Would you put shot distance limits on big game?

[Dos Perros]

I think I would rather go on 4 hunts at 25% success than 1 hunt at 100%. What’s the fun in super high success rates?

 

[IdahoPrecision]

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.

As someone who lives in Idaho, you’re #1 is ridiculous pointless. It has no bearing on whether people take a long shot. All it does is decrease the chances of them actually making a poor shot when they take a long shot. You’re #2 is just as ridiculous. You’d be getting rid of just about every heritage cartridge.

 

[CMP70306]

I think I would rather go on 4 hunts at 25% success than 1 hunt at 100%. What’s the fun in super high success rates?

The fun is not pissing several thousand dollars down the drain, again as a non resident it cost quite a bit to head out west for a hunt.

I don’t mind low success rates in my home state where I hunt from October through January as I have plenty of opportunities to get it done and my license cost me $135.

 

[JackButler]

I think you drastically overestimate the number of long-range shots that wound game. Most either know what they're doing and kill, or they don't and miss altogether, IME.

Definitely not what I’ve seen.

 

[Reaper911]

Yes! And I would like to see the max limit set somewhere between 200-300 yards. And that is despite me hating government regulating us. But this new trend of unethical people calling themselves long range "hunters" has to end. My main problems with long range "hunting" (not really hunting at all) are:
1) Increased chance of wounding and losing game
2) Its unsportsmanlike. Its people who are unable to get past the animals natural defenses taking the easy way by shooting it from half a mile away. It does not give the animal a sporting chance.

And yes, a max range law could in fact be enforced by game wardens.

P.s.

Also i would like to see most electronics banned from hunting

 

[Jordan Smith]

Definitely not what I’ve seen.

So you've seen a higher proportion of wounding per shot taken at, say, over 500 yards, compared to shots under 300 yards? How often do you witness running shots at 500+? How often do you see the 1-box-per-year hunter wound at over 500 yards versus under 300?

IME guiding and hunting with people of various skill levels, it's not even close. Close-range hunters wound way more often. Mainly because they would wound at any distance, except that they are not good enough at shooting to even hit the animal at over 500.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Yes! And I would like to see the max limit set somewhere between 200-300 yards. And that is despite me hating government regulating us. But this new trend of unethical people calling themselves long range "hunters" has to end. My main problems with long range "hunting" (not really hunting at all) are:
1) Increased chance of wounding and losing game
2) Its unsportsmanlike. Its people who are unable to get past the animals natural defenses taking the easy way by shooting it from half a mile away. It does not give the animal a sporting chance.

And yes, a max range law could in fact be enforced by game wardens.

P.s.

Also i would like to see most electronics banned from hunting

Other than the claim about wounding rates (which is incorrect, IME), that's all relative. The same can be said by someone about the ways in which you hunt. So maybe your preferred methods should be banned?

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Just ban scopes that fail the drop test from being used while hunting.

Do the equivalent for archery.

 

[Mtndawger]

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

That’s a great choice of words. Highly successful people insist on learning and practicing how to be better at whatever they do and set high standards. That pursuit is self reinforcing. Doesn’t matter if it’s hunting and shooting or in your chosen career. We in the hunting community can surely support and foster that over rules and regulations.

 

[Reaper911]

Other than the claim about wounding rates (which is incorrect, IME), that's all relative. The same can be said by someone about the ways in which you hunt. So maybe your preferred methods should be banned?

Surely you can accept the fact, that the further the shot, the higher the possibilty of a miss is?

 

[35WhelenAI]

If guys would quit bragging about it, posting on social media as a form of compensation and glorifying it, it wouldn't be on anybody's radar. We wouldn't be having this discussion. That's where it needs to be addressed.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

That’s a great choice of words. Highly successful people insist on learning and practicing how to be better at whatever they do and set high standards. That pursuit is self reinforcing. Doesn’t matter if it’s hunting and shooting or in your chosen career. We in the hunting community can surely support and foster that over rules and regulations.

Few people have the time and resources to fully invest in improving on all aspects of their lives. The rest of the world has to prioritize those areas they want/need to improve on based upon time, money, nagging partner, needs, etc. While I I love to hunt, I will not give up 1/2 of my assets (divorce) for the privilege of hunting based upon some elitist attitudes by other hunters.

Which authority gets to specify the exact amount of time a hunter has to spend shooting in order to be worthy of hunting? Does it vary by species or does one size fit all? Which authority gets to specify the exact amount of rounds a hunter has to shoot in order to become worthy of hunting? Doe it vary by species or does one size fits all? Which authority gets to determine how many of those rounds are for reinforcing the shoot sequence, the number per shooting position, the number at the range versus in the field, etc? Are those numbers based upon fact or feelings?

Look at RS and the drop test results. Despite the level of awareness that has been raised, quite often a new thread or post from WKRs praise scope companies and/or scope models that have a less than stellar track record on zero retention, tracking, etc. If one group of hunters are unable to persuade another group that should theoretically be "enlightend", then how realistic is it to expect success on persuading millions out there that are not "enlightened"?

 

[HairyScandinavian]

The fun is not pissing several thousand dollars down the drain, again as a non resident it cost quite a bit to head out west for a hunt.

I don’t mind low success rates in my home state where I hunt from October through January as I have plenty of opportunities to get it done and my license cost me $135.

I'm an NR to everywhere that matters and I agree with him. I can have just as great of a hunt without killing something, the whole experience is great. I don't need to kill something to get my money's worth.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Surely you can accept the fact, that the further the shot, the higher the possibilty of a miss is?

The further the shot, the greater the magnitude of the average miss (i.e., the distance between POA and POI). At close range, the misses are near enough to wound. At long range, the misses of far enough to miss completely. Again, on average.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

One could be a maximum distance of say 600 yards, which in my opinion should be the maximum distance for 75-90% of hunters.

I'd say more like 90% of hunters have no business shooting at game to even 400 yards, and 75% of hunters have no business shooting past 200, LOL. Sure, at the range, off a bench or prone, at steel, with some practice, do 1000 yards, all day, make it look easy. In the woods, on your feet, off an improvised rest so you can see over the undergrowth, after hiking hard for 4 days looking for elk, out of breath, heart going 90 to nothing, looking at the biggest set of antlers you ever saw... Not so much, LOL.

But besides all that, hell no to more regulations or rules. If a man or woman has the chutzpah to go kill and eat their own meat, who am I to criticize how they get it done. If the f it up, they have to live with it.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

There’s too many people. The amount of hunters needs to be reduced. The best way to do that is through a shooting competency test. Can be designed and managed by a 3rd party NGO with nationwide reciprocity. Like hunters safety but with a higher standard competency requirement for each weapon category. Agreed upon standards set not by a government but by a hunter friendly non-profit. Even a 12” gong at 200 yards 3 times from kneeling or sitting would fail a lot of people. And unfortunately, that’s what we need, fewer people.

Something along those lines.

 

[Mtndawger]

Few people have the time and resources to fully invest in improving on all aspects of their lives. The rest of the world has to prioritize those areas they want/need to improve on based upon time, money, nagging partner, needs, etc. While I I love to hunt, I will not give up 1/2 of my assets (divorce) for the privilege of hunting based upon some elitist attitudes by other hunters.

Which authority gets to specify the exact amount of time a hunter has to spend shooting in order to be worthy of hunting? Does it vary by species or does one size fit all? Which authority gets to specify the exact amount of rounds a hunter has to shoot in order to become worthy of hunting? Doe it vary by species or does one size fits all? Which authority gets to determine how many of those rounds are for reinforcing the shoot sequence, the number per shooting position, the number at the range versus in the field, etc? Are those numbers based upon fact or feelings?

Look at RS and the drop test results. Despite the level of awareness that has been raised, quite often a new thread or post from WKRs praise scope companies and/or scope models that have a less than stellar track record on zero retention, tracking, etc. If one group of hunters are unable to persuade another group that should theoretically be "enlightend", then how realistic is it to expect success on persuading millions out there that are not "enlightened"?

I think you are misunderstanding my thought. I would be one of those people who doesn’t have time or resources to invest into improving in all areas of life. That doesn’t mean I think it’s ok to take shots I can’t make because I haven’t practiced as much as I wanted too. Or that I don’t try to be the best person I can be in all situations. Are you advocating because that is true we should accept poor shot selection as well as poor marksmanship skills? And that rules and regulations should help fix that? What is elitist about holding excellence as a goal to be fostered? Excellence in intent with regard to whatever activity a person undertakes is at least as much about attitude as it is about skill. Do you see that as hostile to personal freedom? Governing bodies? Please no, not more of that.

 

[rookieforever33]

Do states keep issuing more tags every year? Yes there are some OTC hunts but most are draw. People keep saying influencers are leading to more hunters in the field. That would lead to the same amount of hunters, with less of a chance of "you" getting a tag.

The real problem is less habitat. The government regulation shot distance is so they can justify not cutting tags. Tags they may need to cut because of less habitat.

If they have money to burn rather than adding costly registration start mandatory reporting. Then issue tags based on better knowledge and manage wildlife more accurately.

Everyones ethical shot distance is different and based on the individual. Be a good hunter. Keep shots to deadly ones. Notch your tag if you wound.

 

[mt terry d]

Yes! And I would like to see the max limit set somewhere between 200-300 yards. And that is despite me hating government regulating us.

And that's exactly why there's such division in this country.

I hate government regulating anyone. But that's just me and very few others.

 

[Pony Soldier]

The long shots are bad enough but what is the probability of the shooter walking to the bottom of of a drainage and back up the other side on a ridge top to ridge top shot just to see if they hit anything. I really think it comes to ethics.

Jungle hunting is hunting where 600 plus long shots is shooting.