Not the same thing. That would be like saying one guy has a sight and the other doesn't, but they've both ranged it with rangefinder. The RF is independent on whether or not the shooter has the ability to make the better shot but the better shot itself may very well be dependent on the type of sight used.
For the record, I have and used rangefinders all the time. Aiming instruments bring greater success though. A rangefinder doesn't necessarily bring greater success. Otherwise, nobody ever would miss a shot after it was ranged, yet we all know otherwise....
That's good. The last bull I shot, I had a slider as well set to 25 yds and guessed him to be somewhere between that and 30. Ranged where he was standing after the shot and it was 27 yds.
I've used a RF on a 3D target range and adjusted each shot based on the exact yardage with near perfect results. My shooting partner, on the other hand, with fixed pins not so much...
I am trying to follow your logic on the slider sight issue. With rifle hunts in the rut, muzzleloaders that use primers and compressed powder that combined with more powerful scopes can shoot 300% further reliably than the ones from two decades ago.
With Thermal imagery and radios... and you want to take a stand against SLIDER SIGHTS on compound bows. Compound bows that shoot arrows at 320 fps instead of 3200 feet per second like a rifle or close to that for a muzzleloader. With archery rates that are <20% which will likely go down with trail camera regulation since many animals are shot over water that were previously surveilled with cameras. and you are focused on SLIDER SIGHTS.
Roadrunner, I believe you were one of the ones that spoke against trail camera regulation prior to the 3/10 meeting. Maybe your rant against Slider sights is just a demonstration to prove a slippery slope related to the trail camera ban but SLIDER SIGHTS...cmon man.
As a guy that has been primarily a bow hunter most of my life I have seen archery technology slightly improve since I was a young kid in the 80s. Clearly the game changer was electronic rangefinders however manual rangefinders existed before then even though they were more complex and less reliable. My early 90s Browning Mirage with an overdraw and high draw weight shot in the 330s which wouldn't be that impressive nowadays. That said, bows aren't that different today than they were a long time ago. They still require more skill and movement than a rifle, crossbow or muzzleloader.
So bottom line, rangefinders we're a big step change for all weapon types but the benefits to reduced wounding rates seem to clearly offset the higher harvest rates. Since muzzies are classified as primitive weapons it seems reasonable to regulate their sights.
I guess there are different strokes for different folks but focusing on pebble problems like sliders when others are focused on moving big technology rocks like trail cameras, posse hunting and rifles in the rut seems pretty dumb to me.
There have been several threads started by the trail camera lovers since the 3/10 WB meeting and these additional tech regulation threads seem to be more of a demonstration or hissy fit than appeals for actionable technology change.
Changes to muzzle sights are probably happening because it makes sense, Camera regulation happened because it made sense. Good luck arguing against rangefinders and compound bow technology. You better hope the decision makes have little to no actual bow hunting experience or they will realize they are probably wasting time and need to reprioritize their list.
Cheers
Ryan