Wyoming long range hunting debate

[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….

Or am I misunderstanding and now you want to eliminate rifle hunting all together.


You realize the purpose of hunting is to kill an animal rite?

If you just want to drink booze and fumble around the woods quit drawing tags and just go camping.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Or am I misunderstanding and now you want to eliminate rifle hunting all together.


You realize the purpose of hunting is to kill an animal rite?

If you just want to drink booze and fumble around the woods quit drawing tags and just go camping.

Not at all man, I love my rifles, love killing animals. This convo was about how to *possibly impose limits upon hunters, personally I think a law about “range” is stupid and unenforceable. So I proposed a way to limit range is via tech. I think there should be rifle season, archery, muzzleloader, heck even spear season if folks wanted. Just one guys idea of how to limit range while not getting some guy in Cheyenne saying no shooting over 538 yards or whatever random number they put on it. Would you feel uncomfortable walking around the woods with an iron sight lever or bolt action? I know I wouldn’t.

 

[Wyoming300]

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?

I think terrain is the limit. The place I typically elk hunt longest shot is 300 yards most are under 100. Of course elk will feed in open areas but many spend the season in the right area like this one that I hunt, hence why I hunt there.

 

[littlebigtine]

I think terrain is the limit. The place I typically elk hunt longest shot is 300 yards most are under 100. Of course elk will feed in open areas but many spend the season in the right area like this one that I hunt, hence why I hunt there

So terrain dictates fair chase?

 

[Wyoming300]

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.

I agree with your point. That is why I also pointed out our super fast cartridges were around decades before high power scopes were the norm.

 

[Aaron Davidson]

I'm debating the value of weighing in on this thread.....

 

[littlebigtine]

I'm debating the value of weighing in on this thread.....

Ill help you out, do you think that the increase in hunting technology over the last decade has also increased hunter efficacy?

 

[ThorM465]

Ill help you out, do you think that the increase in hunting technology over the last decade has also increased hunter efficacy?

I think the better question is, if we removed said technology do you think that would increase or decrease hunter efficacy?

 

[littlebigtine]

I think the better question is, if we removed said technology do you think that would increase or decrease hunter efficacy?

That works too. What do you think @Aaron Davidson ?

 

[PredatorSlayer]

For every one person that does a good job self regulating, there are 10 idiots who can’t or won’t. Very very few hunters should take a shot over 500 yards.

 

[35WhelenAI]

In the question with respect to technology increasing efficacy, that is a de facto statement that longer ranges are in play due to technology based on the purpose of this thread. Longer range "hunting" (put a number on it, 500, 600, 700 yds+) when a person sets up with no intent to get closer even if they could is shooting, not hunting.

Grand scheme, if it wasn't a glorification process for those that put it out on the Internet, and look for affirmation and likes, this topic would never come up. It's the same thing I said, earlier in the thread.

 

[Bandit16]

I spent too much time reading this thread. But what I can’t believe is that some people draw blood and don’t pinch their tag. I count wounded animals toward my limit if I have one tag or a bunch. I count wounded and I find birds lien dove toward the limit. That’s what was taught by my dad and hunters education 30+ years ago. Until reading this thread I never heard of anyone doing otherwise.

 

[Wyoming300]

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.

I agree with your point. That is why I also pointed out our super fast cartridges were around decades before high power scopes were the norm.

So terrain dictates fair chase?

I don't think fair chase is an ethic.

I think it is an abstract construct. I've known people who could not shoot a deer at 100 yards with a scoped rifle. I've known people who could not shoot a deer at 25 yards with a compound bow.

To them, the deer had the advantage no matter the situation.

Even a 2,000 yard sniper doesn't have a chance if a deer doesn't come out of the brush until dark.

I've had days I shot an antelope 20 minutes into a hunt, and seasons I did not get a shot on an elk after 15 days of sitting.

If you want to make fair chase an ethical issue, I think the knowledge and skill to find animals is the reward to a skilled hunter. I completely separate this from the means to make a clean kill. Id rather see you make a good shot at 600 yards than take a 100 yards brush shot and have your bullet deflect several feet off of course.

Ill help you out, do you think that the increase in hunting technology over the last decade has also increased hunter efficacy?

NO!

It has hurt it.

I see it every year in Wyoming.

Grumpy old timers will zoom all over on roads on a side by side 4 wheeler for days on end and never see the trophy mule deer that was 300 yards below them out of sight from the road.

It's impossible to find bedded mule deer in juniper, mahogany, or sage on the side of the hill in an afternoon shadow. One plot I hunt is full of people who drive up, bugle, glass, and drive away because they don't see the elk that are bedded and watching them.

I think most technologies now are sold as the end all of hunting, people buy into it and make themselves less successful as a result.

You guys sound exactly like when compound bows were going to kill every deer on the planet.

Then the cross bow was going to kill every deer on the planet.

I know people with inherited hunting rifles and simple binoculars who out hunt 90% of the hunters with expensive gear and expensive rifles simply by knowing where to be to take a shot in close range.

The people who have very expensive hunting gear and rifles always manage to convince me they are unsure of their hunting skills so they buy what's on the add to look like they know what they are doing. It's working. Retailers make thousands from them. Game and fish sells lots of thousand dollar out of state elk tags that are never filled. Study the fill rate for Wyoming tags. It's rather low.

 

[littlebigtine]

I agree with your point. That is why I also pointed out our super fast cartridges were around decades before high power scopes were the norm.

I don't think fair chase is an ethic.

I think it is an abstract construct. I've known people who could not shoot a deer at 100 yards with a scoped rifle. I've known people who could not shoot a deer at 25 yards with a compound bow.

To them, the deer had the advantage no matter the situation.

Even a 2,000 yard sniper doesn't have a chance if a deer doesn't come out of the brush until dark.

I've had days I shot an antelope 20 minutes into a hunt, and seasons I did not get a shot on an elk after 15 days of sitting.

If you want to make fair chase an ethical issue, I think the knowledge and skill to find animals is the reward to a skilled hunter. I completely separate this from the means to make a clean kill. Id rather see you make a good shot at 600 yards than take a 100 yards brush shot and have your bullet deflect several feet off of course.



NO!

It has hurt it.

I see it every year in Wyoming.

Grumpy old timers will zoom all over on roads on a side by side 4 wheeler for days on end and never see the trophy mule deer that was 300 yards below them out of sight from the road.

It's impossible to find bedded mule deer in juniper, mahogany, or sage on the side of the hill in an afternoon shadow. One plot I hunt is full of people who drive up, bugle, glass, and drive away because they don't see the elk that are bedded and watching them.

I think most technologies now are sold as the end all of hunting, people buy into it and make themselves less successful as a result.

You guys sound exactly like when compound bows were going to kill every deer on the planet.

Then the cross bow was going to kill every deer on the planet.

I know people with inherited hunting rifles and simple binoculars who out hunt 90% of the hunters with expensive gear and expensive rifles simply by knowing where to be to take a shot in close range.

The people who have very expensive hunting gear and rifles always manage to convince me they are unsure of their hunting skills so they buy what's on the add to look like they know what they are doing. It's working. Retailers make thousands from them. Game and fish sells lots of thousand dollar out of state elk tags that are never filled. Study the fill rate for Wyoming tags. It's rather low.

You raise some interesting points. I do not believe that “fair chase” must necessarily be enshrined in law, but it is certainly a principle that all hunters should consider seriously.

In my view, rangefinders have undoubtedly increased efficacy for both bowhunters and rifle hunters, though it is difficult to quantify precisely how much, and likely not as dramatically as some might assume.

Modern rifles have become more affordable and significantly more accurate. Thermal imaging provides an extraordinary advantage, and mapping technologies have rendered landscapes far more accessible than in the past.

While today’s hunters possess many advantages, it is not clear that we are, on average, markedly more effective at harvesting.

However, as technological capabilities continue to advance, and there is no indication that this trend will slow, it is unrealistic to expect fish and game agencies to remain passive while their management frameworks are gradually undermined. Agencies will inevitably have to respond.

The examples you cite represent particular hunting scenarios, but they do not necessarily reflect the broader challenge. Much of the western landscape consists of open country, where animals still possess natural opportunities for escape. Yet when technology renders it commonplace to take animals at ranges of 1,500 to 2,000 yards, it becomes clear that some limits must be imposed. What will those limits do? Most importantly protect the legacy of hunting as I am sure the general public will begin to waffle their favor when hunters harvesting animals a mile away becomes public information. Secondly, I think there is a safety concern when shooting from that distance. Though unlikely, the chance of getting caught in the crossfire unknowingly is much greater than at more reasonable distances like 500 yards or less.

The question of enforcement is not necessarily mine to resolve, but because technology has created this circumstance, it seems appropriate that technology should be subject to some limitations whether it concerns scopes, rangefinders, or other equipment.

 

[LostArra]

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've hunted Wyoming for a long time. I see it a little differently. The archery only season is not the problem. The problem is that in Wyoming the tag is not specific for archery (minor exceptions in some areas). So you have rifle hunters who go buy a bow (usually a crossbow) to get in on the early archery season. Fling arrows at rut-stupid bulls and just come back in a month with a rifle if they miss or can't find their wounded elk. If the early archery season was only for an archery tag then you would weed out those not dedicated to archery hunting. (I apologize for the stereotyping but you get my point. In Wyoming once you've drawn the tag why not buy a bow and hunt the rut?)

I'm a non-resident and I've greatly benefited from the liberal weapon regs in Wyoming but I can see where they can be problematic.

 

[ThorM465]

You raise some interesting points. I do not believe that “fair chase” must necessarily be enshrined in law, but it is certainly a principle that all hunters should consider seriously.

In my view, rangefinders have undoubtedly increased efficacy for both bowhunters and rifle hunters, though it is difficult to quantify precisely how much, and likely not as dramatically as some might assume.

Modern rifles have become more affordable and significantly more accurate. Thermal imaging provides an extraordinary advantage, and mapping technologies have rendered landscapes far more accessible than in the past.

While today’s hunters possess many advantages, it is not clear that we are, on average, markedly more effective at harvesting.

However, as technological capabilities continue to advance, and there is no indication that this trend will slow, it is unrealistic to expect fish and game agencies to remain passive while their management frameworks are gradually undermined. Agencies will inevitably have to respond.

The examples you cite represent particular hunting scenarios, but they do not necessarily reflect the broader challenge. Much of the western landscape consists of open country, where animals still possess natural opportunities for escape. Yet when technology renders it commonplace to take animals at ranges of 1,500 to 2,000 yards, it becomes clear that some limits must be imposed. What will those limits do? Most importantly protect the legacy of hunting as I am sure the general public will begin to waffle their favor when hunters harvesting animals a mile away becomes public information. Secondly, I think there is a safety concern when shooting from that distance. Though unlikely, the chance of getting caught in the crossfire unknowingly is much greater than at more reasonable distances like 500 yards or less.

The question of enforcement is not necessarily mine to resolve, but because technology has created this circumstance, it seems appropriate that technology should be subject to some limitations whether it concerns scopes, rangefinders, or other equipment.

The idea that hunters shooting at longer ranges is more dangerous to other hunts is just outright wrong. The physics don't change whether you're shooting at an elk 100 yards away or 600 yards. The kinetic energy of that bullet remains the same yard for yard. In fact it is arguably less dangerous shooting at game at further distance because if you miss it has already expended more energy at the target distance and will travel less distance beyond the target than it otherwise would have, assuming the shooter as confirm the distance between them and the target is clear. E.g., You fire a round that is going to travel 2k yards before it hits the dirt, if you miss at 100 yards anyone within some cone of 1900 yards is at risk, if you shoot at a target 750 yards away then you have a cone that is 1250 yards deep, 650 yards less than the former target. Your probability of impacting another hunting within the latter is obviously less.

Is there another risk that you were concerned about that I missed?

 

[ThorM465]

I take great ethical issue with any regulation that would make hunters less lethal, directly leading to more wounded animals. If more Elk are being harvested to the point that sustainment is threatened, then I'd argue for the reduction of tags and a restriction on the use of beasts of burden (horses, mules, llamas), so that the animal would have more range where they were undisturbed by hunters. That's the ethical route to take as I see it.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I'm debating the value of weighing in on this thread.....

Perfect time of year, have some fun!

 

[Hnthrdr]

I take great ethical issue with any regulation that would make hunters less lethal, directly leading to more wounded animals. If more Elk are being harvested to the point that sustainment is threatened, then I'd argue for the reduction of tags and a restriction on the use of beasts of burden (horses, mules, llamas), so that the animal would have more range where they were undisturbed by hunters. That's the ethical route to take as I see it.

So less and less people will get tags and the wait line will grow exponentially, vs. making us use less effective weapons and issuing more tags to achieve the same harvest numbers

 

[Flyjunky]

So less and less people will get tags and the wait line will grow exponentially, vs. making us use less effective weapons and issuing more tags to achieve the same harvest numbers

So it’s less about making sure our ungulate population is growing and more about making sure hunters can still get tags?

We’ve been through this multiple times….the number of long range hunters killing animals is minuscule and if the populations are hinging on a range restriction, the animals shouldn’t be hunted in the first place.

Band-aid fixes and feel good measures aren’t going to fix things. Winter range habitat, better management, etc are what’s going to make a difference.

This has been stated many times but way more animals are wounded/lost at less than 300yds vs over. So, how about we make it that if you wound an animal and don’t recover it your tag has been punched. More animals would be saved by that than animals taken at “long range”.