Wyoming long range hunting debate

[Flyjunky]

Best of luck with that. You have morals or don’t, it’s not a sliding scale. You can’t regulate or enforce them, as evidenced in all society, not just hunting in Wyoming.

As I said before, it’s fair chase, if guys aren’t prepared and take their chances on bad decisions that simply gives the animals a better chance to win. We should be encouraging more of this lol, I know I do.

So those of us who do prepare have more animals to choose from and fill a tag on.

Getting hunters to try to self regulate and attack each other from within is a tactic. Your anti’s are not just outside of wildlife management circles and decision makers, they are within and pervasive in all aspects of society and have many ways they can have us do their job for them.

When the subject is actually ‘wildlife management’ and getting the wildlife managers to do their job instead of having them try to have us do it for them...which is easier? See what’s actually happening here? Don’t play into it.

1. They can’t keep up with every annual trade show season and change regulations accordingly because some new tech came along.
2. They shouldn’t because that’s managing people not wildlife.

That’s counter productive to actual goals and won’t work in any way shape or form. Never has never will.

Manage wildlife for the people, as intended. If the people want more ungulate wildlife then get crackin on predator management, habitat management, along with tag management. Do your counts, know your harvest success rates, allow tags and seasons accordingly, obviously prefer the residents. If can’t support non-residents then time to get to work on improving on game numbers if it’s a goal to support non-residents etc.

The common sense stuff doesn’t jive with liberal logic though so they’d rather just manage us instead, and we make it easy for them, as this and every thread like it, prove it.

Some of the arguments here just make you wonder wtf, and can actually anything be said to such ridiculousness lol. Just wow

Like I said, everything in this thread revolves around ethics. We can limit cartridges but what is going to stop someone from shooting past the ethical range of that cartridge?

Go back and read my other posts and you will get a better sense of my stance. No way do I want to put a limit on range. You’re preaching to the choir with me.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Like I said, everything in this thread revolves around ethics. We can limit cartridges but what is going to stop someone from shooting past the ethical range of that cartridge?

Go back and read my other posts and you will get a better sense of my stance. No way do I want to put a limit on range. You’re preaching to the choir with me.

It’s a non-starter. Has no bearing on the topic. Many places in the world have had this tactic used where they can no longer hunt period, getting us to basically talk ourselves right out of it by divide and conquer over invisible enemies like ethics etc. Death by 1000 cuts, erosion of this right, that right, this season, that season, this weapon, that weapon. Slippery slope focusing on sh1t that does not matter...as if it’s all that matters. Off in the ditch discussing weeds while we deliver another of the thousand cuts to ourselves.

The only way to regulate or enforce morals and ethics is to remove the opportunity altogether. See where that leads? See where this sh1t show is headed? If we carry on going after each other with these unattainable unrealistic expectations and goals we end up not hunting period, and eating barcode only crap they control and want us to eat.

And just like that another national park, and no more hunting. And we will believe them when they tell us it’s our own fault. We repeat history if we don’t learn from it and those wanting to hide history from us are planning to repeat it. We gotta learn the game in order the play it properly.

 

[Lee_R]

Not quite on topic with regard to long range shooting ethics, but a follow up on my earlier posts in this thread about the complete lack of ethics and knowledge from the a significant majority of so-called "hunters" that make up the general public. Quick recap, I work a p/t at a gun counter in one of the larger towns in Montana.

Story 1 from yesterday, a first class idiot who claims to be a sub-moa shooter at 1000 yds goes on to tell me about how he's looking forward to shooting a cow elk next month...head shots only, with a pistol. Our "shoulders season" opens next month and I'll refrain from my rant about shooting cow elk with calves less than 3 months old as that's another issue.

Story 2 from today. A broke husband and wife looking at a crappy 38 special they can't afford (sub $400) talking about how their kid shot deer last year with one and it wouldn't kill it...come to find out, not only were they using a 38 special, they were shooting fmjs. This same couple claimed to have 2 big safes full of scoped rifles. I literally shook my head and walked away.

I stand by my earlier posts saying ethics should be legally enforced while realizing it may not be practical.

 

[35WhelenAI]

This is not my quote... however it is true. Even for folks that don't shoot a 38 special with FMJ's deer with a purported safe full of rifles. No, this quote works as well with folks understanding their limitations and thinking through things once or twice before they believe everything they read on the internet and then try to feel good because they can post and be part of it.

"Before we work on AI, we need to fix natural stupidity."

 

[Jhconnected]

This is not my quote... however it is true. Even for folks that don't shoot a 38 special with FMJ's deer with a purported safe full of rifles. No, this quote works as well with folks understanding their limitations and thinking through things once or twice before they believe everything they read on the internet and then try to feel good because they can post and be part of it.

"Before we work on AI, we need to fix natural stupidity."

Can’t fix stupid. - Ron White

 

[FLHunter87]

Seems like a stupid topic to cover. The long range hunters are small in number. Everyone has their opinion of long range as well. This would be the hardest and dumbest thing to charge someone with. The people that shoot and hunt long range dont just do it cause they can't get closer. They actually practice. Yeah there's dumb asses out there doing it just sending it, far in between in my opinion.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Can’t fix stupid. - Ron White

Nope but it is a prolific breeder with a strong will to live.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Not quite on topic with regard to long range shooting ethics, but a follow up on my earlier posts in this thread about the complete lack of ethics and knowledge from the a significant majority of so-called "hunters" that make up the general public. Quick recap, I work a p/t at a gun counter in one of the larger towns in Montana.

Story 1 from yesterday, a first class idiot who claims to be a sub-moa shooter at 1000 yds goes on to tell me about how he's looking forward to shooting a cow elk next month...head shots only, with a pistol. Our "shoulders season" opens next month and I'll refrain from my rant about shooting cow elk with calves less than 3 months old as that's another issue.

Story 2 from today. A broke husband and wife looking at a crappy 38 special they can't afford (sub $400) talking about how their kid shot deer last year with one and it wouldn't kill it...come to find out, not only were they using a 38 special, they were shooting fmjs. This same couple claimed to have 2 big safes full of scoped rifles. I literally shook my head and walked away.

I stand by my earlier posts saying ethics should be legally enforced while realizing it may not be practical.

And what benefit(s) is(are) realized IF you even could ‘legally enforce’ ethics?

 

[Lee_R]

And what benefit(s) is(are) realized IF you even could ‘legally enforce’ ethics?

Read thru my earlier posts, montana estimates up to 30 ungulates are wounded and not recovered for every 100 actually harvested. So I don't know, better quality tags, more animals overall translating into more tags? Less suffering for animals because of unethical hunters taking shots they shouldn't?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Read thru my earlier posts, montana estimates up to 30 ungulates are wounded and not recovered for every 100 actually harvested. So I don't know, better quality tags, more animals overall translating into more tags? Less suffering for animals because of unethical hunters taking shots they shouldn't?

‘I don’t know’ and ‘maybe’ are the benefits? Less suffering? Are you able to ask the animals what they would prefer? You know what their answer would be right? More of your example 1 and 2 people please, more chance at survival for me and my pals.

Would love to see a point form list of the benefits that legally enforcing ethics would bring and additionally where it’s happened and successfully. I’ll wait.

You’ve got full tv networks and channels along with an internet full of YouTube channels and shows that have been showing people all the do’s and don't’s and you think somehow we’re gonna improve the situation? Such that it will allow more opportunity because we’re so awesome at killing? That’s Absurd. The more example 1 and 2 people the merrier, it’s win win for the animals, it’s win win for the hunters. The entire thing is being sold wrong like 180 degree wrong, by design, for a control mechanism as I’ve mentioned already and has zero impact to actual wildlife management goals. We’ve never had more access to good information on how to be successful yet success rates are what they are because it’s people hunting animals. Total waste of time trying to regulate and enforce a bunch of nonsense and imaginary boogie men.

Our in-fighting over this nonsense only ends up hurting us in the end. We end up losing more and more the more we do it. It’s hunting, the more chance for the animals the better lol. Why is 30 animals per hundred winning the season seen as a bad thing? Think it through.

You cannot put a list together of benefits of legally enforcing ethics that can’t easily be dismantled. Because there are no benefits. None. As it relates to wildlife management and opportunities.

Wildlife managers, do your job, it’s about balancing wildlife ungulate and predator high and low cycles to minimize conflict and giving as much opportunity to the people within that. Don’t get after hunters and have hunters eat each other alive from within to try and make your job easier and skip any agendas coming down from above that are designed to reduce hunting overall within our borders.

 

[Lee_R]

Apparently my sarcasm is lost on you with the "I dont know" and "maybe" comments...sorry about that.

I'm sure if the animals could talk they'd rather have a hunane death than have a leg or jaw blown off or to be shot 4-5x by fmj 38 special rounds. If laws dont have teeth, why don't you consistently go 2x over your speed limit, surely your vehicle will do it?

Agree to disagree, I gave you numbers from the state of Montana showing the damage done and you can choose not to believe it. You want a more thorough study done, feel free to get it funded...but I'm sure the agencies already know. I also gave you concrete examples I see every single week from a small time gun counter in one of the most rural states in the US, multiply those interactions by thousands every single day that other folks like me see, so those boogie men of yours arent imaginary. Fully 2/3 of the people I run into think "it's just a deer or elk, who cares?". And you said "The more example 1 and 2 people the merrier, it’s win win for the animals, it’s win win for the hunters."...that's sarcasm right?

Our in fighting over this topic, if it results in more ethical hunters will not hurt us. But rather helps us against the anti-hunting groups. I'll reiterate, 2/3 of the people I see are absolutely terrible representatives of the community and they're too dumb to keep their mouths shut about their practices and it's not a good look for the community.

Seems you and I won't agree and that's ok. Healthy debate is good. That being said, I will continue to advocate for better ethics, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

So you’d rather have say Ryan Avery shoot at you with his 6um vs example 1&2 from your shop the other day? Puh-leeez

And no, my win win comments were not sarcastic. Lose the liberal logic and you’ll think this through just fine.

When you do lose it then also apply it to the silliness of earlier notions of trying to create only one level of skill level allowable in the field with a tag in hand and that level being above the 85-90 percentile and legally enforceable ethics. Ridiculous that you’d wish that on your fellow man. The more the merrier. Of every skill level, apply tags and seasons accordingly to wildlife available and success rates etc. Leave the imaginary self defeating liberal logic and other things that have zero relation to the subject right the fack out of it. Doesn’t belong, doesn’t help.

Don’t get me wrong just about every day behind the wheel id like to see quite a few people retested for their drivers license but this is slightly different in terms of human on human safety. And I get over it pretty quick. These slow azz left lane camping tofu eating prius driving mofos really fire me up but after I go by on the right with my stink eye I’m over it. We have to suffer all as we are not robots and cannot be the same and thank god for that, it’s called humanity, tolerance and acceptance. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[mt terry d]

montana estimates up to 30 ungulates are wounded and not recovered for every 100 actually harvested.

Who exactly is "montana" and that figure is based on what exactly?

And what percentage of those wounded were "shot at long range'?

Yeah, that's what i thought.

Sounds exactly like the Bull$hitter from MTFWP that R. Denning interviewed,

Paraphrased "We don't know a lot about CWD but we DO KNOW that it would be worse
if we hadn't done anything".

Freaking Midwits.

 

[Lee_R]

Well the clowns have officially taken over this thread. I posted a screen shot citing what biologists in the STATE OF MONTANA found regarding ungulates recovered vs wounded in the early pages of this thread if you bothered to read before blovoating. And that's the whole point and I referenced it a few posts back; it's not necessarily long rang shooters, but other so called hunters that shoot long range regardless of ethics and skillset. Sorry you can't be bothered to read or simply can't comprehend. Your mindset is exactly what I've come to expect on this site, as it's a snapshot of the general public and buffoons I see on a daily basis, thanks for not disappointing.

 

[FLS]

The whole argument is silly and impossible to enforce. Emphasizing ethical behavior in hunter education is about the only thing the govt agencies can do. A shooting test that has been watered down so much to allow enough to pass to reach harvest goals will be useless and little more than a feel good measure.

 

[mt terry d]

Well the clowns have officially taken over this thread. I posted a screen shot citing what biologists in the STATE OF MONTANA found regarding ungulates recovered vs wounded in the early pages of this thread if you bothered to read before blovoating. And that's the whole point and I referenced it a few posts back; it's not necessarily long rang shooters, but other so called hunters that shoot long range regardless of ethics and skillset. Sorry you can't be bothered to read or simply can't comprehend. Your mindset is exactly what I've come to expect on this site, as it's a snapshot of the general public and buffoons I see on a daily basis, thanks for not disappointing.

You mean this, right?

https://rokslide.com/forums/attachments/screenshot_20250608-155417_chrome-jpg.891121/

Sorry but I've been around long enough to not blindly accept "biologists in the STATE OF MONTANA..."
with no explanation of how their "studies" were done, sample sizes, control groups, etc. Just a little thought of how exactly one would do such a "study" and one will conclude it's virtually impossible to have any faith in the results.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

You mean this, right?

https://rokslide.com/forums/attachments/screenshot_20250608-155417_chrome-jpg.891121/

Sorry but I've been around long enough to not blindly accept "biologists in the STATE OF MONTANA..."
with no explanation of how their "studies" were done, sample sizes, control groups, etc. Just a little thought of how exactly one would do such a "study" and one will conclude it's virtually impossible to have any faith in the results.

So attack the biologists and not the individual posting their results. Or better yet, you go do your own study and publish the results. Show us exactly how a study should be done. Then go work with every G&F department to implement a foolproof method to accurately track wounding and mortality rates by weapon type and distance.


Otherwise you and your thoughts belong on The View with the other cackling hens.

 

[Jordan Smith]

So attack the biologists and not the individual posting their results. Or better yet, you go do your own study and publish the results. Show us exactly how a study should be done. Then go work with every G&F department to implement a foolproof method to accurately track wounding and mortality rates by weapon type and distance.


Otherwise you and your thoughts belong on The View with the other cackling hens.

He's right. In academic science, research must meet a rather high threshold of integrity before being accepted into any sort of credible peer-reviewed journal for publication. It's not an attack on anyone, but simply a critical look at the results being reported. An eye of criticism is a very good thing to ensure that research continues to maintain the minimum threshold of integrity before being presented to (and accepted by) the public.

When confronted with data, it always pays to consider the source.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

He's right. In academic science, research must meet a rather high threshold of integrity before being accepted into any sort of credible peer-reviewed journal for publication. It's not an attack on anyone, but simply a critical look at the results being reported. An eye of criticism is a very good thing to ensure that research continues to maintain the minimum threshold of integrity before being presented to (and accepted by) the public.

When confronted with data, it always pays to consider the source.

Yep otherwise you end up having to hunt with crappy non-lead bullets because of "condors" when the windmills killed immeasurably more than "lead poisoning" ever did. The data was presented at public meetings showing that their lead poisoning data was cherry picked and nobody listened. Now with the internet, one of the decent things about it is public accountability. Looking at you California.

 

[ddowning]

You're never going to be able to regulate ethics. The simple solution is to regulate the equipment. I realize that some hunters are totally competent shooting at long distances. I think that group is currently a small percentage of hunters. Think about the impact on the resource when eventually, through technology advancements, the majority of hunters are competent at long ranges. We aren't putting more deer and elk on the landscape, but we are making it easier to kill them all the time. Something has to give eventually. I would much rather prefer to give up technology than to give up opportunity.

I'm reading through this thread and just saw this. The number of actually capable people at long range is small. Also, it is a perishable skill that requires a significant time and money investment to maintain. I was once capable of placing top 15 or better at national level matches. The expenditure to reach that level was several thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars and a lot of time when I could have been working. Even at that level, it was very situationally dependant which shots were makeable with high certainty and which were not.

The last 2 years I have barely shot. My ability has diminished to the point where I can consistently make shots at 1/2 the distance or less and need much more time to analyze and set up the shot than I did before. The knowledge and tools to shoot far are much more readily available than they were years ago, but the actual skill and ability to do it still require dedication, hard work, time, and money. All this doesn't stop people from putting lead in the air with false confidence and getting lucky.