Technology & efficacy = lost opportunity?

[TVW]

Ok, hopefully this doesn't just turn into a disaster but here goes....

The thread about the new Rangefinder that will drop points on OnX where you range to got me thinking, when is enough enough?

When are we going to have so much technology that it makes our efficacy so high that we lose opportunity?

It already seems generally accepted that we have too many people hunting out West and the pressure is too high, but we also have a ton of new technology that is constantly evolving to make those hoards of people more effective.

Rangefinding bow sites.
Thermal, rangefinding binoculars.
$10,000 super guns that will shoot 2 miles.
Apps on your phone so you don't have to know how to read a map.
Apps on your phone so you don't have to know how to do the math to shoot your super gun.
etc. etc. etc.

Picture this...you use your new whiz bang thermal binos to glass up a Buck 3 miles away. Then you use your fancy dancy rangefinder to pin the spot they are and to pin the spot you need to get to so you can shoot the buck from 1,200yds with your $10,000 custom gun. You walk to that spot using absolutely no woodsmanship since the rangefinder and your OnX app did it for you. Then you use the app in your phone to calculate the shot specifics so you can dial in your space age technology scope to be able to hold right on the animal and pull the trigger. You lay down, shoot the buck from 1,200yds away and it drops in it's tracks. All of this happened without you ever having to get close enough to the deer for it to have any clue you even existed.

Is this hunting or is this shooting?

When is enough enough? When they invent heat seaking bullets that will shoot to the spot you pinned with your range finder, will folks use that too?

 

[CorbLand]

 

[JFK]

You aren’t wrong. Tag allocation is based on herd numbers (down across many states) and success rates. If success rate goes up due to technology, something has to give and it will be fewer tags. More than anything though, I think it leads to laziness. You are trying to kill a large animal. Some hard work and know how should be required. I use OnX. I user laser range finders. Not sure we need them combined. A lot of the new technology, whether it makes a material impact on success, gets used against us by anti’s to paint the picture that hunting is no longer “fair.”

 

[Dave0317]

I think this is part of why the trad community is growing so much right now. Guys want to make it more about skill and woodsmanship.

But that’s self-regulation. As far as the states stepping in, they won’t make a decision based on the same things that drives individuals to push themselves in that direction. They have management objectives to meet, budgets, political pressure, etc.

Limiting technology can definitely create more opportunity with the right management plan. I think you would see lots of pushback from the general public though.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I personally think that hunters who use more technology than me are taking the sportsmanship out of hunting and should re-evaluate their ethics. Also people who use less technology than me are doing the animals a disservice by increasing chances of wounding them. They too should re-evaluate their ethics.

 

[ElkArcher918]

Ok, hopefully this doesn't just turn into a disaster but here goes....

The thread about the new Rangefinder that will drop points on OnX where you range to got me thinking, when is enough enough?

When are we going to have so much technology that it makes our efficacy so high that we lose opportunity?

It already seems generally accepted that we have too many people hunting out West and the pressure is too high, but we also have a ton of new technology that is constantly evolving to make those hoards of people more effective.

Rangefinding bow sites.
Thermal, rangefinding binoculars.
$10,000 super guns that will shoot 2 miles.
Apps on your phone so you don't have to know how to read a map.
Apps on your phone so you don't have to know how to do the math to shoot your super gun.
etc. etc. etc.

Picture this...you use your new whiz bang thermal binos to glass up a Buck 3 miles away. Then you use your fancy dancy rangefinder to pin the spot they are and to pin the spot you need to get to so you can shoot the buck from 1,200yds with your $10,000 custom gun. You walk to that spot using absolutely no woodsmanship since the rangefinder and your OnX app did it for you. Then you use the app in your phone to calculate the shot specifics so you can dial in your space age technology scope to be able to hold right on the animal and pull the trigger. You lay down, shoot the buck from 1,200yds away and it drops in it's tracks. All of this happened without you ever having to get close enough to the deer for it to have any clue you even existed.

Is this hunting or is this shooting?

When is enough enough? When they invent heat seaking bullets that will shoot to the spot you pinned with your range finder, will folks use that too?

I think many of us have our "own" personal limits as to how much tech we accept/incorporate in our fair chase pursuits of wild animals. This can vary from person to person. It's up to each State F&G agencies to set reasonable guardrails to ensure there's enough game to chase. For examples, the BDX and Eliminator rifle scope systems are allowed in some states and not in others. Personally, I would not use them no matter what but have no problems others using them in States were allowed. We are seeing Western F&Gs starting to adjust regs/tag quotas in response to rapidly evolving tech. and growing hunter crowding.

Now after 15 years of waiting if I can just damn draw that coveted NR LE elk tag this year!

 

[Macintosh]

I see the point, and its valid if a data-driven case can be made that it is actually limiting opportunity. Im not sure it can though, at least today, can it? Is there actually less opportunity, or are there just more people competing for about the same number of tags?
But for now Im just over here on the Right coast where every state fish and wildlife agency is desperately trying to kill MORE deer.

 

[mtnrunner260]

Add in guiding the hunter shooter into range before light with radios and you get states like UT forming technology committees to address.
I dont know what the answer is and where the line gets drawn but unless we get perfect weather for the next decade there will be changes.

 

[dan33]

It would be an absolute nightmare to enforce but daniel boone nf has a traditional archery and sidelock muzzleloader only wma. I would sign up for that in a heartbeat. The tough part would be limiting technology if the state wants a true "traditional" unit (no GPS or rangefinders etc other than inreach, sat phone).

 

[S.Clancy]

Short answer, yes.

 

[MattB]

I have been reading about how technology will limit opportunity for 30 years now and see more evidence that it hasn’t than that it has.

 

[swavescatter]

I have been reading about how technology will limit opportunity for 30 years now and see more evidence that it hasn’t than that it has.

It absolutely has. Look at NM - they took scopes away from muzzleloaders because the data showed that those turned "primitive" hunts into single shot modern rifle hunts.

I'll use all the tech I find helpful that's legal. If a new technology disrupts too much the data will convey that and it will get banned.

I have a feeling open sight rifle hunts will replace one of the regular rifle hunt dates soon. I'm ok with that.

 

[MattB]

It absolutely has. Look at NM - they took scopes away from muzzleloaders because the data showed that those turned "primitive" hunts into single shot modem rifle hunts.

I'll use all the tech I find helpful that's legal. If a new technology disrupts too much the data will convey that and it will get banned.

I have a feeling open sight rifle hunts will replace one of the regular rifle hunt dates soon. I'm ok with that.

One state and one weapon type. On the flip side a number of states have liberalizes their archery equipment regs (e.g. allowing MBH’s, let-off or electronics) during the same timeframe, allowing more technology.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I’ve posted this before but I’d love to see a handful of units in Colorado that have resident herds that don’t migrate into or out of the unit go traditional. My prediction is that in 3-4 years the age class would be outstanding and they’d instantly become some of the most sought after tags in Colorado. I’d happily give up technology in a heartbeat if they went more primitive.

Archery - trad, no wheels, no sights
ML - flint, ball and patch
Rifle - open sights, straight wall cartridge

 

[swavescatter]

One state and one weapon type. On the flip side a number of states have liberalizes their archery equipment regs (e.g. allowing MBH’s, let-off or electronics) during the same timeframe, allowing more technology.

Not all states manage tag allocations based off harvest rates and herd populations as directly as NM. How long did CO cling to unlimited OTC elk?

This thread is about technology and its effect on fair chase. If a technology has a demonstrable effect on harvest rates (fair chase), then wildlife management agencies *should* respond with tag reductions or more limiting regs on tech.

NM specifically cited BH209 and Scopes as the reason harvest rates went too high. Instead of reducing tag allocations they banned the tech. Right move IMO.

 

[DB29]

When is enough enough? When they invent heat seaking bullets that will shoot to the spot you pinned with your range finder, will folks use that too?

Not heat seeking bullets but they invented that gun already…

'Self-aiming' rifle turns novices into expert snipers

A new computer-aiming system for rifles lets you "tag" a target with a laser pulse and works out the best moment to pull the trigger, making life easier for long-range killers

www.newscientist.com

 

[Crowmangler]

the technology stuff doesn't bother me near as bad as seeing "influencers" apply for 48 tags in 12 different states, then kill every animal they possibly can just to make sure they have more content. Just sayin...

 

[bluesulphur]

I've contemplated the same thoughts and I can't help but think that the technological advances already are affecting quotas and it will likely reduce overall opportunity as success rates increase. I don't think it's unreasonable that we could soon have access to satellite imagery that allows you to view animals in damn near real time. Picking out a dall sheep from recent imagery would be one example that is probably already a possibility.

 

[SDHNTR]

I had a game warden tell me directly that one of the reasons (among many) a once famous mule deer unit has declined so substantially is because of the increased efficacy of hunters and their gear capable of killing at greatly increased ranges. When a long shot used to be 300 yards and now that has at least doubled, of course it has had an impact. To think otherwise is delusional.

Now combine that with the tech of all the mobile and web based “easy buttons” and it’s really shortened the learning curve. Personally, I don’t think that’s a good thing.

MHHA. Make Hunting Hard Again. I need a hat.

 

[RockAndSage]

There's things balancing this out to some degree - I don't disagree that tech can make a hunt easier, but on balance hunts are also a lot harder just because of reduced opportunity and increased pressure.

In 1960 - right around the time "the good ol' days" seem to have starting coming to an end, with easy tags, much broader choices of where to hunt within a zones that were a lot larger, longer seasons...there were also fewer western big game hunters. The population of the US in 1960 was about 179 million. It's almost double that now, at around 335 million.

Why do I have to wait 5-7 years in Nevada to get muley tags, when even my dad used to be able to get them almost annually?

Because in 1960 there 290,000 people here. Now there are over 3 million.

With more non-residents applying to hunt than ever before.

And where do people in the mountain west live? In the places mule deer used to winter - what are now housing tracts in valleys and meadows at lower elevations. There are fewer mule deer now because their winter habitat especially is disappearing. And even the greenest wildlife biologist or game warden knows very well that winter kills are far, far worse on mule deer populations than hunters. In some places, even just the loss of a couple hundred feet in lower altitude access for a herd can keep them on the absolute edge of starvation, and all it takes is some jerk with an off-leash dog to run a buck or a doe to exhaustion and death up a snowy mountain to escape it - it's a very real thing.

So, more hunters, fewer deer, fewer places to hunt deer. Those deer that get hunted get smart - the difference between a 3yo muley and a 4 year old is almost that of an entirely different species, in how much more cagey the 4 yo is. From everything I understand, it wasn't like that in the 60s. They weren't necessarily dumb, but they've gotten a lot smarter as the pressure has increased.

I personally think this is also part of why you're seeing guys spending so many multiple thousands of dollars on their "western big game guns" - they may only get a couple of tags in a decade, and want to make the absolute best opportunities possible when they get them.

Tech may make the act of hunting easier, but loss of winter habitat is the primary driver of loss of opportunity across the west, followed by increasing numbers of hunters, often applying in far more states than their grandfathers would have ever even thought reasonable.