When did Technology surpass Fair Chase?

Broadside_Shot

Active Member
Messages
590
When do people feel was the Tipping Point with Archery, Muzzy and Rifle with the Technology Wave. Of course every new invention is designed to make us more efficient but where was the line...

Was it Compound Bows vs Recurve?
Was it Inline vs Percussion Muzzleloaders?
What Was it for Rifles?

Was it Quality Glass vs Cheap Glass?
Was it Scopes vs Open Sights?
Was it Side X Sides and 4 Wheeler vs 3 Wheeler and Bicycle's?

Just wondering what everyone thinks?

All these improvements made hunting easier but when was it too much.

Example.
My first compound bow tripled the distance I could effectively shoot from my recurve (20 yards to 60 yards) my success went up but it wasn't a guarantee to fill my tag back then. Nowadays I can pretty much guarantee filling my tag on any Archery Hunt if I choose to. Same with Muzzy and Rifle.

Where was the Line?
 
My opinion is that there isn’t a distinct line, rather a spectrum of white to black with lots of grey. Not trying to weasel out, but how do you decide what quality of glass, or accuracy of rifle, or whether 60 yards vs 20 yards is too good?

When something comes along that is a step-change, it must be considered. Game cameras, range finders, night vision (thank goodness that still isn’t legal), any real time surveillance that may come along. Imagine when Google Earth becomes real time with 1” resolution.

Clearly, if the hunter is given a guaranteed result, it is not fair chase. But even that has shades of grey, right? Baiting can come close. Running 100 game cameras with runners on every conceivable watering hole can come close. Sniper capable rifles can come close. Snowmobiles in areas with enough snow. Etc, etc.

Funny when you think about it- one might claim that rifles alone are beyond fair. Heck, maybe we should be hunting with rocks and clubs sourced only from the area you are hunting?

In the end, I think curbing step-changing technologies is the best we can do. I don’t see a clear line beyond that…
 
Before range finders we all had to guess how far we were shooting with every weapon. Now they have made us more efficient killers with every weapon.
But they have also decreased the amount of wounded animals that were on the bad end of a hail-marry.


I keep hearing this. But I've never been shown any data or studies to prove it.

Look at the drop on a 30-06, after 100 yards, and missing distance means misses by feet.

With muzzy, it's easy. Replacement of #11 caps.
 
I had the same experience with bows when I got a compound that was cool but I think optics are where I see the biggest line from spotting scopes to dials on your rifle my grandfather didn’t shoot small bucks because he couldn’t see the horns
 
How about 2 Way Radios?

We are using the slogan "Put the Hunt back in Hunting" so there has to be a line or Standard for this comment to work.

Do we do Mandatory Harvest Counts and keep making rules one at a time until we hit a certain Success Rate that indicates what a Hunt means. 10%, 20%, 30% etc. successful tag holders per hunt type.
 
When do people feel was the Tipping Point with Archery, Muzzy and Rifle with the Technology Wave. Of course every new invention is designed to make us more efficient but where was the line...

Was it Compound Bows vs Recurve?
Was it Inline vs Percussion Muzzleloaders?
What Was it for Rifles?

Was it Quality Glass vs Cheap Glass?
Was it Scopes vs Open Sights?
Was it Side X Sides and 4 Wheeler vs 3 Wheeler and Bicycle's?

Just wondering what everyone thinks?

All these improvements made hunting easier but when was it too much.

Example.
My first compound bow tripled the distance I could effectively shoot from my recurve (20 yards to 60 yards) my success went up but it wasn't a guarantee to fill my tag back then. Nowadays I can pretty much guarantee filling my tag on any Archery Hunt if I choose to. Same with Muzzy and Rifle.

Where was the Line?
It depends. I think the line is different for everyone because people hunt for various reasons. Some hunt for the challenge. Some hunt for the social element with friends and family. Some hunt to get "away from it all". Some hunt for fresh, unadulterated protein. Some just like killing stuff. Some like an excuse to get out in nature and don't really care about killing. I also think why we hunt can change year to year, hunt to hunt, and as we age.

Because we all hunt for different reasons I think we all look at technology a little different. People that hunt to kill or hunt for the meat welcome technology as it helps them accomplish their goal. People who hunt for the challenge may decide technology removes the struggle and thus diminishes their sport.

The challenge in regulation is finding a place where MOST people are happy to hunt the way they want and without someone else ruining it for them. Can't please everyone. For me, the line hasn't been crossed because I grew up with all these advancements you listed and have chosen which ones work with my situational definition of hunting. I don't use all new tech and actually prefer older tech sometimes like archery for the challenge. Some hunts I just want to harvest and others I am there for a completely different reason. I lean on the side that technology is fine and shouldn't matter as long as it doesn't hurt other hunters ability to hunt the way THEY like. As long as tag allotment is set correct, technology shouldn't matter too much IMO.

I am for less tech regs and more freedom to choose. There is nothing stopping someone from choosing to not use newer tech because they like the sport or challenge without it. Seems like keeping it loose allows everyone to be happy.
 
How about 2 Way Radios?

We are using the slogan "Put the Hunt back in Hunting" so there has to be a line or Standard for this comment to work.

Do we do Mandatory Harvest Counts and keep making rules one at a time until we hit a certain Success Rate that indicates what a Hunt means. 10%, 20%, 30% etc. successful tag holders per hunt type.
IMO I think the comment the wildlife board used on "putting the hunt back in hunting" was dumb. Hunting isn't only a sport. People hunt for lots of reasons.
 
You guides out there. Do you have repeat customers that don't usually harvest animals year in and year out. They just enjoy paying for the adventure. Or does Paying Money mean Must Harvest? I'm talking the majority of your situations.
 
When TARDS/Hunters Finally seen what I've Been Preaching For Years and The Top Tier of Quality Keeps being Knocked down a little more each year and Here The HELL We Are!

Now We're Gonna Try One Little PISSCUTTER Change/Rule & Hope it Comes Back in a Year!

HINT:

It Ain'ta Gonna Happen!

Not Until 50+ Other Changes Are Made As Well!
 
"Fair chase" depends on your own personal definition. Some think its what ever goes as long as you're operating within the bounds of the law. Others jump on their soap box and profess their hatred for trail cameras, scopes, other optics, styles of weaponry or rifles in general.

Fair chase ends at an arbitrary "line-in-the-sand". The line is dependent on your feelings and not necessarily facts. Some guys would argue that killing a two point buck off the side of the road isn't "fair chase" because the buck didn't have enough time to learn how to evade road hunters. Some would draw the line at high fence hunting.


I think we should focus less on the SUBJECTIVE and more on the OBJETIVE and hold the state agencies accountable in doing their jobs. We can argue back and forth all day long but facts are facts. Killing bucks does nothing more than make less bucks. Does produce fawns. Solve that issue and we can start killing the over abundance of game animals with whatever we want and we can all stop arguing about restricting our neighbor from his or her way of hunting just because we ourselves are pious and ignorant to facts.
 
IMO I think the comment the wildlife board used on "putting the hunt back in hunting" was dumb. Hunting isn't only a sport. People hunt for lots of reasons.
It was probably the best and most descriptive sentence used. Hunting isn't a sport, golf is a f'n sport. Hunting isn't about chest pounding. If you want to keep score then get involved with the shooting sports or go to the damn bowling alley. Hunting means to be able to find, stalk and kill game with your own skills not the latest phone app. I haven't met too many folks in the field these days that can track worth a damn unless it's in fresh snow. There are less yet who can leave their phone behind and head out with grandpas 30-30 a pocket knife, lunch and canteen. Sitting on a peak and slinging lead at 800+ yards isn't hunting it's shooting.

Yes people hunt for lots of reasons, food, connecting with nature or family, getting back to heritage or just getting away from the rat race or a screaming wife. If you need range finding scopes, trail cams, a custom rifle or a guide to hold your hand then get the fugg off my mountain because you aren't a hunter. Plan on losing that trail cam but don't worry I'll leave my calling card pinned to where it was and you can pay me a visit in your jacked up poser truck and flat-brimmed hat.

FLAME AWAY I CAN HANDLE IT AND I'M NOT HAVING A GOOD DAY UNLESS I CAN PISS PEOPLE OFF BY THE DOZEN! :eek:

Bottom line is if you need the latest tech to be a "hunter" and are crying about giving it up so you can astonish co-workers back at the office with your tales of heroism and high-scoring bucks then you aren't a hunter you are the problem with hunting.
 
I think when NEEDS got put on the back burner and WANT took over…

Growing up my dad always told me is it a need or a want.
So when I was 15 I told my dad I want a new gun.
Dad said why!
I said because it has a scope on it and I will never forget his answer

Dad if you can’t see it to shoot it with open sights then you have no business shooting at it.
I said But dad it’s the cool thing
Dad
okay son is a need or a want

I said it’s a want dad so you don’t need it no sir I don’t.


It has changed drastically since then everyone wants wants.

Think About it

is trail cameras need or want

Is scopes on muzzleloader a need or want

Is a compound bow with a slider sight on it It is it a need or a want.

Is a range finder a need or a want

Is a 1500 yard rifle a need or a want

do we need a guide/outfitter to help us fill our tag no we sure don't the people want them...

The list goes on and this just doesn’t go for hunting this is everything

I’m just as guilty I have been thinking about your post and I truly believe this is when it all started.
 
Last edited:
I'll Answer with this:

A VERY F'N Long time ago!

But in the Last 15 or So Years Technology has Advanced at an Alarming Rate!

It Ain't Just The Technology!

But it's The Biggest Reason The Quality of Bucks & Bulls are where they are today!
 
I'll Answer with this:

A VERY F'N Long time ago!

But in the Last 15 or So Years Technology has Advanced at an Alarming Rate!

It Ain't Just The Technology!

But it's The Biggest Reason The Quality of Bucks & Bulls are where they are today!
ELK Yes NEEDS AND WANTS

DO WE NEED TECHNOLOGY NO WE WANT IT.
But the manufacturers of trail cameras and scopes and rifle NEED us to WANT those things and every year we WANT better technology and again we WANT to be more successful.
Can we be successful without WANTS absolutely we can
we don’t NEED technology

SO APPARENTLY WE WANT OUR DEER HERDS TO COMEBACK.
 
I Hate To Say it!

But It's Kinda Like Telling TARDS They Can't Buy The Biggest Baddest Pick-Up Truck Built Every Year!

Do We Really Need it?

No!

Do We Want it?

HELL Ya!

They Make You Want It!

But Like The Broken Record I Am!

All Will Give Some!

Some Won't Give All!

Or It Will Never Work out!

We're All Guilty of the BullSsshitt in some way or another!

Banning One Item will Do Very Little!
 
I Hate To Say it!

But It's Kinda Like Telling TARDS They Can't Buy The Biggest Baddest Pick-Up Truck Built Every Year!

Do We Really Need it?

No!

Do We Want it?

HELL Ya!

They Make You Want It!

But Like The Broken Record I Am!

All Will Give Some!

Some Won't Give All!

Or It Will Never Work out!

We're All Guilty of the BullSsshitt in some way or another!

Banning One Item will Do Very Little!
You are absolutely right, banning one item will do very little. You often state that any one thing won't fix the problem but if we do a lot of things that only help a little by themselves it will add up in a big way and probably turn things around.
 
I Hate To Say it!

But It's Kinda Like Telling TARDS They Can't Buy The Biggest Baddest Pick-Up Truck Built Every Year!

Do We Really Need it?

No!

Do We Want it?

HELL Ya!

They Make You Want It!

But Like The Broken Record I Am!

All Will Give Some!

Some Won't Give All!

Or It Will Never Work out!

We're All Guilty of the BullSsshitt in some way or another!

Banning One Item will Do Very Little!
Your right it’s up to us that is a tall order…
 
How does banning anything fix our doe and fawn survival issues?
It doesn’t fix our fawn and doe survival
And yes we need to fix that in a bad way
So let’s ban cars and fences and apparently ranchers now

What does banning technology do well it even the playing field maybe not for us versus guide and outfitter
but it does in general and the quality of our bucks will comeback ten fold because the success rate will drop…

But so will saving fawns and doe’s that will bring quality of bucks back as well
 
I'll Answer with this:

A VERY F'N Long time ago!

But in the Last 15 or So Years Technology has Advanced at an Alarming Rate!

It Ain't Just The Technology!

But it's The Biggest Reason The Quality of Bucks & Bulls are where they are today!
I love you buddy, but tech is not the reason. F&G Running game animals into the ground is the biggest problem. Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons is why we are here. Also, I love you so please don’t hate me now.
 
Na!

I Don't Hate You Or Anybody-else TH!

Don't Know if You Seen Post # 26?

Within them 50+ Pieces of the Pie/The Big Picture is what You are Saying!

Not Only Running Game Animals in to the Ground!

But Running them in to the Ground since 1972!

Managing Game Herds For Money has always Made Me Mad!

Always Backed By Some Kinda BS Excuses!

Alot of People/Hunters Thinking one Change/Law/Rule is gonna Fix it!

That Ain't Fixing SQUAT!



I love you buddy, but tech is not the reason. F&G Running game animals into the ground is the biggest problem. Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons is why we are here. Also, I love you so please don’t hate me now.
 
Technology surpassed fair chase in the late 1800's with the large slaughter houses providing a lot of the meat products we still have today.

Until then, you hunted to put food on the table and didn't give a rip about B&C, P&Y, or being the poster child for Flat-brimmer Of The Year with as many hunter hero pics you could weasel yourself into...
 
How about 2 Way Radios?

We are using the slogan "Put the Hunt back in Hunting" so there has to be a line or Standard for this comment to work.

Do we do Mandatory Harvest Counts and keep making rules one at a time until we hit a certain Success Rate that indicates what a Hunt means. 10%, 20%, 30% etc. successful tag holders per hunt type.
Speaking of radios, the B&C has had a rule against entering an animal when radio's were used in the aid of taking for decades now.

One can only speculate how many animals are wrongfully entered by falsified statements in Utah alone, as radio's are the #1 tool used, especially amongst outfitters.
 
Yep, in the 19th Century when they started putting those metal broad heads on arrows, and cartridge guns, and soon as you had that, some damn fool come up with a rangefinder!!! :)

C2B419AE-C266-4111-9DA0-2768F421D250_4_5005_c.jpeg
 
IMO - electronics

transmitting trail cams, 2-way radios, cell phones, sat phones, GPS collars, OnX, etc

a lot of these are great tech as a safety net but they've allowed multiple people to coordinate covering vast areas an individual couldn't before when that guy had a Silva compass or even a garmin E-trex
 
IMO - electronics

transmitting trail cams, 2-way radios, cell phones, sat phones, GPS collars, OnX, etc

a lot of these are great tech as a safety net but they've allowed multiple people to coordinate covering vast areas an individual couldn't before when that guy had a Silva compass or even a garmin E-trex
I agree with this 100%
However electronics mostly just affects the quality of the males.
 
Last edited:
Bingo......we have a winner!!?
I do believe though that when we consistently harvest the highest quality males-
(The cream of the crop)
therefore continually diminishing the quality of males doing the breeding that the health and quality of the entire herd will eventually suffer.
We need to somehow allow enough mature high quality males to survive and breed.
Backing off on the use of high-tech electronics would be a big step in the right direction.
Backing of the amount of outfitters guides and spotters in the field would also be a big step in the right direction.
 
I do believe though that when we consistently harvest the highest quality males-
(The cream of the crop)
therefore continually diminishing the quality of males doing the breeding that the health and quality of the entire herd will eventually suffer.
We need to somehow allow enough mature high quality males to survive and breed.
Backing off on the use of high-tech electronics would be a big step in the right direction.
Backing of the amount of outfitters guides and spotters in the field would also be a big step in the right direction.
I completely agree with 90% of your comments here.

Everything you stated is exactly why the advanced technology gadgetry is being limited, except for the age classes being a factor in breeding.

A young buck with excellent genetic traits still pass those gene's on regardless of his age....genetics are genetics and do not change with age.

Even if a buck with sub par genetics breeds with a great genetic doe, his fawn could very well become the B&C buck that his father never would be.
 
I do believe though that when we consistently harvest the highest quality males-
(The cream of the crop)
therefore continually diminishing the quality of males doing the breeding that the health and quality of the entire herd will eventually suffer.
We need to somehow allow enough mature high quality males to survive and breed.
Backing off on the use of high-tech electronics would be a big step in the right direction.
Backing of the amount of outfitters guides and spotters in the field would also be a big step in the right direction.

This is what happens when you manage for quality.
 
When do people feel was the Tipping Point with Archery, Muzzy and Rifle with the Technology Wave. Of course every new invention is designed to make us more efficient but where was the line...

Was it Compound Bows vs Recurve?
Was it Inline vs Percussion Muzzleloaders?
What Was it for Rifles?

Was it Quality Glass vs Cheap Glass?
Was it Scopes vs Open Sights?
Was it Side X Sides and 4 Wheeler vs 3 Wheeler and Bicycle's?

Just wondering what everyone thinks?

All these improvements made hunting easier but when was it too much.

Example.
My first compound bow tripled the distance I could effectively shoot from my recurve (20 yards to 60 yards) my success went up but it wasn't a guarantee to fill my tag back then. Nowadays I can pretty much guarantee filling my tag on any Archery Hunt if I choose to. Same with Muzzy and Rifle.

Where was the Line?
In my opinion it’s electronics. Take the electronics out of it and it would be a good start resetting what I consider fair chase. You say a compound bow changed your effective range from 20 yards to 60. Was that with a range finder? When I changed to a compound my effective range went from 30 to 40 yards, because that is what I could accurately and comfortably estimate the range too. How much more did a compound, plus a range finder add to your effective range? Same as a rifle. High quality optics and zero stop scopes are great, but what’s their effective range without a range finder?
How good is a thousand yard rifle if you can’t estimate accurate distance past 500 yards, or a bow that shoots a 100 yards but can’t estimate distances past 60? When I was young there were no electronics in hunting, no robo ducks no electronic calls and no range finders. I believe it’s a whole different game when you have to estimate distances.
 
Technology became an issue when the masses are able to use that technology. Very few people carried range finders in the early 2000s, very few trail cams in 2008, and very few people shot long range guns in 1990. So the technology impact was not significant. Now, it seems mainstream for people to have a range finder, digital camera- many that transmit, and long range weapons.

I'd rather hunt mature animals more often with an open sight 45-70, recurve bow, or scopeless ML with full bore projectiles than wait longer to shoot them at ranges outside of their awareness zone.
 
Has anyone examined actual success rates, or are we just spouting off about things that we want to take away from the other guy…. Even though I’d bet most of the guys preaching for the ban of some device, are probably using that themselves?

The only probable solution, if success rates are really unsustainable, is to move more opportunity into primitive weapons (my suggestion is open sighted muzzleloaders, is far enough) and take away opportunity with rifles. And/Or move season dates and length to more difficult times.

My take on it is the 10% that used to be killers before all of this stuff, are just a bit more effective than they are now. I still see ALOT of dudes in the field that aren’t able to, or have not taken advantage of the upgrades in weaponry, specifically, or don’t have to skill or confidence to utilize what they do have.

Turrets on Rifles have definitely increased my own effective range, but bow hunting is still very tough. I used to fill plenty of tags before, and I still do now.

For perspective, most of the guys on here debating are probably killers, and we just think that everyone out there is as effective, which I don’t think is accurate, IMO.
 
Please explain how a rangefinder doesn’t give a bowhunter a competitive edge? In my opinion a slider sight is pretty worthless without a rangefinder, but a fixed pin sight can be really effective at longer ranges with a rangefinder.

You've come this far on your own wondering, I'll let you think about it a little more...
 
A range finder doesn't necessarily give a bowhunter a competitive edge, but slider sights do.
You should leave your RF at home for an entire season, and I’ll bet you change your opinion on that. OF COURSE the RF gives an effectiveness advantage to Bowhunters, as well as gun hunters.

It’s also, certainly lowered the wounding rates for every weapon. It’s not a bad thing to kill cleanly and minimize wounding loss. We owe that to the Animals.
 
#1: The invention of the Internet and people's desire to show off that came along with it.

Things were bad enough in the old days when Wolf's had their Big Buck Contest and you got your picture in the local paper. Now it's all for the likes and people will push boundaries to get them.
 
Last edited:
You should leave your RF at home for an entire season, and I’ll bet you change your opinion on that. OF COURSE the RF gives an effectiveness advantage to Bowhunters, as well as gun hunters.

It’s also, certainly lowered the wounding rates for every weapon. It’s not a bad thing to kill cleanly and minimize wounding loss. We owe that to the Animals.

Or, you can go back and slowly read what I posted and then think about what you said...
 
So no, you can’t explain it?

The RF gives the same info for both a fixed sight and a slider. With the fixed, you still have to shoot the gap. With the slider, you can dial in to the yardage for no gap shooting.

The slider gives the advantage, the RF doesn't, necessarily, as I stated...
 
The RF gives the same info for both a fixed sight and a slider. With the fixed, you still have to shoot the gap. With the slider, you can dial in to the yardage for no gap shooting.

The slider gives the advantage, the RF doesn't, necessarily, as I stated...
The clear advantage is knowing the yardage in either scenario, which the rangefinder provides. Of course, the slider allows for more precision, but without the yardage you are screwed in either scenario.
 
The clear advantage is knowing the yardage in either scenario, which the rangefinder provides. Of course, the slider allows for more precision, but without the yardage you are screwed in either scenario.

Knowing the yardage is equal in both scenarios. What you can do with it is the advantage.

The risk of a miss is higher with a fixed sight vs. a slider. Just like adjustable turrets against a BDC reticle.

The RF is the "independent variable", the sights are the "dependent variables" and the slider is the better of those two.
 
This post is like buying a drill.
Some like the color and are an impulsive buyer.
Some go on what other people say about the product.
Some go by the ratings of the drill.
Then there are some who see the rating, making a list of pros and cons, and buys the drill if there are considerable more pros than cons if he likes how the drill felt in his hands.
The final buyers does everything in the previous sentence, then studies it again and again, never making up their mind. They go home empty handed without the drill they needed so badly. Giving up on the project to drills holes, saying they need more research to complete the project (Game Management).
 
The RF gives the same info for both a fixed sight and a slider. With the fixed, you still have to shoot the gap. With the slider, you can dial in to the yardage for no gap shooting.

The slider gives the advantage, the RF doesn't, necessarily, as I stated...
Thanks for the clarification. While I don’t agree, I now know what your thoughts are on the matter.
 
Vehicle collisions with deer. I guess we have to go back to riding horses or waking.
We could build tall fences and wildlife crossings across the entire state in 10 years for what we would save on insurance claims alone.

Yes, many of those claims were mine. The aluminum Ferds are especially expensive.

The drivers win and the deer win. So why aren’t we doing it?:unsure:
 
Thanks for the clarification. While I don’t agree, I now know what your thoughts are on the matter.

Whether you know the range or not, the slider keeps the margin of error down. That's why the RF doesn't necessarily give the competitive edge.
 
In a strange coincidence, I just got off the phone with my wife who is flagging traffic for an accident. A semi just drove thru a herd of elk and rolled off the embankment at 65. Highway will be closed now. Apparently dead elk everywhere.:mad:
 
Whether you know the range or not, the slider keeps the margin of error down. That's why the RF doesn't necessarily give the competitive edge.
roadrunner....

I totally Disagree with you on this that doesn't make any sense at all RF are the advantage here period...

so what your telling all of us is, if that animal is walking threw the sage brush flat how in the heck are you going to know where you are going to set your slider at(you know the margin of error down) without a RF?

If you don't know the range the margin of error just went threw the roof period...
 
I'd say when technology gives a hunter unnatural abilities, then it s likely a game changer and possibly going too far.

For archery, compound bows with "let off" is where technology started to change things with that hunt. Mechanical engineering is used to improve an archer's ability to launch the projectile.

But, overall, for all hunting, optics is the greatest game changer. Once optics of more than 1x were being used, hunter's were being given unnatural abilities in the field. Whether for just finding game, or having scopes on rifles, optics changed hunting. If we really wanted to reduce harvest numbers, we would eliminate scopes of 1x+ altogether. Reduce even further??? Don't allow binos or spotting scopes... Harvest rates would go straight down the drain...
 
roadrunner....

I totally Disagree with you on this that doesn't make any sense at all RF are the advantage here period...

so what your telling all of us is, if that animal is walking threw the sage brush flat how in the heck are you going to know where you are going to set your slider at(you know the margin of error down) without a RF?

If you don't know the range the margin of error just went threw the roof period...

What I am saying [to all of you] is the range from a rangefinder as the animal is walking through the sage is a set number and an aiming reference. It is the same reference regardless of what sighting mechanism you use. You are on the exact same equal ground with either sighting mechanism just as you would be if you didn't know the range.

The advantage to the slider is you don't have to use the gap (in between pins), so absolutely the slider gives the advantage. The rangefinder itself doesn't give you the advantage, it's the accuracy of the aiming device that does.

Way easier to miss shooting the gap than dialing in a pin. The rangefinder itself doesn't necessarily give you the advantage, the slider sight does.

Period...
 
What I am saying [to all of you] is the range from a rangefinder as the animal is walking through the sage is a set number and an aiming reference. It is the same reference regardless of what sighting mechanism you use. You are on the exact same equal ground with either sighting mechanism just as you would be if you didn't know the range.

The advantage to the slider is you don't have to use the gap (in between pins), so absolutely the slider gives the advantage. The rangefinder itself doesn't give you the advantage, it's the accuracy of the aiming device that does.

Way easier to miss shooting the gap than dialing in a pin. The rangefinder itself doesn't necessarily give you the advantage, the slider sight does.

Period...
I am 100% ok with your opinion being wrong (the fact that you are the only one that thinks the way you do, might be a clue?‍♂️)

Very few people can judge yardage accurately and if you don't know the yardage (especially with a bow), your aiming reference point is useless and margin for error is very small. The rangefinder provides the advantage for a fixed pin or slider slight...PERIOD.
 
Way easier to miss shooting the gap than dialing in a pin. The rangefinder itself doesn't necessarily give you the advantage, the slider sight does.
Have you ever shot archery do you really know how much it effects when shooting the gap I know and its little to none especially with compound bows these days....
The advantage to the slider is you don't have to use the gap (in between pins), so absolutely the slider gives the advantage. The rangefinder itself doesn't give you the advantage, it's the accuracy of the aiming device that does.
Okay so what your saying here is! it's safe to say we can just get rid of RF because they don't give us an advantage my wife will be happy that will save her 600 dollars...
Way easier to miss shooting the gap than dialing in a pin. The rangefinder itself doesn't necessarily give you the advantage, the slider sight does.
You know what is easier to miss than that is not knowing your range period....
 
I am 100% ok with your opinion being wrong (the fact that you are the only one that thinks the way you do, might be a clue?‍♂️)

Very few people can judge yardage accurately and if you don't know the yardage (especially with a bow), your aiming reference point is useless and margin for error is very small. The rangefinder provides the advantage for a fixed pin or slider slight...PERIOD.

You would be absolutely correct if two guys were standing shoulder to shoulder, one with a rangefinder and the other one without. But we aren't. We are talking about two guys standing at a range flag marked for 47 yards and the target is a 6" circle. 9 times out of 10 the slider guy will be able to dial his sight into 47 yards and hit it. The gap shooter, maybe, maybe not. They will either be really lucky and hit it with the first shot, but will most likely miss it with that first shot.

I have been talking the whole time about the sight. A rangefinder will not make you hit your mark. PERIOD!

Do you even understand the meaning of: "A range finder doesn't necessarily give a bowhunter a competitive edge"?...
 
Have you ever shot archery do you really know how much it effects when shooting the gap I know and its little to none especially with compound bows these days....

Actually, yeah I have. Since the 80's. You? Do you even remember the days of the "overdraw" to get more speed? A speedy bow back in the early 90's shot at 230 fps WITH an overdraw.

Not everyone has the same bow setup, not everyone is shooting 310 fps. Shooting the gap really matters on setups that shoot 252 fps which is why the slider does give the advantage.

Okay so what your saying here is! it's safe to say we can just get rid of RF because they don't give us an advantage my wife will be happy that will save her 600 dollars...

Never once did I say it's okay to get rid of rangefinders. Please show me where I said that.

You know what is easier to miss than that is not knowing your range period....

On this we agree.
 
i’m somewhat confused of/what the argument is about? also unsure what gaps and sliders are but this is coming from a simple recurve shooter…
 
i’m somewhat confused of/what the argument is about? also unsure what gaps and sliders are but this is coming from a simple recurve shooter…

I don't know either. All I said is a slider sight (one you can adjust for yardage) gives more of an advantage than just a rangefinder because the rangefinder gives the same data for whatever it is you're shooting. A rangefinder will not narrow the margin of error. It just won't.

Gap shooting is shooting in between two sight pins because they are fixed. Brought up the example even of adjustable scope turrets and a BDC reticle.
 
i googled and see now

i think those string trigger things are kinda cheating…
 
Last edited:
Technology passed it up probably some time around when we learned to tie a sharp rock to a stick.

Broadside, You really are butt hurt over the camera thing huh? This like the 12th thread you’ve started just to cry about it?
 
My understanding is that this technology committee is going to be looking pretty hard at both archery and muzzleloading.

I'm exclusively a (not very successful) recurve shooter and haven't kept up at all on compound bow tech but I have been trying to educate myself a bit since the last board meeting and what I think I'm learning is a bit disconcerting.

Honest ask: how is one of these modern compound bows different from a crossbow at this point?:

-magnified sight, usually also fiberoptic, usually turret adjustable
-often front and rear sight to align
- rifle style trigger release
-80-90% let off at full draw

Looking at one, I guess the flipside is that there are about 900 individual moving parts to fail at any given moment.

If we have my 1968 Dammon-Howatt Hunter on one side and a crossbow on the other, where does this compound bow fall along the scale? Please educate me
 
cross bows have significantly higher draw weight/limbs
mechanical draw devices
mechanical hold on the draw
pistol grip and stock
riffle style trigger
rifle style optics and optic mounting system
much farther range with significantly shorter bolts as oppose to arrows

but yeah. basically the same. your on some sort of board that decides rules for everyone? i really hope not...
 
cross bows have significantly higher draw weight/limbs
mechanical draw devices
mechanical hold on the draw
pistol grip and stock
riffle style trigger
rifle style optics and optic mounting system
much farther range with significantly shorter bolts as oppose to arrows

but yeah. basically the same. your on some sort of board that decides rules for everyone? i really hope not...
no, I'm not and you missed the whole "spectrum" part of my question.

true, crossbows have a higher draw weight, shorter bolts and and actual stock but you're not making your case on any of the rest of the quote:

mechanical hold vs 80-90% letoff
rifle style trigger vs rifle style trigger
rifle style sights vs rifle style sights

how again has a fully tricked our compound bow not slid closer to a crossbow on the spectrum than a recurve/longbow?

(BTW the same question is being asked about a modern muzzleloader being closer to a centerfire rifle than a Hawken 54)

this is the point of the thread afterall
 
You would be absolutely correct if two guys were standing shoulder to shoulder, one with a rangefinder and the other one without. But we aren't. We are talking about two guys standing at a range flag marked for 47 yards and the target is a 6" circle. 9 times out of 10 the slider guy will be able to dial his sight into 47 yards and hit it. The gap shooter, maybe, maybe not. They will either be really lucky and hit it with the first shot, but will most likely miss it with that first shot.

I have been talking the whole time about the sight. A rangefinder will not make you hit your mark. PERIOD!

Do you even understand the meaning of: "A range finder doesn't necessarily give a bowhunter a competitive edge"?...
I’d like to jump in here. I’ve never shot a slider but I do understand what you’re saying and it totally makes sense, but I think it misses the point. Your example of 2 shooters shoulder to shoulder at a flagged… 47 yards. The shooter with the slider has the advantage because he can adjust his single pin to 47 yards, but set pin guy has to spot the gap between his 40 and 50 yard pin. The guy with the slider does have the advantage, because he can adjust to the known yardage. But in the scenario you presented a RF is worthless anyway because you already know the range, which is a flagged 47 yards. I know in all the time I’ve spent on the mountain I’ve never seen the yardage flagged…
What if you don’t know the range. How good is either hunter at estimating distance? Is the buck 47 yards or 52? Where do you set the slider? Better know because 5 yards can make the difference in a clean kill or a miss. The point is, the RF gives the exact yardage and takes estimating out of the equation. The slider doesn’t provide you with the yardage, the RF does. Without a RF you have to estimate the yardage and as distance increases it gets more difficult. You can’t tell me Range Finders haven’t changed the game.
 
I’d like to jump in here. I’ve never shot a slider but I do understand what you’re saying and it totally makes sense, but I think it misses the point. Your example of 2 shooters shoulder to shoulder at a flagged… 47 yards. The shooter with the slider has the advantage because he can adjust his single pin to 47 yards, but set pin guy has to spot the gap between his 40 and 50 yard pin. The guy with the slider does have the advantage, because he can adjust to the known yardage. But in the scenario you presented a RF is worthless anyway because you already know the range, which is a flagged 47 yards. I know in all the time I’ve spent on the mountain I’ve never seen the yardage flagged…
What if you don’t know the range. How good is either hunter at estimating distance? Is the buck 47 yards or 52? Where do you set the slider? Better know because 5 yards can make the difference in a clean kill or a miss. The point is, the RF gives the exact yardage and takes estimating out of the equation. The slider doesn’t provide you with the yardage, the RF does. Without a RF you have to estimate the yardage and as distance increases it gets more difficult. You can’t tell me Range Finders haven’t changed the game.
Don’t argue with the Roadrunner….. He’s done it all, and has all this crap figured out. Just listen and Nod…. Ya know, like your schoolteachers.
 
I’d like to jump in here. I’ve never shot a slider but I do understand what you’re saying and it totally makes sense, but I think it misses the point. Your example of 2 shooters shoulder to shoulder at a flagged… 47 yards. The shooter with the slider has the advantage because he can adjust his single pin to 47 yards, but set pin guy has to spot the gap between his 40 and 50 yard pin. The guy with the slider does have the advantage, because he can adjust to the known yardage. But in the scenario you presented a RF is worthless anyway because you already know the range, which is a flagged 47 yards. I know in all the time I’ve spent on the mountain I’ve never seen the yardage flagged…
What if you don’t know the range. How good is either hunter at estimating distance? Is the buck 47 yards or 52? Where do you set the slider? Better know because 5 yards can make the difference in a clean kill or a miss. The point is, the RF gives the exact yardage and takes estimating out of the equation. The slider doesn’t provide you with the yardage, the RF does. Without a RF you have to estimate the yardage and as distance increases it gets more difficult. You can’t tell me Range Finders haven’t changed the game.

You're overthinking this. The RF sets both shooters equal. Neither shooter has an advantage over the other just knowing the range, or not knowing the range for that matter.

The shooter that can dial in the yardage does have the advantage over the gap shooter that can't dial in the yardage, especially if the target animal is at 68 yards and the bottom most fixed pin is 50 yards.

I used the 47 yard flagged distance as an example, not a reality (unless you're 3D competition shooting).

The rangefinder itself gives no advantage to either shooter because they both know the distance. The slider has the advantage because the margin of error is minimized.

That is why I said the rangefinder doesn't necessarily give the advantage.
 
Now you’re the one over thinking this and again you made my point. The RF gives you exact yardage. Forget the slider vs gap. Take two slider guys, everything being equal except one has a RF. Buck at an unknown shooting distance except to the RF guy who knows it’s exactly 62 yards. Who has the advantage?
 
i have a slider sight on my bow and shot my bull last year with out using a range finder. am i good or bad?
 
Now you’re the one over thinking this and again you made my point. The RF gives you exact yardage. Forget the slider vs gap. Take two slider guys, everything being equal except one has a RF. Buck at an unknown shooting distance except to the RF guy who knows it’s exactly 62 yards. Who has the advantage?

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....

i have a slider sight on my bow and shot my bull last year with out using a range finder. am i good or bad?

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...
 
My understanding is that this technology committee is going to be looking pretty hard at both archery and muzzleloading.

I'm exclusively a (not very successful) recurve shooter and haven't kept up at all on compound bow tech but I have been trying to educate myself a bit since the last board meeting and what I think I'm learning is a bit disconcerting.

Honest ask: how is one of these modern compound bows different from a crossbow at this point?:

-magnified sight, usually also fiberoptic, usually turret adjustable
-often front and rear sight to align
- rifle style trigger release
-80-90% let off at full draw

Looking at one, I guess the flipside is that there are about 900 individual moving parts to fail at any given moment.

If we have my 1968 Dammon-Howatt Hunter on one side and a crossbow on the other, where does this compound bow fall along the scale? Please educate me
Try shooting a compound bow in the prone position, or by using a rest, or from under a bush, or in tall grass, or with brush behind you, or by holding it for 10 or 15 minutes until the buck gets in the right position, or by trying to draw and/or release with the buck staring at you 20 yards away and you'll soon figure out the difference/scale! The crossbow looks much more like a rifle in those conditions.
 
Speaking of radios, the B&C has had a rule against entering an animal when radio's were used in the aid of taking for decades now.

One can only speculate how many animals are wrongfully entered by falsified statements in Utah alone, as radio's are the #1 tool used, especially amongst outfitters.
I can promise you there are hundreds of illegal entries in the B&C over radio use.

I know of several myself, and by the same for whom these tech bans are targeting.....and why.

Yes I answered my own post.....added to it?
 
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
 
I took up bows 5 years ago.

It's not as easy to become a LR bow shooter as an LR rifle shooter.

They aren't in the same universe.
 
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom