Wyoming long range hunting debate

[wind gypsy]

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??

A good idea we should do regardless of the regulations IMO.

There has been a lot more content lately out there documenting real shooter competencies when forced to prove it in conditions that are out of their control (like hunting) and it has been a nice change vs the social media whores showing only their positive results. Cold bore challenges here. Fresh tracks, eric cortina, backfire have all had "prove it" content that humbled people lately.

I'm not an archery nerd like I am about rifles but the aspect of jumping the string is a very real thing there in addition to being able to hit your aim point. A guy might be able to slap a bunch of arrows in the foam at 40 yards but if the alert whitetail is going to play houdini when they hear the shot does that make them ethical more than having an educated thought about how the animal will react? Those types of honest discussions help imo.

 

[Shraggs]

Thread is so long maybe I lost track - but seems it started out with couple of states concerned with high rates of wounding and are investigating long range hunting the the potential. Been lots of discussion how herd and tag management are potentially more to the point but are far more complex. To my surprise many are for limiting technology and therefore range limits. Or certification of some sort if I’ve got the gist right.

Few years back had lease neighbors that were very problematic trespassing on ours, shooting more deer than their tags, etc. one year one of them wounded and lost 7 deer! Right or wrong I called the DNR to see about this. They told me unfortunately it’s not illegal to wound…. One crossbow and the rest were with 450 bushmaster at relatively close range. Still asked if they went over to count carcasses.

To me, this illustrates bad ethics which is so difficult to legislate as we all agree. I also believe tag timing and habitat are way more important issues. As a die hard archer - why go after long range when percentages point to archery. It’s the biggest payoff if wanting to limit. MZ with some of the crappy sabots folks use - saw two lost bulls in Colorado in successive years. We offered to help too.

I’m absolutely want to improving game and therefore hunting quality, but limiting the technology seems superficial and wide open for abuse with zero impact. In fact IMO I’d be worse as hunters went back to MBR hunting with their peep or 1x. That’s what folks did decades ago and with way more wounding then I see today.

Right, I’m good to 300 yards with my 308 carbine 180 grain xyz bullet if I sight 2” high at 100…. The tech is more lethal And I’d argue the path to excellence is still an effort but learnable and repeatable where the Mbr is more an art and trail and error of lots of shooting and it’s flat out inferior that the sane people won’t do.

Had a friend here in our shotgun only get set up and talked into a solid copper ammo that was good to 450 yards! And he took a Mbr shot at a buck at 300 ish tagging it in the paunch. Thank god the animal lived cause the would was skin deep…

I’ve been trained to shoot long range, and still training with range limits. I like the spirit of certification but I would be so concerned of the absolute abuse and favoritism ie the politics of it all. Right, and who in a government is going to approve me for elk hunting with a 6 mm creed. This would end up a hornets nest.

We as hunters need to protest habitat, the non hunters all over the mountains where I hunt affecting recruitment success and just maybe I’m open to the idea the terms of tag that you wound and not recover - your tag is punched….

 

[Lvball19]

Fair play is not right in that sense

 

[Stinky Coyote]

It’s a management thing. Manage the resource not the hunters.

If game numbers dropping adjust tags, weapons types that have lower success rates to still allow pursuit, accordingly....AND increase predator management efforts.

This eliminates going after the passionate people who will invest time and cost to be as prepared as possible with whatever the level of technology and gear is available in a given area and season.

Far easier than trying to keep up with hunters evolutions with technology and equipment that is released every single year.

Mandatory Hunter harvest surveys in order to apply for the following season draws or buy the next license, to aid in counts and success rates etc.

They are looking at wrong thing if they are looking at how far a guy can shoot. If archery success rate is 15% and rifle is 90% not hard to math projected kills by license purchase info and apply to management info about game population numbers.

This is just a tactic to divide and conquer within hunting communities as if it our fault. It’s not, manage all wildlife and ensure our wildlife managers have the right understanding and ability to do so.

Predators a huge part of equation as numbers declining by them far more than by us. Too many wolves and too many g bears. Wildlife management means manage all wildlife to benefit wildlife AND people. The people want more edible wildlife so manage for that while still keeping apex predators in the system but the balance is politically leaned to favor the predators than the people and deep down that’s planned. You can’t put a bar code on an elk, or home grown anything, they don’t want you living off the land, public or your own. They don’t get any more of your money if you provide your own food. They also can’t control that food to be unhealthy for you. They don’t like that at all.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

So many playing exactly into their game. Going after one another. Divide and conquer. Don’t do this.

It’s hunting not killing. You made the commitment to kill as soon as you bought the tag. If the animals wins the day that’s that day, if the Hunter wins the day that’s that day.

You guys seriously trying to argue your way up to making it 100% kill rate? That ends hunting as that’s impossible and unrealistic, ‘they win’ and that’s what they want us to do! No longer hunting? No more chances for the animals? Go to the grocery store, exactly what they want. The more dipsh1ts out there giving the animals a chance the better right?

Come on. Think about what you’re saying! Fly fisherman look down on us peasant bait anglers. Traditional guys look down on those with training wheels. How many look down on those who bait? Or those who run dogs? The only eat to kill crowd look down on those who participate in the full wildlife management game(balance predator/ungulate high and low cycles to reduce animal man conflict) and hunt predators too. It’s endless if we fall into the trap.

We’re one team, one family. We follow the laws we set out for ourselves because we love the fish and game. The fish and game have a chance, fair chase. If a guy wants to risk it...let him, it’s his tag, it only gives the animal more chance. Most will tire of losing and try to improve their game. It’s personal choice.

The long range thing is zero difference than any other game. It doesn’t just apply to centerfire rifles. Every weapon choice. Archery, muzzleloader, shotgun, rifle. The same choices occur.

You can’t go down this road to try and solve for issues regarding wildlife management. We generally improve our game, they want us to regulate ourselves makes their job easier to manage us than the wildlife.

Manage the wildlife. We will manage ourselves. As we always have. Pointing fingers at one another is bad form.

Sorry I added, just didn’t expect much of this here.

 

[ThorM465]

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Genesis 129 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Genesis 130 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Genesis 131 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

It is the God given duty and responsibility of us as hunters to take our game in the most lethal manner that limits the animal's suffering to the extent practical. Anyone here advocating for reducing lethality through regulations is the unethical hunter that gives the rest of us a bad name. The fact that you're doing it mostly if not exclusively, because it allows you more access with your style of hunting makes it much worse. This is where we need to call out and police our own.

Any reduction in lethality will, with absolute certainty, result in more bad shots and wounded animals. Take away LRFs and the same guy that was taking irresponsible shots with it will take it without it. Remove any equipment you'd like and that guy will make bad decision with whatever they are left with.

In my experience hunting, getting the animal in your sights is 90% of the game. I'd love to know where y'all are hunting where this isn't true. Focusing on that last 10% makes zero sense to me. Once the hunter gets the animal in their sights, I want them to have the absolute best odds of placing that round or broad head in the kill zone. If that means there must be less opportunity for me then so be it.

21 pages and almost nobody proposed real solutions. It just like DC, the decision makers out west don't have the stomach to implement real solutions.

Solution 1: Better habitat management.
Solution 2: Create emergency feed stock piles that can be dropped in by air assets during hard winters
Solution 3: Eliminate the use of motorized vehicles and beasts of burden beyond trailheads. This would allow the wildlife a range to roam beyond what only a handful of hunters would make it into.
Solution 4: Reduce Resident tags. The Non-Resident tag numbers are so low that you couldn't reduce them enough to make a meaningful impact and doing so would eliminate the funds necessary for Solution 1&2. You could reduce resident tags by something like 20% and they would still get 90% of tags.

Anyone talking about non-resident hunters being the problem, causing the over crowding are no different than the people who cry "just tax the rich." We are the minority and the number of tags allocated to us has only decreased as far as I know. Increasing the scarcity of opportunities for other non-residents is the only thing the increased popularity has done.

 

[ThorM465]

Good thing there’s a really efficient system to get a drivers license to keep all those morons off the road. (That’s sarcasm, in case anyone can’t tell)

This is the law of unintended consequences. It’s the reason our entire country is in crisis. How have we not figured this out as a society yet? Covid, anyone? Frankly most of the regulatory structure of the country? Laws rarely do what they’re intended to do, even when the intentions of the lawmakers are pure. That doesn’t even account for the more nefarious stuff.

The bottom line is this: It’s very tempting to see a human behavior that we personally don’t like, and think “let’s make a law to ban that” Which is engaging willingly in something like “ let’s set up a governmental regulatory structure to enforce (with the threat of fines, violence, and jail) control of someone else’s behavior” This is totalitarian right to its core. Cool as long as you’re the one who gets to decide how other people should behave…which you wont be. Or instead we could try something called freedom. Keeping the government as limited as possible to a few key functions. Part of that is accepting that you aren’t going to get to control other peoples actions all the time, even when they’re doing something you really don’t like, as long as it’s not hurting or killing anyone.

Here’s a fictitious non hunting related example of how most of this stuff actually works

Let’s make a law called “Save All The Cute Cuddly Kittens” who could possible be against that? Are you a cute cuddly kitten hater? You bigot, how can you possibly vote agains saving the kittens? Now let’s take a look at how the law actually functions…it’s now illegal to euthanize cuddly kittens. Sounds amazing! On the next campaign trail, this politician will say “by the simple stroke of a pen, I have saved countless cuddly kittens! It was that easy..all the other politicians before me were heartless and evil, look how magnanimous I am” Let’s ignore the fact that now all the shelters have to house, feed, and pay for millions of unwanted strays, destroying the viability of their business model overnight, and creating a massive overrun of cats in most urban environments. Oh but they thought of that….so it’s gonna cost the taxpayers a couple billion over the next few years. It funnels your money into a NGO that’s run by the sponsor of the bill’s cousin. That NGO will run the shelters. Oh and there’s no audit of the money. Or any way to measure how effective per dollar that money is at saving cuddly kittens. Oh also by the way, that NGO hires a subcontractor to do a lot of their “work” who just so happens to be one of the largest campaign contributions to this bills sponsor.

The whole reason crap like this is happens, is because people are willing to give politicians the power to try to control all sorts of human behaviors that they don’t like, and the government has ZERO business being involved in


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This should be required reading for all FNGs.

Freaking Data. Give me a break. “Data” has become an overused and annoying Rokslike buzzword. No one needs freaking data and a study to prove that a turret, an advanced scope, precision rifles, and a ballistic calculator make it easier to kill animals, one just needs common sense.

The question isn't does it. The question is why shouldn't it. None of this has any bearing on getting the animal in your sights.

Agreed, most people don’t know how to correctly age a male on the hoof, antlers are not always the tell tale indicator that we think they are and I am not in the business of saying what people can and cannot take with a tag that they have legal obtained and are hunting with the legal equipment for said season. I have my standards and they are mine.

Colorado has ensured that almost no large antlered males will make it through to the winter with very liberal buck tags in mid to late November with scoped rifle season 3&4… our deer herd is still heading the in the wrong direction do to probably issuing too many tags and the ability to really reach out and touch an animal at range when they are vulnerable. Hunter success from the non mandatory surveys is often over 50% for a lot of the late season rifle hunts, just like it is extremely high for 1st rifle elk, yet hovers around 10% for archery… it is often double that for otc rifle elk tags… see how it seems that if we limited tech in units and times we can manipulate hunter success?

An example from Wyo: A buddy of mine has a ranch in SE Wyo, they are allowed to hunt elk with rifles starting in mid Sept. he has filled his tag on a bull every single year, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel

Count me as one of those. I have no clue how to do that. Where can I learn that skill?

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.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Let this be a case study on why democracies don't work. Allowing the masses to dictate policy will inevitably lead to demise.

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.

I question whether you've ever met a hunter. After this comment my money is that you're actually some dude sitting in India getting paid $0.25 per hr to troll this forum. Unfortunately most hunters have no clue what the maximum range is that they can expect their bullet to expand reliably from their rifle.

 

[35WhelenAI]

It's been said, and it's opinion, however, setting up deliberately to take a shot at long range with no intent to close the distance is not hunting. It's not the guy watching a clear cut with 300-400 yds range of fire, folks back in the 70's made shots like that.

500+ yds was on the hunter and usually when they "topped a ridge and on the opposite saddle" was the animal they wanted to take and tried to close the distance. Topping a saddle means they were on the move, HUNTING. Not "I hiked 7 miles, set up with my spotting scope, 15x binocs, and scope that dials to 1,000 yds".

It's pervasive, even on this awesome forum, called Rokslide, guys get stars in their eyes with long range, and it perpetuates itself and builds upon itself. If folks quit talking about it, and just do it without publicizing on the Internet, and QUIT the videos and escapades trying to compensate, then it wouldn't be on the table as potential legislation. Idiots!

 

[Wyoming300]

I'm quite impressed with the varied stances on here.

As a very active Wyoming hunter, last year I hunted 13 game species and spent more than 45 days out hunting, I have a lot to say about this.

My main point is equipment does not replace skill. Laws cannot regulate ethics.

I'm much more worried about the guy who jump shoots running deer with a rifle at 80 yards than the guy who spends 20 minutes setting up to take a perfect 500 yard shot on an antelope.

I have a few points I am not seeing anyone mention.

One is habitat disturbance. Someone who uses optics to find game at 400 yards and shoot disturbs the game herd a whole lot less than the guy who stomps through every single thicket from 6 am to 10 am in the elk woods by Laramie every Saturday morning for 3 months but never takes a shot. At 11:30 every Saturday morning I observe the elk come out of the ravines and laugh at you.

The Wyoming September archery season is a perfect example of how forcing someone to choose certain hunting gear in efforts to limit their effectiveness only results in them making shots they were not comfortable with. Last August I found two elk near Laramie that had been arrowed the previous season and not recovered. If you shoot a gold tip with American flag blazer vanes and a Montec G5 broadhead, your liver shot killed the elk not far from where you lost it in the thicket. Your arrow is hanging in my garage. I found 6 arrows on the same plot of land that had been clean misses last September. I'm one of the largest advocates for archery hunting in the state, yet I think the archery only season should be abolished. People should shoot a bow because they are skilled with it, not because game and fish gave them September to do so. Special seasons for special equipment are garbage. I pull about 3 dozen broadhead every September out of the back stop at the local archery club. It's an excellent study on broadhead durability.

I think most of you are not grasping the concept long range hunting has been around longer than you. Ever wonder why 300 Win Mag became insanely popular in the 1960s when scopes were primative? it wasn't to take 200 yard shots. Scopes just make skilled people more consistent.

The internet shines a spotlight where a spotlight was never shone before. A hunting show that shows the guy in the grey ram who walks the same plot of land by Laramie every Saturday morning from 6 am to 10 am, and takes 3 months to shoot an elk at 150 yards would not be a hit show. The shows are the equivalent of wrestling. Lots of fast fake action strung together. Show lots of obnoxious calling and lots of long range shots at big elk. Make it tense. Real world ain't that way.

My best tactic is calling. I get diagnally across wind on the other side of the thicket of the idiot who bugles from the road for an hour and shoot the elk that sneaks away from him.

The best way to combat this issue is training and education. Teach hunters to make 800 yard shots. When they become good at it, they will understand how a 300 win mag bullet with a moderate bc that drifts .5 moa per 10 mph of wind per 100 yards will by off by 6 inches at 400 yards on a 30 mph (moderate here) wind day. Let them find out on paper the angle adjustment of their range finder is inaccurate after 500 yards. Let them see their $1,200 sig bdx range finder that shows .1 of a yard is only accurate to +- 3 yards after 500 yards. Let them see the infinity parallax adjustment on their $600 scope is off by an inch between 500 and 1000 yards. And with archery, I always check broadhead tune at 70 yards. Every year. Yet I've never shot a deer at half that. I have a mantle full of deer mounts shot at 3-8 yards.

The biggest issue is all the old timers who sit around and tell hunters what they should and should not shoot instead of going out and teaching new hunters how to shoot and then how to hunt.

 

[littlebigtine]

I'm quite impressed with the varied stances on here.

As a very active Wyoming hunter, last year I hunted 13 game species and spent more than 45 days out hunting, I have a lot to say about this.

My main point is equipment does not replace skill. Laws cannot regulate ethics.

I'm much more worried about the guy who jump shoots running deer with a rifle at 80 yards than the guy who spends 20 minutes setting up to take a perfect 500 yard shot on an antelope.

I have a few points I am not seeing anyone mention.

One is habitat disturbance. Someone who uses optics to find game at 400 yards and shoot disturbs the game herd a whole lot less than the guy who stomps through every single thicket from 6 am to 10 am in the elk woods by Laramie every Saturday morning for 3 months but never takes a shot. At 11:30 every Saturday morning I observe the elk come out of the ravines and laugh at you.

The Wyoming September archery season is a perfect example of how forcing someone to choose certain hunting gear in efforts to limit their effectiveness only results in them making shots they were not comfortable with. Last August I found two elk near Laramie that had been arrowed the previous season and not recovered. If you shoot a gold tip with American flag blazer vanes and a Montec G5 broadhead, your liver shot killed the elk not far from where you lost it in the thicket. Your arrow is hanging in my garage. I found 6 arrows on the same plot of land that had been clean misses last September. I'm one of the largest advocates for archery hunting in the state, yet I think the archery only season should be abolished. People should shoot a bow because they are skilled with it, not because game and fish gave them September to do so. Special seasons for special equipment are garbage. I pull about 3 dozen broadhead every September out of the back stop at the local archery club. It's an excellent study on broadhead durability.

I think most of you are not grasping the concept long range hunting has been around longer than you. Ever wonder why 300 Win Mag became insanely popular in the 1960s when scopes were primative? it wasn't to take 200 yard shots. Scopes just make skilled people more consistent.

The internet shines a spotlight where a spotlight was never shone before. A hunting show that shows the guy in the grey ram who walks the same plot of land by Laramie every Saturday morning from 6 am to 10 am, and takes 3 months to shoot an elk at 150 yards would not be a hit show. The shows are the equivalent of wrestling. Lots of fast fake action strung together. Show lots of obnoxious calling and lots of long range shots at big elk. Make it tense. Real world ain't that way.

My best tactic is calling. I get diagnally across wind on the other side of the thicket of the idiot who bugles from the road for an hour and shoot the elk that sneaks away from him.

The best way to combat this issue is training and education. Teach hunters to make 800 yard shots. When they become good at it, they will understand how a 300 win mag bullet with a moderate bc that drifts .5 moa per 10 mph of wind per 100 yards will by off by 6 inches at 400 yards on a 30 mph (moderate here) wind day. Let them find out on paper the angle adjustment of their range finder is inaccurate after 500 yards. Let them see their $1,200 sig bdx range finder that shows .1 of a yard is only accurate to +- 3 yards after 500 yards. Let them see the infinity parallax adjustment on their $600 scope is off by an inch between 500 and 1000 yards. And with archery, I always check broadhead tune at 70 yards. Every year. Yet I've never shot a deer at half that. I have a mantle full of deer mounts shot at 3-8 yards.

The biggest issue is all the old timers who sit around and tell hunters what they should and should not shoot instead of going out and teaching new hunters how to shoot and then how to hunt.

Do you think that the sky is the limit for long range hunting always being included in fair chase? If not, where does it top out? 1000 yards? 1200 yards? 1 mile?

I think that your argument is rational but there is some nuance to the situation we are in currently that is was not the case 50, 40, 20, or even 5 years ago. Technology is being developed at a exponential scale and rifles will continue to become more and more lethal. Will it still make sense to let our children shoot elk at 2000 yards from the bottom of the mountain when that becomes the norm?

 

[Hnthrdr]

Do you think that the sky is the limit for long range hunting always being included in fair chase? If not, where does it top out? 1000 yards? 1200 yards? 1 mile?

I think that your argument is rational but there is some nuance to the situation we are in currently that is was not the case 50, 40, 20, or even 5 years ago. Technology is being developed at an exponential scale and rifles will continue to become more and more lethal. Will it still make sense to let our children shoot elk at 2000 yards from the bottom of the mountain when that becomes the norm?

Yes! And it is easy to establish barriers by limiting weapon tech, ie, bows/ muzzys/ open sights/ straight wall cartridges, ect. Will people still be dumb and wound stuff, yes, is it harder to wound game at 100 yards or 1200 yards?

 

[ThorM465]

Yes! And it is easy to establish barriers by limiting weapon tech, ie, bows/ muzzys/ open sights/ straight wall cartridges, ect. Will people still be dumb and wound stuff, yes, is it harder to wound game at 100 yards or 1200 yards?

Clearly 1200 yards. If you pull your shot at 1200 yards you're almost certainly looking at a complete miss, at 100 yards there's a exponentially higher chance of a gut shot.

I wish I could like @Wyoming300 's post 100xs. He's right on the money.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Clearly 1200 yards. If you pull your shot at 1200 yards you're almost certainly looking at a complete miss, at 100 yards there's a exponentially higher chance of a gut shot.

I wish I could like @Wyoming300 's post 100xs. He's right on

So most guys just cleanly miss at 4,5, 600 yards? The point is if you weapon only shoots 75-100-200 yards max you can’t even attempt shots at animals that far, I get plenty of wounding happens in all seasons but do you not think that it’s is harder to get sub 100 yards from game than getting sub 1000 yards ?

 

[ThorM465]

So most guys just cleanly miss at 4,5, 600 yards? The point is if you weapon only shoots 75-100-200 yards max you can’t even attempt shots at animals that far, I get plenty of wounding happens in all seasons but do you not think that it’s is harder to get sub 100 yards from game than getting sub 1000 yards ?

1. You didn't ask about 400, 500, 0r 600. You asked about 1200. The odds of a near miss vs a total miss is fairly linear between 100 and 1200 yards.
2. What modern rifle only shoots 200yards??? What's stopping an unethical hunter from using this 18th century rifle to take a 350 yard shot?
3. Of course it's harder to get within 100 yards than it is 1000 yards. What's your point? Do you not think that a hunter with less than 20 rounds fired in the last 5 years and no knowledge of his ballistics could make impact at 100 yards and the same hunter would almost certainly miss entirely at anything beyond 500 yards?

 

[Mojave]

If you wound an animal, you are obligated to recover it. If you can't find it your hunt is over.

The only language I would like to see in a bill.

 

[BRTreedogs]

So most guys just cleanly miss at 4,5, 600 yards? The point is if you weapon only shoots 75-100-200 yards max you can’t even attempt shots at animals that far, I get plenty of wounding happens in all seasons but do you not think that it’s is harder to get sub 100 yards from game than getting sub 1000 yards ?

Sure you can.
Start shooting high over them as they are more likely to run towards you.

Keep racking in rounds and popping shots until you wound the animal and slow them down.

Take off running like last of the Mohicans while reloading.

Pop off a few more to get him slowed down some more.

People used to and still do this.

 

[Hnthrdr]

1. You didn't ask about 400, 500, 0r 600. You asked about 1200. The odds of a near miss vs a total miss is fairly linear between 100 and 1200 yards.
2. What modern rifle only shoots 200yards??? What's stopping an unethical hunter from using this 18th century rifle to take a 350 yard shot?
3. Of course it's harder to get within 100 yards than it is 1000 yards. What's your point? Do you not think that a hunter with less than 20 rounds fired in the last 5 years and no knowledge of his ballistics could make impact at 100 yards and the same hunter would almost certainly miss entirely at anything beyond 500 yards?

1. I was using extremes to make a point.

2. No modern rifles are only going to shoot 200 yards, but muzzleloaders & straight walls the wheels really fall off past 200 with most loads and coupled with iron sights good luck? You are going to have to get closer. Nothing, but that 18th century tech, and even the bullets used make accuracy at 350 extremely difficult, ie guys shooting 1000 yards with modern rifles, just like you said likely to be complete misses.

3. My point is using tech to make hunters get closer to game is a way to control hunters taking insanely long shots without having the state say you can only shoot 400 yards which is silly and unenforceable. This practice could also lead to people having to “hunt” again and not just shoot which may lead to lower harvests so they could increase tags given for these seasons to let more people hunt.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Sure you can.
Start shooting high over them as they are more likely to run towards you.

Keep racking in rounds and popping shots until you wound the animal and slow them down.

Take off running like last of the Mohicans while reloading.

Pop off a few more to get him slowed down some more.

People used to and still do this.

Where have you seen this? I’ve seen herd shooting during rifle seasons from 700 plus yards, never seen it during muzzleloader or archery….

 

[wind gypsy]

I'm quite impressed with the varied stances on here.

As a very active Wyoming hunter, last year I hunted 13 game species and spent more than 45 days out hunting, I have a lot to say about this.

My main point is equipment does not replace skill. Laws cannot regulate ethics.

I'm much more worried about the guy who jump shoots running deer with a rifle at 80 yards than the guy who spends 20 minutes setting up to take a perfect 500 yard shot on an antelope.

I have a few points I am not seeing anyone mention.

One is habitat disturbance. Someone who uses optics to find game at 400 yards and shoot disturbs the game herd a whole lot less than the guy who stomps through every single thicket from 6 am to 10 am in the elk woods by Laramie every Saturday morning for 3 months but never takes a shot. At 11:30 every Saturday morning I observe the elk come out of the ravines and laugh at you.

The Wyoming September archery season is a perfect example of how forcing someone to choose certain hunting gear in efforts to limit their effectiveness only results in them making shots they were not comfortable with. Last August I found two elk near Laramie that had been arrowed the previous season and not recovered. If you shoot a gold tip with American flag blazer vanes and a Montec G5 broadhead, your liver shot killed the elk not far from where you lost it in the thicket. Your arrow is hanging in my garage. I found 6 arrows on the same plot of land that had been clean misses last September. I'm one of the largest advocates for archery hunting in the state, yet I think the archery only season should be abolished. People should shoot a bow because they are skilled with it, not because game and fish gave them September to do so. Special seasons for special equipment are garbage. I pull about 3 dozen broadhead every September out of the back stop at the local archery club. It's an excellent study on broadhead durability.

I think most of you are not grasping the concept long range hunting has been around longer than you. Ever wonder why 300 Win Mag became insanely popular in the 1960s when scopes were primative? it wasn't to take 200 yard shots. Scopes just make skilled people more consistent.

The internet shines a spotlight where a spotlight was never shone before. A hunting show that shows the guy in the grey ram who walks the same plot of land by Laramie every Saturday morning from 6 am to 10 am, and takes 3 months to shoot an elk at 150 yards would not be a hit show. The shows are the equivalent of wrestling. Lots of fast fake action strung together. Show lots of obnoxious calling and lots of long range shots at big elk. Make it tense. Real world ain't that way.

My best tactic is calling. I get diagnally across wind on the other side of the thicket of the idiot who bugles from the road for an hour and shoot the elk that sneaks away from him.

The best way to combat this issue is training and education. Teach hunters to make 800 yard shots. When they become good at it, they will understand how a 300 win mag bullet with a moderate bc that drifts .5 moa per 10 mph of wind per 100 yards will by off by 6 inches at 400 yards on a 30 mph (moderate here) wind day. Let them find out on paper the angle adjustment of their range finder is inaccurate after 500 yards. Let them see their $1,200 sig bdx range finder that shows .1 of a yard is only accurate to +- 3 yards after 500 yards. Let them see the infinity parallax adjustment on their $600 scope is off by an inch between 500 and 1000 yards. And with archery, I always check broadhead tune at 70 yards. Every year. Yet I've never shot a deer at half that. I have a mantle full of deer mounts shot at 3-8 yards.

The biggest issue is all the old timers who sit around and tell hunters what they should and should not shoot instead of going out and teaching new hunters how to shoot and then how to hunt.

You make logical points. On the matter of fair chase - do you feel there are specific areas where particular species find it increasingly difficult to survive hunting season if they sport desirable headgear largely due to technology's role in increasing hunter effectiveness? If so, are there ways to mitigate that without meaningfully reducing tag allocation?

 

[BRTreedogs]

Where have you seen this? I’ve seen herd shooting during rifle seasons from 700 plus yards, never seen it during muzzleloader or archery….

My nephew was about 300 yards from me once and unloaded a 30-30 twice

I actually layed down on the ground.

People have been wag shooting for decades.
Why do you think all the fast cartridges were wild catted?
So people could sight in 4” high at 100 for a 300 yards zero and hold top of back to 500

I’ve known dozens of people doing this for years. And still do.

I just talked a buddy into re scoping his rifle last year and taught him how to dial.