Would you put shot distance limits on big game?

[xsn10s]

Ban long range hunting, then bow hunting. What's next?

In the future we should consider banning independent thought. It's what gets people in trouble in the first place. AI will be able to do it for us faster, more accurately, and with better results.

 

[mt terry d]

Education,peer pressure and a big EMP.

 

[bowrunner81]

I approached this from a “I’m 99% sure I’m killing this animal cleanly if I take this shot” point of view. I’d most closely call that ethics, but it can be called whatever is most appropriate.

I do not like limiting equipment on firearms or about anything on weapons in a given season, because if those tools make you more accurate then they should be used in my opinion. The whole point to my post was that I would rather be 99% sure I’m making a clean kill than 75%, and at 500 yards in perfect conditions I feel 99% sure. But at 700 yards that drops significantly and I dont want to shoot at 700 yards. If you limit equipment you can make the 500 yard target a lower hit percentage, thus in effect making folks stop at 500 yards while still taking 500 yard shots, but with a much reduced hit rate….leading to more wounded animals.

I have learned my lesson over the years. I used to be a capped turret and 300 yard rifle hunter. I now practice quite a ways out there, and am more accurate at 600 yards than I used to be at 400yards. But, after seeing some shit out in the field I am fairly conservative at taking shots. I also went 15+/- years without missing or wounding an animal with my bow and the last couple years I’ve hit and lost two which made me sick. One I think made it, but the other certainly died. So, personally, I found out what I am comfortable with after having some negative outcomes and I hope other folks do the same. That, I think is ethics evolving over time.

Also, for those concerned, I have never shot and wounded a predator. I also wouldn’t get upset about wounding one like I would an elk or a deer. That’s me personally. I have shot quite a few running coyotes with an AR, that I would never shoot at a big game animal in those conditions. I also saw pheasants and quail get initiated by an increasing coyote population so I have a beef with them.

 

[Jordan Smith]

“Long-range shooting has become extremely popular in the last few decades. More and more people continue to join the folds of precision rifle shooters, pushed forward by marketing campaigns from every rifle manufacturer out there. Long-range shooting has infiltrated many activities, but perhaps none as controversial as hunting. With so much activity in this practice, I figured it was a good idea to discuss building long-range hunting skills.”


https://coldboremiracle.com/2024/09/07/building-long-range-hunting-skill/#:~:text=Preface,building long-range hunting skills.&text=Every gun manufacturer out there,names like Ruger or Savage.&text=This lowering of the entry,same as it always has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL, that guy is a joke. When attempting to borrow credibility using a reference, it pays to consider the source.

Guys have been taking long shots beyond their proficiency for decades. LR shooting has recently become more popular in the shooting sports, but that is not necessarily correlated with increasing hunter numbers.

Marketing pushing eastern hunters out west is a big part of the increased pressure, IMO.

 

[AkMtnRunner]

A rule against shooting beyond X yards will encourage more people that don’t have the skill to shoot that far, to go for it. They’ll say, that distance is deemed ethical, right?

There’s no more appropriate rule for shooting at animals than there being no rule, because it all depends on a hundred different factors.

What I would support is an incentive program for hunters to prove their accuracy. Given them a discount to licenses or tags, or even preferred access to limited hunts. They’ll find out how bad they are and/or train to shoot better. If people are shooting too far, add meaningful and positive incentive for people to be better and improve the hunting culture.

 

[Tom-D]

My issue with a distance ban is you take away and individuals right to put in the hard and time training to gain an advantage over every other person they are competing against. At some point people have to be responsible and acknowledge there capabilities.

 

[bowrunner81]

A rule against shooting beyond X yards will encourage more people that don’t have the skill to shoot that far, to go for it. They’ll say, that distance is deemed ethical, right?

There’s no more appropriate rule for shooting at animals than there being no rule, because it all depends on a hundred different factors.

What I would support is an incentive program for hunters to prove their accuracy. Given them a discount to licenses or tags, or even preferred access to limited hunts. They’ll find out how bad they are and/or train to shoot better. If people are shooting too far, add meaningful and positive incentive for people to be better and improve the hunting culture.

That’s a cool idea. I really like that thought. I think that might be the best idea to handle it without putting a rule in place. People don’t line rules but incentives puts a positive spin on it. Cool

 

[Dos Perros]

Would you support distance limitations if it meant more tags for you and yours?

 

[WyoBC_99]

This is perhaps a little off-topic to the original question because it's about personal ethics and not regulations, but ...
I do think more hunters need to set a hard upper limit for shots that they will take in good conditions for given shooting positions. I see too many folks make a clutch decision to take a shot under pressure when an opportunity presents itself that they really have no place taking. Then, they also need to be thoughtful about when that hard upper limit needs to be dialed back because of challenging shooting conditions.
Just my two cents

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

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

What is the actual percentage of wounded game under 200-300 yards? Compare that with the actual percentage from 300-500 yards, 500-700 yards, and 700+ yards.

Fix the distance group that has the highest wounding percentage.

If you have no data to back up your "next area code" comment then you are working on emotion.

 

[Dave_S]

Regardless of enforceability and compliance, which I know we are *theoretically* ignoring in this scenario, I don’t like the black and white of a yardage. That ignores other factors of shooting. I may be fully capable and comfortable taking a shot at 500 with calm or constant wind and time to position myself. Add challenging wind conditions or limited time? Or what if I’m still hunting and take an off-hand shot? My self-imposed limit certainly changes from scenario to scenario.
Short answer is no, I wouldn’t push that button. I don’t want to arbitrarily limit myself or others, just because some folks are ignorant clowns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WeiserBucks]

Would you support distance limitations if it meant more tags for you and yours?

Me personally, no. I can get more tags than I can handle every single year.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Would you support distance limitations if it meant more tags for you and yours?

Not me.

Hunters just need to learn to pass on a shot. Because once distance X is officially bad, the goal posts will continue to move until it is zero. The loons win and hunters made it happen.

Not a fan when folks say <arbitrary distance> is "good" and <arbitrary distance + 1> is "bad". Why is a stable prone shot at <arbitrary distance + 1> worse than a huffing and puffing unsupported shoulder shot at <arbitrary distance>?

Not directed at any specific individual...
There is nothing to prevent the holier than thou crowd from doing exactly what they are proposing.

 

[Dos Perros]

Would you support distance limitations if it meant more tags for you and yours?

Follow up question, would you support distance limitations JUST FOR NON-RESIDENTS if it meant more tags for you and yours?

 

[WeiserBucks]

Follow up question, would you support distance limitations JUST FOR NON-RESIDENTS if it meant more tags for you and yours?

No.

 

[mt terry d]

No.
I don’t just decide what side of an issue to take by merely considering my own personal benefits unless the consequences of that decision only affect myself.
But, obviously, that’s not a popular concept.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Interesting reads and you can interpret them however you see fit...

Wounding Loss: How Agencies Account for Unrecovered Big Game

Wildlife agencies could more easily assess their state’s elk, deer, or pronghorn populations if every animal alive in August fell into one of two groups by Christmas: those registered as hunters’ kills, and those destined to see spring’s fawning or calving seasons. It’s never that easy, of course...

www.themeateater.com

The Truth About Bowhunting Wounding Rates and the Fate of Deer

Most people believe that bowhunting wounding rates are greater than firearms hunting, likely due to the complexity of shot execution. Let's get the facts.

www.deeranddeerhunting.com

Wounding Loss During Big Game Hunting Season

2020-12-11_CJ-1.png Photo 1 - An elk hunter lines up his shot on MPG Ranch in early November 2020. (Jake Jourdonnais Photo) My first attempt at harvesting a deer ended with a wounded white-tailed doe. Intensively searching for the deer didn’t end with recovery. I was 12 years old. My heart...

www.mpgranch.com

Shots Fired Per Deer Killed: An Evolving Trend

Opening mornings of gun seasons in whitetail-rich states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania often sound like Civil War re-enactments. It makes me wonder how the woods can hold enough deer to trigger such fusillades. Some deer get shot at more than once, of course, given that hunters...

www.themeateater.com

Lethal Shots and Deer Recovery Tips: Aiming for Success - The Iowa Sportsman

One goal of the Iowa Blood Trackers group is to reduce wounding rates and increase recovery rates. here are some lethal shots and deer recovery tips to help improve.

iowasportsman.com

* Become proficient with your weapon of choice to the distances you plan to shoot at game.
* Learn to pass on shots.
* Value the animal. Hunters invest more time on recovery efforts when they value the animal. Few 400" bull elk that get wounded don't get recovered; but somehow the dinks are better at playing hide and go seek than Waldo.
* Projectile weight does matter; lighter is not necessarily better when it comes to recovering wounded game.

Probably better for other threads but this one was interesting:

Defining animal welfare standards in hunting: body mass determines thresholds for incapacitation time and flight distance - PMC

Shooting is an important tool for managing terrestrial wildlife populations worldwide. To date, however, there has been few quantitative methods available enabling assessment of the animal welfare outcomes of rifle hunting. We apply a variety of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[IdahoPrecision]

Correct. Knowledge, skill, and ability. Bookended by a culture that does not promote or accept poor performance.


One of the biggest problems is the people railing the most about distance shooting, are the hunters that suck at shooting.

It’s the guys that shoot 12 rounds that think they’re great shooters, that don’t understand why they miss easy shots at 500 and put their skills on every one else. Those are the loudest proponents of hunting range restrictions and regulations

This is something I have thought about after shooting more and more in recent years. If you could put a rule in place and hunters would hypothetically comply, would you put a maximum allowable shot distance on big game? Predators do not count because I’m of the mentality that if you can put a bullet anywhere on a predator it increases the chance of them dying. I know this shot distance would not be enforceable but if it was, would you make it a law?

I could see this going two ways. One could be a maximum distance of say 600 yards, which in my opinion should be the maximum distance for 75-90% of hunters. Another way would be a distance qualification of some kind on a say 12” target if you want to shoot past say 400 yards. Those are just thoughts on how it could be done.

Although I don’t like limitations on entry into hunting or owning firearms, I think I would push the button and make it a rule, but I might get beat up doing that. I really do not like a one size fits all approach on anything so I think if someone wants to shoot past X distance that is considered long range, then a qualification could be a way to keep folks accountable.

This is all hypothetical. Please don’t ban me from Rokslide.

What do you all think?

There Is no way to logically enforce a distance restriction for hunting, no matter the species. Idaho has tried that by limiting rifle weight to 16lbs. They believed that this would restrict the larger cartridges meant for LR and ELR shooting from getting taken out into the field. But what they don’t think about is that Joe Blow who can barely hit a pie plate at 100 yards will take a 1000 yard shot if he’s desperate enough to fill a tag, or the buck/bull of a lifetime steps out. There is no way to keep people accountable for hunting ranges.

 

[CMP70306]

I think we confuse ethics and fair chase. Ethically, it doesn't matter how far people shoot because I am not going to judge their capabilities unless I am around them alot. I think there is a fair chase argument when it comes long range tho, the ability of an animal to detect the shooter (by sight, smell or hearing), etc.

Now, as a thought experiment, what do I think would be effective methods to limit range and basically maintain current technology:

1. Rifle weight - I think we could limit the max rifle weight (ID already does it, something like 16 lbs?). Theoretically, you could push this really low, say 7-8 lbs scoped max rifle weight. It's just plain harder to shoot a light rifle than a heavy one, everything else being equal.

2. Caliber Maximums - You would never convince agencies to do this, but you could limit all big game hunting to a max caliber of .244 (Until Avery comes out with the 6UM Ultra in a 50 BMG case and a 180 grain 6mm bullet with a 1-2 Twist...)

Outside of those 2 I don't really know how you would mandate range with current tech other than some feel good idiotic legislation that just pisses everyone off.

I am all for increasing weapon restricted seasons (black powder muzzy, primitive archery, etc.). I'm excited to see what happens in UT with the units that went this way.

Both of those are pretty dumb to be honest, the vast majority of hunting rifles couldn’t hit that requirement bare let alone scoped. I have a few that might if I bought a red dot or tiny lightweight scope but that would preclude the use of a suppressor.

Caliber maximum is the wrong option as well, just because the echo chamber that is Rokslide thinks the .223 makes everyone Bob Lee Swagger the truth is that poor shooters will continue to shoot poorly except now they will be doing so with a smaller cartridge.

It’s removing the easy button. If someone wants to break the law, they’re going to break the law.

Before variable turrets became popular, I knew not a single person that ever dreamed of dialing a scope to shoot an animal. You sighted the rifle in somewhere between 1 and 200 yards, knew you’re holdover to 300ish. If it was further than that, oh well the animal won.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People weren’t not dialing their scopes because they didn’t have variable turrets, they weren’t dialing because the adjustment markings on the scope turrets were suggestions at best. I have an old Redfield from the 1970’s, when I turn the turret for what is supposed to be a 1/2” click my adjustments vary between 0 and 3” with zero repeatability. Even my Nikons from the late 2000’s didn’t track well enough to reliably use for dialing.

That being said externally adjustable scopes were around since the mid 1800’s and people would dial/slide them plenty, it just took internally adjustable scopes decades to catch up which happened in the 2010’s.

Agree with this 100%. The equipment is what we need a reckoning with.

Why don’t we hunt with punt guns anymore? Bueller? Anyone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don’t hunt with punt guns anymore because their sole objective was to kill scores to hundreds of waterfowl in a single shot while they were sitting on the water. Even if they were legal there’s realistically no way to operate one while still adhering to the existing bag limits.

How much of this long range craze is driven by the modern day market hunter influencer? The answer certainly isn’t zero.

I don’t disagree that people are the problem. The equipment of today gives too many people the false sense that they can and should take shots they shouldn’t. 2 decades ago, we heard of none of this. Now it’s everywhere. Guys that 3-5 MOA shooters are still deadly at 100-200 yards, thanks for kind of proving my point. The difference now is those 3-5 moa guys are lobbing 500+ yards bombs because an industry pushes them to buy gear and fill tags at all costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think long range shooting is new take a gander at this Winchester catalog page from 1962, notice the text for the Westerner model.


The truth is that people have been taking long range pot shots at game forever, the only different is that now they have a better chance of connecting than ever before.

When did it rise in popularity and does it coincide with a nose dive in mule deer numbers and wild turkey numbers to name a few?

I know there’s lot of factors causing the decline, we’re the easiest factor to control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well it certainly wasn’t long range shooting that killed our turkeys here in PA since we were only shooting 9,000 or so a year in the fall out of 212,000.

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.

Would you support distance limitations if it meant more tags for you and yours?

Follow up question, would you support distance limitations JUST FOR NON-RESIDENTS if it meant more tags for you and yours?

See that’s the question, would I rather go on a hunt with a near 100% success rate every 4 years or go on a hunt every year and only be successful 25% of the time. For me personally as a non resident it costs several thousand dollars to travel west to go hunting and I may only do it a few times in my life. As a result I want the highest possibility of success when I go as I may not have the opportunity again.

So from my perspective the issue with higher restrictions for more opportunity is that the so called increase in “opportunity” is basically just getting more people to pay for less success. Everybody thinks they are going to be the one to succeed all the time and while a few may make it work the majority will not.

 

[Lvball19]

Yeah that is a tough concept to quantify if it will work.