Wyoming long range hunting debate

[3325]

I started this thread and I haven’t weighed in yet. I’m of a divided mind on lang range hunting as long range is usually defined.

My experience in military and police sniper schools was on the old 600 yard KD range. I’m still pretty solid ringing steel at 600 but I don’t want to shoot that far on game.

My furthest elk was at 300 and my one and only antelope was also at about 300. Solid hits, both. Most kills have been much closer. My best elk was at about 75. I believe 300 is a good self imposed limit for me.

I don’t really have a firm opinion about what, if anything, should be done about long range hunting by Wyoming.

 

[SDHNTR]

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

Freaking Data. Give me a break. “Data” has become an overused and annoying Rokslike buzzword. No one needs freaking data and a study to prove that a turret, an advanced scope, precision rifles, and a ballistic calculator make it easier to kill animals, one just needs common sense.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Freaking Data. Give me a break. “Data” has become an overused and annoying Rokslike buzzword. No one needs freaking data and a study to prove that a turret, an advanced scope, precision rifles, and a ballistic calculator make it easier to kill animals, one just needs common sense.

I disagree. Tech doesn't inherently make hunting easier. It only helps if animals are susceptible to hunting methods in which that tech is advantageous. All that LR gear won't help if you're still hunting WT deer through the trees. It won't help if you're calling moose in thick bush. There are limited circumstances in which that LR gear is really helping, otherwise, it's just extra tech. VR goggles and moon boots won't help you, either.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I disagree. Tech doesn't inherently make hunting easier. It only helps if animals are susceptible to hunting methods in which that tech is advantageous. All that LR gear won't help if you're still hunting WT deer through the trees. It won't help if you're calling moose in thick bush. There are limited circumstances in which that LR gear is really helping, otherwise, it's just extra tech. VR goggles and moon boots won't help you, either.

We are referring to the vast majority of western hunting, in this thread Wyoming. Which yes, turrets and calculators won’t help in dense brush but the majority of western rifle hunting is done in places where shots can be hundreds or even over a thousand yards where the tech really does shine and is a giant game changer

 

[Jordan Smith]

We are referring to the vast majority of western hunting, in this thread Wyoming. Which yes, turrets and calculators won’t help in dense brush but the majority of western rifle hunting is done in places where shots can be hundreds or even over a thousand yards where the tech really does shine and is a giant game changer

I live and hunt just to your north, also in the west, so I'm familiar. But I'm also familiar with the fact that most BG shot opportunities are at much closer range. I'm all about being prepared for the few opportunities that are longer, but most aren't.

 

[walkingduckwaterfowl]

Data might be a fun thing to say on rokslide but it's also very relevant to consider here and doesn't always require a formal drawn out study.

Show me the data that hunters using "x" equipment are taking unsustainable levels of "x" game species. That is where the conversation should begin in regards to resource management. Instead we got to read an article about a politician with a friend who had a bad experience on a crowded landscape. This is an important distinction we need to be very careful with when considering new regulations in an activity that's already intensely regulated.

In my opinion, hunters have to be the ones to make a decision to change their individual behaviors in order to make effective change. The good news is we all have the power to do that. The bad news is some of us never will.

 

[Hoodie]

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.

The students, who are "average for serious shooters" might be a better reference point for this discussion.


From the notes on S2H University's first class:

"Notes of the shooters:

Overall this group on average is what has shown to be very high in the normal population and about average for “serious” shooters.

...

Observed shooter issues:

The 10 round untimed, prone groups were average- that is 2.5-5 MOA, and not centered. Despite what people of the internet say, laughably few people can lay down and put 10 rounds in a 2 MOA dot at 100 yards on demand.

All but two people stated that they felt comfortable, and would shoot a deer between 400 and 600’ish yards, one said 700 yards, and one said 200 yards. Every person would have missed an 8” target at 200 yards with at least one of their first 10 prone untimed shots."

 

[Q_Sertorius]

In my opinion, hunters have to be the ones to make a decision to change their individual behaviors in order to make effective change. The good news is we all have the power to do that. The bad news is some of us never will.

Hunters have almost never self-regulated. It’s the tragedy of the commons. That’s why we have regulations.

But this particular regulation doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. The people to accessible animals ratio appears to be off balance in certain places. From what I read, accessible public lands are very crowded. Competition between hunters is pretty severe. That’s nothing new in any part of the world where people lots of people want to hunt.

These complaints sound just like my father complaining about public lands in Virginia being overrun with hunters in the early 1980s. He has one memorable story about encountering a guy who was “brush-hunting” with a semi-automatic Thompson submachine gun, complete with 50-round drum. He and his hunting partners heartily agreed that “people shouldn’t be allowed to hunt with that.” I personally doubt that was a very effective hunting weapon. Eventually my dad just stuck to private land hunting. Today those same public lands are basically deserted. People don’t hunt out here in huge numbers.

Limiting means and methods won’t address the core of the overcrowding problem. Sure, you could probably drive away huge numbers of hunters by prohibiting firearms hunting altogether. Or doing so on all public land. Or by limiting it to muzzleloaders. That’s probably got a higher chance of success, but this is a big industry with a lot of money at stake. And that sort of regulation just sets hunters at each other’s throats. There’s too much of that in this thread and elsewhere.

If it was up to me, I would limit public land tags to residents. I would use eminent domain to carve easements into any “private-locked” public lands. I would selectively and carefully improve road access to some areas to help spread the traffic, while still leaving advantages for getting far away from the roads and into remote areas.

I would make private land tags a landowner resource allocated in a rational manner (landowners with sufficient acreage could purchase them from the state and resell them). There would be some regulation still (particularly to prevent attempts to interfere with migration), but the landowners and the market would resolve the situation. That would encourage maintenance and development of habitat. And that would bring in revenue to the state from nonresidents.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Hnthrdr]

Hunters have almost never self-regulated. It’s the tragedy of the commons. That’s why we have regulations.

But this particular regulation doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. The people to accessible animals ratio appears to be off balance in certain places. From what I read, accessible public lands are very crowded. Competition between hunters is pretty severe. That’s nothing new in any part of the world where people lots of people want to hunt.

These complaints sound just like my father complaining about public lands in Virginia being overrun with hunters in the early 1980s. He has one memorable story about encountering a guy who was “brush-hunting” with a semi-automatic Thompson submachine gun, complete with 50-round drum. He and his hunting partners heartily agreed that “people shouldn’t be allowed to hunt with that.” I personally doubt that was a very effective hunting weapon. Eventually my dad just stuck to private land hunting. Today those same public lands are basically deserted. People don’t hunt out here in huge numbers.

Limiting means and methods won’t address the core of the overcrowding problem. Sure, you could probably drive away huge numbers of hunters by prohibiting firearms hunting altogether. Or doing so on all public land. Or by limiting it to muzzleloaders. That’s probably got a higher chance of success, but this is a big industry with a lot of money at stake. And that sort of regulation just sets hunters at each other’s throats. There’s too much of that in this thread and elsewhere.

If it was up to me, I would limit public land tags to residents. I would use eminent domain to carve easements into any “private-locked” public lands. I would selectively and carefully improve road access to some areas to help spread the traffic, while still leaving advantages for getting far away from the roads and into remote areas.

I would make private land tags a landowner resource allocated in a rational manner (landowners with sufficient acreage could purchase them from the state and resell them). There would be some regulation still (particularly to prevent attempts to interfere with migration), but the landowners and the market would resolve the situation. That would encourage maintenance and development of habitat. And that would bring in revenue to the state from nonresidents.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

The privatization of hunting will never be looked upon favorably in the west, nor will only limiting public land hunts for residents only, also what happens when residents of a state double? Ie Colorado in my 35 years has gone from sub 3 million to almost 6 million residents, residents alone could stress herds out depending on success rates. I think being able to regulate success via tech is an easy button, can’t wait to see how it plays out in Utah and Idaho.

 

[fatlander]

The privatization of hunting will never be looked upon favorably in the west, nor will only limiting public land hunts for residents only, also what happens when residents of a state double? Ie Colorado in my 35 years has gone from sub 3 million to almost 6 million residents, residents alone could stress herds out depending on success rates. I think being able to regulate success via tech is an easy button, can’t wait to see how it plays out in Utah and Idaho.

Non residents fund the lion’s share of every state fish and game department budget in the west. Completely eliminating that pipeline of funding is going to be a non starter. Residents, as a whole, want less nonresident hunters but they always throw holy fits when resident license and tag fees go up. Can’t have it both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

Non residents fund the lion’s share of every state fish and game department budget in the west. Completely eliminating that pipeline of funding is going to be a non starter. Residents, as a whole, want less nonresident hunters but they always throw holy fits when resident license and tag fees go up. Can’t have it both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep I agree, the crowding comes from R & NR alike let’s face it in the age of information we will never have that honey hole all to ourselves anymore, we just won’t. We need to figure out a way to still issue tags and give people a shot at hunting but maybe make it not a slam dunk to be putting down anything you see at 500 yards and in. I’ve killed one buck at 500 yards, honestly not sure I would do it again, it felt like cheating…. And I know it’s not that far, but dang with a suppressed rifle the other 15 deer didn’t even register what happened

 

[mntnguide]

In western WY country, long range has completely changed how big deer use to be able and survive, along with the bigger bulls in the remote open high country. With people lobbing shots over 1k yards, no deer is safe. I know of some so called "hunters" who just sit on a high point, shoot into trees, jump bucks out, then proceed to take long range shots. I know of some specific Utards, that along with those tactics, go sit on high points in the dark with high dollar thermal binos to find every buck in a drainage. The obsession with "likes" and notoriety from social media in the hunting industry, has created a breed of hunters who could care less about the ethical decision, and will take shots at game nobody ever would consider before. But never will you hear the stories of wounded animals, missed shots, or shooting over other hunters heads.

Last year while elk hunting, I witnessed a group of guys, shooting at well over 900 yards at some bulls way above them. 2 days in a row, 1st day they wounded 1, next day we were so pissed at what we witnessed, we started screaming every name in the book at them in the canyon below. After they hit the bull the day before, they never hiked up to even go look for him. Over the 2 days, they shot well over 20 rounds. Long range hunting, is for lazy asses who cant put themselves into a better position, and are obsessed with getting that "trophy" photo to post, and will take shots they shouldnt. I will never have respect for a hunter who tells me they shoot an animal at those distances, no matter how much they practice and shoot.

No matter what happens, no law or authority will ever be able to change the obsession people now have with being social media famous in the hunting industry. And ethics will take a backseat when they see a huge animal at a distance far beyond what they "should" be shooting at.

 

[24valve]

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

The root issue of that is hunters killing younger animals before they reach maturity, which is better solved with the existing tool of antler point restrictions rather than technology restrictions.

 

[SDHNTR]

I disagree. Tech doesn't inherently make hunting easier. It only helps if animals are susceptible to hunting methods in which that tech is advantageous. All that LR gear won't help if you're still hunting WT deer through the trees. It won't help if you're calling moose in thick bush. There are limited circumstances in which that LR gear is really helping, otherwise, it's just extra tech. VR goggles and moon boots won't help you, either.

That might matter for all six of the people here who care about deep woods, Whitetail hunting.

 

[SDHNTR]

In western WY country, long range has completely changed how big deer use to be able and survive, along with the bigger bulls in the remote open high country. With people lobbing shots over 1k yards, no deer is safe. I know of some so called "hunters" who just sit on a high point, shoot into trees, jump bucks out, then proceed to take long range shots. I know of some specific Utards, that along with those tactics, go sit on high points in the dark with high dollar thermal binos to find every buck in a drainage. The obsession with "likes" and notoriety from social media in the hunting industry, has created a breed of hunters who could care less about the ethical decision, and will take shots at game nobody ever would consider before. But never will you hear the stories of wounded animals, missed shots, or shooting over other hunters heads.

Last year while elk hunting, I witnessed a group of guys, shooting at well over 900 yards at some bulls way above them. 2 days in a row, 1st day they wounded 1, next day we were so pissed at what we witnessed, we started screaming every name in the book at them in the canyon below. After they hit the bull the day before, they never hiked up to even go look for him. Over the 2 days, they shot well over 20 rounds. Long range hunting, is for lazy asses who cant put themselves into a better position, and are obsessed with getting that "trophy" photo to post, and will take shots they shouldnt. I will never have respect for a hunter who tells me they shoot an animal at those distances, no matter how much they practice and shoot.

No matter what happens, no law or authority will ever be able to change the obsession people now have with being social media famous in the hunting industry. And ethics will take a backseat when they see a huge animal at a distance far beyond what they "should" be shooting at.

This is spot on. Fake fame is toxic.

 

[Rich M]

Hunters will not unite. Long range shooting is a skill most do not have.

If they want to stop the practice, gonna need to remove range finders from the equation.

Maybe limit scopes to 6x or less.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Freaking Data. Give me a break. “Data” has become an overused and annoying Rokslike buzzword. No one needs freaking data and a study to prove that a turret, an advanced scope, precision rifles, and a ballistic calculator make it easier to kill animals, one just needs common sense.

So I’m sure you voluntarily hunt with restricted weapons correct?

Your common sense tells you to be at the tip of the spear and lead by example?

 

[fatlander]

Freaking Data. Give me a break. “Data” has become an overused and annoying Rokslike buzzword. No one needs freaking data and a study to prove that a turret, an advanced scope, precision rifles, and a ballistic calculator make it easier to kill animals, one just needs common sense.

Data in many western states isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. I’ve been a part of many hunts across the west that the state administering the tags had zero idea of the outcome or effort. Until states implement mandatory harvest reporting, their data is useless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jordan Smith]

The privatization of hunting will never be looked upon favorably in the west, nor will only limiting public land hunts for residents only, also what happens when residents of a state double? Ie Colorado in my 35 years has gone from sub 3 million to almost 6 million residents, residents alone could stress herds out depending on success rates. I think being able to regulate success via tech is an easy button, can’t wait to see how it plays out in Utah and Idaho.

Limiting to residents only would drastically cut down the pool of people competing for LEH tags and access.

Yep I agree, the crowding comes from R & NR alike let’s face it in the age of information we will never have that honey hole all to ourselves anymore, we just won’t. We need to figure out a way to still issue tags and give people a shot at hunting but maybe make it not a slam dunk to be putting down anything you see at 500 yards and in. I’ve killed one buck at 500 yards, honestly not sure I would do it again, it felt like cheating…. And I know it’s not that far, but dang with a suppressed rifle the other 15 deer didn’t even register what happened

Guys like Jack O'Connor and others killed animals out to several hundred yards without electronics and all the tech we have today. Going back to that stage of tech won't prevent hunters from killing (or trying to kill) at distance, it will just increase the rate of wounding.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Managing game based off emotions and feels is even more worthless.