We need to start lobbying for point system reform

[Glockster26]

No scopes. Or max power restrictions.

Would a x9 scope stop you from taking a 500-700 yard shot? If you’re going to mandate taking the sighting device off of rifles, they better be coming off of muzzleloaders and bows. Bow season better be recurve only than as well.

 

[MattB]

Requiring every applicant to apply for a hunt or lose points is in my opinion, one of the worse things you can do in a draw system with points. All those people are currently sitting on the bench, invisible, and they're the majority. If you force them to apply, the upper tier units will have explosive creep with multiple point jumps, and they don't even want the tag. I'd rather see a few here n there vs more than doubling the size of the app pools.

Sad to say, but lots of people are so ignorant of math that they will gladly invite upon themselves a really terrible outcome.

 

[SDHNTR]

What equipment restrictions could you apply to rifle season?

I realize you are asking a loaded question. There is not a perfect solution. Just merely my opinion, but something like a 4x scope maximum and no exposed turrets or bdc reticles is where I’d start.

I know some will say nothing will stop guys from still slinging lead 800+ yards with a 4x scope but I’m of the belief that most hunters are ethical humans and would keep it reasonable.

Heck, imo even a 3x9 max would probably save some animals. It wasn’t that long ago when that’s about all we had. I know back in those days I wouldn’t even think of taking a 400+ yard shot. Now, I don’t even think twice about such a shot with the gear we have. That’s a chip shot. You can’t tell me that kind of advantage hasn’t punched more tags in recent years.

 

[IDVortex]

I mean, if we want weapon restrictions more then we have now, we might aswell call up Mom's agasint guns, Peta, aoc to help with the cause. Due to that'll be a door open that isn't going to be able to get shut again when hunters start dictating or limiting weapon choices.

 

[xcskier_hunter]

We’ve arrived at that point, we do need some sensible equipment restrictions, at least for rifle seasons.

I agree. I think another thing that should be strongly considered is, where feasible, closing\limiting motorized travel. Montana already does this on a lot of National Forest roads during rifle season so it's not without precedent. UTVs, dirt bikes, and E bikes do not improve draw odds. I'd even be happy to limit regular bikes and to just make people walk from designated parking areas. I'm not saying this needs to be done everywhere, but if the goal is to increase the supply of tags I believe this has to be part of the solution.

 

[SDHNTR]

I mean, if we want weapon restrictions more then we have now, we might aswell call up Mom's agasint guns, Peta, aoc to help with the cause. Due to that'll be a door open that isn't going to be able to get shut again when hunters start dictating or limiting weapon choices.

I disagree. We are losing already in the eyes of the non hunting public if we can’t police ourselves intelligently.

 

[IDVortex]

I disagree. We are losing already in the eyes of the non hunting public if we can’t police ourselves intelligently.

But I think going at it like this is going to open a door we don't want open. A door antis will use to their advantage.

 

[MuleyFever]

Would a x9 scope stop you from taking a 500-700 yard shot? If you’re going to mandate taking the sighting device off of rifles, they better be coming off of muzzleloaders and bows. Bow season better be recurve only than as well.

You asked. I answered. That's it. That's what restrictions you can add to rifles.

 

[SDHNTR]

Would a x9 scope stop you from taking a 500-700 yard shot? If you’re going to mandate taking the sighting device off of rifles, they better be coming off of muzzleloaders and bows. Bow season better be recurve only than as well.

ML’s yes, but not bows. Even a modern compound is still a short range weapon. Within reason (P&Y guidelines), bows are limited enough already.

 

[Glockster26]

If people want to buy points for 20 years and then go on one hunt, i’m all for it.

I realize you are asking a loaded question. There is not a perfect solution. Just merely my opinion, but something like a 4x scope maximum and no exposed turrets or bdc reticles is where I’d start.

I know some will say nothing will stop guys from still slinging lead 800+ yards with a 4x scope but I’m of the belief that most hunters are ethical humans and would keep it reasonable.

Heck, imo even a 3x9 max would probably save some animals. It wasn’t that long ago when that’s about all we had. I know back in those days I wouldn’t even think of taking a 400+ yard shot. Now, I don’t even think twice about such a shot with the gear we have. That’s a chip shot. You can’t tell me that kind of advantage hasn’t punched more tags in recent years.

Most peoples weapon systems are far more capable than they are.
As primarily a rifle hunter, I might be a bit jaded but the minute you start limiting my choices on scope. I’m gonna push everything that I can to make sure bows go to recurve only. Modern compound bows with dialable pin sights , capable of shooting out to 120 yards is not what I would think most would consider a primitive weapon. Muzzle loaders go to a traditional cap and ball. And while we’re at it a month long bow season in Colorado is absolute ridiculous.
Seems like a good way to get everybody to turn on each other

 

[Traveler]

I don’t get the argument that if you restrict rifle capability you HAVE to restrict archery to be fair. In CO in 2023 23,000 elk were killed during rifle seasons compared to 5,000 in archery. Rifle hunting is clearly a more lethal option which results in higher harvest numbers. If you are talking about lowering harvest rates and advantages, a 5 pin bow site isn’t even close to an external turret adjustment rifle scope.

 

[xcskier_hunter]

I mean, if we want weapon restrictions more then we have now, we might aswell call up Mom's agasint guns, Peta, aoc to help with the cause. Due to that'll be a door open that isn't going to be able to get shut again when hunters start dictating or limiting weapon choices.

I think PETA has a bigger issue with bowhunting than rifle hunting. And just because something is not allowed for hunting does not mean it's illegal to own or shoot recreationally. The logical conclusion of rifle hunting with no limitations is that rifle hunting becomes shooting, and the number of tags available will be equal to the number of animals the biologists want killed.

Conversely, by increasing difficulty, we can support more hunters and, consequently, will have more people to defend hunting, guns rights, etc. If hunting becomes a thing you get to do once every 5 or 10 years, a lot of people will just throw in the towel and no longer advocate for these things.

 

[Glockster26]

I don’t get the argument that if you restrict rifle capability you HAVE to restrict archery to be fair. In CO in 2023 23,000 elk were killed during rifle seasons compared to 5,000 in archery. Rifle hunting is clearly a more lethal option which results in higher harvest numbers. If you are talking about lowering harvest rates and advantages, a 5 pin bow site isn’t even close to an external turret adjustment rifle scope.

Even today, I bet external turrets are the minority.
You can use a Garmin xero on your bows, right?

 

[roadrunner]

A nontrivial number of people waste applications applying for hunts they have zero chance of drawing

And there is the guy sitting back snickering that draws the good hunts because everyone subscribes to this strategy...

Somebody draws. Luck has everything to do with it. If it didn't, the best hunts would never be drawn.

That's really the point. Game departments don't care if "Jack" doesn't draw a tag in 20 years. It only matters that "Ben", "Mike", et. al. draw once each year 20 times for them to meet their target goal.

 

[Glockster26]

I think PETA has a bigger issue with bowhunting than rifle hunting. And just because something is not allowed for hunting does not mean it's illegal to own or shoot recreationally. The logical conclusion of rifle hunting with no limitations is that rifle hunting becomes shooting, and the number of tags available will be equal to the number of animals the biologists want killed.

Conversely, by increasing difficulty, we can support more hunters and, consequently, will have more people to defend hunting, guns rights, etc. If hunting becomes a thing you get to do once every 5 or 10 years, a lot of people will just throw in the towel and no longer advocate for these things.

If our sole goal is to make it more difficult, I am fine with it. No motorized travel. No side-by-side, no four wheelers, close for service roads during hunting season. If you want to go hunting, grab a pack and get hiking.

 

[MuleyFever]

I don’t get the argument that if you restrict rifle capability you HAVE to restrict archery to be fair. In CO in 2023 23,000 elk were killed during rifle seasons compared to 5,000 in archery. Rifle hunting is clearly a more lethal option which results in higher harvest numbers. If you are talking about lowering harvest rates and advantages, a 5 pin bow site isn’t even close to an external turret adjustment rifle scope.

You can't look at harvest kills. You have to look at success as a percentage. There are way more rifle tags, generally.

 

[xcskier_hunter]

If people want to buy points for 20 years and then go on one hunt, i’m all for it.

Most peoples weapon systems are far more capable than they are.
As primarily a rifle hunter, I might be a bit jaded but the minute you start limiting my choices on scope. I’m gonna push everything that I can to make sure bows go to recurve only. Modern compound bows with dialable pin sights , capable of shooting out to 120 yards is not what I would think most would consider a primitive weapon. Muzzle loaders go to a traditional cap and ball. And while we’re at it a month long bow season in Colorado is absolute ridiculous.
Seems like a good way to get everybody to turn on each other

I hunt with every weapon (bow, muzzleloader, compound) although because bow seasons are longest, I inherently end up bowhunting more. However, I'd rather have limited scope technology on rifles if that means I can draw rifle hunts more often or have longer rifle seasons. I think it's clear hunting has gotten worse as technology has improved, though I don't think technology is solely to blame for all of this.

For bows, I think states should just ban all electronics attached to bows, since that is a fairly simple line to draw.

More generally though, I'd be open to technological limitations of any weapon if I thought it would improve hunting opportunities and quality long term.

 

[Traveler]

You can't look at harvest kills. You have to look at success as a percentage. There are way more rifle tags, generally.

No you don’t. If the issue is number of animals available for tags total kills is what matters not %.

But rifle success was 18%, archery was 10%

So in terms of total harvest rifle is 4.5X archery. In terms of success rate it is almost 2X.

 

[SDHNTR]

Even today, I bet external turrets are the minority.
You can use a Garmin xero on your bows, right?

A turret a minority? Not anywhere I ever hunt. Nearly everyone has them and thinks they’re a sniper.

No, the Garmin is not legal in many states. That thing goes too far, imo. Again, I lean on Pope and Young for sensible archery guidelines, and the Xero is in clear violation.

 

[MuleyFever]

No you don’t. If the issue is number of animals available for tags total kills is what matters not %.

But rifle success was 18%, archery was 10%

Ok