Technology & efficacy = lost opportunity?

[ozyclint]

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...

While employing any method and stealing others peoples BOALS

 

[Macintosh]

Historic harvest rates are largely available. Heard health info is also largely available, or available by request. So IS there a widespread quantifiable increase in success rates?

 

[KurtR]

Unless success rates have climbed then it really has no effect. More people hunting more influencers influencing has a way bigger effect than technology

 

[JohnJohnson]

Historic harvest rates are largely available. Heard health info is also largely available, or available by request. So IS there a widespread quantifiable increase in success rates?

No, but I don't have the attention span to watch Youtube videos on habitat loss and cheat grass so my hands are tied...

 

[MuleyFever]

Does there have to be an increase in success rates to prove that tech has increased the likelihood of harvest? If the act of finding and killing deer has gotten harder due to decreased populations or increased pressure or other factors that we have seen over the years then maybe success rates should have dropped. If they are staying the same couldn't that maintained success be reasonably attributed to increased use of technology and the better tools we have today?

 

[fngTony]

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

No scopes for rifles?

 

[MallardSX2]

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

^^^^ This 100%.

Utah tried to do this study and it got shot down because of the 4 zillion dinkshooters over there....

 

[Dave0317]

The data is probably harder to track than you might think. Some states have restructured archery season to include crossbows. Several southern states have a muzzleloader season and they have restructured those to be a “primitive rifle” which is really just a single shot rifle, and scopes are allowed. Not sure why that even exists.

But, I do believe I saw an article that talked about archery success going up even in states that don’t allow crossbows. Meaning the compound tech has definitely made a difference. Of course, the public is better educated on hunting techniques too, thanks to YouTube and various podcasts, so success rates could go up for that reason as well.

What I do know is, limiting tech is a good thing. The degree to which you do it is a complicated thing to determine.

Archers Are Killing More Deer Than Ever Before

Bowhunters are taking record numbers of deer across the whitetail’s range, with crossbows accelerating the long-term increases compound bows triggered a half-century ago. That surge is most obvious in Midwestern and Northeastern states, where archery seasons are typically longer and warmer, given...

www.themeateater.com

 

[tpicou]

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.

For real, though. These things are pests. Deer season is basically a cull at this point

 

[Ucsdryder]

No scopes for rifles?

Dove tails!

I’m not an expert on limiting rifles long range capabilities and there are guys out there that can shoot old school rifles a long way, but if 95% of people were limited to 100-200 yards that would suffice for me.

 

[tpicou]

Dove tails!

I’m not an expert on limiting rifles long range capabilities and there are guys out there that can shoot old school rifles a long way, but if 95% of people were limited to 100-200 yards that would suffice for me.

 

[taskswap]

You can't fight progress. Our grandparents used to hunt in a beat up pickup with broken/unused seat belts, carburetors, and nothing more than a plaid flannel shirt and maybe a pair of coveralls. (At least mine did.) I still own an '81 F-250 with a carb but it's not my hunt truck. I bring my 4WD RAM for that. I don't use a match-lock either even when I hunt muzzleloader.

One man's "enough" is the next man's starting point. It's human nature, you can't fight it.

 

[SDHNTR]

Historic harvest rates are largely available. Heard health info is also largely available, or available by request. So IS there a widespread quantifiable increase in success rates?

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

 

[xcskier_hunter]

I agree with limiting tech to preserve opportunity and QUALITY. Regarding technology, North American market hunters already proved that technology from over a century ago is sufficient to drive the species we hunt near the brink of extinction, and regulated hunting with some degree of a fair chase ethic allowed these populations to grow back to where they are now so that we may have the opportunity to sustainably hunt them.

One clear example of the effect of technology is that in states that have legalized crossbows in archery season, the percent of archery harvest by crossbows is over 70% in a number of states (Ohio and Vermont are a couple of the top of my head). However, not only can technology have an impact on raw harvest numbers, but I believe the more obvious effect in many places is reduced QUALITY, since, combining modern weapons with technology such as cell cams, far fewer bucks survive to reach their peak size, and bucks that do survive tend to be lower scoring deer that have been purposely passed. Thus, to even have "big" deer, the best "technology" is actually just exclusive access, since it's most important to protect bucks from the hunting tools we've already allowed if you want to kill them at their peak. A consequence of this exclusive access is that if those with exclusive access don't generally have the time to kill or desire to kill the required number of antlerless deer to keep the population where the biologists want it so the biologists increase tag numbers or allow more effective hunting methods, which mostly results in the deer in accessible places getting crushed.

Out west, I think the effect on quality is probably from modern rifles/bows and range finding technology combined with improvement in transportation/tech (modern trucks, E bikes, UTVs, GPS) making it extremely difficult for the top class animals to make it through the season unless access is limited through tag numbers or access. The reason that hunter success in many places is stagnant in many places is, IMO, more a factor of reduced herd sizes, since pretty much all huntable species besides elk (and perhaps black bears) have been declining, or hunter pressure pushing species like elk off of public land and onto private land sanctuaries. Hunters probably play some role in reduced herd sizes but much of this could probably also be explained by habitat loss and predation from non-human predators.

Ultimately, I think if hunting was "harder", the long term effect would be increased hunting quality and opportunity. The trap with new technology is that it often results in initial success, even though in the long term it is not actually a net positive as the resource is reduced. But it's hard to convince many people to take a long term view of things.

 

[def90]

A lot of states have bans on using this stuff for hunting already.

 

[CorbLand]

Does there have to be an increase in success rates to prove that tech has increased the likelihood of harvest? If the act of finding and killing deer has gotten harder due to decreased populations or increased pressure or other factors that we have seen over the years then maybe success rates should have dropped. If they are staying the same couldn't that maintained success be reasonably attributed to increased use of technology and the better tools we have today?

Not to mention we also have less days to hunt.

 

[MuleyFever]

Ultimately, I think if hunting was "harder", the long term effect would be increased hunting quality and opportunity. The trap with new technology is that it often results in initial success, even though in the long term it is not actually a net positive as the resource is reduced. But it's hard to convince many people to take a long term view of things.

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.

 

[Yoder]

I don't think you guys know what you're doing. Every episode of Yellowstone Wardens I've seen, you just drive around and shoot elk from the road. You don't need any of that stuff.

 

[Weldor]

Az did the quality over opportunity thing years back, they say opportunity won over quality. Most hunters I run into say it's overcrowded. Our season's are short, so everybody's running the hills to beat out the competition. They banned trail cams over some dumb stuff going on out there.

 

[BFR]

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.

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.