Wyoming long range hunting debate

[Q_Sertorius]

Haha why were all those wild cat, blazing fast weatherby rounds so popular? It was all mpbr shooting for the most part

It was also because Roy Weatherby did a great job convincing people that his rifles killed by hydrostatic shock.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Hnthrdr]

Because more people want to hunt with rifles.

So, if your goal is simply to drive away the hordes of rifle hunters so that archers and muzzleloaders can get more tags… then come right out and say it.

I meant to write that it “won’t produce more tags for everyone.”


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

I hunt with every weapon available, I’m not exclusive to any one thing, I am what you would call a generalist, this would absolutely hamstring myself along with everyone else it’s no special gotcha or hahaha all those guys will quit hunting cause they can’t figure out how to shoot a bow, muzzy or iron sight rifle. I am not even saying no rifle hunting! I am saying what if we used rifles with iron sights and straight wall cartridges? I only hunt the western United States it’s where I was born and have all of my hunting experience here. I am speaking from personal experience in the area we are talking about and the experience of my friends. I would say the vast majority of hunters are better at just plain killing with a scoped rifle it is a far more effective tool than say a bow, ie it results in much higher kill rates. I believe that there is a ton of issues facing MD, Elk and antelope, many of which the scope and complexity far and away exceeds any of our abilities to do anything. I do not think that limiting tech will solve all the issues, I think we should try to make an effort as hunters to help with everything and if we ID’ed a species who is struggling in an area or maybe are more vulnerable in specific time of year maybe we handicap ourselves a tad more.

Not sure how much you hunt out west Q but you can talk to any western hunter and they probably have 5-10 stories of being shot over, herd shooting, ect. Would guys be stupid with anything in their hands, YES! It’s harder to be dumb with a bow at sub 100 yards than it is to be dumb with a scoped rifle at 1000 yards, that is a fact.

I don’t want to hoard anything I don’t want to exclude anyone. If anything I want MORE tags issued because of a less effective means of take. I want to maybe take a public stance that I think the general public would look at admirably, the 80% of people who don’t hunt I guarantee have a higher opinion of things like primitive hunting than if you told them you can snuff something 800 yards away that has no clue that you exist

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

I hunt with every weapon available, I’m not exclusive to any one thing, I am what you would call a generalist, this would absolutely hamstring myself along with everyone else it’s no special gotcha or hahaha all those guys will quit hunting cause they can’t figure out how to shoot a bow, muzzy or iron sight rifle. I am not even saying no rifle hunting! I am saying what if we used rifles with iron sights and straight wall cartridges? I only hunt the western United States it’s where I was born and have all of my hunting experience here. I am speaking from personal experience in the area we are talking about and the experience of my friends. I would say the vast majority of hunters are better at just plain killing with a scoped rifle it is a far more effective tool than say a bow, ie it results in much higher kill rates. I believe that there is a ton of issues facing MD, Elk and antelope, many of which the scope and complexity far and away exceeds any of our abilities to do anything. I do not think that limiting tech will solve all the issues, I think we should try to make an effort as hunters to help with everything and if we ID’ed a species who is struggling in an area or maybe are more vulnerable in specific time of year maybe we handicap ourselves a tad more.

Not sure how much you hunt out west Q but you can talk to any western hunter and they probably have 5-10 stories of being shot over, herd shooting, ect. Would guys be stupid with anything in their hands, YES! It’s harder to be dumb with a bow at sub 100 yards than it is to be dumb with a scoped rifle at 1000 yards, that is a fact.

I don’t want to hoard anything I don’t want to exclude anyone. If anything I want MORE tags issued because of a less effective means of take. I want to maybe take a public stance that I think the general public would look at admirably, the 80% of people who don’t hunt I guarantee have a higher opinion of things like primitive hunting than if you told them you can snuff something 800 yards away that has no clue that you exist

Folks here and in the real world complain about the volume of hunters and their entourages while in the field. Having more tags will make that worse no matter what weapon they use.

Folks need to focus on the forest and not a single tree. A unit currently can be hunted almost constantly from August though January when you take into account the various species and weapons; a unit could have pronghorn, black bear, elk, whitetail, mule deer, mountain lion, javelina, turkey, coyotes, etc. Even if this week is not mule deer week, they can still experience sizable pressure from those folks chasing other species. How is having more hunters in the field almost every single week for five or months straight going to make it better for the animals?

It's easy to cherry pick a data point and run with it to manipulate others' attitudes. Our media does it all the time. Unlike the baby killing rifle hunters that blindly sling lead at anything that moves, archers will tell you that their method of hunting requires mad ninja stalking skills and super human skill to put an arrow through the heart but only at "reasonable" distances. But the "superior" archery hunters fail to talk about their self-reported wounding rate. If you could wave your magic wand and make all AZ draw tags for deer "archery only", the number of self-reported wounded deer would go from about 1,140 deer to about 2,381 deer; excludes OTC as AZ G&F did not report self reported wounding rates.

Want to turn the masses against archery hunters? Take a video crew to our northern units right after archery elk season. The video of the unrecovered elk rotting, some mere yards from a road, will likely not be well received. That not enough? Have the video crew show the trash and the "Hershey kisses" the archery hunters left behind in camp; issues transcends all weapon users.

Is that fair to the archery hunters as a whole? Not one bit but neither is throwing rifle hunters under the bus.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Folks here and in the real world complain about the volume of hunters and their entourages while in the field. Having more tags will make that worse no matter what weapon they use.

Folks need to focus on the forest and not a single tree. A unit currently can be hunted almost constantly from August though January when you take into account the various species and weapons; a unit could have pronghorn, black bear, elk, whitetail, mule deer, mountain lion, javelina, turkey, coyotes, etc. Even if this week is not mule deer week, they can still experience sizable pressure from those folks chasing other species. How is having more hunters in the field almost every single week for five or months straight going to make it better for the animals?

It's easy to cherry pick a data point and run with it to manipulate others' attitudes. Our media does it all the time. Unlike the baby killing rifle hunters that blindly sling lead at anything that moves, archers will tell you that their method of hunting requires mad ninja stalking skills and super human skill to put an arrow through the heart but only at "reasonable" distances. But the "superior" archery hunters fail to talk about their self-reported wounding rate. If you could wave your magic wand and make all AZ draw tags for deer "archery only", the number of self-reported wounded deer would go from about 1,140 deer to about 2,381 deer; excludes OTC as AZ G&F did not report self reported wounding rates.

Want to turn the masses against archery hunters? Take a video crew to our northern units right after archery elk season. The video of the unrecovered elk rotting, some mere yards from a road, will likely not be well received. That not enough? Have the video crew show the trash and the "Hershey kisses" the archery hunters left behind in camp; issues transcends all weapon users.

Is that fair to the archery hunters as a whole? Not one bit but neither is throwing rifle hunters under the bus.

Man I am both a rifle and archery hunter. I’m not trying to throw anyone under any bus. I simply want to give opportunities yet tamper them with harvest rates that’s it.

My experience is with all the dozens and dozens of non hunters that have asked me about, archery/ muzzle loading is far more well received than rifle hunting, I know it doesn’t really matter if you kill with a rock an arrow or an Abrams tank dead is dead, we know this, yet gen pop who is far more emotional attaches seemingly higher value on primitive weapons…

 

[Flyjunky]

To return to the 1980s and eliminate 99.9% of all shots taken past 500 yards just take away laser rangefinders. I can imagine the empty Kleenex boxes from all the grown men crying. *chuckle*

And I can imagine all the Kleenex from people like you who think a distance limit is the key to bringing back the 80’s while the herds continue to decline.

 

[TaperPin]

And I can imagine all the Kleenex from people like you who think a distance limit is the key to bringing back the 80’s while the herds continue to decline.

People like me? *chuckle*

You’re confused. I don’t think I’ve ever suggested, anywhere, any kind of regulation that will bring back the hunting conditions of the 1980s.

 

[OKHunter84]

There's guys that can shoot 600 yards with open sights. Go to a local NRA match and watch old timers with M1 garands and peep sights.

 

[nm.otter]

I spent some time analyzing data from units in Colorado that have both early rifle (ER) and muzzleloader (MZ) hunts. These hunts have nearly identical or identical season dates, the only difference is the weapon. These hunts take place in units with similar terrain and season dates to Wyoming G/H hunts. Doe hunts were excluded from the MZ numbers. Muzzleloader numbers were only taken from units that had early rifle hunts that same year. Average percentage for all units combined for MZ and ER:

• 2024: MZ 23, ER 31
• 2023: MZ 20, ER 39
• 2022: MZ 27, ER 41
• 2021: MZ 22, ER 37
• 2020: MZ 25, ER 34
• 2019: MZ 23, ER 43

This is the only current apples to apples comparison I'm aware of. There is a clear and significant difference by weapon type that is present every single year.

No optics on muzzleloaders there, like we now have in NM. Success rates on MZ got within a couple percent of Any Legal Weapon hunts before the change. NMDGF and a bunch of hunters here are watching the Utah and Idaho experiments.

 

[AkMtnRunner]

It would be fascinating if a State either incentivized or required rifle hunters to qualify for shooting distances. Not because it should be regulated, but because a lot more hunters would find out they shouldn't be shooting at animals nearly as far as they think so.

 

[nm.otter]

Muzzleloaders have several limitations which likely contribute to lower rates of harvest success. These three come to mind for me:

• Ballistics limiting shot distance.
• Aiming limiting accuracy.
• Reloading speed limiting the usefulness of a follow-up shot.

I'm hoping the UT and ID post-harvest reports will help us better understand the relative contributions each of these makes.

 

[SDHNTR]

Because the “solutions” proposed by the OP’s article are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It won’t do a darned thing to fix the root problems.

And the solutions proposed are totally disingenuous because they are proposed by people who will not be affected by them. They are all feelings-based value judgments.

It’s too hard to fix the access problems, the development problems, the intense demand for the resources, and the state lawmakers refusal to turn away nonresident money, so let’s put in a rule that is the equivalent of making a school a Gun Free Zone. It doesn’t do a damn thing to stop school shootings, but it sounds good to a bunch of soccer moms who want someone to do something.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on… quick call

I spent some time analyzing data from units in Colorado that have both early rifle (ER) and muzzleloader (MZ) hunts. These hunts have nearly identical or identical season dates, the only difference is the weapon. These hunts take place in units with similar terrain and season dates to Wyoming G/H hunts. Doe hunts were excluded from the MZ numbers. Muzzleloader numbers were only taken from units that had early rifle hunts that same year. Average percentage for all units combined for MZ and ER:

• 2024: MZ 23, ER 31
• 2023: MZ 20, ER 39
• 2022: MZ 27, ER 41
• 2021: MZ 22, ER 37
• 2020: MZ 25, ER 34
• 2019: MZ 23, ER 43

This is the only current apples to apples comparison I'm aware of. There is a clear and significant difference by weapon type that is present every single year. Will it grow deer herds? Probably not significantly. Will it increase quality and opportunity? The success rates certainly suggest so. Saying there's no difference in the field between the ability to shoot 600-1000 yards and maybe 300 at most just shows a complete lack of any experience western hunting whatsoever. There's a difference, and it's significant.
Some in this thread seem to believe that weapon limitations and habitat improvement are mutually exclusive. That's plainly not the case. Those of us who wouldn't mind weapon limitations for some species are 100% in favor of doing everything possible to improve habitat. For the record, I'm in favor of keeping some scoped rifle tags (in a limited quota model). Mostly to keep the people who insist on hunting with a scoped rifle in a different point pool
The other major factor, which I'm grateful that those of us on both sides of this discussion have identified, is to get rid of all the internet idiocy. Filming and publishing hunting content should be subject to significant regulation and taxation. Those parasites are exploiting a resource for income without contributing anything in return; is that really ok? It stands in plain opposition to the NA wildlife model; those who benefit, contribute in return. It's time for the internet parasites to contribute for what they're receiving.
The LR qualification idea is dumb. It won't change success rates, and agencies don't have the competence to administer such a test. The idea is to preserve opportunity and quality in tandem, not just force people to take a dumb test administered by a government employee.

Slam dunk it bruh! Spot on!

 

[littlebigtine]

Hunter efficacy is proven and has been for a very long time--longer than most of us have been alive. That hunter efficacy is reduced by using a weapon with a limited range (bow vs rifle) is a no-brainer that I dont think should be in question. If a harvest goal is 3000 animals, and a bow season has a 10% success rate, while a rifle season has a 30% success rate, that is the difference between 30,000 tags and 10,000 tags. It's that simple if only looking at that. the difference may or may not be that stark, but you can bet it is estimated and used as part of calculating how many tags to issue. Season dates (length as well as time within the season) also play into it though. And "hunter experience" as well, ie ability to hunt at all, crowding, the type of experience people want, bucks versus BIG bucks, what other seasons are concurrent, fundraising (how much can we gouge from NR's to pay for it all), etc. It's all estimated, but it literally comes down to a simple math equation of hunter efficacy and the harvest goal=the number of tags available.

@littlebigtine I agree with that 100%. To be clear I am not ADVOCATING for anything here other than taking responsibility for whatever part in the solution we can be truly accountable for. There are both scientific and social elements to the topic, so to the degree that "the sustainable well-being of mule deer" or any other similar topic we could cook up, is related to hunter efficacy and the tradeoff between sustainable harvest vs tag allocation, touches on this. I simply am following the conversation and I see the argument going around in circles largely based on emotion and fear. I am certainly not advocating for making a change that isnt going to affect the issue. I am advocating for being clear about what is trying to be solved and what all of the levers are that can be pulled to address that, and that hunters --as wildlife advocates as well as users--take the lead on those elements that we have control over, while simultaneously advocating for change in the areas where we dont have direct control. Inherent in this approach is that if a lever doesnt actually accomplish something that is needed, then it's not providing anything--data can show that, and that's precisely why some states are experimenting with equipment restrictions as a tool to gauge its actual effect on hunter efficacy.

@Q, there is a fundamental difference between "ineffective solutions" versus "solutions that are effective but are only responsible for a small part of the necesssary change". No one is advocating for making ineffective solutions, only for effective solutions even if they can't be the only solutions. If hunter efficacy only plays a role in 1% of the solution, but it can make a meaningful impact on that 1%, then that is one effective solution. If we who directly benefit from wildlife arent willing to take that step where it contributes to the needed solution, then why would anyone else contribute to the solution either? It takes data and a clear view of what the effect of any proposed solution will do, but that's the distinction.

What if limiting harvest actually increases demand for other meat sources?

Where does that meat come from? Free-range beef? It competes directly with mule deer for habitat. Feedlot beef? It relies on crops that could be grown on winter range critical to mule deer survival.

Some people roll their eyes when a hunter says he shot a “meat buck” to put food in the freezer, but think about this:

What if he didn’t shoot that buck? What if 10,000 hunters across the West, who have traditionally relied on wild meat, stop harvesting from the ecosystem altogether? Demand shifts. That demand doesn’t disappear, it moves to domesticated sources, and with it comes pressure to expand agriculture, develop more land, and further fragment habitat.

In 100 years, would you rather see a functioning natural system where historic habitat still supports native species and sustainable harvest is possible? Or do you want to see it all paved over, replaced by feedlots and monocultures to sustain our dietary needs?

That may sound dramatic, but the truth is, if we don’t continue to participate in and support this system, we may lose it entirely.

It’s a strange irony: the harvest of mule deer and other big game in North America may be the very thing that ensures their long term survival.

This is the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation in action and it works, but only if we keep showing up for it.

That is why whenever somebody in conversations like this one start to insist that limiting buck harvest is helping conservation. I call bullshit because there is zero science that supports it. In fact the science points in the opposite direction.

Thats fine if you want older age classes or “better quality hunting”. But don’t also say that it is necessary for the herd. It will not fix the problems that mule deer face and I honestly think that alienating a group of hunters that (while there may be some bad actors as in any group) care, participate and support the system we have in place is foolish.

 

[PathFinder]

What if limiting harvest actually increases demand for other meat sources?

Where does that meat come from? Free-range beef? It competes directly with mule deer for habitat. Feedlot beef? It relies on crops that could be grown on winter range critical to mule deer survival.

Some people roll their eyes when a hunter says he shot a “meat buck” to put food in the freezer, but think about this:

What if he didn’t shoot that buck? What if 10,000 hunters across the West, who have traditionally relied on wild meat, stop harvesting from the ecosystem altogether? Demand shifts. That demand doesn’t disappear, it moves to domesticated sources, and with it comes pressure to expand agriculture, develop more land, and further fragment habitat.

In 100 years, would you rather see a functioning natural system where historic habitat still supports native species and sustainable harvest is possible? Or do you want to see it all paved over, replaced by feedlots and monocultures to sustain our dietary needs?

That may sound dramatic, but the truth is, if we don’t continue to participate in and support this system, we may lose it entirely.

It’s a strange irony: the harvest of mule deer and other big game in North America may be the very thing that ensures their long term survival.

This is the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation in action and it works, but only if we keep showing up for it.

That is why whenever somebody in conversations like this one start to insist that limiting buck harvest is helping conservation. I call bullshit because there is zero science that supports it. In fact the science points in the opposite direction.

Thats fine if you want older age classes or “better quality hunting”. But don’t also say that it is necessary for the herd. It will not fix the problems that mule deer face and I honestly think that alienating a group of hunters that (while there may be some bad actors as in any group) care, participate and support the system we have in place is foolish.

This is quite a stretch. Nobody is suggested we get rid of hunting and replace mule deer habitat with feedlots. We're suggesting that limiting some types of technology to some degree would make hunting better overall for everyone. That doesn't require anyone to stop participating, nor is it intended to do so. It's just a suggestion that maybe the rifles we have now are going to limit quality and opportunity in the long run. The suggestion to limit optics actually might produce the opposite effect from what you described above...

 

[Hnthrdr]

What if limiting harvest actually increases demand for other meat sources?

Where does that meat come from? Free-range beef? It competes directly with mule deer for habitat. Feedlot beef? It relies on crops that could be grown on winter range critical to mule deer survival.

Some people roll their eyes when a hunter says he shot a “meat buck” to put food in the freezer, but think about this:

What if he didn’t shoot that buck? What if 10,000 hunters across the West, who have traditionally relied on wild meat, stop harvesting from the ecosystem altogether? Demand shifts. That demand doesn’t disappear, it moves to domesticated sources, and with it comes pressure to expand agriculture, develop more land, and further fragment habitat.

In 100 years, would you rather see a functioning natural system where historic habitat still supports native species and sustainable harvest is possible? Or do you want to see it all paved over, replaced by feedlots and monocultures to sustain our dietary needs?

That may sound dramatic, but the truth is, if we don’t continue to participate in and support this system, we may lose it entirely.

It’s a strange irony: the harvest of mule deer and other big game in North America may be the very thing that ensures their long term survival.

This is the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation in action and it works, but only if we keep showing up for it.

That is why whenever somebody in conversations like this one start to insist that limiting buck harvest is helping conservation. I call bullshit because there is zero science that supports it. In fact the science points in the opposite direction.

Thats fine if you want older age classes or “better quality hunting”. But don’t also say that it is necessary for the herd. It will not fix the problems that mule deer face and I honestly think that alienating a group of hunters that (while there may be some bad actors as in any group) care, participate and support the system we have in place is foolish.

We are not in any way suggesting that people stop shooting meat bucks or stop shooting anything that tips their trigger. The suggestion is what if we made it a tad more difficult to shoot that meat buck by say making the average hunter go from 400 yards to 200 or 150 to take a shot. That is it. We support the potential of more tags that may come from this. We want mule deer to do well, we don’t want feed lots or all of their range to be over grazed…

 

[littlebigtine]

This is quite a stretch. Nobody is suggested we get rid of hunting and replace mule deer habitat with feedlots. We're suggesting that limiting some types of technology to some degree would make hunting better overall for everyone. That doesn't require anyone to stop participating, nor is it intended to do so. It's just a suggestion that maybe the rifles we have now are going to limit quality and opportunity in the long run. The suggestion to limit optics actually might produce the opposite effect from what you described above...

I hope no one would prefer feedlots. I am pointing out the downstream effects of limiting harvest. Give the podcast a listen. It truly is crucial that everybody understands that the utilization of wild game meat is the single greatest driver of conservation in North America.

 

[wind gypsy]

What if limiting harvest actually increases demand for other meat sources?

Where does that meat come from? Free-range beef? It competes directly with mule deer for habitat. Feedlot beef? It relies on crops that could be grown on winter range critical to mule deer survival.

Some people roll their eyes when a hunter says he shot a “meat buck” to put food in the freezer, but think about this:

What if he didn’t shoot that buck? What if 10,000 hunters across the West, who have traditionally relied on wild meat, stop harvesting from the ecosystem altogether? Demand shifts. That demand doesn’t disappear, it moves to domesticated sources, and with it comes pressure to expand agriculture, develop more land, and further fragment habitat.

In 100 years, would you rather see a functioning natural system where historic habitat still supports native species and sustainable harvest is possible? Or do you want to see it all paved over, replaced by feedlots and monocultures to sustain our dietary needs?

That may sound dramatic, but the truth is, if we don’t continue to participate in and support this system, we may lose it entirely.

It’s a strange irony: the harvest of mule deer and other big game in North America may be the very thing that ensures their long term survival.

This is the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation in action and it works, but only if we keep showing up for it.

Didn't knew there was a new tenet to the north american model..

1. the public trust,
2. elimination of commerce in wildlife,
3. allocation by law,
4. non-frivolous use,
5. international resources,
6. democratic hunting,
7. scientific management
8. NEW for 2025! Support technology and weapons such that hunters have higher odds of killing anything that dares step into view inside 1000 yards

That is why whenever somebody in conversations like this one start to insist that limiting buck harvest is helping conservation. I call bullshit because there is zero science that supports it. In fact the science points in the opposite direction.

The thing is I dont even think anyone necessarily wants to limit buck harvest, rather give the bucks a more sporting chance of survival. If lethality is reduced, in theory over time you could have the same success rates due to more bucks being on the landscape. Obviously some areas and populations are more a function of hunter harvest than others so it would only be worth pursuing in places where it actually moves the needle.

 

[MallardSX2]

Everyone should have to use smoothbore muskets.

 

[Macintosh]

Regardless of whether its a stretch, its just not where folks are aiming. Some folks may want to do something for their own ideals around fair chase, etc. but thats not what Im talking about, and I dont think thats why states are limiting technology. The goal isnt to limit harvest without a biological need for that. The goal of a restriction is to reduce hunter efficacy as a tool to increase the number of tags issued for a given harvest quota (or to prevent a reduction in tags). The whole goal is to harvest the same amount of deer, but let more people hunt. Theres tons of ways to do that without making it more crowded too (1st season, second season, separate tags for different seasons, etc).

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Man I am both a rifle and archery hunter. I’m not trying to throw anyone under any bus. I simply want to give opportunities yet tamper them with harvest rates that’s it.

My experience is with all the dozens and dozens of non hunters that have asked me about, archery/ muzzle loading is far more well received than rifle hunting, I know it doesn’t really matter if you kill with a rock an arrow or an Abrams tank dead is dead, we know this, yet gen pop who is far more emotional attaches seemingly higher value on primitive weapons…

No disagreement here.

Perception is reality even when it is not complete true. Pimping a narrative, that is not 100% accurate, is not limited to a single side.

If forced to use archery equipment, there’s a lot of dudes out there with bum shoulders that may not be able to use a bow. Unsure how many would quit altogether versus flooding the CHAMP side of hunting. 30 total CHAMP tags for draw deer in AZ this year. Obviously G&F would have to update that.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Muzzleloaders have several limitations which likely contribute to lower rates of harvest success. These three come to mind for me:

• Ballistics limiting shot distance.
• Aiming limiting accuracy.
• Reloading speed limiting the usefulness of a follow-up shot.

I'm hoping the UT and ID post-harvest reports will help us better understand the relative contributions each of these makes.

This is from AZ in 2024. There's not a whole lot of difference between a muzzleloader and a rifle when it comes to success rate as well as self-reported wounding rate. Draw archery had a higher success rate than rifle.

Tongue in cheek: Get rid of youth hunts due to their high success rates and do away with both CHAMP and draw archery due to their 4x increase in self-reported wounding rates.