Technology & efficacy = lost opportunity?

[idelkslayer]

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

Until we have better information, I will use what we have available. Anything else is just anecdotal.

I would love to see an incentive program to increase the rate of return on mandatory reports. Or, a penalty, whichever would get the most response.

 

[KurtR]

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?

Wolves wouldn't have anything to do with that ??

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Until we have better information, I will use what we have available. Anything else is just anecdotal.

I would love to see an incentive program to increase the rate of return on mandatory reports. Or, a penalty, whichever would get the most response.

I’ve been around long enough to remember when you couldn’t buy a tag if you didn’t submit your reports. That was obviously too oppressive so our legislature made sure that wasn’t allowed anymore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TVW]

Wolves wouldn't have anything to do with that ??

I didn't say anything about Wolves or what it was that was affecting herd numbers.

Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion?

 

[KurtR]

I didn't say anything about Wolves or what it was that was affecting herd numbers.

Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion?

You cant make a statement about herd numbers trying to blame it all on the tech and not be honest that there are way more factors than guys being able to shoot longer range. Its cherry picking to try and make your argument

 

[CorbLand]

You cant make a statement about herd numbers trying to blame it all on the tech and not be honest that there are way more factors than guys being able to shoot longer range. Its cherry picking to try and make your argument

I dont think he was saying that technology has allowed hunters to be more successful to the level that we are changing herd numbers.

I believe he was saying that even with less animals on the landscape, people are still maintaining the same success rate.

 

[idelkslayer]

I’ve been around long enough to remember when you couldn’t buy a tag if you didn’t submit your reports. That was obviously too oppressive so our legislature made sure that wasn’t allowed anymore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going to take this part of the conversation to a separate thread so I don't sidetrack the technology discussion.

Mandatory Harvest Reporting

Discussion on another thread brought up the accuracy of harvest statistics and mandatory reporting and how effective it is. I didn't want to hijack that thread any further so I'm continuing that topic here. Another poster commented that he had heard from a biologist that the response rate on...

rokslide.com

 

[Elkangle]

I think people have gotten substantially more lazy....look at the workforce available these days

You think people are shit bags 90% of the year then suddenly become heros in the mountains when things actually get hard ?

No

So while tech increases opportunities, our culture is decreasing opportunities..don't even get me started on attention spans and cellphones

Once the baby boomers age out (sorry fellas) the woods are gona be empty and all this "we gotta change !" Talk will be for nothing

food for thought, right or not

 

[TVW]

You cant make a statement about herd numbers trying to blame it all on the tech and not be honest that there are way more factors than guys being able to shoot longer range. Its cherry picking to try and make your argument

I apologize for your confusion, that is not the point I was trying to prove.

What I was saying is, herd numbers are dropping. Success rates are remaining relatively the same. Technology is the reason for that.

I hope that makes more sense.

 

[SDHNTR]

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?

That link shows elk. A specie with a generally increasing population. Hard to draw conclusions wrt equipment when there are simply more critters potentially skewing harvest numbers.

Is there a graph with mule deer? A stable or increasing harvest rate of them would be more telling, as populations have generally declined.

Additionally, in order to be meaningful data, it would need to be harvest success as a percentage of tag allotments. Changing tag numbers could skew the numbers as well.

I’m still of the mindset that it’s impossible advances in tech and long range capability haven’t increased hunter lethality. I can’t believe people argue otherwise. It’s common sense.

 

[SDHNTR]

I think people have gotten substantially more lazy....look at the workforce available these days

You think people are shit bags 90% of the year then suddenly become heros in the mountains when things actually get hard ?

No

So while tech increases opportunities, our culture is decreasing opportunities..don't even get me started on attention spans and cellphones

Once the baby boomers age out (sorry fellas) the woods are gona be empty and all this "we gotta change !" Talk will be for nothing

food for thought, right or not

I agree with the first half of your post, but the second part? Huh? I haven’t seen many boomers at all in my woods! All flat brimmers bruh! Huntin for the gram!

 

[CorbLand]

I think people have gotten substantially more lazy....look at the workforce available these days

You think people are shit bags 90% of the year then suddenly become heros in the mountains when things actually get hard ?

No

So while tech increases opportunities, our culture is decreasing opportunities..don't even get me started on attention spans and cellphones

Once the baby boomers age out (sorry fellas) the woods are gona be empty and all this "we gotta change !" Talk will be for nothing

food for thought, right or not

I see people say this all the time yet, Utah is seeing more and more applicants every year. So either Boomers that are still alive are starting to hunt more here or millennials and gen z are filling the gaps.

I don’t think we will see this massive decrease in hunter participation once boomers age out like everyone seems to think.

 

[RockAndSage]

I see people say this all the time yet, Utah is seeing more and more applicants every year. So either Boomers that are still alive are starting to hunt more here or millennials and gen z are filling the gaps.

I don’t think we will see this massive decrease in hunter participation once boomers age out like everyone seems to think.

Agree. Way, way too many millenial and gen z "influencers" taking some very big bucks and plastering the experiences across instagram and youtube.

That said, I think there will be differences between them and how Boomers hunt. Many of them are first-gen hunters, with grandparents or even great-grandparents being the last ones regularly hunting in their families and are essentially learning on their own. Even those whose parents hunt still won't be able to hunt annually as the norm, and that hinders it becoming the lifestyle and identity thing it is for older generations.

Probably a bunch will keep jumping into it all while elk hunting is still a Covid-era fad pushed by Meat Eater, Joe Rogan, etc, but their interests will move on to other things after they've done it a couple of times. This is speaking broadly. There are plenty who will be dedicated too. I just think their norms with it will be different.

 

[Elkangle]

I see people say this all the time yet, Utah is seeing more and more applicants every year. So either Boomers that are still alive are starting to hunt more here or millennials and gen z are filling the gaps.

I don’t think we will see this massive decrease in hunter participation once boomers age out like everyone seems to think.

Boomers all in retirement with more free time and money.. millennial in for the likes isn't a strong enough motive to keep at it, especially during financial down times... millennials will be way more subject to any economic down turns

 

[CorbLand]

Boomers all in retirement with more free time and money.. millennial in for the likes isn't a strong enough motive to keep at it, especially during financial down times... millennials will be way more subject to any economic down turns

Could be but there are still a lot of millennials and gen z that hunt and dont do it for likes or the gram.

Economic down turns have always decreased hunter participation and you will see a decrease as more millennials and gen z hit middle age and get busy with life and familys but overall, they are going to fill or exceed the gaps left by the boomers.

I will bet 100 bucks that, baring some massive change in demographics/population, there will be no net decrease of hunters over the next 40 years in the majority of the western states.

 

[Macintosh]

I'm going to take this part of the conversation to a separate thread so I don't sidetrack the technology discussion.

Mandatory Harvest Reporting

Discussion on another thread brought up the accuracy of harvest statistics and mandatory reporting and how effective it is. I didn't want to hijack that thread any further so I'm continuing that topic here. Another poster commented that he had heard from a biologist that the response rate on...

rokslide.com

It may be tangential, but its also a critical component of the conversation since it is the ONLY actual data we have to actually say if hunter efficacy has increased, decreased or stayed the same. Anything else is anecdotal. If people seriously want opportunity to be balanced with efficacy based on data, there is no way around making reporting mandatory and having some teeth to that.

 

[fatlander]

It’s already happening. Turkeys are down about 30% across their range. Efficacy of hunters is largely to blame. We’re too good at killing dominant gobblers thus interrupting the breeding ritual and leading to hens not getting bred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xcskier_hunter]

Another variable in the harvest success data that would probably be impossible to tease out is whether increased technology has distributed the harvest across a greater number of hunters even in places where total harvest has not changed a whole lot. I subscribe to the belief that 10% of the hunters kill 90% of the game, but I do wonder if increased technology changes this somewhat, and the losers in this scenario are generally the hunters who had the skills to get it done before new technology was implemented (i.e. a bowhunter that got it done every year before modern rangefinders). Even though most prefer not to view hunting as a competition with others, it ultimately is on accessible land with a finite resource. Thus, even if new technology marginally helps you as an experienced hunter, it may greatly help a less experienced or serious hunter competing with you for the same resource.

I think turkey hunting is another good example of this, where I see guys that have never had a problem filling a bunch of tags without modern decoys tend to support decoy/technology restrictions to protect turkeys and those that are more reliant on technology for any success prefer bag limit reductions to maintain their ability to consistently kill a bird or two.

The debate around FSS/Livescope in fishing is another interesting one to follow. I've seen people say that they like the technology and are fine with reduced bag limits on fish while others would rather limit technology to maintain current limits. Personally, I view reduced bag limits at a loss of "opportunity", but others may view technology limits as lost "opportunity".

It'd be interesting to see a survey on how most hunters define "opportunity", since I'd suspect every hunter would love more of it.

 

[Macintosh]

Thats a key question^^. for some people opportunity is a slim but viable chance at a monster. For many others opportunity is a long season for a lot of people with a decent chance of filling any tag. Both are valid. And to be honest I think we probably need both, not just one.

 

[idelkslayer]

I'm listening through Robby's conversation with Brandon Diamond (Colorado Biologist). Specifically the part when they discuss whether or not we need to start regulating technology in order to preserve "fair chase". Brandon comments that a major issue with maintaining not only fair chase but also trophy quality is the proliferation of roads in an area.

This aligns with Idaho's stated purpose for the motorized hunting rule. When the Motorized hunting rule (MHR) was first proposed and implemented it was explained that the proliferation of roads and the growing amount of atv use during hunting season was negatively impacting deer and elk population and quality. IDFG explained that if they didn't regulate ATVs as an implement used for hunting, that many units would eventually see a big enough impact to require removal from OTC seasons. They directly stated that ATVs would be the cause of some units becoming controlled hunts and they basically put it to sportsmen as a choice between, implementing and following the new MHR or changing to controlled hunts and limiting opportunity. That was clearest case of technology almost becoming lost opportunity that I can think of.

The MHR continues to be one of the most poorly understood and most often violated rules in Idaho but I view it as absolutely essential to maintaining general season opportunity is large portions of the state.

A similar situation is playing out in the northern parts of the state. IDFG has access agreements with several large private land holding timber companies that grant access to sportsmen for hunting. Every one of these agreements comes with an understanding that access is for non-motorized use. Several of the timber companies warned IDFG a few years ago that the agreement would be terminated if hunters continued to violate the non-motorized use rules. The loss of hunting access on those properties would be devastating to every law abiding hunter in the area and yet many poachers (and they are poachers not hunters if they hunt in violation of those rules) continue to drive ATVs around locked gates. Until 5 years ago, access to those properties was granted by the timber companies free of charge, then the damage to their roads and gate was to a point that they told IDFG they would close access unless they were compensated. IDFG is now paying them to keep it open, but how long until the companies say enough is enough?

Maybe it isn't technology that will cost us opportunity so much as stupidity will.