goes”) are during the rut.

If you’ve never been moose hunting, spanking a bull that’s tending a couple cows in a chopping with a 30-06 from a logging road during the rut is not a difficult task considering they’re the dumbest animal in the woods.

Sure, people do bowhunt. But if average joe is waiting 10, 15, 20 years to draw a tag are they screwing around trying to put an arrow in one? Are they letting the stupid, gangly young bulls walk halfway through the week? The answer 9/10 times is no to both questions. They are almost always taking the absolute easiest option (rifle) and they aren’t letting anything walk.

If my state would take the number of “general” tags for the year, say it is 5k for sake of example. Cut that in half, knock it down to only 2500 “general” tags. THEN, give out say, 5,000 archery tags to start to get a feel for the archery (crossbows excluded) success rate we would be much better off. The state would make more money by selling more tags and there would be a 50% increase in hunter opportunity. They could then reduce the “general” rifle tags further if necessary to again increase opportunity.

They could even move all of the “general” tags to the end of the season so that it’s archery only during the rut line much of the west is with elk (for the most part).

The hardcore guys that are up in the willywacks for two weeks before the season starts to scout and find bulls and that can actually call them will still probably fill a tag every year that they have one with archery equipment. The clowns that pour out of the cities and head for the Golden Road with a rifle, half a box of core-locts, and a cooler full of beer can keep waiting their 15-20 years for a “general” tag, or they can try their luck (likely unsuccessful) with a bow.

 

[idelkslayer]

For the most part herd numbers have dropped pretty drastically in the last 40 years, yet success rates have stayed the same.

Kinda proves the point that technology increasing has increased success rates doesn't it?

Overall elk numbers have grown in Idaho.