Wyoming long range hunting debate

[Jordan Smith]

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

If talking mainly about LRFs, even then, plenty of critters were killed out to several hundred yards before good LRFs were available. It just means that people will have to relearn the skill of estimating range, and once again, combining that skill with flatter shooting chamberings.

It may reduce the shots that the most ethical hunters will take, if the certainty of the distance, and the hunter’s consequent confidence, decreases, but the guys that take questionable shots and wound critters now will continue to do so when they have to guess the distance.

 

[Jordan Smith]

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

People keep mentioning this, but IME, the vast majority of “dudes” shooting at game at 900 yards don’t even come close. Every once in a great while, a guy wounds an animal, and even more rarely, makes a kill shot.

Guys that take low-probability shots do so regardless of tech or distance, but the probability of hitting and wounding goes down exponentially with distance if the hunter hasn’t figured out exactly what it takes to make hits at distance.

 

[SDHNTR]

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…”

That goal should be the same regardless of weapon choice, and I think for the most part it is. I don’t know a single hunter who makes a habit of taking shots beyond their capabilities. Which is why I think equipment limitations would be inherently effective in limiting lethality.

 

[packgoatguy]

FYI, (not Wyoming) but Idaho Fish and Game is looking to ban the use of advanced technology and has some new rule language that they are seeking public comments on (until June 20th).

Docket No. 13-0108-2401: Zero-based Regulation Rulemaking: Rules Governing Taking of Big Game Animals
idfg.idaho.gov idfg.idaho.gov

Docket No. 13-0108-2401: Zero-based Regulation Rulemaking: Rules Governing Taking of Big Game Animals

idfg.idaho.gov

P

Thread 'Idaho IDFG rule changes comment period ends June 20th'

Jun 13, 2025

In case this hasn't been discussed elsewhere:

IDFG has put out the draft of the changes to the big game hunting rules, including bans on the use of "advanced technology" like the use of smart optics, transmitting game cameras, thermal imaging, night vision, or aircraft for the purposes of scouting or hunting big game ungulates.

Docket No. 13-0108-2401: Zero-based Regulation Rulemaking: Rules Governing Taking of Big Game Animals

idfg.idaho.gov

The public has until June 20th to provide written comments.

1st Question: Does Idaho even need more rules? (For example, there is already a rule that bans the attachment of electronic devices to firearms...

• packgoatguy
• Replies: 86
• Forum: General Discussion Forum

• 

 

[SDHNTR]

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.

In a perfect world, you’re right. But all those other issues blend into other land use worlds and jurisdictions that go beyond game agencies and become nearly impossible to address. And the issues you mentioned that can be addressed by state game agencies would all result in some loss of hunter opportunity.

Equipment restrictions, otoh, would fall entirely within the auspices of game agencies, would reduce lethality, and could be done without limiting hunter opportunity.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I don’t know a single hunter who makes a habit of taking shots beyond their capabilities. Which is why I think equipment limitations would be inherently effective in limiting lethality.

The overwhelming bulk of the [anecdotal] evidence in most of this thread is about how many hunters are slobs who have no business taking shots at game at any range.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Flyjunky]

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.

What does outside of season have to do with it? I’m saying, if we want to make hunting hard again (your words) let’s take away optics that let people spot game from miles away during the season.

 

[SDHNTR]

The overwhelming bulk of the [anecdotal] evidence in most of this thread is about how many hunters are slobs who have no business taking shots at game at any range.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Yeah, I don’t see that. And I hunt a lot.

 

[SDHNTR]

What does outside of season have to do with it? I’m saying, if we want to make hunting hard again (your words) let’s take away optics that let people spot game from miles away during the season.

As long as that includes the optics on top of the rifle too, fine with me. I’ll adapt and use other strategies.

 

[packgoatguy]

What does outside of season have to do with it? I’m saying, if we want to make hunting hard again (your words) let’s take away optics that let people spot game from miles away during the season.

Wouldn't that just favor the archery elk guys who bugle in bulls? Or hunters who sit in tree stands or blinds? Or private land hunters who have patternable herds they hunt? Or hunters that use bait or dogs to locate their quarry?

 

[Flyjunky]

Wouldn't that just favor the archery elk guys who bugle in bulls? Or hunters who sit in tree stands or blinds? Or private land hunters who have patternable herds they hunt? Or hunters that use bait or dogs to locate their quarry?

Where can you use dogs out west for deer/elk? Blinds and tree stands?

Look back, I mentioned no rut hunts of any kind.

I thought this was about helping our herds? Or is it more about putting restrictions on others because it won’t affect those proposing the restrictions?

 

[packgoatguy]

The problem with

Where can you use dogs out west for deer/elk? Blinds and tree stands?

Look back, I mentioned no rut hunts of any kind.

I thought this was about helping our herds? Or is it more about putting restrictions on others because it won’t affect those proposing the restrictions?

The problem with trying to legislate these kinds of issues is... if you open the door to fix one problem, it is easier later on to apply the same rationale to other similar sounding conflicts.

However, specifically to your point: if you restrict methods of take during post rut rifle seasons, and if that reduces the harvest during those seasons, then that would necessarily benefit the hunters who prefer to hunt the rut seasons (as it will leave more animals for them).

Likewise, if "long range" tools are targeted for legislation generally, then that will ultimately affect other hunted populations as well. For example, many western spring bear hunters use long range optics to glass for bears. If those long range optics are banned categorically (even under the intended premise of protecting ungulate populations) then you could end up with laws that prevent bear hunters (or wolf hunters, etc) from using those optics... which will then favor bear hunters who use bait or dogs or wolf hunters who trap. This could also have the unintended consequence of reducing overall bear and wolf harvest... which could lead to an increase in calf and fawn mortality... etc etc.

 

[CasNed]

I thought this was about helping our herds? Or is it more about putting restrictions on others because it won’t affect those proposing the restrictions?

I’ve shot quite a few animals at long range. 2 elk last year at long range. Limit the technology and force me to get closer. Looking back through my prior hunts, some of the animals I harvested at long range I more than likely wouldn’t have harvested if I would have been forced to get closer. It’s not that I want to limit technology, but I would much rather limit technology than limiting opportunity. States are trying to weigh all these options into future policy.

My desire to shoot a “trophy” animal or to pursue game with a $5k rifle that can shoot a very long ways shouldn’t supersede anyone else’s opportunity to just go hunt.

We all collectively as a group shouldn’t get less hunting opportunity because a few of us want certain things (cell cams, planes, long range rifles, trophy quality herds in every unit, etc.)

 

[packgoatguy]

I thought this was about helping our herds? Or is it more about putting restrictions on others because it won’t affect those proposing the restrictions?

To your last Statement: I think this is spot on! There are WAY more effective ways to help our herds than limiting the effectiveness of a handful of hunters... as I doubt that the actual effect of tech tools on harvest rates hasn't even been studied or else we would be seeing data about it.

 

[packgoatguy]

I’ve shot quite a few animals at long range. 2 elk last year at long range. Limit the technology and force me to get closer. Looking back through my prior hunts, some of the animals I harvested at long range I more than likely wouldn’t have harvested if I would have been forced to get closer. It’s not that I want to limit technology, but I would much rather limit technology than limiting opportunity. States are trying to weigh all these options into future policy.

My desire to shoot a “trophy” animal or to pursue game with a $5k rifle that can shoot a very long ways shouldn’t supersede anyone else’s opportunity to just go hunt.

We all collectively as a group shouldn’t get less hunting opportunity because a few of us want certain things (cell cams, planes, long range rifles, trophy quality herds in every unit, etc.)

Has anyone actually defined "long range"? (As it would be applied legislatively). For me personally... "long range" is anything over 450yds... and our longest shot to date gas been 550. But for many, 650, 800, or 1000 might meet their personal definition.

However, I'd say the vast majority of ignorant lawmakers and the general public would consider anything over 350yds to be pretty far out...

I'd also add that long before range finders and other common "long range" tech... "hunters" would attempt to shoot at animals in the 300-500 yard range... and they would shoot 8 or 10 times until one connected... and this approach resulted in lots of wounded animals back then. In the hands of the average (non long range) hunter... many of the same tools that make extreme long range possible ALSO make regular hunters better at making cleaner shots. With the 15 or more kids and seniors I've taken out hunting in the past 4-6 years, they've taken over 60 big game animals with my rifles and gear (deer, elk, bear, wolf, pronghorn). Fewer than 5 of those 60+ took more than 1 shot. All animals shot were recovered within a couple hundred yards, most within a few feet. Two shots were taken that resulted in clean misses (10 year old, first time jitters). All but a handful of the shots were able to be filmed for after-action debrief. All were taken on public land, most were multiple miles from the truck.

The fact is, I would not have been able to provide the same level of mentoring assistance or opportunities without the tools available to the modern hunter. If we want to talk about hunting "opportunities" the very tools that could be banned are the same tools that make hunting accessible to kids (ie the next generation of hunters). It would be a shame to go back to the "anything goes" or "spray and pray" approach our grand-daddy's generation applied... back when bullets and gas were cheap, and the primary goal of hunting was to put meat (any meat) on the table.

 

[Flyjunky]

To your last Statement: I think this is spot on! There are WAY more effective ways to help our herds than limiting the effectiveness of a handful of hunters... as I doubt that the actual effect of tech tools on harvest rates hasn't even been studied or else we would be seeing data about it.

That is exactly my point in all of this since my very first post in this thread. Little band-aid fixes aren’t going to amount to anything.

My question to all who are for restrictions…what happens in 5-10 years when there are no measurable differences? More restrictions?

 

[24valve]

I don’t know a single hunter who makes a habit of taking shots beyond their capabilities.

I would agree with the caveat that most hunters don't make a habit of taking shots beyond what they believe their capabilities to be.

Most hunters don't actually fully understand their capabilities because they've never actually assessed them in a realistic fashion, and overestimate them as a result.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I would agree with the caveat that most hunters don't make a habit of taking shots beyond what they believe their capabilities to be.

Most hunters don't actually fully understand their capabilities because they've never actually assessed them in a realistic fashion, and overestimate them as a result.

Combined with the fact that most guys here are the most dedicated hunters and shooters out there, and likely associate with other like-minded hunters. Aka, the slobs that do most of the wounding are likely not in the friend circles of most of the guys here.

 

[CMP70306]

The number of long range rifle hunters is miniscule. If you want to drastically reduce wounding, you get rid of archery, as your screenshot shows. But no one suggests that because if you get close enough, you can't be unethical.

I will introduce exhibit A as my first Rokslide meme post borrowed from CBM back in 2019.

 

[Mikido]

Long range tools don’t scare me. People who are proficient, are proficient. People who aren’t, miss, then sell their stuff after a few empty handed outings.

99.9% of hunters aren’t killing deer past 400 yds,