Wyoming long range hunting debate

[Fetty Wapiti]

The internet, tag services, and subscription services (ie. Go Hunt) have done more harm to hunting than any other technology and we don't talk about limiting that...

People are taking shots they shouldn't no matter the technology at hand.

With the technological advancements in archery and the exuberant wounding rates of archery hunters even that would be a better argument to have. This thread is just silly.

Let's talk about limiting the internet, invasive species, conservation, development, speeding, the privatization of hunting that is taking place... etc. Things that actually matter. Things that actually impact future generations ability to hunt these amazing creatures. Not about creating laws to solve a problem they will never fix.

 

[Aaron Davidson]

So here's my position. I think in our society and level of technological advancement, I believe that we should strive for technology that ensures a perfect shot. Where our technology is right now, we can do amazing things with a rifle. Truly amazing. With a very small amount of training and practice a shooter can be capable to a half mile in the right conditions.

We started the first real training school in 2007 for Long Range Hunting. I've seen the skill spectrum. I agree with other posts that poor decision making happens at all ranges, but I've noticed the vast majority of students and customers I work with are very serious about success and shooting well.

I think the anecdotal evidence of poor shooting or poor decision making do not represent the majority, and the same anecdotal evidence can be used to disparage archers and weekend warriors with low tech guns (probably shooting a box of mixed ammo). Lets leave the myth of the unethical long range shooter aside for the topic of this thread.

The crux of this discussion boils down to person A wants to have better draw odds in a unit, and they are prepared to sacrifice my enjoyment/pursuits/interest/success, to get it. I didn't think I lived in that kind of country. Its very alarming to see this type of socialistic though creep into what I thought would be the last bastion of liberty (gun guys).

If the animal numbers are down. For whatever reason. The liberty that our flag represents would ask us all to tighten our belts and help manage the game numbers. Accepting a low draw percentage is exactly the outcome that protects the minority.

Lets try on some other solutions to show you how wrong it is to single out a minority, to infringe on their freedoms: To reduce harvest, what if we just eliminate archery elk rut hunts? or in Wyoming, you have to choose archery only? Most Wyomingites don't have horses, what if we banned them because they give one party unfair access to the backcountry? Or how about this lightning rod, we should ban outfitted hunts, because the outfitters know the area too well and their odds of success are just too good.

Now you see how silly that is....

In respect to what you can ban to limit long range shooting success, the only real option is to ban rangefinders. Imagine archery success rates without a rangefinder.....

This only limits success (not shooting), because it would put us all back into the stone age of just hold over, send it and walk it in. I can't think of a better example of dumb "democrat" thinking than to ban rangefinders to promote more "ethical" shooting!

We are on the slippery slope. The democrat way is not the solution to your desire for more opportunity. It always ends in a disaster of unintended consequences. Don't be an "angry pitchfork" or an NPC that is easily manipulated. Stand up for freedom and the American way. Engage in conservation efforts, kill predators, apply for more areas/states, and teach your kids how to make perfect shots.

 

[Hnthrdr]

So here's my position. I think in our society and level of technological advancement, I believe that we should strive for technology that ensures a perfect shot. Where our technology is right now, we can do amazing things with a rifle. Truly amazing. With a very small amount of training and practice a shooter can be capable to a half mile in the right conditions.

We started the first real training school in 2007 for Long Range Hunting. I've seen the skill spectrum. I agree with other posts that poor decision making happens at all ranges, but I've noticed the vast majority of students and customers I work with are very serious about success and shooting well.

I think the anecdotal evidence of poor shooting or poor decision making do not represent the majority, and the same anecdotal evidence can be used to disparage archers and weekend warriors with low tech guns (probably shooting a box of mixed ammo). Lets leave the myth of the unethical long range shooter aside for the topic of this thread.

The crux of this discussion boils down to person A wants to have better draw odds in a unit, and they are prepared to sacrifice my enjoyment/pursuits/interest/success, to get it. I didn't think I lived in that kind of country. Its very alarming to see this type of socialistic though creep into what I thought would be the last bastion of liberty (gun guys).

If the animal numbers are down. For whatever reason. The liberty that our flag represents would ask us all to tighten our belts and help manage the game numbers. Accepting a low draw percentage is exactly the outcome that protects the minority.

Lets try on some other solutions to show you how wrong it is to single out a minority, to infringe on their freedoms: To reduce harvest, what if we just eliminate archery elk rut hunts? or in Wyoming, you have to choose archery only? Most Wyomingites don't have horses, what if we banned them because they give one party unfair access to the backcountry? Or how about this lightning rod, we should ban outfitted hunts, because the outfitters know the area too well and their odds of success are just too good.

Now you see how silly that is....

In respect to what you can ban to limit long range shooting success, the only real option is to ban rangefinders. Imagine archery success rates without a rangefinder.....

This only limits success (not shooting), because it would put us all back into the stone age of just hold over, send it and walk it in. I can't think of a better example of dumb "democrat" thinking than to ban rangefinders to promote more "ethical" shooting!

We are on the slippery slope. The democrat way is not the solution to your desire for more opportunity. It always ends in a disaster of unintended consequences. Don't be an "angry pitchfork" or an NPC that is easily manipulated. Stand up for freedom and the American way. Engage in conservation efforts, kill predators, apply for more areas/states, and teach your kids how to make perfect shots.

Appreciate your comment.
I think you mistake my want for less technological weapons especially during an animals most vulnerable period in areas where animals are struggling say MD in most of the West as a way to infringe on your shooting 1000 yards it’s not. I think we still should have scoped rifle hunts, and a lot of them, but maybe not during the MD rut. Maybe we issue the bulk of MD in early October when MD aren’t as vulnerable and if you want to hunt the rut you use a muzzleloader, it’s trying to strike a balance between opportunities and potential ease of killing. To me this isn’t socialistist thinking, this actually has nothing to do with the political spectrum since I would rather people continue to hunt than to have to sit it out and wait. Also how is “everyone tightens their belts and waits for low draw hunts to protect the minority” not some kind of socialistic equity take?

I do think we should have range finders since it allows us to take the most ethical shot with whatever weapon we are hunting with or we get rid of those and just use spears then we will know when we are in range…

Completely agree with killing lots of predators, and I use scoped rifles when I predator hunt because it’s the easiest way to kill them. (trapping is outlawed in Co on public) if I was concerned about the predator population and wanted more to survive I would maybe suggest we make: say coyote hunting muzzle loader only during Jan-Feb or something along those lines. I assure you the anti hunters would love nothing more than to create extremely low draw hunts or have periods where they close areas to hunting for years and years, than people still exercising their ability to harvest wild game with a more primitive weapon

 

[Wprinkle]

The internet, tag services, and subscription services (ie. Go Hunt) have done more harm to hunting than any other technology and we don't talk about limiting that...

People are taking shots they shouldn't no matter the technology at hand.

With the technological advancements in archery and the exuberant wounding rates of archery hunters even that would be a better argument to have. This thread is just silly.

Let's talk about limiting the internet, invasive species, conservation, development, speeding, the privatization of hunting that is taking place... etc. Things that actually matter. Things that actually impact future generations ability to hunt these amazing creatures. Not about creating laws to solve a problem they will never fix.

Could not agree more!!!! Ban the aps and internet!!

 

[Hnthrdr]

Could not agree more!!!! Ban the aps and internet!!

MPMGA= make paper maps great again!!!

 

[35WhelenAI]

MPMGA= make paper maps great again!!!

Absolutely agree. The apps created an industry, taking a novice in the woods to places they would never get otherwise speaks volumes. Just like AllTrails, which has absolutely screwed up the western states while making millions of millions of dollars for themselves. They don't give a rip about how many people show up to hike a trail, it's all glory and no stewardship.

Using a compass and a map, learning how to read topo lines to navigate was the way you learned the woods. Take an app away from a lot of folks, probably a whole lot of folks, equip them with a map and compass, search and rescue is going to be a lot busier.

With respect to post #473 on the previous page, if RS is not representative of the average hunter, then that is saying RS NR hunters are the problem, because apparently the overcrowding isn't coming from the average guy who doesn't "spend thousands to travel to other states or provinces".

 

[2531usmc]

So here's my position. I think in our society and level of technological advancement, I believe that we should strive for technology that ensures a perfect shot. Where our technology is right now, we can do amazing things with a rifle. Truly amazing. With a very small amount of training and practice a shooter can be capable to a half mile in the right conditions.

We started the first real training school in 2007 for Long Range Hunting. I've seen the skill spectrum. I agree with other posts that poor decision making happens at all ranges, but I've noticed the vast majority of students and customers I work with are very serious about success and shooting well.

I think the anecdotal evidence of poor shooting or poor decision making do not represent the majority, and the same anecdotal evidence can be used to disparage archers and weekend warriors with low tech guns (probably shooting a box of mixed ammo). Lets leave the myth of the unethical long range shooter aside for the topic of this thread.

The crux of this discussion boils down to person A wants to have better draw odds in a unit, and they are prepared to sacrifice my enjoyment/pursuits/interest/success, to get it. I didn't think I lived in that kind of country. Its very alarming to see this type of socialistic though creep into what I thought would be the last bastion of liberty (gun guys).

If the animal numbers are down. For whatever reason. The liberty that our flag represents would ask us all to tighten our belts and help manage the game numbers. Accepting a low draw percentage is exactly the outcome that protects the minority.

Lets try on some other solutions to show you how wrong it is to single out a minority, to infringe on their freedoms: To reduce harvest, what if we just eliminate archery elk rut hunts? or in Wyoming, you have to choose archery only? Most Wyomingites don't have horses, what if we banned them because they give one party unfair access to the backcountry? Or how about this lightning rod, we should ban outfitted hunts, because the outfitters know the area too well and their odds of success are just too good.

Now you see how silly that is....

In respect to what you can ban to limit long range shooting success, the only real option is to ban rangefinders. Imagine archery success rates without a rangefinder.....

This only limits success (not shooting), because it would put us all back into the stone age of just hold over, send it and walk it in. I can't think of a better example of dumb "democrat" thinking than to ban rangefinders to promote more "ethical" shooting!

We are on the slippery slope. The democrat way is not the solution to your desire for more opportunity. It always ends in a disaster of unintended consequences. Don't be an "angry pitchfork" or an NPC that is easily manipulated. Stand up for freedom and the American way. Engage in conservation efforts, kill predators, apply for more areas/states, and teach your kids how to make perfect shots.

What you’re really saying is “if we can see the animal, we can kill the animal…at up to half mile away”.

“With a very small amount of training and practice a shooter can be capable to a half mile in the right conditions”

If this statement is the future of hunting, there will be minimal tags being allocated for residence hunters and even less for nonresident hunters due to the lethality of the weapons

Conversely, with less lethal/more primitive weapons, kill rates will decrease, animal numbers will go up, and many more hunters can get tags.

Those are your choices….pick your poison

 

[OneGunTex]

The crux of this discussion boils down to person A wants to have better draw odds in a unit, and they are prepared to sacrifice my enjoyment/pursuits/interest/success, to get it. I didn't think I lived in that kind of country. Its very alarming to see this type of socialistic though creep into what I thought would be the last bastion of liberty (gun guys).

If the animal numbers are down. For whatever reason. The liberty that our flag represents would ask us all to tighten our belts and help manage the game numbers. Accepting a low draw percentage is exactly the outcome that protects the minority.

I wasn't going to chime in but you are so backwards it makes me sick. The flag of liberty asks that we all sacrifice for our fellow komrade? Go read Hayek. What you are describing is literally Soviet-era talking points. "oh we're just protecting the minority!" Is literally collectivist thinking and it's not true.

Liberty is saying that we all have the opportunity to make the pursuit, and some people work harder or pay more (from the money earned in their commercial lives) and the outcomes reflect that. Liberty is the individual rights to make the effort, with every other individual with the same rights. You "protect the minority" by everyone having the same RIGHTS, not by everyone having the same OUTCOME.

Apportioning a public resource is a hard problem, and the North American Model balances questions of ethical hunting with science-based management. I'm not arguing either way on the range and technology thing other than to call out your  literally socialist talking points in the name of "liberty." I'm serious, go read Hayek.

 

[Jordan Smith]

With respect to post #473 on the previous page, if RS is not representative of the average hunter, then that is saying RS NR hunters are the problem, because apparently the overcrowding isn't coming from the average guy who doesn't "spend thousands to travel to other states or provinces".

Negative. It's saying that RS is representative of the subset of hunters that tends to spend more money to travel and hunt out-of-state/province than the average hunter. It is not saying that the blame rests solely with RS members.

 

[Jordan Smith]

What you’re really saying is “if we can see the animal, we can kill the animal…at up to half mile away”.

“With a very small amount of training and practice a shooter can be capable to a half mile in the right conditions”

If this statement is the future of hunting, there will be minimal tags being allocated for residence hunters and even less for nonresident hunters due to the lethality of the weapons

Conversely, with less lethal/more primitive weapons, kill rates will decrease, animal numbers will go up, and many more hunters can get tags.

Those are your choices….pick your poison

Not really. As we've all said repeatedly, killing is the easy part. Finding the animal is the hard part. Making the easy part slightly harder isn't going to have a significant impact; making the hard part harder is. As I said in a previous post, maybe it's time to go back to boot leather, topo maps, and door knocking to get access and find animals.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I wasn't going to chime in but you are so backwards it makes me sick. The flag of liberty asks that we all sacrifice for our fellow komrade? Go read Hayek. What you are describing is literally Soviet-era talking points. "oh we're just protecting the minority!" Is literally collectivist thinking and it's not true.

Liberty is saying that we all have the opportunity to make the pursuit, and some people work harder or pay more (from the money earned in their commercial lives) and the outcomes reflect that. Liberty is the individual rights to make the effort, with every other individual with the same rights. You "protect the minority" by everyone having the same RIGHTS, not by everyone having the same OUTCOME.

Apportioning a public resource is a hard problem, and the North American Model balances questions of ethical hunting with science-based management. I'm not arguing either way on the range and technology thing other than to call out your  literally socialist talking points in the name of "liberty." I'm serious, go read Hayek.

I think he was promoting preserving the RIGHT to hunt animals as each of us sees fit, within the limits of the law, rather than advocating to infringe on another hunter's rights in order to bolster our own.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Negative. It's saying that RS is representative of the subset of hunters that tends to spend more money to travel and hunt out-of-state/province than the average hunter. It is not saying that the blame rests solely with RS members.

I should have said "part of the problem", not "the problem". As hunting out of state can be fairly spendy, I think that puts the average Joe in the subset of guys that don't spend money out of state or in other provinces. Which would say they don't travel to other states has a whole. Yes plenty of guys from other forums talk the same talk guys do around here, spend lots of money, shoot long range, complain about the cost of out of state tags or odds of punching a tag.

 

[Flyjunky]

Appreciate your comment.
I think you mistake my want for less technological weapons especially during an animals most vulnerable period in areas where animals are struggling say MD in most of the West as a way to infringe on your shooting 1000 yards it’s not. I think we still should have scoped rifle hunts, and a lot of them, but maybe not during the MD rut. Maybe we issue the bulk of MD in early October when MD aren’t as vulnerable and if you want to hunt the rut you use a muzzleloader, it’s trying to strike a balance between opportunities and potential ease of killing. To me this isn’t socialistist thinking, this actually has nothing to do with the political spectrum since I would rather people continue tohunt than to have to sit it out and wait. Also how is “everyone tightens their belts and waits for low draw hunts to protect the minority” not some kind of socialistic equity take?

I do think we should have range finders since it allows us to take the most ethical shot with whatever weapon we are hunting with or we get rid of those and just use spears then we will know when we are in range…

Completely agree with killing lots of predators, and I use scoped rifles when I predator hunt because it’s the easiest way to kill them. (trapping is outlawed in Co on public) if I was concerned about the predator population and wanted more to survive I would maybe suggest we make: say coyote hunting muzzle loader only during Jan-Feb or something along those lines. I assure you the anti hunters would love nothing more than to create extremely low draw hunts or have periods where they close areas to hunting for years and years, than people still exercising their ability to harvest wild game with a more primitive weapon

I can agree with a lot of what you said except the rut hunts. If MD are in that bad of shape in some areas there should be NO rut hunts, period. This is what confuses me by some on this thread. You state you want higher populations, the hunting to be harder, etc, but yet you don’t want to give up killing deer/elk when they are the most vulnerable and easiest time to kill them.

If there are hunts during their most vulnerable time then the game and fish depts are essentially saying “there are enough animals to provide a season and we expect X number to be harvested”. So what difference does it make if that animal is 100 or 800yds away? It’s still an expected harvest on the stat sheet. The comeback would be, if success was lower than they could issue more tags. Great, more people in the woods pushing around animals during the rut…that’s the opposite of helping and could be considered more detrimental than fewer people/higher success. Stress on animals during breeding can have significant influence on herd health ie, later birth timing, less doe/cows being bred, higher predation on the young, less fit for the following winter, etc.

Once again, if we are truly concerned about helping our ungulates for future generations, root problems need to be addressed. According to the mule deer foundation populations started serious declines over 3 decades ago. Long before the “long range, technological rifle” craze.

One last point, another ybing anti-hunters would love, is to plaster all over media that hunters have to limit themselves because they are too effective and there aren’t enough mule deer to hunt. You can believe that the general public will look at the “hunter” limiting themselves as doing the right thing but do you really think that’s the narrative that will play out? Hell, people vote to ban hunting of predators because the anti narrative plays to uneducated masses…something we have in abundance in this country, and it’s only getting worse.

 

[2531usmc]

Not really. As we've all said repeatedly, killing is the easy part. Finding the animal is the hard part. Making the easy part slightly harder isn't going to have a significant impact; making the hard part harder is. As I said in a previous post, maybe it's time to go back to boot leather, topo maps, and door knocking to get access and find animals.

Big difference between a high technology rifle and hunter finding an animal half mile away and an iron sighted muzzleloader hunter finding an animal 50 yards away.

Again, the reality is that the lethality of high technology/high kill probability hunting will dramatically lower opportunities for hunters to be in the field chasing animals.

I’m not saying one side is right and one side is wrong. This is simply the choice we face as a community. Talking about apps or maps and compasses is little more than a sideshow to the basic choice before us

 

[Jordan Smith]

Big difference between a high technology rifle and hunter finding an animal half mile away and an iron sighted muzzleloader hunter finding an animal 50 yards away.

Again, the reality is that the lethality of high technology/high kill probability hunting will dramatically lower opportunities for hunters to be in the field chasing animals.

I’m not saying one side is right and one side is wrong. This is simply the choice we face as a community. Talking about apps or maps and compasses is little more than a sideshow to the basic choice before us

You’re confusing finding with stalking.

Even after finding the target animal (still the hardest part of the hunt, by far), both hunters are faced with a significant challenge before making the kill. In the scenario you mentioned, both the hunter shooting a rifle from 800+ yards and the one with an iron-sighted muzzleloader at 50 yards have a significant challenge in making the kill. The rifle hunter requires less stalking skill but significant shooting skill, while the muzzleloader requires substantial stalking skill but very little shooting skill.

To suggest that, in general, modern rifles dramatically impact the overall success rates of a given hunting opportunity, is inaccurate, IME. By far, the thing the average hunter has the most difficulty with is finding the right land to hunt, getting access, and then locating the target animal. Restricting digital scouting/land access would have a far bigger impact on success rates than weapon tech. If forced to go back to paper maps and boot leather for scouting and accessing land, most hunters could be hunting with a laser beam and it wouldn’t have a dramatic impact on their success rate.

 

[Hnthrdr]

You’re confusing finding with stalking.

Even after finding the target animal (still the hardest part of the hunt, by far), both hunters are faced with a significant challenge before making the kill. In the scenario you mentioned, both the hunter shooting a rifle from 800+ yards and the one with an iron-sighted muzzleloader at 50 yards have a significant challenge in making the kill. The rifle hunter requires less stalking skill but significant shooting skill, while the muzzleloader requires substantial stalking skill but very little shooting skill.

To suggest that, in general, modern rifles dramatically impact the overall success rates of a given hunting opportunity, is inaccurate, IME. By far, the thing the average hunter has the most difficulty with is finding the right land to hunt, getting access, and then locating the target animal. Restricting digital scouting/land access would have a far bigger impact on success rates than weapon tech. If forced to go back to paper maps and boot leather for scouting and accessing land, most hunters could be hunting with a laser beam and it wouldn’t have a dramatic impact on their success rate.

I’ll disagree with you on the finding vs. killing. I can go out and in a single day see 20 or so legal animals in a morning, they are often 1-2.5 miles away. Getting to 500 or less with a rifle is a LOT easier than getting to 150 or less with a muzzy or even less with a bow. If I set just about any guy up in one of my glassing spots they could do the same, now how many of them can close the distance and kill the animal will depend a lot on their skill and the weapon they are using

 

[Hnthrdr]

I can agree with a lot of what you said except the rut hunts. If MD are in that bad of shape in some areas there should be NO rut hunts, period. This is what confuses me by some on this thread. You state you want higher populations, the hunting to be harder, etc, but yet you don’t want to give up killing deer/elk when they are the most vulnerable and easiest time to kill them.

If there are hunts during their most vulnerable time then the game and fish depts are essentially saying “there are enough animals to provide a season and we expect X number to be harvested”. So what difference does it make if that animal is 100 or 800yds away? It’s still an expected harvest on the stat sheet. The comeback would be, if success was lower than they could issue more tags. Great, more people in the woods pushing around animals during the rut…that’s the opposite of helping and could be considered more detrimental than fewer people/higher success. Stress on animals during breeding can have significant influence on herd health ie, later birth timing, less doe/cows being bred, higher predation on the young, less fit for the following winter, etc.

Once again, if we are truly concerned about helping our ungulates for future generations, root problems need to be addressed. According to the mule deer foundation populations started serious declines over 3 decades ago. Long before the “long range, technological rifle” craze.

One last point, another ybing anti-hunters would love, is to plaster all over media that hunters have to limit themselves because they are too effective and there aren’t enough mule deer to hunt. You can believe that the general public will look at the “hunter” limiting themselves as doing the right thing but do you really think that’s the narrative that will play out? Hell, people vote to ban hunting of predators because the anti narrative plays to uneducated masses…something we have in abundance in this country, and it’s only getting worse.

I can agree with some of that for sure. It will create longer and longer backlogs to hunt certain animals and will 100% hurt NR the most which I don’t want to happen. We will have to push for other avenues to help those species like we have discussed to hopefully move the needle in the right direction.

From my circle of non hunters that I know that are okay with hunting 20-30 folks, it is remarkable how they view primitive hunting (bows & muzzleloaders) in much much more positive light than hunting with a rifle. Are they right, No they definitely aren’t. We are still killing animals, but since they are “harder to do” they receive a more positive view from the lay person in my experience

 

[2531usmc]

You’re confusing finding with stalking.

Even after finding the target animal (still the hardest part of the hunt, by far), both hunters are faced with a significant challenge before making the kill. In the scenario you mentioned, both the hunter shooting a rifle from 800+ yards and the one with an iron-sighted muzzleloader at 50 yards have a significant challenge in making the kill. The rifle hunter requires less stalking skill but significant shooting skill, while the muzzleloader requires substantial stalking skill but very little shooting skill.

To suggest that, in general, modern rifles dramatically impact the overall success rates of a given hunting opportunity, is inaccurate, IME. By far, the thing the average hunter has the most difficulty with is finding the right land to hunt, getting access, and then locating the target animal. Restricting digital scouting/land access would have a far bigger impact on success rates than weapon tech. If forced to go back to paper maps and boot leather for scouting and accessing land, most hunters could be hunting with a laser beam and it wouldn’t have a dramatic impact on their success rate.

You’re confusing finding with stalking.

Even after finding the target animal (still the hardest part of the hunt, by far), both hunters are faced with a significant challenge before making the kill. In the scenario you mentioned, both the hunter shooting a rifle from 800+ yards and the one with an iron-sighted muzzleloader at 50 yards have a significant challenge in making the kill. The rifle hunter requires less stalking skill but significant shooting skill, while the muzzleloader requires substantial stalking skill but very little shooting skill.

To suggest that, in general, modern rifles dramatically impact the overall success rates of a given hunting opportunity, is inaccurate, IME. By far, the thing the average hunter has the most difficulty with is finding the right land to hunt, getting access, and then locating the target animal. Restricting digital scouting/land access would have a far bigger impact on success rates than weapon tech. If forced to go back to paper maps and boot leather for scouting and accessing land, most hunters could be hunting with a laser beam and it wouldn’t have a dramatic impact on their success rate.

I’m confusing nothing. High lethality/high technology rifles killing at a half mile will fundamentally change hunting as we know it. Particularly out west.

Shooting animals at 800 yards is not even hunting. It’s just shooting.

Again, it’s a fundamental choice….

 

[Jordan Smith]

I’ll disagree with you on the finding vs. killing. I can go out and in a single day see 20 or so legal animals in a morning, they are often 1-2.5 miles away. Getting to 500 or less with a rifle is a LOT easier than getting to 150 or less with a muzzy or even less with a bow. If I set just about any guy up in one of my glassing spots they could do the same, now how many of them can close the distance and kill the animal will depend a lot on their skill and the weapon they are using

As we’ve discussed, it depends somewhat on the species, geography, and target animal criteria, but in general, for most game, it’s much harder to find the target animal than to kill it. Exceptions apply.

BUT, if LR rifles are such a lethal showstopper, then what you described should not be possible. All those critters should already be dead and the land desolate, with all the high-tech rifle hunters running around.

By saying, “If I set just about any guy up in one of my glassing spots they could do the same,” you’re implying that you need to do the finding work for them. I’ll point out that you put in the work to find those glassing spots and the game found from them. How many average hunters would find a similar spot and game animals on their own without the aid of OnX et al.?

 

[Jordan Smith]

I’m confusing nothing. High lethality/high technology rifles killing at a half mile will fundamentally change hunting as we know it. Particularly out west.

Shooting animals at 800 yards is not even hunting. It’s just shooting.

Again, it’s a fundamental choice….

That’s not what I’ve seen, and I live and hunt in the west. LR rifles in the hands of hunters have been around for a couple of decades, without the drastic consequences you claim.

You’re way underplaying the difficultly of actually killing animals from 800 yards away versus stalking closer and taking a 300 yard shot. Neither is easy.

You’re welcome to your opinion of the definition of hunting versus shooting, but that doesn’t make it fact.