Would you put shot distance limits on big game?

[Dave0317]

I agree a lot of people have no business shooting long distances. But I also think the government doesn’t need to regulate it.

I do think, most states completely waste their hunter education opportunity. Most of what I I’ve seen or heard is PowerPoints about various hunting topics that are generally aimed at keeping the lowest common denominator type folks safe-ish and out of trouble.

If they did some drills to show hunters their true ability to hit a target at distance, I think that would be pretty informative for a lot of people.
It would require a range and some actual shooting coaches, which is probably asking too much in some states. I would bet it would shock a lot of people to even see the results of how many hunters show up with zeros way off, can’t get into a decent shooting position at all, etc. let alone actually make hits consistently.

Even if it didn’t disqualify someone from having a hunting license, it would maybe open some eyes about how shooting ability and ethics tie into each other.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

People have to live with the choices they make. True, there are some people who will take a crazy long distance shot, wound an animal, and not feel bad about it, and that sucks. Those same people will feel even less bad about breaking a law they almost certainly will never get caught for breaking, so that's a worthless exercise.

In the end, laws are just what they charge people with when they get caught. The only people who's lives they impact day to day are the decent people who didn't need a law to tell them to be a decent person, except now the law says they have to prove they are decent people or they loose their rights, which is time/money/effort. As one of those people, I can assure you, we carry way too much weight already, so absolutely screw the idea of adding more to that burden for no good reason.

As an aside, if your "reason" is to reduce the number of hunters, then basically, you are saying you are opposed to others having the same opportunities that you yourself enjoy, and that's not a good reason, that's a selfish reason.

All IMHO and YMMV and all that.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

People have to live with the choices they make. True, there are some people who will take a crazy long distance shot, wound an animal, and not feel bad about it, and that sucks. Those same people will feel even less bad about breaking a law they almost certainly will never get caught for breaking, so that's a worthless exercise.

In the end, laws are just what they charge people with when they get caught. The only people who's lives they impact day to day are the decent people who didn't need a law to tell them to be a decent person, except now the law says they have to prove they are decent people or they loose their rights, which is time/money/effort. As one of those people, I can assure you, we carry way too much weight already, so absolutely screw the idea of adding more to that burden for no good reason.

As an aside, if your "reason" is to reduce the number of hunters, then basically, you are saying you are opposed to others having the same opportunities that you yourself enjoy, and that's not a good reason, that's a selfish reason.

All IMHO and YMMV and all that.

Very well stated.

 

[KenLee]

I'd agree to limiting rifle shots to 500 IF archery hunting is completely banned.

 

[Reaper911]

I'd agree to limiting rifle shots to 500 IF archery hunting is completely banned.

Completely banning archery hunting is a bit extreme. No need to throw the baby out with bathwater. We can achieve lower rates of wounding by imposing shot range limits for both rifle hunting and archery hunting. Something like 200-300 yards for rifle and 30-35 yards for archery.

 

[WeiserBucks]

It's completely un-enforceable right out the gate. I have never seen a game warden outside of their truck unless they were at a boat ramp or stopped a hunter along a road. How are they going to gather evidence to justify a ticket?

 

[KenLee]

Completely banning archery hunting is a bit extreme. No need to throw the baby out with bathwater. We can achieve lower rates of wounding by imposing shot range limits for both rifle hunting and archery hunting. Something like 200-300 yards for rifle and 30-35 yards for archery.

Ha!
Most bowhunters can't shoot to save their lives and their tracking abilities are even worse.
I throw up a little bit every time I hear or read "target panic".

 

[SDHNTR]

I'd agree to limiting rifle shots to 500 IF archery hunting is completely banned.

One of the dumber things I’ve ever read here.

 

[SDHNTR]

In sheer numbers, I’d venture to say there are far more wounded animals by those shooting rifles beyond their ability than by bow hunters. Way more.

 

[SDHNTR]

Ha!
Most bowhunters can't shoot to save their lives and their tracking abilities are even worse.
I throw up a little bit every time I hear or read "target panic".

More utter nonsense.

 

[KenLee]

More utter nonsense.

Glad I could entertain you.
I first said ban archery as a bored joke, but from my experience in the Southeast, most archery hunters are maiming machines and 90% of rifle hunters won't shoot past 300 yards, even though there are large ag fields, pastures, powerlines and gas lines everywhere.

 

[KenLee]

In sheer numbers, I’d venture to say there are far more wounded animals by those shooting rifles beyond their ability than by bow hunters. Way more.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Depends on the jurisdiction.

It's also just a guess without seeing some data. And I'd be surprised if that data exists.

 

[SDHNTR]

It's also just a guess without seeing some data. And I'd be surprised if that data exists.

Admittedly speculation, just based on what I’ve witnessed after doing this for 4 decades. Bowhunters tend to be a far more conscientious bunch. I’ve seen way more spray and pray with guns than arrows.

 

[rookieforever33]

In general I have found that bow hunting is not as easy to get into. Simply because most people own a rifle first. A TON more people own rifles than bows, and think they are better shots than they are. Admittedly a consciences hunter has more of a chance wounding with a bow than a rifle. But there are more bad rifle hunters than bow hunters.

Back to the point, if the government wants to spend money to help wildlife they should spend it on habitat and education rather than trying to enforce some arbitrary number on every single hunter out there.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Admittedly speculation, just based on what I’ve witnessed after doing this for 4 decades. Bowhunters tend to be a far more conscientious bunch. I’ve seen way more spray and pray with guns than arrows.

Curious where you're experience is mostly centered?

 

[SDHNTR]

Curious where your experience is mostly centered?

Mountain West US.

 

[SDHNTR]

But there are more bad rifle hunters than bow hunters.

Agreed. I’ve seen way more casual, unknowingly ignorant, unpracticed or downright slob gun hunters than I have bowhunters.

Most bow hunters recognize the increased challenge, rise to it, and are overall, more dedicated to learning their craft.

Slobs don’t do things the hard way in most cases.

 

[Drenalin]

It's completely un-enforceable right out the gate. I have never seen a game warden outside of their truck unless they were at a boat ramp or stopped a hunter along a road. How are they going to gather evidence to justify a ticket?

They will be limited to only ticketing those who post their shit on social media and YouTube, most likely. I was completely opposed to more .gov regulation until just now - but maybe this could be a two birds/one stone scenario?

Nah, still opposed to more regulation. Still opposed to people trying to impose their limits on others, as a general principle.

 

[Flyjunky]

Most bow hunters recognize the increased challenge, rise to it, and are overall, more dedicated to learning their craft.

I could say the exact same thing about long range hunters. Everyone I know who shoots long range knows their gun, load, etc intimately because they put in the time to learning their craft.