HighUintas
WKR
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2020
- Messages
- 2,731
They said the difference in success in removing scopes is 3 or 4% across the state? So we are talking a few less bucks harvested in each unit but increase the margin of error by going back to open sights.
Why does tech need to be restricted? Honest question here as the historical data of success rates hasn't increased that greatly. So what is the basis for recommending the change?
What are we willing to give up to have success plummet and tag numbers to drastically increase? If we make said changes is the way we ethically harvest animals impacted? For an example we could use spears and have tons of more tags. When the average hunter took to the field and just hit animals wherever they could: the image of hunting for the public at-large would not agree that is ethical choice.
I agree those that want to hunt will adapt. No matter the restrictions technology will push the boundaries into the gray areas to give people an advantage over others. Simply because that is where the money is.
I don't really trust the numbers they give (,3-4%) difference. It's not that I think they're deliberately falsifying numbers or skewing data... I just don't think it's accurate. I also do not care that much what the board states their reasons for these proposals are.
My position is simply that tech should be limited in hunting because it does impact success rate. We can't endlessly add more animals to the land to satisfy the public's desire for opportunity.
It would not be any more unethical to require hunters to use a trade bow or open sight rifle. The same idiots would be taking shots they shouldn't be and the same well practiced people would still be making clean kills... But the distance would be shorter. It's not any harder to make a kill shot on an animal with open sights when you adjust the distance appropriately.