Wyoming long range hunting debate

[CasNed]

Duplex reticle 4x max scope, no turrets or hash marks for rifle hunts.

1x max scopes for muzzle loader hunts.

No sliders and 3 pin max sights for archery hunts.

Make hunting hard again.

 

[Formidilosus]

Duplex reticle 4x max scope, no turrets or hash marks for rifle hunts.

1x max scopes for muzzle loader hunts.

No sliders and 3 pin max sights for archery hunts.

Make hunting hard again.

That makes hunting hard? Y’all are clueless. I just went 5 for 5 at 565 yards on a 12” plate with a 308win, scope with normal capped turrets, and a 6x duplex- 4x wouldn’t change a thing.

 

[Jordan Smith]

That makes hunting hard? Y’all are clueless. I just went 5 for 5 at 565 yards on a 12” plate with a 308win, scope with normal capped turrets, and a 6x duplex- 4x wouldn’t change a thing.

That's how we used to make fairly consistent hits out to 600 yards before mechanically reliable scopes and reticles with multiple usable subtension marks were readily available. While far from my choice these days, a Duplex is more useful than many guys realize.

 

[CasNed]

That makes hunting hard? Y’all are clueless. I just went 5 for 5 at 565 yards on a 12” plate with a 308win, scope with normal capped turrets, and a 6x duplex- 4x wouldn’t change a thing.

Make it 1x scope then, make it single shot rifles, make it 1 pin archery sights, make it only muzzleloaders. The point is we probably need to start limiting technology and get back to trying to get close to game to kill it, across all weapon platforms. If we can limit harvest rates by limiting technology, it keeps more individuals hunting. It makes it more sustainable while balancing opportunity. Also, your abilities probably aren't the average Joe’s.

 

[Jordan Smith]

If we can limit harvest rates by limiting technology, it keeps more individuals hunting. It makes it more sustainable while balancing opportunity.

As I mentioned previously, I'm not sure you'll like where that road leads...

 

[Flyjunky]

Make it 1x scope then, make it single shot rifles, make it 1 pin archery sights, make it only muzzleloaders. The point is we probably need to start limiting technology and get back to trying to get close to game to kill it, across all weapon platforms. If we can limit harvest rates by limiting technology, it keeps more individuals hunting. It makes it more sustainable while balancing opportunity. Also, your abilities probably aren't the average Joe’s.

I’ll say it again for the 5th time, why is it only about the weapon? Why not also include no optics (binoculars, spotting scopes, etc)?

 

[Flyjunky]

Bless your precious little heart.

We have another blessed soul whole feels that it is ok to ram his personal beliefs down the throats of others.

The simple fact is animals get wounded at all distances. It is idiotic to stake a high ground and claim wounding game at 100 or 200 yards is ethically superior to “maybe” wounding game at 500 or 600+ yards. Dollars to donuts the wounded game does not give a rat turd about your personal feelings; they’re wounded and likely to get eaten by a predator or die a slow gruesome death.

I think you missed a touch of sarcasm in his post.

 

[SDHNTR]

Make it 1x scope then, make it single shot rifles, make it 1 pin archery sights, make it only muzzleloaders. The point is we probably need to start limiting technology and get back to trying to get close to game to kill it, across all weapon platforms. If we can limit harvest rates by limiting technology, it keeps more individuals hunting. It makes it more sustainable while balancing opportunity. Also, your abilities probably aren't the average Joe’s.

Agreed

 

[SDHNTR]

As I mentioned previously, I'm not sure you'll like where that road leads...

I’d be totally fine with it

 

[SDHNTR]

I’ll say it again for the 5th time, why is it only about the weapon? Why not also include no optics (binoculars, spotting scopes, etc)?

Because those tools are use for other pursuits too, and they don’t actually do the killing. I like to view and scout for animals in the off season. And bird watchers deserve their geek out time too. IMO, the restrictions belong on what makes actually things lethal, not what you view them with harmlessly.

But, to your point, if we need to restrict optics too for the sake of game animal herd health, I’m open to it. I’m open to anything that reduces lethality, as long as I still have the opportunity.

 

[SDHNTR]

That makes hunting hard? Y’all are clueless. I just went 5 for 5 at 565 yards on a 12” plate with a 308win, scope with normal capped turrets, and a 6x duplex- 4x wouldn’t change a thing.

Then why are you against it? Because you are the expert, you should be all for such a regulation. It would give you a huge advantage as the internet sniper Jesus, while the rest of us mere mortals struggle to make 250 yard shots with our duplex 4x M8’s. You can fill your tag across the canyon, right over my head, as I’m trying to get closer. You win.

 

[CasNed]

I’ll say it again for the 5th time, why is it only about the weapon? Why not also include no optics (binoculars, spotting scopes, etc)?

Doesn’t have to be, no drones, no cell cams, etc. Weapon restriction just seems like the easiest regulation with the most impact on harvest rates.

 

[Formidilosus]

Then why are you against it? Because you are the expert, you should be all for such a regulation. It would give you a huge advantage as the internet sniper Jesus, while the rest of us mere mortals struggle to make 250 yard shots with our duplex 4x M8’s. You can fill your tag across the canyon, right over my head, as I’m trying to get closer. You win.

Where did I say I was against it or for it?

It’s simply about you and others not even understanding what does what. Doing what you said isn’t moving the needle- there are already a crap ton of people doing true long range killing with iron sights on muzzleloaders. I shot a significant portion of the last two S2H classes with a 223 bolt action and aperture sights. It is not a major handicap- if you can see a deer, you can hit the front half.


Good or bad, the only thing that will actually do what you say you want is to ban electronics.

 

[LostArra]

There has been more discussion on this topic in these 18 pages than will ever be discussed by Wyoming legislators, all with the same result, nothing. Only when the Wyoming cattle/sheep ranchers and the outfitters want a change will anything be considered.

Does anyone know if outfitters/guides restrict shot distances?

 

[voltage]

Does anyone know if outfitters/guides restrict shot distances?

I have been on two outfitted hunts in Wyoming. One outfitter didn't want me shooting over 250 (elk). The other outfitter expected me to be able to shoot 1000 (mule deer).

 

[CasNed]

It’s simply about you and others not even understanding what does what. Doing what you said isn’t moving the needle- there are already a crap ton of people doing true long range killing with iron sights on muzzleloaders. I shot a significant portion of the last two S2H classes with a 223 bolt action and aperture sights. It is not a major handicap- if you can see a deer, you can hit the front half.


Good or bad, the only thing that will actually do what you say you want is to ban electronics.

I think you’re confusing your abilities and the average Joe. Most dudes don’t shoot their rifle 10 times before season. Most dudes need 2x-3x per 100 yards to be a decent shot.

Electronics, you’re referring to range finders?

 

[SDHNTR]

Where did I say I was against it or for it?

It’s simply about you and others not even understanding what does what. Doing what you said isn’t moving the needle- there are already a crap ton of people doing true long range killing with iron sights on muzzleloaders. I shot a significant portion of the last two S2H classes with a 223 bolt action and aperture sights. It is not a major handicap- if you can see a deer, you can hit the front half.


Good or bad, the only thing that will actually do what you say you want is to ban electronics.

A crap ton? BS. No one over the age of 45-50 is taking 500yd shots on game with open sights. Youre right, you need to be able to see the animal, and that isn’t happening at distance, in low light and broken terrain without a scope and some magnification. Hunting isn’t shooting in a class. It’s real life.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I think you’re confusing your abilities and the average Joe. Most dudes don’t shoot their rifle 10 times before season. Most dudes need 2x-3x per 100 yards to be a decent shot.

Electronics, you’re referring to range finders?

The average military recruit could qualify with iron sights with zero background. We only started using optics to help with Positive ID.

Many people don’t practice at all, but an optic doesn’t make up for that.

I am an experienced shooter, so I will allow that my results may not be typical, but it’s not necessary to shoot as much as Form to be proficient. On a black and white target, I can shoot just as precisely (group sizes) and accurately (group location) with an aperture sight as with a scope. But where the scope helps is with accuracy in placing the shot in the right spot on the animal. And in bad light, cover, and all the other adverse conditions in the field.

And, again, limiting lethality in that regard is just plain stupid. We should have a goal - no matter how aspirational it may be - that every animal at which the hunter takes a shot is recovered in a timely manner. If a hunter does not have high confidence in the shot - justified high confidence, not Dunning-Kruger confidence - then he should not be taking a shot.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[CasNed]

The average military recruit could qualify with iron sights with zero background. We only started using optics to help with Positive ID.

Many people don’t practice at all, but an optic doesn’t make up for that.

I am an experienced shooter, so I will allow that my results may not be typical, but it’s not necessary to shoot as much as Form to be proficient. On a black and white target, I can shoot just as precisely (group sizes) and accurately (group location) with an aperture sight as with a scope. But where the scope helps is with accuracy in placing the shot in the right spot on the animal. And in bad light, cover, and all the other adverse conditions in the field.

And, again, limiting lethality in that regard is just plain stupid. We should have a goal - no matter how aspirational it may be - that every animal at which the hunter takes a shot is recovered in a timely manner. If a hunter does not have high confidence in the shot - justified high confidence, not Dunning-Kruger confidence - then he should not be taking a shot.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Dudes can a shoot 900 yards at animals with high magnification scopes and get close enough to wound or kill the animal. Can you shoot 900 yards with iron sights?

I’m pretty sure a turret and high magnification scope makes up for at least a little when a guy doesn’t practice.

 

[ianpadron]

If our game agencies and commissions focused on habitat restoration/preservation, predator reduction, and eliminating antlerless harvest in below objective populations, this debate wouldn't be a thing. That's where our attention should be focused.

Legislating ethics never works, and leaving more bucks/bulls through each season has no effect on overall population (plenty of data to show that).

Sure, buck:doe ratio and age class are affected, but those are ultimately hunter centric metrics of herd health vs. total distribution compared to the historical mean.

I'd rather manage those 2 aspects of a herd by increasing overall population and carrying capacity of the landscape. Lots of ways to do that, none of which involve weapons limitations.