Wyoming long range hunting debate

I am so sick of hunters trying to ban any type of hunting they don't like or agree with. We must be the dumbest group of people on the planet, the way we attack each other.

Archery and muzzleloader seasons wound more animals by percentage of hunters than rifle seasons in my experience.

Should we legislate a max range on a longbow? Who decides what it should be? Should we ban them altogether since they aren't as ethical as a modern compound bow?

Should we legislate a max range on muzzleloaders? Simply ban them?

Should we ban rangefinders?

Should we ban everything but backpack hunting? That would surely keep the Fudds out of the woods, right?

News flash, hunters are not good at shooting, and it doesn't matter what weapon they choose. We all know that the majority should practice way more than they do.

Maybe we should make it mandatory to pass a shooting proficiency test before we get a tag. The government would love to see us push for that, I'm sure.
 
Justin Crossley said:
I am so sick of hunters trying to ban any type of hunting they don't like or agree with. We must be the dumbest group of people on the planet, the way we attack each other.

Archery and muzzleloader seasons wound more animals by percentage of hunters than rifle seasons in my experience.

Should we legislate a max range on a longbow? Who decides what it should be? Should we ban them altogether since they aren't as ethical as a modern compound bow?

Should we legislate a max range on muzzleloaders? Simply ban them?

Should we ban rangefinders?

Should we ban everything but backpack hunting? That would surely keep the Fudds out of the woods, right?

News flash, hunters are not good at shooting, and it doesn't matter what weapon they choose. We all know that the majority should practice way more than they do.

Maybe we should make it mandatory to pass a shooting proficiency test before we get a tag. The government would love to see us push for that, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

The willingness of people on this thread to advocate for myopic governmental control of very specific aspects of hunting is blowing my mind. In general, its just a terrible idea. I thought we may have learned our lesson these last few years about how that works out folks…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don’t want government intervention, however, like driving and a CCW, I do think there should be a competency test. I have seen complete morons in the field and absolutely terrible shooters that have no business going out in the field.

I frequent a private ranch that is high fence for fun family trips (we do that instead of Disney land). I have gotten to know the guide real well, and we have talked about this. He said the majority of people are terrible at shooting; conversely, he has been nothing but impressed with my 10 and 11 year old boys, 1 shot kills for them, because we train. Those kids were born with a rifle in their hands. Before a trip, 200 rounds shooting off tripod, bipod, field positions etc are part of the process.

I have friends that I grew up with and have hunted with, where their pre-trip routine is “checking zero” at a square range and that’s it… all the way to the next year. I preach to them all the time, but grown men will do what they want. It’s ridiculous to me to spend so much on an out of state hunt, and not be ready for it. This applies to physical fitness as well.
 
AZ_Hunter said:
I don’t want government intervention, however, like driving and a CCW, I do think there should be a competency test. I have seen complete morons in the field and absolutely terrible shooters that have no business going out in the field.

I frequent a private ranch that is high fence for fun family trips (we do that instead of Disney land). I have gotten to know the guide real well, and we have talked about this. He said the majority of people are terrible at shooting; conversely, he has been nothing but impressed with my 10 and 11 year old boys, 1 shot kills for them, because we train. Those kids were born with a rifle in their hands. Before a trip, 200 rounds shooting off tripod, bipod, field positions etc are part of the process.

I have friends that I grew up with and have hunted with, where their pre-trip routine is “checking zero” at a square range and that’s it… all the way to the next year. I preach to them all the time, but grown men will do what they want. It’s ridiculous to me to spend so much on an out of state hunt, and not be ready for it. This applies to physical fitness as well.
Click to expand...
You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You can’t say you don’t want government intervention, but then say there should be some kind of competency test by the government. The way you do it should be how it’s done. Government regulation of another aspect of our lives is not the answer.

Slob hunters are gonna be slob hunters no matter what. Control what you can control and call out the slobs when you can.

But keep the freaking government out of it. They would love nothing more than to have more control. Don’t give it to them willingly.
 
AZ_Hunter said:
I don’t want government intervention, however, like driving and a CCW, I do think there should be a competency test. I have seen complete morons in the field and absolutely terrible shooters that have no business going out in the field.

I frequent a private ranch that is high fence for fun family trips (we do that instead of Disney land). I have gotten to know the guide real well, and we have talked about this. He said the majority of people are terrible at shooting; conversely, he has been nothing but impressed with my 10 and 11 year old boys, 1 shot kills for them, because we train. Those kids were born with a rifle in their hands. Before a trip, 200 rounds shooting off tripod, bipod, field positions etc are part of the process.

I have friends that I grew up with and have hunted with, where their pre-trip routine is “checking zero” at a square range and that’s it… all the way to the next year. I preach to them all the time, but grown men will do what they want. It’s ridiculous to me to spend so much on an out of state hunt, and not be ready for it. This applies to physical fitness as well.
Click to expand...

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
 
I think there is probably more to it than just success rates when comparing one season to another. Number of hunters/pressure, heard population, even weather can have a big impact. If we have a success rate in 2023 that is basically the same as in 1993 is it apples to apples? If we are maintaining a kill % as the animals populations are declining and there are less tags are we getting better at killing? I hear stories of the good ol' days of mule deer hunting around here where everyone basically got their pick of bucks the heard was so healthy. Now you hear people say they never saw a buck that they could get a shot at. If the success rate is the same in both scenarios it appears hunters are better at killing deer but like I said, I think there is more to it.
 
Advocating for governmental regulation on this topic is no different
than advocating for game management by ballot.

Based on this: "a hunter in Fremont County shot an antelope from 2,000 yards away."

Seriously? That this is even a two-sided discussion on a shooting/hunting forum
is pretty crazy, even in 2025

Divide and conquer and Boil the frogs.
A couple of the oldest tricks in the book and people still fall for it.
 
Mike D Texas said:
You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You can’t say you don’t want government intervention, but then say there should be some kind of competency test by the government. The way you do it should be how it’s done. Government regulation of another aspect of our lives is not the answer.

Slob hunters are gonna be slob hunters no matter what. Control what you can control and call out the slobs when you can.

But keep the freaking government out of it. They would love nothing more than to have more control. Don’t give it to them willingly.
Click to expand...

I understand your point and my default answer to things is get the .gov out of anything… however, hunting is already controlled by the government. That’s the reality, regardless of how anyone feels about it. Hunting has become a privilege not a right when it’s all said and done, at least for the public land hunter.

Most states require hunter’s safety, are you against that? I think those classes are a joke. How about make the shooting standards higher… Period. For everyone. Don’t regulate “long range hunting” just raise the competency standards.

There are already too many people applying for too few tags, why not raise the proficiency bar? This would be better for everyone in the long run, and would in a sense provide a means for self regulation. Can’t pass the shooting test, you can’t hunt. Get better. Don’t want to put in the effort to get better, fine, don’t hunt. Higher shooting standards would potentially reduce the number of wounded/lost animals, and thus result in more tags in the next year’s pool.

I will presume you are against poaching, but why? Poaching laws are government regulation. We (as a nation) already had total non-regulation of hunting, and that nearly wiped the animals out, and that was with orders of magnitude fewer people.

This subject, like most things in life, is not an easy black and white answer. Absolutism/ idealism clashes with the nuances of reality, so a pragmatic approach is needed. Raising the accuracy standards to get a hunting license I see as the least invasive and most beneficial practical solution.
 
AZ_Hunter said:
I understand your point and my default answer to things is get the .gov out of anything… however, hunting is already controlled by the government. That’s the reality, regardless of how anyone feels about it. Hunting has become a privilege not a right when it’s all said and done, at least for the public land hunter.

Most states require hunter’s safety, are you against that? I think those classes are a joke. How about make the shooting standards higher… Period. For everyone. Don’t regulate “long range hunting” just raise the competency standards.

There are already too many people applying for too few tags, why not raise the proficiency bar? This would be better for everyone in the long run, and would in a sense provide a means for self regulation. Can’t pass the shooting test, you can’t hunt. Get better. Don’t want to put in the effort to get better, fine, don’t hunt. Higher shooting standards would potentially reduce the number of wounded/lost animals, and thus result in more tags in the next year’s pool.

I will presume you are against poaching, but why? Poaching laws are government regulation. We (as a nation) already had total non-regulation of hunting, and that nearly wiped the animals out, and that was with orders of magnitude fewer people.

This subject, like most things in life, is not an easy black and white answer. Absolutism/ idealism clashes with the nuances of reality, so a pragmatic approach is needed. Raising the accuracy standards to get a hunting license I see as the least invasive and most beneficial practical solution.
Click to expand...
So you want a bunch of bias non hunting libs to judge you shooting?

What if they get like the atf and just deny deny to save the animals?

Heck even if a hunter is judging, I’d fail other hunters just to get you out of the competition.

Dude hunters safety has a ton of ethics stuff in it.
You said yourself that’s a joke.
Based on what I see driving the dmv and driver’s license testing is a Joke

Yeah let’s just put another barrier to entry on the books.

Are youth going to be exempt?
 
Acting like tweaking hunting regs is some big Government overreach is a stretch but I can agree competency testing feels a bit much. It's not like it's a free for all right now nor has it been any time in my life. Unless you guys are saying the existence of archery and muzzleloader seasons themselves or managing units based on game populations and social desires rather than just letting everyone at it is "government overreach".

@BRTreedogs - Do you think there are as many elk and deer on the mountain now as in the 90s? Do you think hunters know more and are better equipped to kill them now or then? Just because success rates may trend similarly, doesn't mean the resource is as good and will continue to sustain constant increases in tech and lethalness without degradation.

I'm not sure where I sit on this whole thing other than I'd rather people have more opportunities to go hunting and I'd rather game have a better chance to survive a few hunting seasons to maturity than I would cut tag numbers and continue to make killing easier and easier for a shrinking # of tag holders.
 
Any common resource requires regulation. But you need the minimum amount of regulation and you need public accountability for the officials managing the resource.

That is why we have bag limits, age and sex restrictions, etc. That is why we have hunting licenses.

From an outsider’s perspective, I think the problem in many western states is that your officials have forgotten that they work for the state and its residents first. They have dollar signs in their eyes. They seeing hunting tourism as a big industry. They are encouraging that industry. They want nonresidents coming in and spending thousands of dollars to hunt. And their elected and appointed bosses know that there aren’t enough people who care about it to stop them, because such a low percentage of the population hunts.

Anything that touches on firearms use or qualifications is going to be looked at with skepticism by many Americans. And with good reason. A lot of stuff done under the umbrella of “save the fluffy bunnies” or “think of the children” is duplicitous and evil. We can all imagine a scenario where some anti-hunting or anti-gun zealot gets control of the rifle qualification test.

We can also imagine a scenario where the test is so basic as to be practically useless. The current hunter’s safety course - which is required to get a hunting license in Virginia - feels that way to me. The course I got in public school as a 6th or 7th grader was far better (it was one block in health class).

But I believe this can be mitigated in the same way it is mitigated for the Concealed Carry permit. In Virginia, to get the CCP you need to show proof that you are qualified to use the pistol safely and effectively. My parents did this by taking the shooting course offered by a local gun store/shooting range. It cost them $60 each. They both came out of it better pistol shots than they were before it. I did it by presenting a copy of my DD-214 showing I had qualified with a handgun. One course. One certificate. Done. If it works for an inalienable right like self-defense, it should work for hunting.

An afternoon long course that teaches the basics of weapons safety and basic marksmanship for each kind of license (bow, crossbow, muzzleloader, rifle, shotgun, etc.) would be a very modest barrier entry for hunters. It seems reasonable. It might do something to lower the wounding rate. I don’t think it’s necessary, but it’s not “the sky is falling” terrible.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”
 
@wind gypsy

More or less I believe hunting is the smallest contributor to game populations.

There are less deer.
There are more elk.
They complete for food.
More predators.
More houses on winter range.
Large ranches divided & more fences.
More vehicles and drivers in creasing mortality.
Poor forest management.
Cheat grass
The list goes on & on on what I believe would have substantially more impact on improving heard health the some type of hunter restriction.

I promise archery is a much worse offender the rifle in Oregon, they allow felons to archery hunt here.

IMO the most realistic thing we can do is plant sage brush and keep the pressure and money on wildlife road crossings.
 
BRTreedogs said:
So you want a bunch of bias non hunting libs to judge you shooting?

What if they get like the atf and just deny deny to save the animals?

Heck even if a hunter is judging, I’d fail other hunters just to get you out of the competition.

Dude hunters safety has a ton of ethics stuff in it.
You said yourself that’s a joke.
Based on what I see driving the dmv and driver’s license testing is a Joke

Yeah let’s just put another barrier to entry on the books.

Are youth going to be exempt?
Click to expand...

In AZ, an adult is not required to get hunters ed to hunt. Moreover, as an adult, if you choose to take hunters ed, one can do an online only course, without a field day. Zero shooting. I do not agree with this approach.

Youth would have their own standards, albeit more lax than those required for adults.

Driving standards are a joke too and standards should be raised. Every three years I have to complete an advanced behind the wheel defensive driving class for work, and it should be required for all drivers. It would save lives, reduce accidents, and reduce insurance rates; consequently benefiting everyone. Can’t pass? Can’t drive. Try again. Driving is a privilege not a right.

Yes I think putting a skill-based barrier of entry would be a good thing. Meritocracy.

There is too much demand and not enough supply. Reduce the demand by increasing proficiency standards. Earn your ability to play the game. Don’t want to put in the effort, fine, don’t play. I think this is a much more “fair” system than simply increasing tag/applications prices.
 
BRTreedogs said:
I’m 100% convinced wildlife road crossings would save more deer then a long range competency test.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I am 100% convinced that insurance companies would be all in favor of it!

In the overpopulated areas in Virginia (overpopulated with deer and people), the insurance companies are the biggest allies in expanding archery seasons for deer.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”
 
BRTreedogs said:
@wind gypsy

More or less I believe hunting is the smallest contributor to game populations.
Click to expand...
In many places that's probably right but hunting is definitely a primary contributor in others.
BRTreedogs said:
There are less deer.
There are more elk.
They complete for food.
More predators.
More houses on winter range.
Large ranches divided & more fences.
More vehicles and drivers in creasing mortality.
Poor forest management.
Cheat grass
The list goes on & on on what I believe would have substantially more impact on improving heard health the some type of hunter restriction.

I promise archery is a much worse offender the rifle in Oregon, they allow felons to archery hunt here.

IMO the most realistic thing we can do is plant sage brush and keep the pressure and money on wildlife road crossings.
Click to expand...
No disagreements from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Long range practice? Ammo suggestions
Replies
16
Views
779
cuerro viejo
C
PanhandlePilgrim
Idaho's Hunting and Advanced Technology Working Group Coming
Replies
18
Views
1K
bowrunner81
B
M
Atlas CAL bipod model for Tikka T3x Lite
Replies
4
Views
353
MichaelP
M
Pilsner
AR-10 long range caliber choice?
Replies
2
Views
83
Brontosaurus
B
S
Long Range Proficiency
Replies
18
Views
1K
Shraggs
S

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top