Wyoming long range hunting debate

[JohnJohnson]

 

[solarshooter]

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.

First of all, I 100% agree I need a hell of a lot more practice! Yeah <50% is pessimistic, ~60% is probably a better estimate. I'm going off the results of the 2024 Coldbore Challenge, where 95/150 = 63% hit at an average range of 540yds. WEZ predicts ~60% hit rate at 500yds for a 12" circle for what I consider reasonable/representative inputs. My home baked error prediction tool also comes in around 60% for 500-600yds. If you include some of the Cortina and Backfire tests, I imagine the hit rates are less than 50%, though there are meaningful differences in target size, rifles allowed, etc.

I'm only just starting to quantify my personal hit rates in hunting scenarios. A week ago I spent a day doing simulated coldbore hunting shots in the mountains at a vitals sized steel target with a 2min timer from hiking with a pack and hunting gear/rifles, from a variety of positions. Average range was 350yds (from 186-665yds), crosswind component from 5-17mph, my personal coldbore hit rate was 9/14 = 64%, other shooter was 10/14 = 71%, combined 19/28 = 68%. Need a lot more data to have high confidence numbers but I think given ranges and winds this is roughly on or just below trend with the hit rates I gave above.

Are you saying the S2H instructors have a 100% hit rate out to 550yds in hunting scenarios (positions, time limits, gear, rifles, etc) on vitals sized targets (12" circle ish)? That seems anomalous...

Back to the original topic, what I'm getting at is that for all shooters/scenarios, there is a big nonlinear growth in error/drop in hit rates beyond some critical range. Here's an example of what I'm talking about from WEZ:

Obviously this range will change for a given shooter and rifle system, but if you establish some hit rate threshold below which you consider the shot unethical, let's say 75% (you'll hit 3 out of 4 times you take that shot), you can figure out your ethical max range. I'd argue for most shooters and rifle systems, this number will fall between 350-550yds. This would be one quantifiable way of arriving at an "ethical" range limit.

 

[KenLee]

The number of long range rifle hunters is miniscule. If you want to drastically reduce wounding, you get rid of archery, as your screenshot shows. But no one suggests that because if you get close enough, you can't be unethical.

Awesome take. Bye stick and string!

 

[MuleyFever]

Do you really think long range hunting is why there are less animals?

I think it is a big contributor to less mature animals.

 

[Flyjunky]

I think it is a big contributor to less mature animals.

So, on a site that talks about precise zeroing, minute differences in optics, cutting ounces from pack weight, shifting reticles, etc….the science and measurements, promoting a change to the way we hunt, which will most likely never be reversed if/when found to have no measurable effect, we are going to base it on feels? Yet, aren’t we the same group that condemns ballot box biology because it isn’t based on science/facts?

In that case, I feel spotting scopes, stabilized binos, mapping software, compound bows, trail cams, etc are also contributing factors and should be eliminated.

Spears or no hunting at all, for the long term health of our animals.

 

[KenLee]

So, on a site that talks about precise zeroing, minute differences in optics, cutting ounces from pack weight, shifting reticles, etc….the science and measurements, promoting a change to the way we hunt, which will most likely never be reversed if/when found to have no measurable effect, we are going to base it on feels? Yet, aren’t we the same group that condemns ballot box biology because it isn’t based on science/facts?

In that case, I feel spotting scopes, stabilized binos, mapping software, compound bows, trail cams, etc are also contributing factors and should be eliminated.

Spears or no hunting at all, for the long term health of our animals.

90% of "science" is a lie anyway.
Data skewed to produce predetermined result.

 

[MuleyFever]

So, on a site that talks about precise zeroing, minute differences in optics, cutting ounces from pack weight, shifting reticles, etc….the science and measurements, promoting a change to the way we hunt, which will most likely never be reversed if/when found to have no measurable effect, we are going to base it on feels? Yet, aren’t we the same group that condemns ballot box biology because it isn’t based on science/facts?

In that case, I feel spotting scopes, stabilized binos, mapping software, compound bows, trail cams, etc are also contributing factors and should be eliminated.

Spears or no hunting at all, for the long term health of our animals.

Sounds good.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Anyone who thinks that hunting with a modern rifle and scope is different at one range than another is just a different level of hypocrite than the guy who thinks that distance is 100 yards more or less.
If they want to limit range, it's going to have to include excluding optics entirely. Which, as a mule deer hunter, I'm entirely in favor of.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using

I think it would a pretty fun time to make anything in November open sights only tags… would be an great excuse to buy a new iron sight bolt gun though!

 

[TaperPin]

A nice thing about Wyoming laws are they generally aren’t stacked with stupid details, and they should stay that way. Keep Colorado out of Wyoming. After letting this topic sink in a little longer, other than antelope hunting on a calm day, being able to shoot past 500 yards isn’t going to up your odds of success in most situations a great deal, at least not where I’ve hunted in the state. I’d love to see statistics on hunter success and how a rifle is set up - it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the best long range rifles don’t up the success or wounding rate at all.

Hunting videos sell viewers on the idea of glassing at long range all day and the super long shot, because that makes a good video and they purposely look for long shot opportunities. I’d bet 20x more elk are killed under 100 yards than over 400. Similarly, 20x more mule deer are killed under 200 yards than over 400. Getting a quick shot off below 400 is much more important than ringing gongs back home at 600. I literally want a GoPro just to video the time wasting gymnastics folks think are normal prior to getting a shot off because their choice of influencer tells them to set up every shot the same, as an easy 300 yard shot is missed because their shot is too slow. “What the … are you doing?!?,” is one of my favorite comments when someone wants to range a 200 yard shot, or attaches a bipod, pulls out a rear bag and spends time double checking their bubble level for a 300 yard shot. I’ve seen a dude with a great waist high boulder to rest off of, step to side and struggle with a short bipod because some online shooting instructor says “always shoot with a bipod.” Lol

The more I think through this, I’d love it if we not only allowed long range shooting, but encouraged it. Dingalings that can’t understand windy conditions and grossly underestimate the effect of buck fever on accuracy, will struggle and be content taking any little deer that comes along. I don’t see the down side.

 

[Jordan Smith]

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?

No, not at all. But first, I need to clarify that when you say "dispersion" you are referring to the POI variability of the rifle/load/shooter system. The point of a WEZ simulation is that it shows the effect of the uncertainty (i.e., potential dispersion) in different variables - wind drift, range, muzzle speed, ballistic coefficient, etc. As a general rule of thumb, when adding variability of different parameters in quadrature, when the uncertainty in one variable grows to about 3x that of the next highest variable, the largest uncertainty dominates the outcome. Even if there were no POI dispersion, there is still uncertainty in the other variables, such as wind speed and direction, muzzle speed of the bullet from shot to shot, distance to the target (LRFs often have a ~0.5% standard uncertainty).

For fun, I have modelled and coded my own "WEZ"-style simulation. Even with a rifle/load/shooter POI ES of 0 MOA (all shots go through the same hole if you remove all other variables), here's a potential outcome at 500 meters with a range measurement precision of +/- 1 m, G7 BC variability of +/- 0.001, muzzle speed ES of 30 fps, and wind speed estimation precision of +/- 1 mph:

And here's the same situation but with a rifle/load/shooter POI ES of 1 MOA:

 

[Jordan Smith]

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.

A lot of guys on this thread seem to be taking that position, and it's a valid position with strong arguments. I think which side of the issue you fall on depends on what you've been dealing with and are frustrated about.

Given that you guys have few opportunities with high success rates, it's natural to wish you had the inverse situation. The grass is always greener. But, the reality is that hunting becomes a camping and hiking exercise more than hunting, when you go to that model of high opportunity with low success.

Here in AB, we have OTC tags for BH sheep and elk in a lot of the province. F&W sells a LOT of licenses and tags (great for generating revenue), but hunter success is abysmal. It's easy to hunt hard every year and spend a decade looking, camping, and hiking, but not shooting. Some guys here are frustrated by the low success rates, and they wish that F&W would introduce some LEH opportunities so that if a guy was to draw the tag, he'd have a reasonably high probabilty of tagging a BH ram, if he put in the work and effort.

As I said, the grass is always greener, but I think a hybrid model balancing opportunity with success is the most reasonable way to manage a limited resource like our BG populations.

 

[PathFinder]

The good news is that Utah and Idaho are going to test this for us. Within five years or so, we should have some worthwhile data.
Or, we can extrapolate current MZ success rates data. Keeping in mind that MZ seasons are usually more advantageous times of year. Maybe a comparison between Colorado early rifle and muzzleloader success rates in the same units would be most accurate to show the difference between the two weapons?
Again, I don't think this should be applied to all species and seasons.


Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[Trumpkin The Dwarf]

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.

Show me the wildlife agency that has had mandatory harvest reports for those same date ranges and we can start there.

But I probably should clarify... I think this is most relevant for archery. Generally archers get the prime season dates, and the technology improvements in archery have pushed that improvement further. And I would argue it's a 30 year trend, not a 10 year trend for archery technology, unless you count crossbows.

 

[Flyjunky]

Show me the wildlife agency that has had mandatory harvest reports for those same date ranges and we can start there.

This is exactly the point some are making. There is no data to back up the claims being made to limit hunters.

 

[Mike D Texas]

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…”

Mandatory licensure for carrying a handgun is steadily falling by the wayside (as it should) unless you live in certain states. If you are ok with that you are part of the problem of infringing on as you said inalienable rights.

Government intervention should be minimal at best. Even with intervention as I stated previously, slob hunters (for the sake of this discussion) exist and will always exist, laws be damned.

As usual the only people affected by such intervention are the law abiding people.

 

[wind gypsy]

This is exactly the point some are making. There is no data to back up the claims being made to limit hunters.

The countless Youtube videos, forum posts, facebook/X/instagram/etc posts, anecdotal stories, conversations with fellow hunters, observations of fellow hunters, and knowledge of how I myself would hunt indicate a lot of ungulates are getting killed at distances that I and anyone i knew of or talked to wouldn't consider 20 years ago. That's not "data" but anyone capable of using logic can deduct that where there's easy access and a lack of cover - it means less critters are going to be capable of making it through than they were 20 years ago in the same landscape if all else was constant (which we know it isn't).

What "should" be done about it, if anything, i cant say. I don't think a one size fits all makes sense though.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Mandatory licensure for carrying a handgun is steadily falling by the wayside (as it should) unless you live in certain states. If you are ok with that you are part of the problem of infringing on as you said inalienable rights.

Government intervention should be minimal at best. Even with intervention as I stated previously, slob hunters (for the sake of this discussion) exist and will always exist, laws be damned.

As usual the only people affected by such intervention are the law abiding people.

I agree with a lot of this, but I don’t think making iron sight seasons especially when animals are most vulnerable/ stupid is a bad compromise. Why does it make sense to allow archery and muzzy during the elk rut but not rifles? Why is it controversial to say hey, mule deer aren’t doing the best as a species, we still love hunting them, so what if we had to limit ourselves technically so that we can still continue to hunt them while also giving them a leg up during their rut, or their late summering grounds

Yes there will always be A-holes, yes people will always do dumb shit. I think a distance ban is almost impossible to enforce so you say, archery, muzzle loader, straight wall cartridge, iron sights only ect…. That way people who want to hunt with said weapon will and those who want to keep the scope on will hunt in those seasons

 

[S-3 ranch]

I’m definitely not a government intervention supporter, till it comes to licensing
I support drivers education before being allowed onto the public road
Boaters safety course
The same should apply for the general population to obtain a hunting license
A safety and proficiency certificate should apply

When me and two friends went for our CCL , we learned a few things about the subject of self defense and the laws
The eye opener was the shooting range test , it was a huge target @ 5 yards ( yes 15ft ) , @ 5 yards quite a few people failed the test ( completely missing the target) and had to repeat the coarse! ( the instructor taped us out with a pass after the first round along with the people who had failed)
I will bet there are many hunters in the field that would fail a 50-100-200 yard test, much less a 300-400-500 with exponential failure after that! just because you have the best of the best equipment doesn’t mean you should be turned loose to hunt . LDH should have instructions wind reading, distance reading, ect.
Probably not a popular option but

 

[Flyjunky]

I agree with a lot of this, but I don’t think making iron sight seasons especially when animals are most vulnerable/ stupid is a bad compromise. Why does it make sense to allow archery and muzzy during the elk rut but not rifles? Why is it controversial to say hey, mule deer aren’t doing the best as a species, we still love hunting them, so what if we had to limit ourselves technically so that we can still continue to hunt them while also giving them a leg up during their rut, or their late summering grounds

Yes there will always be A-holes, yes people will always do dumb shit. I think a distance ban is almost impossible to enforce so you say, archery, muzzle loader, straight wall cartridge, iron sights only ect…. That way people who want to hunt with said weapon will and those who want to keep the scope on will hunt in those seasons

I get what you’re saying and can agree with much of it but it still doesn’t address the problems facing our mule deer herds. Go to the mule deer foundation, your state game depts, most say that mule deer started declining in the 60’s with significant declines starting in the 80’s.

We can continue to argue about tiny changes that won’t amount to much of any improvement while the big drivers of decline will continue.

Like I said above, it’s eerily similar to the salmon/steelhead of the pnw. Gear restrictions, shorter seasons, reduced opportunities, closed waters, in-season closures, etc….what has all that accomplished? Absolutely nothing but continued declines in fish returning. Why? Mostly nature, too many humans and their influence on the environment, and massive illegal poaching of the stocks off Alaska. Btw, the restrictions imposed have never been lifted.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I get what you’re saying and can agree with much of it but it still doesn’t address the problems facing our mule deer herds. Go to the mule deer foundation, your state game depts, most say that mule deer started declining in the 60’s with significant declines starting in the 80’s.

We can continue to argue about tiny changes that won’t amount to much of any improvement while the big drivers of decline will continue.

Like I said above, it’s eerily similar to the salmon/steelhead of the pnw. Gear restrictions, shorter seasons, reduced opportunities, closed waters, in-season closures, etc….what has all that accomplished? Absolutely nothing but continued declines in fish returning. Why? Mostly nature, too many humans and their influence on the environment, and massive illegal poaching of the stocks off Alaska. Btw, the restrictions imposed have never been lifted.

There maybe some truth to what’s happening to the MD from a too many people around point. But salmon are not deer and deer are not salmon. I think many of us proposing limits to tech to to maintain or increase opportunity (tags) in theory they can issue more tags if we as hunters aren’t as successful and populations go up. I get about the limiting not coming back in the case of the salmon, but has their population recovered or are they still in the dumps?

I’m also definitely not wanting this to be by ballot box, but a game agency making the call, ie they can say 1st season rifle elk in so&so unit is iron sights only since herd is under objective, vice versa 4th season deer is scoped rifles because this area is way over objective. Seems like an easy sliding scale to make harvest go up or down pretty easily