Would you put shot distance limits on big game?

[Flyjunky]

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.

Of course, by sheer numbers there are way more rifle hunters. Using that logic, there are way more wounded animals at less than 300 yards than 600+.

By percentage of population are more animals wounded by bow or rifle?

 

[CMP70306]

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.

They also seem to be more conceited and act like they are better than other hunters just because they chose the less efficient option while shrugging off any criticism as jealousy. I’ve never had a deer duck a bullet or had to back out and let one lay for hours to make sure it didn’t run away after I’ve shot it. Yet both are fairly common occurrences for bow hunters.

It’s hard to take the moral high ground on wounding when your entire success revolves around taking a shot and hoping the animal doesn’t decide to move when it hears the bow or the arrow.

 

[SDHNTR]

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

They also seem to be more conceited and act like they are better than other hunters just because they chose the less efficient option while shrugging off any criticism as jealousy. I’ve never had a deer duck a bullet or had to back out and let one lay for hours to make sure it didn’t run away after I’ve shot it. Yet both are fairly common occurrences for bow hunters.

It’s hard to take the moral high ground on wounding when your entire success revolves around taking a shot and hoping the animal doesn’t decide to move when it hears the bow or the arrow.

More ridiculousness.

 

[KoolBreeze]

Nope! I’m an advocate for MORE liberty not less.

 

[Flyjunky]

More ridiculousness.

How is it more ridiculousness when you made the same assertion about bowhunters? Aren’t you making the same claim about bowhunters?

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

 

[CMP70306]

More ridiculousness.

What part of it is ridiculous? The part where bow hunters look down on gun hunters? Or the part that physics proves is true?

 

[JackButler]

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.

You could be right as far as sheer numbers. Percentage wise it’s not close archery is very much higher. And I say that as an archery hunter. I just have to keep my range relatively short. I practice to 60 almost everyday, but even a 40 yard shot under field conditions, the circumstances would need to be ideal. Usually self limit 35.

 

[PNWTrad]

I think certain units and areas should have range limits, but with the ability to qualify for a long-range assessment standard, just like archers in many states have to qualify with archery, I do not think its a bad idea to have range limits for certain units that are flat or that share flat with elevated topography that can be dangerous for people in that range or beyond it.

So many times as a guide, we were told that the hunter had a "600-yard range," and the same hunter was laying down covering fire on Elk 150 yards and not having success.

Also, my cousin lives in Colorado, and he has had his house and property hit 8 different times in the last decade by errant shots from hunters and people recreationally shooting. It had gotten so bad that he built a berm on the corner of his lot where all the errant shots were coming from and put up signs at the two trailheads indicating that there is property there.

A general limit is overkill but in units where people are taking 800 yards on Antelope or Deer on flat ground, I think hunters need some sort of qualification standard that identifies a target at their max distance and that the shooter can put vital shots on the target from that distance.

It's all fun and games until the hunter gut-shots a deer from 800 yards away, and now we have to hike 800 yards and then start tracking it.

 

[Mike D Texas]

No.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mt terry d]

A general limit is overkill but in units where people are taking 800 yards on Antelope or Deer on flat ground, I think hunters need some sort of qualification standard that identifies a target at their max distance and that the shooter can put vital shots on the target from that distance.

How do you propose to enforce that without have a LEO accompany every hunter?

 

[Jethro]

But this new trend of unethical people calling themselves long range "hunters"

Long shots and hunters shooting beyond their capabilities is not a new trend. What is new, is everyone seeing it on the internet, thinking it’s a new phenomenon, and then claiming it needs to be regulated.

 

[PNWTrad]

How do you propose to enforce that without have a LEO accompany every hunter?

The same way every other enforcement action is taken: observation and investigation.

This is not a "check for tags" situation this is a "homeowner reported their back window getting shot out and we are investigating hunters in the area" or a "sow with cubs was killed and we think the hunter took a long shot" or "a forky was killed in a 4 point unit" or "a livestock owner reported a wounded animal" type of enforcement tool.

The whole point of a qualification standard is that it would reduce the negative outcomes of long-range misses and wound loss. Hunters can leave a lot of evidence behind, and witness testimony comes into play.

This would be no different than units that require additional qualification standards for identifying game animals or states that mandate certain identification regulations in their hunter ed training and testing.

For instance there is a goose hunting requirement in my state where you have to take a specific test to identify the different kinds of geese because some are endangered and others are fair game. There are states that require archery qualifications for concerns of wound loss which effects forecasting models for tags.

 

[Oakman]

Good topic, but honestly, it depends.

I try to close the distance as much as possible, then take the shot only if it’s within my personal limits and the rifle’s performance. There’s no simple yes or no here, too many variables come into play. Every situation is different.

 

[mt terry d]

The same way every other enforcement action is taken: observation and investigation.

This is not a "check for tags" situation this is a "homeowner reported their back window getting shot out and we are investigating hunters in the area" or a "sow with cubs was killed and we think the hunter took a long shot" or "a forky was killed in a 4 point unit" or "a livestock owner reported a wounded animal" type of enforcement tool.

The whole point of a qualification standard is that it would reduce the negative outcomes of long-range misses and wound loss. Hunters can leave a lot of evidence behind, and witness testimony comes into play.

This would be no different than units that require additional qualification standards for identifying game animals or states that mandate certain identification regulations in their hunter ed training and testing.

For instance there is a goose hunting requirement in my state where you have to take a specific test to identify the different kinds of geese because some are endangered and others are fair game. There are states that require archery qualifications for concerns of wound loss which effects forecasting models for tags.

So, say I've been tested and certified etc to "legally take a 425 yard shot on elk,
( which obviously I will have to have been tested and certified for different species
as well as different sized animals within the same species, unless this is just going to be another bureaucratic cluster&@^K ...<redundant) )

So, someone makes a claim I "made a long shot". Does that person know what ranges I'm
certified at? Does that person know the exact distance the shot was taken at? Or exactly where the
shot was taken from ( I pick up my brass). Or exactly where the animal was standing when I shot?
Do you really think it's a valuable expenditure of my tax
$$$ to even investigate something as ridiculous as
this, not to mention the cost of my tax$$$ to implement such a "plan"?

The whole concept is just a bunch of mental masturbation that anyone with a lick of common
sense who isn't on the government dole wouldn't even consider actually trying to implement, let
alone seriously suggest, outside of a campfire with close friends and after at least a dozen beers on an empty stomach.

 

[czgunner]

Why do people want more government regulation in their life?

Pearl clutching, regardless of good intent, drives horrible policy and draconian government overreach. Every "hobby" group has pearl clutchers.

Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk

 

[Flyjunky]

So, say I've been tested and certified etc to "legally take a 425 yard shot on elk,
( which obviously I will have to have been tested and certified for different species
as well as different sized animals within the same species, unless this is just going to be another bureaucratic cluster&@^K ...<redundant) )

So, someone makes a claim I "made a long shot". Does that person know what ranges I'm
certified at? Does that person know the exact distance the shot was taken at? Or exactly where the
shot was taken from ( I pick up my brass). Or exactly where the animal was standing when I shot?
Do you really think it's a valuable expenditure of my tax
$$$ to even investigate something as ridiculous as
this, not to mention the cost of my tax$$$ to implement such a "plan"?

The whole concept is just a bunch of mental masturbation that anyone with a lick of common
sense who isn't on the government dole wouldn't even consider actually trying to implement, let
alone seriously suggest, outside of a campfire with close friends and after at least a dozen beers on an empty stomach.

 

[PNWTrad]

So, say I've been tested and certified etc to "legally take a 425 yard shot on elk,
( which obviously I will have to have been tested and certified for different species
as well as different sized animals within the same species, unless this is just going to be another bureaucratic cluster&@^K ...<redundant) )

So, someone makes a claim I "made a long shot". Does that person know what ranges I'm
certified at? Does that person know the exact distance the shot was taken at? Or exactly where the
shot was taken from ( I pick up my brass). Or exactly where the animal was standing when I shot?
Do you really think it's a valuable expenditure of my tax
$$$ to even investigate something as ridiculous as
this, not to mention the cost of my tax$$$ to implement such a "plan"?

The whole concept is just a bunch of mental masturbation that anyone with a lick of common
sense who isn't on the government dole wouldn't even consider actually trying to implement, let
alone seriously suggest, outside of a campfire with close friends and after at least a dozen beers on an empty stomach.

Just to clarify, a qualification standard is not necessarily what would be "enforced". A qualification standard is something that is used to ensure that less people take stupid shots and to punish stupid people who commit crimes; it would be a secondary accessory charge.

Think about it this way. If you are carrying a gun illegally because you are a felon, and then you commit a crime with that gun, you would never have been charged for carrying the gun illegally until you committed a crime with the gun because no one would know you are carrying the gun because there is no legal reason to stop and check right?

To put it into the perspective of hunting. Let's say some jackass shoots a black bear in the ass from 800 yards away, and that black bear was on private property, and that black bear runs into said private property and dies in the homeowner's pool. That is a crime in a lot of states. That is going to open up an investigation... If they manage to find the person who shot the bear, they are going to subpoena cellular data, GPS data, social media data ... Those are the big 3 that most wildlife investigations win big on nowadays. Long gone are the days of looking for brass and impacts most people input their own incriminating data.... Ballistic investigations are easier than ever now.

With that being said.... You shoot that bear 800 yards away, it dies on public land you go get it and hike back out it does not matter how many witnesses saw you take that shot, that is not enough probable cause for an investigation while in most states it is most officers are not going to bother with following up on any reports if there was no damage or violations that resulted from it.


I think you are moving the goal posts on this one and over catastrophizing to make it look like this would an impossible regulation but the reality is it would never be treated as a violation unless a crime occurred with that shot.

 

[Flyjunky]

Just to clarify, a qualification standard is not necessarily what would be "enforced". A qualification standard is something that is used to ensure that less people take stupid shots and to punish stupid people who commit crimes; it would be a secondary accessory charge.

Think about it this way. If you are carrying a gun illegally because you are a felon, and then you commit a crime with that gun, you would never have been charged for carrying the gun illegally until you committed a crime with the gun because no one would know you are carrying the gun because there is no legal reason to stop and check right?

To put it into the perspective of hunting. Let's say some jackass shoots a black bear in the ass from 800 yards away, and that black bear was on private property, and that black bear runs into said private property and dies in the homeowner's pool. That is a crime in a lot of states. That is going to open up an investigation... If they manage to find the person who shot the bear, they are going to subpoena cellular data, GPS data, social media data ... Those are the big 3 that most wildlife investigations win big on nowadays. Long gone are the days of looking for brass and impacts most people input their own incriminating data.... Ballistic investigations are easier than ever now.

With that being said.... You shoot that bear 800 yards away, it dies on public land you go get it and hike back out it does not matter how many witnesses saw you take that shot, that is not enough probable cause for an investigation while in most states it is most officers are not going to bother with following up on any reports if there was no damage or violations that resulted from it.


I think you are moving the goal posts on this one and over catastrophizing to make it look like this would an impossible regulation but the reality is it would never be treated as a violation unless a crime occurred with that shot.

This is hilarious. All of this just because some idiots think shots taken at long range are the problem with our wildlife. GMAFB.

Can we also have a test for every bowhunter, every person who takes shots at running animals, etc, etc, etc.

We should just have a test where you have to be able to shoot 1 MOA or you can’t get a tag to hunt.

This is such a ridiculous topic.

 

[mt terry d]

I think certain units and areas should have range limits, but with the ability to qualify for a long-range assessment standard, just like archers in many states have to qualify with archery, I do not think its a bad idea to have range limits for certain units that are flat or that share flat with elevated topography that can be dangerous for people in that range or beyond it.

I asked

How do you propose to enforce that without have a LEO accompany every hunter?

PNWTrad: The same way every other enforcement action is taken: observation and investigation.

I'm not the one moving the goal posts.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Just to clarify, a qualification standard is not necessarily what would be "enforced". A qualification standard is something that is used to ensure that less people take stupid shots and to punish stupid people who commit crimes; it would be a secondary accessory charge.

Think about it this way. If you are carrying a gun illegally because you are a felon, and then you commit a crime with that gun, you would never have been charged for carrying the gun illegally until you committed a crime with the gun because no one would know you are carrying the gun because there is no legal reason to stop and check right?

To put it into the perspective of hunting. Let's say some jackass shoots a black bear in the ass from 800 yards away, and that black bear was on private property, and that black bear runs into said private property and dies in the homeowner's pool. That is a crime in a lot of states. That is going to open up an investigation... If they manage to find the person who shot the bear, they are going to subpoena cellular data, GPS data, social media data ... Those are the big 3 that most wildlife investigations win big on nowadays. Long gone are the days of looking for brass and impacts most people input their own incriminating data.... Ballistic investigations are easier than ever now.

With that being said.... You shoot that bear 800 yards away, it dies on public land you go get it and hike back out it does not matter how many witnesses saw you take that shot, that is not enough probable cause for an investigation while in most states it is most officers are not going to bother with following up on any reports if there was no damage or violations that resulted from it.


I think you are moving the goal posts on this one and over catastrophizing to make it look like this would an impossible regulation but the reality is it would never be treated as a violation unless a crime occurred with that shot.

So, you’re saying that this excessive law would not be invoked unless some other law that already exists was already broken. Got it. Just another excuse for redundant excess overreach.