Would you put shot distance limits on big game?

[fatlander]

Which problem exactly would even begin to be solved by decreasing the ability of hunters to place rounds accurately?

People wouldn’t have the confidence to shoot at stuff in the next area code. Flight time of the projectile would drop drastically. Error on the human side or animal moving would be significantly less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fatlander]

I guess I'll start caring when we develop big game tech that kills or wounds hundreds of animals with one shot. Punt gun use for commercial hunting is a poor reference in this discussion in my opinion.

The tech we have right now is a result of modern day market hunting.

One guy wounding hundreds of animals with 1 shot vs 100 guys wounding a single animal because they’re out kicking their coverage is still 100 animals wounded that didn’t need to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Only if they do it for the wounders, I mean, bow hunters first

 

[WeiserBucks]

Everyone has the ability to self regulate.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I'd be more for an aptitude test for the given weapon/season. If you can't hit x from x then you're not eligible for a tag. That'd keep most Fudds out of the woods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My fish and game buddy was telling me that they’ve actually done this in a couple states over the years for specialty tags. Basically a “qualifier” where the shooter has to hit a 12” target at 200-300 yards. He said the failure rate was so high that they stopped doing it

 

[Macintosh]

What is the perceived problem we are trying to solve for? Theres 3 totally different “problems” being tossed around but its not clear to me what the question is meant to address.

 

[Drenalin]

People wouldn’t have the confidence to shoot at stuff in the next area code. Flight time of the projectile would drop drastically. Error on the human side or animal moving would be significantly less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But what is the issue we're trying to solve? Wounding? Overharvest? Or is it simply that you don't want other people to be able to do something that you don't do?

I'm a 500 max range guy currently, but I can't formulate an argument for limiting the range of others.

 

[wind gypsy]

I'd be perfectly fine with a 500 yard limit but dont necessarily disagree with some of the points against it.

 

[Schmo]

Before any distance limitations should even be considered by agencies, archery should be banned completely.

I am not in any way anti-archery. I love archery hunting. But it proves the point that bow hunting is perfectly ethical by many people’s standards, yet “no one should be allowed to rifle hunt at 500 yards”. Hmmm. Maybe this boils down to individual skill levels.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Hmmm. Maybe this boils down to individual skill levels.

I think it boils down to people eating tags and looking for something to blame it on.

 

[wind gypsy]

I guess I'll start caring when we develop big game tech that kills or wounds hundreds of animals with one shot. Punt gun use for commercial hunting is a poor reference in this discussion in my opinion.

Disagree. I can (and have) go to canada and kill 20 light geese, 8 dark geese, and 8 ducks a day for days on end. Cant do that with big game. If allowed tactics/equipment drives lethality to a point that it diminishes populations or the experience enough, tactics/equipment restrictions should be considered. Punt guns killed too much, so they got regulated.

Before any distance limitations should even be considered by agencies, archery should be banned completely.

I am not in any way anti-archery. I love archery hunting. But it proves the point that bow hunting is perfectly ethical by many people’s standards, yet “no one should be allowed to rifle hunt at 500 yards”. Hmmm. Maybe this boils down to individual skill levels.

You're arguing against a premise that near nobody is arguing for. Overall effectiveness and fair chase are the primary drivers i see, not wounding rates.

 

[WeiserBucks]

If allowed tactics/equipment drives lethality to a point that it diminishes populations or the experience enough, tactics/equipment restrictions should be considered.

I think this is where we disagree. In the areas I hunt the populations are regulated by winter kill
and the experience is regulated by how hard you want to work.

If we banned winter there would be mature big game available for everyone with a tag.

 

[wind gypsy]

I think this is where we disagree. In the areas I hunt the populations are regulated by winter kill
and the experience is regulated by how hard you want to work.

If we banned winter there would be mature big game available for everyone with a tag.

In such cases, i dont really see much of an argument for new firearm restrictions. If an above average genetic potential buck has a decent chance of making it through the season after it reaches 3.5 and if the huntable population of bucks isn't hammered down to being nearly all immature bucks, rock on.

 

[fatlander]

But what is the issue we're trying to solve? Wounding? Overharvest? Or is it simply that you don't want other people to be able to do something that you don't do?

I'm a 500 max range guy currently, but I can't formulate an argument for limiting the range of others.

Fourth tenant of the North American model for wildlife conservation

“Wildlife shall be taken by legal and ethical means, in the spirit of "fair chase," and with good cause.”

At some point, we’ve got to reckon with the technology that’s rapidly evolving while the game and landscape aren’t. When the current laws were written, the technology we’re discussing that makes 500+ yard rifle shots, 60+ yard archery shots, and 60+ yard shotgun shots a normal occurrence, didn’t exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bowrunner81]

I personally don’t like any additional regulation or government interference either, and this was all a hypothetical. But, I do think folks shoot further than they are capable of shooting. I’ve done it too. I am against limiting equipment because they can make you more accurate at a given distance. I don’t think we should make ourselves less lethal by taking out dial turrets.

If a dude could hit with consistency, a 12” target at 400 yards with capped turrets and 800 yards with a dial turrets, id rather a guy limit themselves to 400 yards and be consistent on a 6” target than try to limit their equipment so they are less consistent to limit their range to 400 yards. Not sure that made sense.

I still know this is all not enforceable, just a topic for discussion.

 

[bowrunner81]

Also, not to be "that guy" but the comment about predators doesn't sit right with me. Whether I plan to take one out or not, just because "dead predator = good predator" doesn't mean I want to gut-shot one as say "yep, job done". Ethics don't just apply to game animals with "value."

I respect your criticism. I just think differently than you on the predator front.

 

[mt terry d]

No.
It's stupid and unenforceable.
A purely governmental "solution": One size fits all.

 

[bowrunner81]

No.
It's stupid and unenforceable.
A purely governmental "solution": One size fits all.

Unenforceable, yes. I agree. But, why is it stupid?

 

[RockAndSage]

At one point they weren’t. Why did they become regulated?

Because they were too effective at killing and wounding waterfowl, leading to negative impacts on the grander scale.

How is modern compound, rifle, or shotgun technology different?

60+ yard archery shots are normal
500+ yard rifle shots are normal
60+ yard shotgun kills are normal

They weren’t a few decades ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A key difference with the punt guns, is that they were used for commercial hunting, and the mass killing that market forces rewarded. Banning modern guns and features used for single-animal tags just isn't the same thing. Add in that someone might get that tag only once every 5 years here in Nevada, people have a number of reasons to want to make the best of their rare hunts, and ensuring they have the most accurate rifle they can afford is one part of that.

But here's the crux of the discussion: shooter capabilities are far less than the capabilities of the equipment they're carrying. Most hunters are probably 3-5 MOA shooters in field realities, while a $500 Ruger American is a 1MOA gun.

The problem isn't the guns - it's the shooters making unethical shot decisions.

More often than not, those guys don't want to make unethical shot decisions - their shot decisions are just so poorly informed that they're unintentionally unethical.

The solution is awareness.

 

[bowrunner81]

A key difference with the punt guns, is that they were used for commercial hunting, and the mass killing that market forces rewarded. Banning modern guns and features used for single-animal tags just isn't the same thing. Add in that someone might get that tag only once every 5 years here in Nevada, people have a number of reasons to want to make the best of their rare hunts, and ensuring they have the most accurate rifle they can afford is one part of that.

But here's the crux of the discussion: shooter capabilities are far less than the capabilities of the equipment they're carrying. Most hunters are probably 3-5 MOA shooters in field realities, while a $500 Ruger American is a 1MOA gun.

The problem isn't the guns - it's the shooters making unethical shot decisions.

More often than not, those guys don't want to make unethical shot decisions - their shot decisions are just so poorly informed that they're unintentionally unethical.

The solution is awareness.

I like the way you said it. I agree