Would you put shot distance limits on big game?

[Schmo]

A question here, and it ties into @Formidilosus above post.

LR hunting is not what has caused the shortage of animals. If you listened to the latest Rokcast, it’s because of increased hunter pressure. I know some agencies don’t manage game properly, but in general they do good. In general, they only allow a sustainable number of tags to be given out. So if we’re only given the amount of tags that the population can sustain, then how would those tags being filled by LR hunters be the problem? We don’t have a hunting tool problem, we have a game density/quality problem.

 

[WeiserBucks]

We have a habitat reduction problem and winter kill reality. Banning LR or any other form of take isn't going to remove subdivisions and development from the winter range and it's damn sure not going to prevent severe winters.

 

[TheCoyote]

100% HARD NO. I could not me more opposed to this idea.

You cannot legislate morality. We have learned this lesson the hard way over and over and over.
Educate people. Judgement comes from experience. Education is what you are after not legislation. Promote more off season shooting and not just at the range on a concrete bench.

Any law like the one you are suggesting, would only cause more barriers to entry for hunters, raise the cost of hunting, and push people out of the sport all together. And, at the end of the day you'd still have wounded animals out there.

The last thing I need is some bureaucrat using my tax dollars to tell me how to hunt.

How about states use some money to offer free or low cost shooting courses like NRL hunter? Or free to anyone with a hunting license? How about getting shooting sports back into schools?

 

[bowrunner81]

100% HARD NO. I could not me more opposed to this idea.

You cannot legislate morality. We have learned this lesson the hard way over and over and over.
Educate people. Judgement comes from experience. Education is what you are after not legislation. Promote more off season shooting and not just at the range on a concrete bench.

Any law like the one you are suggesting, would only cause more barriers to entry for hunters, raise the cost of hunting, and push people out of the sport all together. And, at the end of the day you'd still have wounded animals out there.

The last thing I need is some bureaucrat using my tax dollars to tell me how to hunt.

How about states use some money to offer free or low cost shooting courses like NRL hunter? Or free to anyone with a hunting license? How about getting shooting sports back into schools?

I like your approach to it. Educate over regulate. I think that’s a better way to go about it.

 

[SDHNTR]

That is not the catalyst for distance shooting- laser rangefinders were.

You guys need better well thought out arguments- what you, @SDHNTR, and others argue isn’t logical and you lose people in the conversation because it doesn’t pass common sense or any level of scrutiny.

So the notion that shooting at game a half mile away (and possessing the advanced gear to allow ease of doing so) makes hunters more lethal lacks common sense? Mmmmmmkkkayyy!

 

[SDHNTR]

100% HARD NO. I could not me more opposed to this idea.

You cannot legislate morality. We have learned this lesson the hard way over and over and over.
Educate people. Judgement comes from experience. Education is what you are after not legislation. Promote more off season shooting and not just at the range on a concrete bench.

Any law like the one you are suggesting, would only cause more barriers to entry for hunters, raise the cost of hunting, and push people out of the sport all together. And, at the end of the day you'd still have wounded animals out there.

The last thing I need is some bureaucrat using my tax dollars to tell me how to hunt.

How about states use some money to offer free or low cost shooting courses like NRL hunter? Or free to anyone with a hunting license? How about getting shooting sports back into schools?

It’s not morality. It’s not ethics. That’s the point you are missing. It’s the fact that these modern means of take kill more animals. And when more animals get killed either tag numbers or seasons or something has to get cut, which limits opportunity.

So do you want less capable weapons or do you want less opportunity? Thats a common sense decision to me.

 

[SDHNTR]

No- LR shooting does not coincide with the decline of animal numbers. Mule deer numbers has nothing to do with LR shooting of bucks.

Yes the other things you mention have certainly had a profound impact, but I could not disagree with this statement more. And I’ve talked to multiple biologists and game wardens who agree that it absolutely has had an impact.

Again, all it takes is common sense (which I apparently lack) to see that regularity of killing at 5-600 now, versus the the 2-300 20+ years ago, is going to have an impact.
Among other factors, most of which cannot be easily controlled, but equipment can.

 

[il_cop]

I think 95% of American hunters don't have any business shooting at animals past 200 yards and that's being generous.

Beat me to it

 

[il_cop]

It’s not morality. It’s not ethics. That’s the point you are missing. It’s the fact that these modern means of take kill more animals. And when more animals get killed either tag numbers or seasons or something has to get cut, which limits opportunity.

So do you want less capable weapons or do you want less opportunity? Thats a common sense decision to me.

Not sure I agree with this. Capable equipment hasn't increased (reported) harvest rates, here in colorado at least, over the last 10 years. Perhaps we'd see it in wounding stats if we gathered them.

My thinking is that the 90/10 rule still applies. Guys that are killing elk at 800 are the same guys that would kill elk at 60. The rest of the dudes are the same crew that can't find or get to the elk or deer.

 

[SDHNTR]

Not sure I agree with this. Capable equipment hasn't increased (reported) harvest rates, here in colorado at least, over the last 10 years. Perhaps we'd see it in wounding stats if we gathered them.

My thinking is that the 90/10 rule still applies. Guys that are killing elk at 800 are the same guys that would kill elk at 60. The rest of the dudes are the same crew that can't find or get to the elk.

You aren’t wrong, but that’s because the harvest reporting rates are completely unreliable.

 

[il_cop]

Fair point but it remains a determining factor in quota setting and opportunity.

 

[TheCoyote]

It’s not morality. It’s not ethics. That’s the point you are missing. It’s the fact that these modern means of take kill more animals. And when more animals get killed either tag numbers or seasons or something has to get cut, which limits opportunity.

So do you want less capable weapons or do you want less opportunity? Thats a common sense decision to me.

I must be confused then. I was under the impression that they idea of the distance limiting law would be to reduce the amount of people wounding game. That they are shooting further than they are capable of and taking unethical shots. Ethics.

Now what you are saying is that the distance law would be in effect to reduce the amount of game that is killed so that there is more game surviving the hunting season and more opportunity for everyone next year. This is fair a chase argument.

Am I understanding that correctly?

I believe the OP was talking about ethics of long shots, you are talking about fair chase.

There are plenty of fair chase laws already on the books. No night vision, archery seasons/areas, trail cameras, cant shoot from a vehicle, traditional muzzleloader only....

 

[il_cop]

If we're referencing the WY proposal, right or wrong, the Rep. who sponsored it says it's about both ethics and fair chase. I don't know if he appreciates the difference between the two or is being intentional in covering both bases.

 

[TheCoyote]

If we're referencing the WY proposal, right or wrong, the Rep. who sponsored it says it about both ethics and fair chase. I don't know if he appreciates the difference between the two or is being intentional in covering both bases.

This was proposed in Wyoming?

 

[il_cop]

This was proposed in Wyoming?

Yep

 

[il_cop]

If you read the media around it, generally they treat ethical and fair chase as synonyms. May not know better or may be intentional.

But I'm afraid I'm derailing the OP's thought experiment. Apologies.

 

[SDHNTR]

I must be confused then. I was under the impression that they idea of the distance limiting law would be to reduce the amount of people wounding game. That they are shooting further than they are capable of and taking unethical shots. Ethics.

Now what you are saying is that the distance law would be in effect to reduce the amount of game that is killed so that there is more game surviving the hunting season and more opportunity for everyone next year. This is fair a chase argument.

Am I understanding that correctly?

I believe the OP was talking about ethics of long shots, you are talking about fair chase.

There are plenty of fair chase laws already on the books. No night vision, archery seasons/areas, trail cameras, cant shoot from a vehicle, traditional muzzleloader only....

It may be both to some. To me it’s about balancing take (and wounding loss) with opportunity. Something has to give as our lethality gets more efficient.

 

[TheCoyote]

It may be both to some. To me it’s about balancing take (and wounding loss) with opportunity. Something has to give as our lethality gets more efficient.

How about grazing Elk on public land and not cattle? What would that do to elk numbers!

I'm curious what the success rates actually are and that if people are indeed becoming more lethal.

I can tell you for a fact that there are more people hunting now that there ever was before. Lots and lots of people everywhere. It wasn't like that when I was a kid.

 

[greyghostnw]

its up to the user to be proficient with there chosen weapon and be able to set there distance based on conditions be it physical, mental, atmospheric etc… experience, preparation, training varies greatly between us. I certainly wouldn’t want to be placed in the same group as someone who doesn’t put there time in. Some of us truly live this and prove our system redundancy to set our own gaurd rails… guidlines to follow. Knowing your distance capabilities to pack the animal out preserving meat is equally important as ones capability to utilize chosen weapon. I for one could care less what anyone thinks about me choosing to train and develop my system to harvest animals at a distance you dont agree with. Spending every week training, staying healthy, testing, proving in all conditions at any given time year round isnt for everyone…. You get out of it what you put into it. Good luck.

 

[il_cop]

Maybe this is an issue with pronghorn, I don't know, and I'm only an occasional mule deer hunter.

The data in terms of elk tag quotas and herd health against objectives show flat and/or increasing (this year) opportunity, depending on the area and state.

I think it's an ambitious hypothesis that the thousands of hunters who go home empty handed every year, some of which have gone home empty handed for generations are going to buy a new weapon system, suddenly become 800 yard elk killing machines and, as a result, states across the west are going to have to cut tags because the formally unsuccessful elk hunters are killing all the elk, now that they can shoot 800 yards.

We're already in the middle of this trend and there's been no change to cite.