Wyoming long range hunting debate

[Hnthrdr]

Yep, I live in Oregon and have hunted the public lands of the west since I’ve been old enough to carry a gun, over 40 years.

Honestly, I don’t think restrictions will make one bit of difference. The same people taking unethical shots will do it with whatever weapon they have in their hands and “less accurate” weapons seems counter productive. As mentioned, restrictions mean nothing if they can’t/won’t be enforced. We can’t even get a handle on poaching, which I’ve heard in some states rivals legal take. Where’s all this money and manpower going to come from? Could those dollars and manpower be put to better use?

I’m not sure what the answer is but I know that restrictions without MAJOR changes to the real drivers of abundance is a short term, superficial fix. Unfortunately, I’m not sure we, as a society, have the will, desire, or ability to fix the major problems. Like someone said in this thread…those problems are hard and as our population grows it will only get harder. I know people don’t want to hear it but we ARE going to have to sacrifice opportunity if we want future generations to hunt. We can either think of doing that now while the population is where it’s at or later when there are even less animals to build upon.

Sorry to be so pessimistic but duct tape and band-aids aren’t the answers. It’s ironic that nobody wants to give up opportunity to kill a deer in order to save a deer. Hell, many people will hunt multiple states to kill multiple animals and then talk about not wanting to lose opportunity or low numbers of animals…I’m including myself in that.

Well we can agree to disagree on a lot of that, arrows will only fly so far, same with muzzy bullets and straight walls, plus there is reloading time with muzzys, the ability to crank up a 18x or 24x scope with a turret that just makes guys want to fling, vs if you are looking at a tiny spec have a mile away…

I actually have eaten 6 of my last 10 MD tags, I hunt and I see deer. I stalk them, but I don’t kill the first thing I see like I did years ago. Am I saving deer? No but I have let at least 6 of them live. It’s a personal preference thing with me, let a handful of rag horns walk last year as well and ultimately ate my tag. We will see what happens this year, will have to be an absolute specimen of a buck to distract me from a bull elk in Sept, but who knows?

Maybe I am a glass half full kind of guy and think that we can right the ship, we have a hell of a road to travel to get there and a lot of battles that we need to unite on which I am glad that we can come and disagree here but we put up a decent united front against the anti’s and hopefully against those who would sell our public or pave it all with solar farms…

 

[BrownTroutGuy]

I’ll disagree with the point restrictions I think if all hunts were done with iron sights and straight wall cartridges post October there would be a lot of bigger bucks on the land scape (where genetics & feed allow) in 2-3 years

Rifle 4 in CO should be archery only. Rifle 3 should be ML only. Yes, I said it.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Rifle 4 in CO should be archery only. Rifle 3 should be ML only. Yes, I said it.

Yeah you won’t hear arguments from me! Would be a blast! I’d be a little bummed cause like I said, with a rifle in your hand you glass something a mile away and have a pretty good shot of closing the gap to kill it… with a bow or muzzy that’s a way higher hurdle would definitely test the old stalking skills that’s for sure!

 

[Jordan Smith]

Same reason why all the people at your local REI do.

The problem with that is the vast majority of hunters aren’t hugging trees like the REI crowd. They care about public lands mostly because they want to hunt them.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you are from San Diego? Right so totally reliant on public land hunting, I am from Colorado, completely reliant on public land hunting. No one wants massive crowds that is silly. Seems like most guys on this site have some western public land hunting experience. Not sure why folks would be opposed to handicapping themselves if it meant giving the game an edge to potentially get older and more mature maybe, while keeping opportunities the same or possibly increasing opportunities? Flyjunky do you live out west? I know Q is from back east and Kurt R is from Kansas if I’m not mistaken, wouldn’t you want more tags to be issued even if it’s an extra 5-10 per unit? That adds up quick out west when you are waiting in line, if the only caveat is you have to carry a slightly less efficient weapon?

As I mentioned before, we are in the opposite situation in AB. We have abundant OTC opportunities, but abysmal success rates. The last thing we need is more handicaps. Many guys I know would be in favour of a hybrid system to allow some LEH opportunities with high success rates, so that at least once in a while a guy would have a good chance of success on public land.

 

[Hnthrdr]

The problem with that is the vast majority of hunters aren’t hugging trees like the REI crowd. They care about public lands mostly because they want to hunt them.


As I mentioned before, we are in the opposite situation in AB. We have abundant OTC opportunities, but abysmal success rates. The last thing we need is more handicaps. Many guys I know would be in favour of a hybrid system to allow some LEH opportunities with high success rates, so that at least once in a while a guy would have a good chance of success on public land.

Would you attribute the lack of success due to tech restrictions? Terrain or time of year or animal density? Genuinely curious and do you know anyone who is successful year after year in these scenarios?

 

[Jordan Smith]

Would you attribute the lack of success due to tech restrictions? Terrain or time of year or animal density? Genuinely curious and do you know anyone who is successful year after year in these scenarios?

Just to be clear, I’m mainly talking about public land OTC elk and sheep hunting here. LEH and private land hunting is a different scenario.

Based on my observations, the lack of success is not related to tech restrictions, for the most part, but seems highly correlated with wide-scale access, abundant OTC tags, season/time of year, and relatively low target animal density (even if overall animal density is high).

More than a decade ago it was possible to put in the work/time/money to be successful more years than not, but in the last several years we’ve seen a massive increase in population in AB, with a corresponding increase in resident hunters. Now, I don’t know anyone who is successful year after year filling OTC public land bull elk or trophy sheep tags in AB.

I believe in a balanced approach to combining access with success rates. General, OTC tags and access with high thresholds on animal legality (full-curl rams, 5-pt or larger elk, etc.), combined with a few LEH tags that have lower thresholds, would be ideal for enabling resident hunters to spend time hunting the mountains, and every few years having a good chance of success.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Just to be clear, I’m mainly talking about public land OTC elk and sheep hunting here. LEH and private land hunting is a different scenario.

Based on my observations, the lack of success is not related to tech restrictions, for the most part, but seems highly correlated with wide-scale access, abundant OTC tags, season/time of year, and relatively low target animal density (even if overall animal density is high).

More than a decade ago it was possible to put the in the work/time/money to be successful more years than not, but in the last several years we’ve seen a massive increase in population in AB, with a corresponding increase in resident hunters. Now, I don’t know anyone who is successful year after year filling OTC public land bull elk or trophy sheep tags in AB.

I believe in a balanced approach to combining access with success rates. General, OTC tags and access with high thresholds on animal legality (full-curl rams, 5-pt or larger elk, etc.), combined with a few LEH tags that have lower thresholds, would be ideal for enabling resident hunters to spend time hunting the mountains, and every few years having a good chance of success.

Most dudes down here would give their left nut to get an otc sheep tag, but it makes sense that those are challenging hunts, sounds like a lot of the same challenges that western hunting in the U.S. is facing right now

 

[Jordan Smith]

Most dudes down here would give their left nut to get an otc sheep tag, but it makes sense that those are challenging hunts, sounds like a lot of the same challenges that western hunting in the U.S. is facing right now

Yeah, sort of the opposite problem caused by different management approaches to similar challenges.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

500 is extreme distance to 90% of fudds out there.

They are holding you in the unethical category

90%? Haha! Closing in on 99%. That's close to the number of guys that shoot a 100 yd zero the days before a hunt and think they are good to whatever.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

Gunwerks, a Wyoming company, will be thrilled. So too “Best of the West”. I’m impressed by those who can do it well; it is exactly opposite of but takes the same dedication as traditional bow hunting IMO. Extreme dedication to be effective at either.

Isn't that the company with videos of notorious long range misses? Like multiple feet off target on live animals bad?

 

[Steve O]

Isn't that the company with videos of notorious long range misses? Like multiple feet off target on live animals bad?

Yes. That was tongue in cheek…

 

[sndmn11]

I can’t recall the name/location, but I believe there is an elk refuge or park that has qualifications for hunters to be allowed to participate in a cull hunt. As I recall, in order to qualify, they have 3 minutes to hit 3 shots at 200 (not prone) and 3 shots at 300 (any position) on targets the size of elk vitals.

I’ve never seen the raw data but have read that the pass rates are abysmal.

I did one in Colorado 2-3 years ago, and 6-8 of ~30+ were able to qualify.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

My care for wildlife mandates killing them in the most efficient manner possible that leads to the highest chance of recovery and consumption of the meat. I want maximum lethality once the shot is fired. For that reason, I limit my shots on animals to 300 yards. I’m building a 1000-yard range on my farm so I can find my real limitations and practice, but the odds of me ever shooting at a game animal more than 500-yards away are basically non-existent.

I don’t think a range restriction is very feasible or enforceable. But, if it must be done, I agree with you that it is best done via weapon restrictions.

The suggestions to limit seasons to straight wall, muzzleloader, archery, no optics, etc. all cut against my first point. Yes, they limit maximum range, but they also have lower chances of recovery and higher wounding rates.

Traditionally, in most states which have them, the reasons for restrictions to archery, muzzleloader, straight wall, shotgun, etc. have to do with visibility and safety (maximum range, not maximum effective range). They all originally stemmed from “know your target and what lies beyond it”, not attempts to limit lethality.

But, for all my opposition to weapon limitations, I would accept them if they were accompanied by a removal of cow and doe tags in any population that wasn’t meeting a very healthy recruitment metric.

I like to see the efficient harvesting of most of the superfluous males before winter. I don’t care if that means they don’t have great racks. Can’t eat antlers. And having more animals in the long run is far better for the herd than having more bucks or bulls make it to 8 years old. But, if a buck or bull gets wounded and goes off to rot, it’s far less harm (and possibly some good) to the population as a whole, than if a female does.

It really irritates me how many western states have complaints about recruitment and health of populations, but continue to allow harvesting of female animals. Because apparently hunters would flip out if they lost the opportunity to fill the freezer with a cow or doe.

Proper management of these resources is going to require that someone make the decision not to allow cow or doe tags. If they do that, then I would be in favor of lethality limitations.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Sorry, but best I can do is releasing wolves right in the middle of winter in a decimated mule and elk herd area. This is to benefit the ecosystem you know?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Sorry, but best I can do is releasing wolves right in the middle of winter in a decimated mule and elk herd area. This is to benefit the ecosystem you know?

Go home, Colorado, you are stoned.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[24valve]

Folks need to think things through as the law of unintended consequences can be a bitch.

One such unintended consequence of the iron-sights and/or straight-wall cartridges restriction some on this thread are advocating for is that it reduces hunter lethality.

While its's intent is at longer ranges, this would also likely reduce hunter lethality at closer ranges as well and subsequently increase the (already higher than it should be) wounding rate of animals with modern rifle cartridges and scopes at "normal" hunting ranges.

While there isn't much data on this, the Colorado cull hunt test that most hunters fail is an indicator that the majority of hunters are not good shots.

I did one in Colorado 2-3 years ago, and 6-8 of ~30+ were able to qualify.

 

[JohnJohnson]

While its's intent is at longer ranges, this would also likely reduce hunter lethality at closer ranges as well and subsequently increase the (already higher than it should be) wounding rate of animals with modern rifle cartridges and scopes at "normal" hunting ranges.

You can't compare the two. Wounding animals at close range with arrows or less effective firearms is spiritual and harkens back to the history of early native american hunters. Think of the woodsmanship®™. Wounding at longer ranges is impersonal and disconnected, much worse.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

You can't compare the two. Wounding animals at close range with arrows or less effective firearms is spiritual and harkens back to the history of early native american hunters. Think of the woodsmanship. Wounding at longer ranges is impersonal and disconnected, much worse.

A while back I found an old book on marksmanship by a long range champion around 1890-1910. He described visiting hunters and sportsmen out on the frontier, most of whom who couldn’t hit a jackrabbit at 40 yards from a resting position.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

You can't compare the two. Wounding animals at close range with arrows or less effective firearms is spiritual and harkens back to the history of early native american hunters. Think of the woodsmanship®™. Wounding at longer ranges is impersonal and disconnected, much worse.

Bless your precious little heart.

We have another blessed soul whole feels that it is ok to ram his personal beliefs down the throats of others.

The simple fact is animals get wounded at all distances. It is idiotic to stake a high ground and claim wounding game at 100 or 200 yards is ethically superior to “maybe” wounding game at 500 or 600+ yards. Dollars to donuts the wounded game does not give a rat turd about your personal feelings; they’re wounded and likely to get eaten by a predator or die a slow gruesome death.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Bless your precious little heart.

We have another blessed soul whole feels that it is ok to ram his personal beliefs down the throats of others.

The simple fact is animals get wounded at all distances. It is idiotic to stake a high ground and claim wounding game at 100 or 200 yards is ethically superior to “maybe” wounding game at 500 or 600+ yards. Dollars to donuts the wounded game does not give a rat turd about your personal feelings; they’re wounded and likely to get eaten by a predator or die a slow gruesome death.

I agree with both of you, but I also think that you might have overreacted a bit to the tongue-in-cheek comment.

Animals do get wounded while we are hunting. Those wounded animals are akin to collateral damage in warfare. But I think we owe it to the animals (if not to ourselves), to use the means most likely to result in the least amount of suffering and the highest chance of recovery. That informs the choices I make while hunting.

The animal doesn't care whether you were five feet away or five miles away. Also, this is on point:

 

[Jordan Smith]

You can't compare the two. Wounding animals at close range with arrows or less effective firearms is spiritual and harkens back to the history of early native american hunters. Think of the woodsmanship®™. Wounding at longer ranges is impersonal and disconnected, much worse.

The absurd thing is that some people actually believe that nonsense.