Wyoming long range hunting debate

[Hnthrdr]

I never once said spending a bunch of money entitles anyone to anything. What I said was if the options were lower harvest rates with more tags or higher harvest rates with less tags I would prefer the higher harvest rate option. This is from the perspective of a non resident on the east coast that is starting a family and would have very few opportunities to hunt the west in my lifetime at a significant financial cost each time.

Like I said previously I don’t mind choosing the harder option and limiting my opportunities in my home state. For example I’ll be hunting with my Winchester 1873 this year which is iron sighted and chambered in 45 colt with an effective range of around 50 yards. The difference is that here in PA I get 5 weeks of rifle season and my doe tags cost $6.97 a piece so not only will I have tons of opportunities but if I don’t get anything I’m out pretty much nothing.

You insinuated that if they spend thousands of dollars to come hunt out west you entitled to a kill… or that’s how I interpreted it

 

[SDHNTR]

Harvest rates are mostly BS. To frame a hunt or not conversation around them is flawed logic. I couldn’t care less how successful the other guy is. Just give me the opportunity to hunt!

 

[MallardSX2]

Harvest rates are mostly BS. To frame a hunt or not conversation around them is flawed logic. I couldn’t care less how successful the other guy is. Just give me the opportunity to hunt!

By that theory you shouldn't have a problem drawing a tag every year. Just select the unit with a 5% harvest rate. They are likely giving the tags away during the season still. lol

 

[CMP70306]

You insinuated that if they spend thousands of dollars to come hunt out west you entitled to a kill… or that’s how I interpreted it

That was not my intent, the money aspect was simply to show that financially it would be difficult for me to go on a western hunt more than once every 5 to 10 years compared to someone that lives in the west and can hunt for substantially cheaper. My intent was to convey that I would rather the people who spent the time, effort, money and points to get a tag and go hunting be successful rather than the state making things as hard as possible to sell more tags to people who will never actually get to use them.

Or to say it another way I wish 5 tags have a 100% success rate and the other 95 people just go out and enjoy the same areas without a tag vs a 5% success rate on 100 tags. Everyone would be doing exactly the same thing except in the first case the other 95 people aren’t wasting a bunch of money and points on tags they will never get to use.

 

[Hnthrdr]

That was not my intent, the money aspect was simply to show that financially it would be difficult for me to go on a western hunt more than once every 5 to 10 years compared to someone that lives in the west and can hunt for substantially cheaper. My intent was to convey that I would rather the people who spent the time, effort, money and points to get a tag and go hunting be successful rather than the state making things as hard as possible to sell more tags to people who will never actually get to use them.

Or to say it another way I wish 5 tags have a 100% success rate and the other 95 people just go out and enjoy the same areas without a tag vs a 5% success rate on 100 tags. Everyone would be doing exactly the same thing except in the first case the other 95 people aren’t wasting a bunch of money and points on tags they will never get to use.

I can agree with the first paragraph, but I’ll strongly disagree with the second. I think the Midwest/ easterners can’t often grasp how hard it is getting for guys to get tags in their home states out west… so 5 guys getting to hunt while 95 sit on the sideline and wait in a 15-20 year Q isn’t going to appeal to any guy out west.

 

[SDHNTR]

By that theory you shouldn't have a problem drawing a tag every year. Just select the unit with a 5% harvest rate. They are likely giving the tags away during the season still. lol

Oh and I do,

 

[Jordan Smith]

Harvest rates are mostly BS. To frame a hunt or not conversation around them is flawed logic. I couldn’t care less how successful the other guy is. Just give me the opportunity to hunt!

Not at all. The logic is that the primary objective of hunting is to make a kill and harvest an animal. The experience is important, of course, but ultimately, the end goal is to make a kill. Otherwise, we would carry a camera instead of a rifle or bow, and we wouldn't call it hunting. Many hunters, if not the vast majority, are primarily after the meat.

The harvest rates, and therefore the probability of the hunt ending in a kill, are clearly logically relevant to the discussion. If all you want to do is carry a rifle on a low-probability hunt, that's fine, but that likely doesn't reflect the desires and priorities of the vast majority of hunters.

Every year I spend at least a week hunting a similar tag with extremely low success rates, but the experience of being in the mountains every Fall chasing a highly sought-after animal is reward enough. Actually filling a tag is just icing on the cake. And to be clear, everybody thinks that they are the exception, that they will consistently fill low-probability tags while everyone else goes home empty handed, but the low success rate is generally not for lack of effort, hard work, preparation, skill, nor motivation, but primarily because of an extremely low density of legal target animals. Even the most skilled and dedicated hunters very rarely fill these tags.

A balance of opportunity and success is ideal, IMO. If all my tags had extremely low success rates, I'd probably have much more difficultly justifying the temporal and financial investment into hunting. I have kept my family of 6 fed over the last 16 years with deep freezes always full of wild game. We occasionally buy meat from the grocery store to mix things up a bit, but it's not out of need. If I were forced to only hunt extremely low-probability tags, in addition to being forced to buy store-bought meat, I would probably spend more of my time hiking, backpacking, and shooting competitively in the Fall, instead of pretending to hunt. But perhaps that's exactly what you're after.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Not at all. The logic is that the primary objective of hunting is to make a kill and harvest an animal. The experience is important, of course, but ultimately, the end goal is to make a kill. Otherwise, we would carry a camera instead of a rifle or bow, and we wouldn't call it hunting. Many hunters, if not the vast majority, are primarily after the meat.

The harvest rates, and therefore the probability of the hunt ending in a kill, are clearly logically relevant to the discussion. If all you want to do is carry a rifle on a low-probability hunt, that's fine, but that likely doesn't reflect the desires and priorities of the vast majority of hunters.

Every year I spend at least a week hunting a similar tag with extremely low success rates, but the experience of being in the mountains every Fall chasing a highly sought-after animal is reward enough. Actually filling a tag is just icing on the cake. And to be clear, everybody thinks that they are the exception, that they will consistently fill low-probability tags while everyone else goes home empty handed, but the low success rate is generally not for lack of effort, hard work, preparation, skill, nor motivation, but primarily because of an extremely low density of legal target animals. Even the most skilled and dedicated hunters very rarely fill these tags.

A balance of opportunity and success is ideal, IMO. If all my tags had extremely low success rates, I'd probably have much more difficultly justifying the temporal and financial investment into hunting. I have kept my family of 6 fed over the last 16 years with deep freezes always full of wild game. We occasionally buy meat from the grocery store to mix things up a bit, but it's not out of need. If I were forced to only hunt extremely low-probability tags, in addition to being forced to buy store-bought meat, I would probably spend more of my time hiking, backpacking, and shooting competitively in the Fall, instead of pretending to hunt. But perhaps that's exactly what you're after.

A few fallacies… if hunters are just after they meat, why are they spending thousands of dollars and going to extreme lengths to hunt other states, when often times they can kill plenty of animals for meat in their home state?

You thinking some guys don’t kill year after year on hard to hunt tags is flawed as well. It’s about 5% of guys that enjoy 90-95% success rate in otc archery elk hunting, example a buddy of mine has killed a bull elk on a very low success rate otc unit for 8 years running… there are massive differences between skill level, usually comes from intimate knowledge and experience, which comes from hunting, not waiting 20 years to get a tag with 100% success.

No one is advocating for having hunts with about 0 percent odds or no animals. The suggestion that maybe limiting tech might make the kill a tad more challenging, ie you have to close the gap by an additional 100-300 yards instead of shooting at 5-600 you shoot at 100-200 because of limited tech. Therefore more tags could be issued because of potential difficulty. No one is after just walking around with a rifle with no chance.

Why do I feel like I’m not talking to anyone from the West who disagrees with me?! Are all the keep all the tech guys from the Midwest and East?

 

[ThorM465]

A few fallacies… if hunters are just after they meat, why are they spending thousands of dollars and going to extreme lengths to hunt other states, when often times they can kill plenty of animals for meat in their home state?

You thinking some guys don’t kill year after year on hard to hunt tags is flawed as well. It’s about 5% of guys that enjoy 90-95% success rate in otc archery elk hunting, example a buddy of mine has killed a bull elk on a very low success rate otc unit for 8 years running… there are massive differences between skill level, usually comes from intimate knowledge and experience, which comes from hunting, not waiting 20 years to get a tag with 100% success.

No one is advocating for having hunts with about 0 percent odds or no animals. The suggestion that maybe limiting tech might make the kill a tad more challenging, ie you have to close the gap by an additional 100-300 yards instead of shooting at 5-600 you shoot at 100-200 because of limited tech. Therefore more tags could be issued because of potential difficulty. No one is after just walking around with a rifle with no chance.

Why do I feel like I’m not talking to anyone from the West who disagrees with me?! Are all the keep all the tech guys from the Midwest and East?

As long as people keep trying to play words games I'm going to keep saying it. You're not arguing to make the hunt harder, you're only arguing to make the hunter less lethal. You nor anyone on your side of the argument has made any recommendations that would make the animals more difficult to locate.

This conversation as I've seen can be divided by two distinct lines. One based on investment and one based on ethics.
In one aspect we have an argument based success rates. Generally the more a hunter has invested in the hunt the more they value success rate. And generally speaking the further the hunter travels the more they have invested per day of the hunt. Someone traveling cross country within a limited window every few years generally is more invested per day of their hunt.
In another aspect, and I'd argue the primary guts of the conversation, is a debate on ethics. On one hand we have a group who have great respect for the animal that will feed their family and take the responsibility of an ethical kill very seriously. On the other hand we have a group who wants to ban any hunting that gives a group of hunters the slightest advantage over them, the animals be d**ned.

 

[wind gypsy]

Success rates are a result of having animals on the landscape in areas that hunters can effectively find and kill them with the allowed weapons. Thus, having regulations that makes finding/killing animals easier (season timing with rut, no weapons restrictions) might only result in higher success rates compared to a different season structure with the same animals on the landscape.

This doesn't happen independent of the many other factors that impact animal populations but to me, the idea of having some restrictions in season structure/weapons such that more desirable animals have a chance of surviving means there are more of these animals on the landscape and thus one could have less effective weapons but still have equal success rates. I don't see how that wouldn't be better than cutting down on opportunity or having fewer animals on the landscape but having each animal being easier to kill due to regulations. And i'm pretty agnostic to what it is in the regs, whether it's weapon tech, season dates, or something else. It's just a buzzkill that in many locations, most any animal with solid genetic potential is getting killed before reaching it's potential unless it lives in a really unusual manner.

 

[Hnthrdr]

As long as people keep trying to play words games I'm going to keep saying it. You're not arguing to make the hunt harder, you're only arguing to make the hunter less lethal. You nor anyone on your side of the argument has made any recommendations that would make the animals more difficult to locate.

This conversation as I've seen can be divided by two distinct lines. One based on investment and one based on ethics.
In one aspect we have an argument based success rates. Generally the more a hunter has invested in the hunt the more they value success rate. And generally speaking the further the hunter travels the more they have invested per day of the hunt. Someone traveling cross country within a limited window every few years generally is more invested per day of their hunt.
In another aspect, and I'd argue the primary guts of the conversation, is a debate on ethics. On one hand we have a group who have great respect for the animal that will feed their family and take the responsibility of an ethical kill very seriously. On the other hand we have a group who wants to ban any hunting that gives a group of hunters the slightest advantage over them, the animals be d**ned.

I think I am definitely advocating to make the hunt harder, my arrows, conicals, or sp bullets from a 30/30 are definitely not less lethal. They have killed plenty of animals, yet* it is harder for me to get shots with my bow, than it is my muzzleloader, than it is my scoped rifle. I was under 50 yards from multiple trophy class bulls last year with a bow, 0 of them died, I can all but guarantee the tag would have been punched with a muzzleloader or rifle.

The ethics side is why some of us want to put the hunt back in hunting, like I stated above, could I have made some super irresponsible shots at those bulls I was on full draw on? Sure. Never let an arrow fly because I respect the animal and know me shooting in the ass or guts or trying a 50 yard frontal is stupid with an arrow, now a 50 yard frontal with a rifle or muzzy, that a gimmie. No one wants to ban the use of scopes or take away firearms, I all but guarantee I have more scoped rifles, and semi autos and love for the 2A than a lot of guys on this hunting forum. that said I’m not going to say hey thermals and IR lasers and hunting at night make me a really efficient predator, to not use those things which will give me an unreal advantage and let me harvest meat quickly means I don’t respect my quarry.

The whole dang point of the North American model is for us (humans) to apply restraint when it comes to hunting, ie season dates, harvest limits, tags issued, ect, ect. Otherwise if we went with what is most efficient we would just aerial gun elk in the alpine during the summer.

 

[wind gypsy]

As long as people keep trying to play words games I'm going to keep saying it. You're not arguing to make the hunt harder, you're only arguing to make the hunter less lethal. You nor anyone on your side of the argument has made any recommendations that would make the animals more difficult to locate.

Word games? When a hunter is less lethal, its harder for him to be successful putting their tag on a given animal. Period. Now, if the regulatory framework results in any given animal being harder to locate and get within lethal range of, that can result in more animals being on the landscape and a "less lethal" hunter might have the same success rate as they would have if they were "more lethal" with fewer animals.

This conversation as I've seen can be divided by two distinct lines. One based on investment and one based on ethics.
In one aspect we have an argument based success rates. Generally the more a hunter has invested in the hunt the more they value success rate. And generally speaking the further the hunter travels the more they have invested per day of the hunt. Someone traveling cross country within a limited window every few years generally is more invested per day of their hunt.
In another aspect, and I'd argue the primary guts of the conversation, is a debate on ethics. On one hand we have a group who have great respect for the animal that will feed their family and take the responsibility of an ethical kill very seriously. On the other hand we have a group who wants to ban any hunting that gives a group of hunters the slightest advantage over them, the animals be d**ned.

If you want to make "hunting" more like picking out a beef to slaughter in the name of "ethics", I don't think you're going to be in the majority whether it be amongst hunters or non-hunters.

 

[Jordan Smith]

A few fallacies… if hunters are just after they meat, why are they spending thousands of dollars and going to extreme lengths to hunt other states, when often times they can kill plenty of animals for meat in their home state?

You thinking some guys don’t kill year after year on hard to hunt tags is flawed as well. It’s about 5% of guys that enjoy 90-95% success rate in otc archery elk hunting, example a buddy of mine has killed a bull elk on a very low success rate otc unit for 8 years running… there are massive differences between skill level, usually comes from intimate knowledge and experience, which comes from hunting, not waiting 20 years to get a tag with 100% success.

No one is advocating for having hunts with about 0 percent odds or no animals. The suggestion that maybe limiting tech might make the kill a tad more challenging, ie you have to close the gap by an additional 100-300 yards instead of shooting at 5-600 you shoot at 100-200 because of limited tech. Therefore more tags could be issued because of potential difficulty. No one is after just walking around with a rifle with no chance.

Why do I feel like I’m not talking to anyone from the West who disagrees with me?! Are all the keep all the tech guys from the Midwest and East?

Most hunters don't spend thousands of dollars travelling to other states or provinces. The RS crowd is not representative of the average hunter. I didn't say that hunters are only interested in the meat, but that is generally the primary motivator for most hunters I've interacted with.

The reasons for low success rates vary, and I was speaking specifically about certain tags I hunt that have a low success rate mainly because of an extremely low density of legal target animals. As I said, even the most skilled and dedicated hunters rarely fill those tags. As you've mentioned, OTC archery elk in some states is on the opposite end of the spectrum - plenty of legal animals, but the skill required to get a shot is very high. Low success rates are not as demotivating because, in that case, experience and skill bring an increase in individual success. A guy can make his own luck. The notion that 5% of guys do 90% of the killing is also because of specialized land access that most people can't get. I've seen it. That's extremely demotivating for the vast majority that can't get such access. It's also true that 90% of statistics are made up 95% of the time.

As I mentioned, I think a balance between opportunity and success is ideal. One method is to use a hybrid draw/OTC system in each unit. OTC tags available with certain restrictions (regardless of whether those are based on the animal or the tech) that set a fairly high standard with low success rates, combined with a few draw tags with much less restrictions and higher success rates. That way, a guy could hunt every year on the OTC opportunity, but every few years maybe draw and fill a tag.

FYI, I have spent my life and hunting career just north of Montana, which I would call the "West." While I am not in favour of limiting tech beyond the current system of having separate prime seasons for lower tech (archery, ML, general, etc.), at this point in time I would be okay with eliminating out-of-state/province hunting altogether.

 

[Dan Carey]

No scope, shotgun only, 1 shell only, no buddy help, guided hunt game warden only, very high tag prices. Thats just the start.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Most hunters don't spend thousands of dollars travelling to other states or provinces. The RS crowd is not representative of the average hunter. I didn't say that hunters are only interested in the meat, but that is generally the primary motivator for most hunters I've interacted with.

The reasons for low success rates vary, and I was speaking specifically about certain tags I hunt that have a low success rate mainly because of an extremely low density of legal target animals. As I said, even the most skilled an dedicated hunters rarely fill those tags. As you've mentioned, OTC archery elk in some states is on the opposite end of the spectrum - plenty of legal animals, but the skill required to get a shot is very high. Low success rates are not as demotivating because, in that case, experience and skill bring an increase in individual success. A guy can make his own luck. The notion that 5% of guys do 90% of the killing is also because of specialized land access that most people can't get. I've seen it. That's extremely demotivating for the vast majority that can't get such access. It's also true that 90% of statistics are made up 95% of the time.

As I mentioned, I think a balance between opportunity and success is ideal. One method is to use a hybrid draw/OTC system in each unit. OTC tags available with certain restrictions (regardless of whether those are based on the animal or the tech) that set a fairly high standard with low success rates, combined with a few draw tags with much less restrictions and higher success rates. That way, a guy could hunt every year on the OTC opportunity, but every few years maybe draw and fill a tag.

FYI, I have spent my life and hunting career just north of Montana, which I would call the "West." While I am not in favour of limiting tech beyond the current system of having separate prime seasons for lower tech (archery, ML, general, etc.), at this point in time I would be okay with eliminating out-of-state/province hunting altogether.

Agree on the statistics haha

No feel ya, I get the sense you are speaking about the OTC ram tags in Canada? No? Unlimited opportunity to basically chase a ghost story? just fyi most lower 48 guys would give their left nut to just hike around with a 1% chance they could tag a ram on an OTC tag.

But I actually really like your idea of otc with a primitive weapon and a small amount of draw tags with any weapon they please. Quick story about that, knew a guy who drew a MD rut tag that takes 20+ years to draw, he said he was going to hunt with a bow & bring his rifle as a just in case. He was told it would very very challenging dude is a bow hunting ninja and wanted to stay true to his passion. this unit is basically a 100% success like 10 tags total for the late seasons (with a rifle) He spent 2-3 days with his bow, and then picked up the rifle, not because he wasn’t seeing deer or getting stalks but because it was too hard for him to get to that sub 50 yard spot.

I don’t want to eliminate out of state hunting, as much as I would feel fine not hunting out of state, I want everyone to come and enjoy their public and get a shot at it, but maybe that shot will be with a weapon that really makes you work for it an get closer than 500 yards

 

[ThorM465]

I think I am definitely advocating to make the hunt harder, my arrows, conicals, or sp bullets from a 30/30 are definitely not less lethal. They have killed plenty of animals, yet* it is harder for me to get shots with my bow, than it is my muzzleloader, than it is my scoped rifle. I was under 50 yards from multiple trophy class bulls last year with a bow, 0 of them died, I can all but guarantee the tag would have been punched with a muzzleloader or rifle.

The probability of you hitting the kill box with these weapons is considerably lower than with modern scoped rifles, assuming hunter skills to be constant. That by definition is a less lethal hunter.

The ethics side is why some of us want to put the hunt back in hunting, like I stated above, could I have made some super irresponsible shots at those bulls I was on full draw on? Sure. Never let an arrow fly because I respect the animal and know me shooting in the ass or guts or trying a 50 yard frontal is stupid with an arrow, now a 50 yard frontal with a rifle or muzzy, that a gimmie. No one wants to ban the use of scopes or take away firearms, I all but guarantee I have more scoped rifles, and semi autos and love for the 2A than a lot of guys on this hunting forum. that said I’m not going to say hey thermals and IR lasers and hunting at night make me a really efficient predator, to not use those things which will give me an unreal advantage and let me harvest meat quickly means I don’t respect my quarry.

Fair enough, I think we're very much alike in this position. The part your missing is that the regulations you're recommending will only affect hunters like us. The hunters you're trying to regulate will continue to do dumb things, ultimately causing the same problem.

I haven't seen anyone arguing for or against thermals and NVGs (night hunting). This would fall under affecting your ability to locate the animal and not the lethality of the hunter.

The whole dang point of the North American model is for us (humans) to apply restraint when it comes to hunting, ie season dates, harvest limits, tags issued, ect, ect. Otherwise if we went with what is most efficient we would just aerial gun elk in the alpine during the summer.

I'd argue the model is based on balance and heritage. We want to be able to enjoy our natural resources as Grandparents did, while ensuring that our Grandchildren will get to enjoy the same or better. This requires striking a balance between harvesting and keeping a healthy animal population.

 

[ThorM465]

Word games? When a hunter is less lethal, its harder for him to be successful putting their tag on a given animal. Period. Now, if the regulatory framework results in any given animal being harder to locate and get within lethal range of, that can result in more animals being on the landscape and a "less lethal" hunter might have the same success rate as they would have if they were "more lethal" with fewer animals.



If you want to make "hunting" more like picking out a beef to slaughter in the name of "ethics", I don't think you're going to be in the majority whether it be amongst hunters or non-hunters.

If you're arguing for regulations to make hunters less lethal, you're arguing for less lethal hunters nor making the hunt harder.

No one is arguing for your latter point. I don't take issue with making animals more difficult to locate as long as it is applied fairly across the board. Once a hunter gets an animal in their sites I want them to have the greatest probability to make a quick and clean kill.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Word games? When a hunter is less lethal, its harder for him to be successful putting their tag on a given animal. Period. Now, if the regulatory framework results in any given animal being harder to locate and get within lethal range of, that can result in more animals being on the landscape and a "less lethal" hunter might have the same success rate as they would have if they were "more lethal" with fewer animals.



If you want to make "hunting" more like picking out a beef to slaughter in the name of "ethics", I don't think you're going to be in the majority whether it be amongst hunters or non-hunters.

As has been mentioned, the downside to making hunters less effective at making a clean kill, is the increase in wounding, resulting in similar numbers of animals ultimately dying (just less cleanly), undermining the goal of increasing animal numbers and opportunities.

I'm all for increasing the numbers of target animals, but I don't think reducing killing effectiveness is the right way to do it. Limiting out-of-state/province hunting, limiting seasons to certain weapon types, and perhaps even limiting tech that makes animals (and land access!) easier to find, would be some of my preferred methods.

Limited tech that makes animals and land access easier to find seems like the low-hanging fruit. Maybe we should go back to the 1990s and 2000s when scouting was done with boot leather, not OnX, and land was found with topo maps and permission obtained by knocking doors, not with digital landowner maps complete with contact info.

 

[Wprinkle]

Very emotional topic... couple points though. Almost every statistic mentioned/ talked about/ shown on here is not true data. A lot if not all data is small samples couple with bad algorithms. EXACTLY like the Grizzly concentration studies. furthermore Hunters lie on reports. Archery hunter lie about wounded animals, rifle hunters lie about wounding anything, harvest reports are mostly small and some states voluntary data sets which are also lied about. You think guys hunting already WAY over hunted public land units, and kill something in that unit EVERY year are gonna report they were successful? F no!! Make harvest rates look bad and the E scouters stop putting in for those areas. Sheep hunters don't report the exact drainage they killed a ram in. Even the national hunter percentage stat given on page 4ish.. there are a dozen or more species in the South alone you don't need any sort of license to hunt.. (I know this is about LRH in Wyoming)

 

[Jordan Smith]

Agree on the statistics haha

No feel ya, I get the sense you are speaking about the OTC ram tags in Canada? No? Unlimited opportunity to basically chase a ghost story? just fyi most lower 48 guys would give their left nut to just hike around with a 1% chance they could tag a ram on an OTC tag.

But I actually really like your idea of otc with a primitive weapon and a small amount of draw tags with any weapon they please. Quick story about that, knew a guy who drew a MD rut tag that takes 20+ years to draw, he said he was going to hunt with a bow & bring his rifle as a just in case. He was told it would very very challenging dude is a bow hunting ninja and wanted to stay true to his passion. this unit is basically a 100% success like 10 tags total for the late seasons (with a rifle) He spent 2-3 days with his bow, and then picked up the rifle, not because he wasn’t seeing deer or getting stalks but because it was too hard for him to get to that sub 50 yard spot.

I don’t want to eliminate out of state hunting, as much as I would feel fine not hunting out of state, I want everyone to come and enjoy their public and get a shot at it, but maybe that shot will be with a weapon that really makes you work for it an get closer than 500 yards

Yessir, I am.

In the scenario you mentioned, a hybrid system based on tech limitations might make sense. In the case of OTC Alberta ram tags, rather than using tech to limit OTC success rates in such a hybrid scenario, I'd be more inclined to use animal restrictions. Our current OTC ram tags in Alberta require a certain horn length. Rams that make that length requirement are extremely rare. To give you an example, most of the zones I hunt require the horn to extend beyond an imaginary line between the front of the horn base and the tear duct, when viewed in full profile (typically called "3/4 curl"). Some years I have closely looked over 20-30 different rams, and MAYBE 1-2 of those rams might have been legal, but I couldn't be 100% sure and wasn't going to take the risk (even after glassing them for hours). I would be in favour of moving to a hybrid system that increased the OTC horn length requirement to be full curl (horn tip must extend beyond a line drawn between the rear of the horn base and the nostril), combined with a few draw tags for any ram with more than a 1/2 curl.