Wyoming long range hunting debate

[chindits]

I’m really confused by all this. Our herd health is great and you can thank the luck of mild winters recently. So why attack one hunting method versus another? It’s the late winter range CPW flights that make the final determination on the number of tags issued, not the harvest rate and not the wounding rate. It’s essentially the winter survival rate.

If you want opportunity hunt OTC. If you don’t want hunter crowding, hunt limited draw. If you want both, become rich and buy PLO tags. If you want to hate certain hunters, then hunt them and their kill teams and their video crews. Seems simple enough. FFS

 

[KurtR]

The herd health is so dishonest if thats what its really about cut the tags and shorten the season. Who are going to enforce these new rules the puritans want? GW barley have time and resources to catch blatant poachers.

Hunt how you want to dont force your self imposed limits on others.

 

[Coleredding00]

The herd health is so dishonest if thats what its really about cut the tags and shorten the season. Who are going to enforce these new rules the puritans want? GW barley have time and resources to catch blatant poachers.

Hunt how you want to dont force your self imposed limits on others.

This is becoming another example of divide and conquer... the hunting community is persistently under attack as it is, we need not divide ourselves into smaller groups that are fighting each other at the same time were fighting the antis.

 

[Lee_R]

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

The problem is you're talking to and hanging out with ethical, like-minded hunters. Seriously, talk to someone who deals with many aspects of the general hunting public like i do. The vast majority think they can shoot 400-plus yds without practice and/or do not care at all about ethics. I literally talked to a clown today that wanted to get a 45-70 because he saw a video where it'd "blow a deer in half". I asked why in the hell he'd want to do that and he answered, "it's just a deer". These people are a significant portion of the hunting population, I see them everyday. I suggest you go to one of your favorite gun stores and talk to your favorite counter guy...they'll have stories that will anger and frighten you.

 

[Flyjunky]

The problem is you're talking to and hanging out with ethical, like-minded hunters. Seriously, talk to someone who deals with many aspects of the general hunting public like i do. The vast majority think they can shoot 400-plus yds without practice and/or do not care at all about ethics. I literally talked to a clown today that wanted to get a 45-70 because he saw a video where it'd "blow a deer in half". I asked why in the hell he'd want to do that and he answered, "it's just a deer". These people are a significant portion of the hunting population, I see them everyday. I suggest you go to one of your favorite gun stores and talk to your favorite counter guy...they'll have stories that will anger and frighten you.

And it won’t matter what restrictions you put in place their ethics will stay the same.

 

[AME]

"There is nothing new under the sun..."

As others have pointed out, this ultimately an ethical issue. Hunters and legislative jurisdictions have been trying to figure out what the relationship between legislation and ethics should be since the inception of modern conservation efforts.

Like any other ethical issue, a very good course of action is proper education. The 'I can hit a deer at 400 yards on the run even though I have not shot more than a box of rounds out of my super-large-extra-heavy-ridiculously-awesome-deer-murdering boom stick' people really are out there. I don't know what percentage of the hunter pie chart they make up, but it is significant. They are what could be called ethically ignorant.

However, there are also people out there that do understand there limitations, and act accordingly. The important thing for government entities, conservation groups, and individual hunters to do is to foster a strong understanding of ethical hunting, and ensure that it is passed on to the next generation.

Just my two cents, but this doesn't seem like something that a legislative bandaid is going to fix. Its an ethical problem stemming from the mindset of a certain proportion of American hunters.

 

[Coleredding00]

"There is nothing new under the sun..."

As others have pointed out, this ultimately an ethical issue. Hunters and legislative jurisdictions have been trying to figure out what the relationship between legislation and ethics should be since the inception of modern conservation efforts.

Like any other ethical issue, a very good course of action is proper education. The 'I can hit a deer at 400 yards on the run even though I have not shot more than a box of rounds out of my super-large-extra-heavy-ridiculously-awesome-deer-murdering boom stick' people really are out there. I don't know what percentage of the hunter pie chart they make up, but it is significant. They are what could be called ethically ignorant.

However, there are also people out there that do understand there limitations, and act accordingly. The important thing for government entities, conservation groups, and individual hunters to do is to foster a strong understanding of ethical hunting, and ensure that it is passed on to the next generation.

Just my two cents, but this doesn't seem like something that a legislative bandaid is going to fix. Its an ethical problem stemming from the mindset of a certain proportion of American hunters.

As unfortunate as it is, depending on people to have morals and abide by an unwritten code of ethics is impossible. As a society we’ve devolved so far that if there’s no legal obligation, it won’t be obeyed.. and that’s only if someone is looking in a lot of cases.

 

[AME]

As unfortunate as it is, depending on people to have morals and abide by an unwritten code of ethics is impossible. As a society we’ve devolved so far that if there’s no legal obligation, it won’t be obeyed.. and that’s only if someone is looking in a lot of cases.

People have never abode by an unwritten code of ethics. That was kind of my point. This is nothing new, it is just like any other ethical problem. In order to solve it, you need more than a rule that tells you to stop. The perfect example is drinking and driving. There are some penalties in place for choosing to drink and drive, but that doesn't stop a staggering (LOL) number of people from doing it. SO, will rules/laws/regulations opposing unethical long range hunting stop some people, yes. Will it cause the root cause of the problem to be removed, no. Will that root cause rear its ugly head some other way down the road? No one can say for sure, but my money is on yes.

So what's the long term solution? You have to fundamentally overhaul the underlying framework. In my opinion, regulations are like a hard hat. Its the last line of defense against a problem, particularly in cases like this were those regulations are incredibly easy to circumvent.

I agree that relying on peoples individual morals is incredibly stupid. However, I think that mere regulations are a lacking response to this discussion. Hence my original statement stressing education. If we actually punished criminals in these here United States, and had a legal system that was a little less jury rigged, then maybe regulations would have a stronger affect...but that is a topic for another time. Cheers,
AME

 

[wind gypsy]

This is becoming another example of divide and conquer... the hunting community is persistently under attack as it is, we need not divide ourselves into smaller groups that are fighting each other at the same time were fighting the antis.

Disagree. Lest we think there should only be gun seasons August through December and people can use bows/muzzleloaders then, these are balances and discussions that will always be had.

 

[Coleredding00]

Disagree. Lest we think there should only be gun seasons August through December and people can use bows/muzzleloaders then, these are balances and discussions that will always be had.

As they should be had, but the point i was trying to make is that bow hunters shouldn’t be at rifle hunters throats to force a change in rifle regulations to make things more fair for them or vice Versa. As hunters we can’t become divided and let regulations pass because “it doesn’t effect me”.

 

[wind gypsy]

As they should be had, but the point i was trying to make is that bow hunters shouldn’t be at rifle hunters throats to force a change in rifle regulations to make things more fair for them or vice Versa. As hunters we can’t become divided and let regulations pass because “it doesn’t effect me”.

Sure. But its not like it's just bowhunters and fudds that have concerns with increasing technology. There are a number of people who have and like precision rifles and long range shooting within this thread who would be in favor of further limitations in specific applications where it might make sense. Frankly, the "dont divide us" talking point seems to usually come from the folks who like status quo and dont care how it impacts others.

 

[Coleredding00]

Sure. But its not like it's just bowhunters and fudds that have concerns with increasing technology. There are a number of people who have and like precision rifles and long range shooting within this thread who would be in favor of further limitations in specific applications where it might make sense. Frankly, the "dont divide us" talking point seems to usually come from the folks who like status quo and dont care how it impacts others.

It has less to do with status quo and more to do with my complete distrust of government at any levels ability to not completely bungle everything they touch. Regulations only ever get more strict, not to mention if the regulations are used maliciously to all but end hunting on public land.

I’m not a legal expert. And i am sickened by wounded game as much as the next person. But as had already been stated, you can restrict technology all the way back to a flintlock if you want, people are still going to take shots they shouldn’t take. The distances will just be shorter.

 

[wind gypsy]

It has less to do with status quo and more to do with my complete distrust of government at any levels ability to not completely bungle everything they touch. Regulations only ever get more strict, not to mention if the regulations are used maliciously to all but end hunting on public land.

I’m not a legal expert. And i am sickened by wounded game as much as the next person. But as had already been stated, you can restrict technology all the way back to a flintlock if you want, people are still going to take shots they shouldn’t take. The distances will just be shorter.

I would be an advocate of considering restricted weapon tech only in areas where they are especially effective. I think LR hunting is much less of a difference maker in some of the areas with heavier cover (NW MT comes to mind). To jump from people trying to give bucks and bulls a more sporting chance of survival in WY to WY using weapons regs to "all but end hunting on public land" is beyond a stretch.

Different population/political dynamics for sure but I live in the state of Tim Walz and all we ever get is looser hunting regs so I dont necessarily agree they always get more strict.

Examples of how they've made killing deer easier and more liberal since i completed firearm safety in '97:

• Crossbows legalization for all archery seasons
• Elimination of the long held shotgun/pistol/muzzleloader only during firearm seasons in southern and western portions of the state (centerfire rifles will be legal next year now)
• Addition of a muzzleloader season after rifle season ends (open sites only)
  • Legalizing use of magnified scopes on muzzle loaders a decade later
  • Modify description of muzzleloader to accommodate federal firestick
  • Use of smokeless powders, centerfire rifle primers is legal (unsure if this has always been legal?)
• create a Kids firearm rifle season during archery season
• create a Doe firearm rifle season during archery season

Basically all of this shit has come from legislature getting their filthy mitts on wildlife management. So i'm 100% on board with trying to keep politicians from making hunting decisions. But if a wildlife agency thinks these things could meaningful improve hunting experience, i'm open to it.

 

[Coleredding00]

I would be an advocate of considering restricted weapon tech only in areas where they are especially effective. I think LR hunting is much less of a difference maker in some of the areas with heavier cover (NW MT comes to mind). To jump from people trying to give bucks and bulls a more sporting chance of survival in WY to WY using weapons regs to "all but end hunting on public land" is beyond a stretch.

Different population/political dynamics for sure but I live in the state of Tim Walz and all we ever get is looser hunting regs so I dont necessarily agree they always get more strict.

Examples of how they've made killing deer easier and more liberal since i completed firearm safety in '97:

• Crossbows legalization for all archery seasons
• Elimination of the long held shotgun/pistol/muzzleloader only during firearm seasons in southern and western portions of the state (centerfire rifles will be legal next year now)
• Addition of a muzzleloader season after rifle season ends (open sites only)
  • Legalizing use of magnified scopes on muzzle loaders a decade later
  • Modify description of muzzleloader to accommodate federal firestick
  • Use of smokeless powders, centerfire rifle primers is legal (unsure if this has always been legal?)
• Kids firearm rifle season during archery season
• Doe firearm rifle season during archery season

Basically all of this shit has come from legislature getting their filthy mitts on wildlife management. So i'm 100% on board with trying to keep politicians from making hunting decisions. But if a wildlife agency thinks these things could meaningful improve hunting experience, i'm open to it.

Undoubtedly technology has advanced leaps and bounds in the last 2 decades. I won’t dispute that. And I’m not opposed to certain seasons and certain units having weapons restrictions. Muzzle loader season in Utah for example, you can hunt the first week of November on a general season unit with a limited entry muzzle loader tag. It opens the door to finding a more mature buck, while hobbling you to a “primitive” (if you can consider modern inline muzzle loaders primitive, even with 1x scope limits they are damn efficient) or the new open sight rifle only units Utah is testing. Utah has banned the use of “electro optics” like the Burris eliminator/PH to combat this issue as well. I’m not saying that there aren’t steps that can be taken to make positive changes, but having an annual proficiency test seems like it is going to be an absolute NIGHTMARE for everyone. Even if it’s relatively easy to pass, lining up 70,000 permit holders in the state of Wyoming to take a test every fall will undoubtedly drive thousands away from hunting in the first place.

Utah already does a shooting test to complete hunters safety, but it basically amounts to “can you shoot a 6” group at 25 yards with a 22”. I don’t see how that can really be improved on though considering most kids are 10-12 years old when completing the test. So where do we draw the line? Is it annual, bi annual or every 5? I’m just concerned overall that this can set a precedent that makes the barrier to entry of hunting one click higher acrossed the western states.

 

[CMP70306]

Sure. But its not like it's just bowhunters and fudds that have concerns with increasing technology. There are a number of people who have and like precision rifles and long range shooting within this thread who would be in favor of further limitations in specific applications where it might make sense. Frankly, the "dont divide us" talking point seems to usually come from the folks who like status quo and dont care how it impacts others.

Bow hunters are the last people that should be arguing the ethics of long range hunting as the majority of their arguments could come right back around to bite them. The only one that has any merit is avoiding the animals senses at range.

 

[wind gypsy]

Did Colorado Bucks Survive the 5-year Plan? - Rokslide

Did Colorado bucks survive the 5-year Plan that started in 2020? Robby hosts Biologist Brandon Daimond of the CPW to answer that question and more.

www.rokslide.com

This is a great podcast that Robbie did. The tail end of the discussion is pertinent to the discussion. 1:23:00 is a fair starting point but there's good stuff before then as well. If folks are ok with just accepting that fewer and fewer bucks with solid potential will ever live to express it because they are unwilling to give up their LR rifle or rut hunting, thats on them. And if they are OK with that tradeoff, I wont say they are wrong because that's what is important to them. I'd rather see and hunt a more natural age class makeup with whatever weapons are necessary to support such a population.

 

[Coleredding00]

Did Colorado Bucks Survive the 5-year Plan? - Rokslide

Did Colorado bucks survive the 5-year Plan that started in 2020? Robby hosts Biologist Brandon Daimond of the CPW to answer that question and more.

www.rokslide.com

This is a great podcast that Robbie did. The tail end of the discussion is pertinent to the discussion. 1:23:00 is a fair starting point but there's good stuff before then as well. If folks are ok with just accepting that fewer and fewer bucks with solid potential will ever live to express it because they are unwilling to give up their LR rifle or rut hunting, thats on them. And if they are OK with that tradeoff, I wont say they are wrong because that's what is important to them. I'd rather see and hunt a more natural age class makeup with whatever weapons are necessary to support such a population.

I’m honestly not being argumentative here, but where do we dial it back to? Do we say that anything under 10x scope is legal? 6x? Or iron sight? Undoubtedly people will switch to something like the gunwerks dialable iron sights and still be taking pot shots…. Do we go to straight wall cartridges like people back east are limited to, but for effective range limitation rather than for safety? I just don’t see a suggestion here that is truly going to make a difference. We will always have people taking unethical shots with whatever they have, so is this conversation more about lowering Hunter success to try and up the average age of deer on the landscape, or is it actually about the morality of wounding deer? Because managing those two things would require different tactics i believe.

 

[Lionheart]

How about a “Smokey the Bear” or “Keep America Beautiful” type solution?
If we as a hunting community aggressively promote a “You can, but should you” or something catchy that encourages hunters to only take ethical shots, think before they shoot and make EVERY effort to retrieve wounded game?
Peer pressure in our community could do wonders to clean up our own act….
Any suggestions for the catchy name??

 

[wind gypsy]

I’m honestly not being argumentative here, but where do we dial it back to? Do we say that anything under 10x scope is legal? 6x? Or iron sight? Undoubtedly people will switch to something like the gunwerks dialable iron sights and still be taking pot shots…. Do we go to straight wall cartridges like people back east are limited to, but for effective range limitation rather than for safety? I just don’t see a suggestion here that is truly going to make a difference. We will always have people taking unethical shots with whatever they have, so is this conversation more about lowering Hunter success to try and up the average age of deer on the landscape, or is it actually about the morality of wounding deer? Because managing those two things would require different tactics i believe.

I cant speak for others on which aspects of the conversation matter to them. The factors that appeal to me are in regards to having a more natural deer age class and giving deer a more sporting chance of survival where they aren't getting blasted at if they dare show their face within 1000 yards of a hunter.

People are going to take questionable shots regardless of which weapons are allowed. You cant regulate that away.

I dont think a 10x or even 6x scope would make a large difference in what shots are being taken.

 

[robby denning]

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. ....

thanks for putting those numbers together. Common sense told me so, but good to see them.