Wyoming long range hunting debate

Q_Sertorius said:
I don’t know how they determine when the seasons are out west, but back east they are logical and make pretty good sense. When the foliage is thick and visibility is limited, it’s bow season. As the foliage comes down, we get early muzzleloader, and then by the time the leaves are fully down and visibility is at its best, it is rifle season. From a safety perspective and a hunting style perspective, this makes good sense. Of course some bow hunters still complain because the rut usually falls into rifle season. And some rifle hunters still complain that archers get first crack at the nice bucks.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”
Click to expand...
Our season are typically based upon the species rut ( for elk) for deer it’s pre rut and rut hunting, no real post rut, maybe a few whitetail tags out east. For example Co uses primitive weapons during elk rut, then rifle hunting when the bulls typically pull off of the herds… 1st rifle and some early rifles have overlap. Yet we archery hunt deer in Sept, in their summer range/ starting to transition, October & November seasons with rifles mid to late Oct is their rut. AZ does primitive hunting during mule deer rut I believe
 
JohnJohnson said:
Isn't that his point though?

LR rifle hunting has the potential to grow into an actual issue for game populations. But it is not demonstrably affecting things right now. Outside of people making sweeping conclusions based on Youtube videos of LR hunting and anecdotes. The data does not yet support it being a big problem.

There's very solid data pointing to a substantial increase in archery success rates. And obviously that's still way down the list of priorities compared to the habitat factors you mentioned. But if you want to hit the easy button of making a new hunting regulation (since you said it's the easiest option), it would be for archery. But no one wants to do that because this is a 95% vibes based discussion.
Click to expand...
Here are two units in AZ that are polar opposites of one another. One an open sited 30-30 would not hinder you too much and for the other one shots in the 350-550+ yard range are not uncommon.

1749700532700.png

The numbers are not that different. Uknown accuracy due to self-reporting but still better than wild speculation.
 
I’m sorry but I think many of you are going the wrong way with this. It’s difficult to regulate technology and governing shooting skills is a slippery slope. We need to regulate clothing/comfort. I propose that all western states adopt the following big game clothing regulations:

Pants are limited to 100% cotton denim jeans. No comfy stretch allowed.

A cotton t-shirt and a plaid shirt are the only options for tops.

Underwear is limited to 100% cotton tighty whities (no exceptions).

These regulations apply to all seasons except late season where you are able to complete your Canadian Tuxedo and add denim jacket (without any faux fleece lining on the collar).

If you are selected for a special draw hunt, a mustache is required. Can’t grow a mustache? Sorry, there are always berries to be gathered.

Our grandparents and great grandparents made this $h!t look easy. Let’s see if today’s generations really want it.
 
Hnthrdr said:
The whole part about how we have to have unlimited attention brought to hunting or it is gone, is what I was referring to, like I said I am in agreement with like 90% of what you said. I think tweaks to tech to keep things more “fair chase” should be on the table. I mean we can have a continuum from using a spear all the way up to thermal gunning with full auto from a helicopter to kill animals, I think sometimes making it extra hard on ourselves is okay. Also if you think limiting tech will make people lose interest why is it that archery got so popular in Co that they had to regulate NR tags? Kind of flies in the face of that idea
Click to expand...
What’s the desired outcome here? Is it to protect fair chase and uphold legacy ethics in hunting? Or is it to improve herd health and population vitality?

Limiting range or banning scopes may serve the first goal, but it does very little for the second. Herd health is a far more complex issue, and addressing it requires a completely different tool from the conservation toolbelt.

I just want Wyoming to be clear about what it is actually trying to accomplish.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind taking a test to carry a rangefinder. After all, in Idaho you need separate permits for archery and muzzleloader seasons. They both require tests. It’s not a big deal, and if it helps hunters think twice before slinging lead haphazardly at long distances, that’s at least a minor ethical improvement.

If you’re hoping for healthier herds and rebounding populations, capping range isn’t going to get you there. That’s the wrong tool from the toolbelt, it is like trying to hammer in a screw.

Proverbial screwdrivers are underpass/overpass designs, conservation easements, nightime speed limits, reseeding projects, predator management…etc.

Harvest rates have ebbed and flowed in the otc opportunities I follow, and I see no direct correlation between them and the steady decline of mule deer populations over the past half century.

What I do see is twice the number of people in Idaho. Probably twice the number of cars on the road and irresponsible development.

Once again, hunters are not the driving force behind the decline, and limiting rifle technology will not be mule deer's saving grace, but it may improve peoples perception of hunting as well as improve legacy and fair chase ethos.
 
Is the fact that any one “thing” isnt the entire answer, a good reason not to address that “thing”? That seems to be the argument some people are making. My read of what several folks in this thread are saying is “This isnt the biggest issue, and we arent doing enough to deal with the biggest issues, therefore we should take the other issues off the table”. That really sends the message that we dont actually care about anything except ourselves. Why should anyone else lead on the issue if we arent willing to ourselves?
 
Macintosh said:
Is the fact that any one “thing” isnt the entire answer, a good reason not to address that “thing”? That seems to be the argument some people are making. My read of what several folks in this thread are saying is “This isnt the biggest issue, and we arent doing enough to deal with the biggest issues, therefore we should take the other issues off the table”. That really sends the message that we dont actually care about anything except ourselves. Why should anyone else lead on the issue if we arent willing to ourselves?
Click to expand...

Because the “solutions” proposed by the OP’s article are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It won’t do a darned thing to fix the root problems.

And the solutions proposed are totally disingenuous because they are proposed by people who will not be affected by them. They are all feelings-based value judgments.

It’s too hard to fix the access problems, the development problems, the intense demand for the resources, and the state lawmakers refusal to turn away nonresident money, so let’s put in a rule that is the equivalent of making a school a Gun Free Zone. It doesn’t do a damn thing to stop school shootings, but it sounds good to a bunch of soccer moms who want someone to do something.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”
 
Q, how is that not both outright giving up, while being equally feelings based? This is exactly what I meant:
“Why should anyone else lead on the issue if we arent willing to ourselves?”
 
To return to the 1980s and eliminate 99.9% of all shots taken past 500 yards just take away laser rangefinders. I can imagine the empty Kleenex boxes from all the grown men crying. *chuckle*
 
Macintosh said:
Is the fact that any one “thing” isnt the entire answer, a good reason not to address that “thing”? That seems to be the argument some people are making. My read of what several folks in this thread are saying is “This isnt the biggest issue, and we arent doing enough to deal with the biggest issues, therefore we should take the other issues off the table”. That really sends the message that we dont actually care about anything except ourselves. Why should anyone else lead on the issue if we arent willing to ourselves?
Click to expand...
I think the takeaway from my argument is that limiting long range capabilities of firearms may improve buck quality but not deer herd vitality. Actually there are quite a few studies that point out that high buck to doe ratios limit recruitment.

I just want people to be clear about the expectations and outcomes from these changes.

You can make blanket arguments like “limiting harvest is good for everybody” but the ramifications are much more nuanced and have effects downstream that might do more harm than the intended good.
Lets not accidentally do something that escalates issues rather than solve them. It is better to focus on the science and modes of conservation that actually produce results.

Heres a metaphor to consider: You have 5 apples. You begin to lose a couple apples. Somebody tells you the reason you are losing your apples is because someone is stealing them from you. You poison the remaining apples to catch the perpetrator. Nobody steals the remaining apples and they go rotten.

Probably should have just eaten the apples and found some more. After all apples are for eating not poisoning.
 
Macintosh said:
Q, how is that not both outright giving up, while being equally feelings based? This is exactly what I meant:
“Why should anyone else lead on the issue if we arent willing to ourselves?”
Click to expand...

Because making ineffective solutions enables people to ignore the root causes.

Unless the goal here is to simply tell other hunters how they should hunt, and hopefully deter one or two more people from attempting to join the long range hunting fad, this won’t change a damned thing.

Shooting animals at 1000 yards isn’t a “more effective way of hunting.” It’s simply a way that is more easily recorded. I don’t think anyone wants to watch me spotting a deer with my Mark I eyeballs, making a quick wind check, and then spending 20 minutes slinking back down the hill and around to the other side where I can sneak into chip shot range.

Shooting animals at long range is controversial. So it generates engagement - from people who are intrigued and people who are outraged at it. It’s like Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh. Some people listened because they liked the message and some people listened because they found it outrageous. But people listened. And if you stop engaging with it, then the “influencers” will stop doing it.

Banning it won’t result in meaningfully fewer public land hunters in the woods.

Banning it won’t result in meaningfully fewer public land animals surviving the winter.

It won’t result in more tags.

It will do nothing to fix herd sizes in areas which are struggling.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”
 
Q. You post this like fact
Q_Sertorius said:
It won’t result in more tags
Click to expand...

If that is the case why is it that archery and muzzleloader tags are far far more plentiful and easy to obtain than say a late rifle tag?

You are just flat out wrong on this point.
Because what we are proposing hasn’t been done yet, it is just being started in Utah and Idaho so we don’t know the end result yet.
 
TaperPin said:
To return to the 1980s and eliminate 99.9% of all shots taken past 500 yards just take away laser rangefinders. I can imagine the empty Kleenex boxes from all the grown men crying. *chuckle*
Click to expand...

The 6 UM, 300 UM, 300 Norma, 300PRC, 7STW, 7PRC, and 7rem mag would get really popular really fast
 
Hunter efficacy is proven and has been for a very long time--longer than most of us have been alive. That hunter efficacy is reduced by using a weapon with a limited range (bow vs rifle) is a no-brainer that I dont think should be in question. If a harvest goal is 3000 animals, and a bow season has a 10% success rate, while a rifle season has a 30% success rate, that is the difference between 30,000 tags and 10,000 tags. It's that simple if only looking at that. the difference may or may not be that stark, but you can bet it is estimated and used as part of calculating how many tags to issue. Season dates (length as well as time within the season) also play into it though. And "hunter experience" as well, ie ability to hunt at all, crowding, the type of experience people want, bucks versus BIG bucks, what other seasons are concurrent, fundraising (how much can we gouge from NR's to pay for it all), etc. It's all estimated, but it literally comes down to a simple math equation of hunter efficacy and the harvest goal=the number of tags available.

@littlebigtine I agree with that 100%. To be clear I am not ADVOCATING for anything here other than taking responsibility for whatever part in the solution we can be truly accountable for. There are both scientific and social elements to the topic, so to the degree that "the sustainable well-being of mule deer" or any other similar topic we could cook up, is related to hunter efficacy and the tradeoff between sustainable harvest vs tag allocation, touches on this. I simply am following the conversation and I see the argument going around in circles largely based on emotion and fear. I am certainly not advocating for making a change that isnt going to affect the issue. I am advocating for being clear about what is trying to be solved and what all of the levers are that can be pulled to address that, and that hunters --as wildlife advocates as well as users--take the lead on those elements that we have control over, while simultaneously advocating for change in the areas where we dont have direct control. Inherent in this approach is that if a lever doesnt actually accomplish something that is needed, then it's not providing anything--data can show that, and that's precisely why some states are experimenting with equipment restrictions as a tool to gauge its actual effect on hunter efficacy.

@Q, there is a fundamental difference between "ineffective solutions" versus "solutions that are effective but are only responsible for a small part of the necesssary change". No one is advocating for making ineffective solutions, only for effective solutions even if they can't be the only solutions. If hunter efficacy only plays a role in 1% of the solution, but it can make a meaningful impact on that 1%, then that is one effective solution. If we who directly benefit from wildlife arent willing to take that step where it contributes to the needed solution, then why would anyone else contribute to the solution either? It takes data and a clear view of what the effect of any proposed solution will do, but that's the distinction.
 
I spent some time analyzing data from units in Colorado that have both early rifle (ER) and muzzleloader (MZ) hunts. These hunts have nearly identical or identical season dates, the only difference is the weapon. These hunts take place in units with similar terrain and season dates to Wyoming G/H hunts. Doe hunts were excluded from the MZ numbers. Muzzleloader numbers were only taken from units that had early rifle hunts that same year. Average percentage for all units combined for MZ and ER:

  • 2024: MZ 23, ER 31
  • 2023: MZ 20, ER 39
  • 2022: MZ 27, ER 41
  • 2021: MZ 22, ER 37
  • 2020: MZ 25, ER 34
  • 2019: MZ 23, ER 43
This is the only current apples to apples comparison I'm aware of. There is a clear and significant difference by weapon type that is present every single year. Will it grow deer herds? Probably not significantly. Will it increase quality and opportunity? The success rates certainly suggest so. Saying there's no difference in the field between the ability to shoot 600-1000 yards and maybe 300 at most just shows a complete lack of any experience western hunting whatsoever. There's a difference, and it's significant.
Some in this thread seem to believe that weapon limitations and habitat improvement are mutually exclusive. That's plainly not the case. Those of us who wouldn't mind weapon limitations for some species are 100% in favor of doing everything possible to improve habitat. For the record, I'm in favor of keeping some scoped rifle tags (in a limited quota model). Mostly to keep the people who insist on hunting with a scoped rifle in a different point pool :ROFLMAO:
The other major factor, which I'm grateful that those of us on both sides of this discussion have identified, is to get rid of all the internet idiocy. Filming and publishing hunting content should be subject to significant regulation and taxation. Those parasites are exploiting a resource for income without contributing anything in return; is that really ok? It stands in plain opposition to the NA wildlife model; those who benefit, contribute in return. It's time for the internet parasites to contribute for what they're receiving.
The LR qualification idea is dumb. It won't change success rates, and agencies don't have the competence to administer such a test. The idea is to preserve opportunity and quality in tandem, not just force people to take a dumb test administered by a government employee.
 
Hnthrdr said:
Q. You post this like fact


If that is the case why is it that archery and muzzleloader tags are far far more plentiful and easy to obtain than say a late rifle tag?
Click to expand...

Because more people want to hunt with rifles.

So, if your goal is simply to drive away the hordes of rifle hunters so that archers and muzzleloaders can get more tags… then come right out and say it.

I meant to write that it “won’t produce more tags for everyone.”


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Long range practice? Ammo suggestions
Replies
16
Views
833
cuerro viejo
C
PanhandlePilgrim
Idaho's Hunting and Advanced Technology Working Group Coming
Replies
18
Views
1K
bowrunner81
B
M
Atlas CAL bipod model for Tikka T3x Lite
Replies
4
Views
450
MichaelP
M
Pilsner
AR-10 long range caliber choice?
Replies
2
Views
109
Brontosaurus
B
S
Long Range Proficiency
Replies
18
Views
1K
Shraggs
S

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top