Wyoming long range hunting debate

[cuerro viejo]

But giving more tags to hunters using less lethal methods increases the number of potentially wounded animals. Most of which will die. Those animals are thus killed without being counted as taken. They are effectively wasted. The number of tags issued has to account for the number of animals which are wounded and not recovered as well as those recovered.

And obviously more tags issued increases the crowding problem.

To limit “wasted animals”, you need to increase lethality and proficiency.

To limit crowding, you need to limit tags in a given area.

You can also achieve this by increasing access (spreading the people out more).

Or you can achieve this by limiting access, which will tend to reward those who make the most effort (or spend the most money) to get further into the harder-to-reach areas.

In my corner of Virginia, they shut down vehicle access to parts of the national forest and wildlife refuges. That gives those of us with access to the "far side" of those areas via private land a significant access advantage. Before they did that, we used to routinely have hunters traveling right up to our border - or even crossing onto our land from the national forest side - to hunt. But there were also a lot more deer hunters back then. So people had an incentive to get away from the access roads. Now, I effectively have hundreds of acres of national forest I can reach more easily than anyone except the farmers on either side of me. The effort to access whitetails just doesn't make sense for most people around there. I'm sure if there were elk to hunt, then people would be parking down on the access roads and hiking in the few miles needed to get away from the roads.

From an outsider's perspective, the problem in most of the West is that your Fish and Game people want the money from non-residents. I read that Colorado cut 8000 OTC resident tags and replaced them with 10,000 nonresident tags. That's pretty ****** up, if you ask me.

____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

In this Case the only Animal in the West that has a higher success rate is Desert And Rocky Mtn Sheep. All tag allocation per weapon has a wounding rate built in. In this case putting a range firearm limit would affect the success rate by 0%, only way to affect is ban all electronics. Some species such as Pronghorn just arnt hard to hunt. If you want to affect success rate of Pronghorn you will have to remove firearms all together or remove elctronics(AKA Range finders) and even removing rangefinder I doubt will lower success rate.

as far as CO you read 100% wrong. All OTC archery ELK for Resident is still OTC. There is no OTC archery for NR, including NR landowners. Big difference

 

[Q_Sertorius]

as far as CO you read 100% wrong. All OTC archery ELK for Resident is still OTC. There is no OTC archery for NR, including NR landowners. Big difference

I didn’t say the NR tags were OTC. The article I read stated that Colorado officials had taken away 8000 resident OTC tags and effectively replaced them with 10,000 nonresident tags. It was bitching about it from the perspective of a resident hunter.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[cuerro viejo]

I didn’t say the NR tags were OTC. The article I read stated that Colorado officials had taken away 8000 resident OTC tags and effectively replaced them with 10,000 nonresident tags. It was bitching about it from the perspective of a resident hunter.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

How do you take away OTC tags?............... They only OTC eliminated were NR OTC Archery

 

[Jordan Smith]

If the problem is primarily in western states due to NR hunters overwhelming those states, then a simple change to discontinue NR hunting and require a proof of residency to buy a hunting license in a given state would balance game populations, and therefore hunting opportunities, with human populations in that state.

In Alberta, overly lax resident hunting requirements have traditionally been a big problem that leads to way more “resident” hunting licenses being given out than there truly are resident hunters, which causes excessive inflated pressure on game populations.

 

[JohnJohnson]

@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.

But people like the vibes of archery because of the woodsmanship, so they can do no wrong. This discussion is more about what people want to see posted online rather than what will benefit game populations.

@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.

Then it's even more impressive how much archery success rates have increased while rifle success rates have been mostly stagnant.

 

[Flyjunky]

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.

Do you really think long range hunting is why there are less animals? Do you think limiting shots to less than 500yds, or some other arbitrary number will bring back game and provide more opportunity?

I’d bet it wouldn’t make any measurable difference and then what’s the next step? Do we go to flintlock and spears?

Hunter harvest is not the driving force in animal abundance. If it was then our game departments have been handing out too many tags for decades. Habitat is the main driver…then add in poaching, predators, automobiles collisions, increasing human population, etc. Long range hunting/technology is so far down on the list that it barely registers.

It’s very similar to the salmon/steelhead decline in the PNW, we can keep trying to put a band-aid fix on things and argue amongst ourselves while the huge gaping wound bleeds because the main issues are “too difficult” to fix.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Personally if we’re handing out federal money for all kinds of crap I don’t support.

Let’s just give ranchers money and get the damn beef cows off public land as well.

 

[BRTreedogs]

And let’s start machine gunning feral horses from helicopters.

 

[walkingduckwaterfowl]

Reading the article, is the problem actually long range capability or is the problem that our public lands are becoming increasingly crowded? I think we may be talking about the wrong thing here to an extent.

" “The animal they were staring at tipped over and they heard a loud ‘bang’ from somebody that was about 400 yards behind them,” Byron said. "

People I have spoken with on the topic generally get upset either because they had an experience "ruined" by someone else on a crowded public landscape, or they have personal feelings about something they saw or heard someone else do that was legal but "unethical". The latter is a tale old as time spanning many disciplines, the former is a real issue that gets worse annually with the social media/hunting industry commercialization of wildlife that has developed.

I would caution others residing in more free states than the one I live in to avoid regulating based on ethics and morals where possible. Some day, you might have people in charge of your recreational activities with very different ethics and morals than what you are accustomed to. Fish and wildlife regulations should always be based on demonstrable scientific evidence. You might not think it can happen where you are, but folks from my neck of the woods and other very blue places are moving into your states in droves. In my lifetime we have lost baiting (all big game species), spring bear hunting, most cougar opportunity, hounds, and body gripping traps. All of these bans are not based on conservation science and directly contribute to a lack of available ungulates on the landscape, driving up competition amongst hunters.

At the same time, access is becoming more and more difficult with private landowners moving to lease-to-hunt models and suspending participation in general public access programs. This increases crowding and drives people to compete with one another at a level that is unprecedented.

For those of you that choose to participate in long distance hunting, train for that situation and know your capabilities. Whether you are successful or not, consider not posting about it on social media and simply keeping it within your friend group. If you decide to post about it, consider how that might impact fellow hunters.

 

[bigsky2]

You're never going to be able to regulate ethics. The simple solution is to regulate the equipment. I realize that some hunters are totally competent shooting at long distances. I think that group is currently a small percentage of hunters. Think about the impact on the resource when eventually, through technology advancements, the majority of hunters are competent at long ranges. We aren't putting more deer and elk on the landscape, but we are making it easier to kill them all the time. Something has to give eventually. I would much rather prefer to give up technology than to give up opportunity.

 

[wind gypsy]

Do you really think long range hunting is why there are less animals? Do you think limiting shots to less than 500yds, or some other arbitrary number will bring back game and provide more opportunity?

There's lots of challenges facing wildlife and "Long Range Hunting" wouldn't crack the top 10 in much of the country. In areas with good access and limited cover - I think something like open sights only would absolutely impact hunter harvest and even if not as black in white in overall harvest #s it would in age structure.

The gunnison area biologist mentioned the weapons specifically on the Rokcast. When you've got open sage with easy access and modern centerfires/scopes/rangefinders - awful hard for a buck to make it. Luckily when winters allow the habitat supports a hell of a lot of recruitment there. But yeah, I think technology changes in the last 20 years has absolutely impacted what animals are on the landscape in certain places.

 

[Macintosh]

It seems clear that most hunters would give up technology if it meant more opportunity. The folks objecting to that are (rightly) questioning if there is a legit increase in efficacy based on shooting at longer range. I dont think anyone can say one way or another based on data though, it seems logical that it would, but everything I have heard people say is conjecture and assumptions. I think I have read about utah and possibly some other states doing test zones on this though, in order to come up with data to inform that topic. That seems like a good move.

 

[solarshooter]

Dispersion can be minimized such that it is not the dominant variable in the trajectory solution. The other variables can be minimized by learning. A few minutes with a "WEZ" model simulation can be informative.

If not for dispersion, all your bullets would go in the same hole, so I don't really understand this statement. What other "variable in the trajectory solution" is there? I don't doubt you can mess with WEZ and get it to show high hit rates at X yardage, but those inputs you arrive at are probably not realistic for a hunting scenario. What's more, I have seen and done plenty of testing of real hit rates in hunting scenarios in the field, and they are broadly <50% at average ranges probably well below 500yds if not 400yds.

 

[BRTreedogs]

What if the proficiency test puts more effective hunters in the woods.
Instead of air balls hunter success increases more.

Remember these hunters are studying for the test.

Then they reduce tags even more.

 

[Formidilosus]

If not for dispersion, all your bullets would go in the same hole, so I don't really understand this statement. What other "variable in the trajectory solution" is there? I don't doubt you can mess with WEZ and get it to show high hit rates at X yardage, but those inputs you arrive at are probably not realistic for a hunting scenario. What's more, I have seen and done plenty of testing of real hit rates in hunting scenarios in the field, and they are broadly <50% at average ranges probably well below 500yds if not 400yds.

What? If you are below 50% hit rates at sub 500 yards on 10-12” targets, you need a hell of a lot more practice. Just in pretests for S2H classes, all the instructors have hit the vitals of every sub 550 yard target cold that they have never shot before, right beside the students. That’s 4 classes lasts year, and 3 so far this year- 4-5 targets per class/test.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

Here some numbers
Statewide buck harvest peaked in 2016 and went back down

Omg the horrors of technology.
View attachment 891818

Unfortunately Utah showed the same thing. Very little to no change at all in harvest and keep moving toward weapon restrictions. Just an emotional response to appease those who complain the loudest. No data or backings of any kind. I too, am confused by people demanding freedom and anti government oversight on one hand turning the opposite direction and asking to be further regulated. It may sound conceited but often times I’ve noticed it’s people who feel it’s unfair if someone works real hard, buys nice equipment and practices a bunch has a further effective range than them. Sure, there’s always idiots shooting further than they have business shooting, but usually when I find out why they’re actually upset by it-they don’t have nearly the same capabilities. Maybe a push toward hunting socialism??? Hahah just kidding

 

[S-3 ranch]

It's not hard to regulate at all. If you get caught shooting past say 500 yards you better have your long range shooting certificate handy showing you passed a specific long range shooting course as designated or authorized by the state you are hunting in......could be a common course held by many well regarded outfits currently doing it all over the country. Every state has them. No different than a concealed carry permit, drivers license, etc etc., you must qualify in some manner. Most states require a hunters safety course so this could be done in the same manner.

I could definitely live with that, a mandatory shooting exam & hunter safety, ethics certification
Then a mandatory certificate exam that you can hit a kill zone 3 times @500 meters with a normal hunting rifle.

 

[Trumpkin The Dwarf]

I've been hearing hunters talk about self enforcement my whole life, and I've never seen it happen. It's a crap argument for guys to keep doing what they like. I don't care about the ethics of extreme range hunting, but I do care about the harvest rates. Fish and game is constantly playing catch up to technology and the line is somewhere behind us in my opinion.

I don't care if it's stepping on toes. There are a lot of places where good herd management requires reduced hunter success, or reduced hunter opportunity. I'm very much in favor of reducing hunter success, rather than opportunity for the sake of long term herd health.

 

[Flyjunky]

I've been hearing hunters talk about self enforcement my whole life, and I've never seen it happen. It's a crap argument for guys to keep doing what they like. I don't care about the ethics of extreme range hunting, but I do care about the harvest rates. Fish and game is constantly playing catch up to technology and the line is somewhere behind us in my opinion.

I don't care if it's stepping on toes. There are a lot of places where good herd management requires reduced hunter success, or reduced hunter opportunity. I'm very much in favor of reducing hunter success, rather than opportunity for the sake of long term herd health.

Ok, can you show me where you are finding these increasing rates of harvest over the last 10-15 years when all of this new technology started showing up?

Long term herd health. If you want that it’s not going to happen by eliminating some tech that might account for 2%(?) of game harvested.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Ok, can you show me where you are finding these increasing rates of harvest over the last 10-15 years when all of this new technology started showing up?

Long term herd health. If you want that it’s not going to happen by eliminating some tech that might account for 2%(?) of game harvested.

Feelings and hunches.

It’s all they ever produce.