Tech #4 Rifle Recommendations

slamdunk

Moderator
Messages
10,389
Ok MM'ers, give me something to take to the committee meeting on Centerfire Rifles and other various gadgetry used in the aid of taking big game.

My stance?
No electronics inside rifle mounted scopes.
This will eliminate a lot of fast developing and implementing of automated ranging and angle compensation scopes and reticles, both internal and external.
 
Last edited:
No Scopes On Rifles anymore than 4X!

Remember,You Took SmokePoles Down To De-Magnification Levels!

If 4X Scopes Are Allowed on SmolePoles Then Let The Rifle Hunters Have Up to 6X!

Remember:

All Weaponry needs To Give a Little!

No Turrets!

No RangeFinders!

No Heat Seeking!

No Windage Calculators!

No Cheat Sheets Taped To The Stock,You Won't Need Them!

No Long Range Bullets.You Won't Need Them!

No Shooting in to Next Week!

No Scopes With Yardage Dots/Crosses!

No Tracers!

ABSO-F'N-LUTELY No Muzzle Brakes!

The List Goes On & On!
 
Scopes allowed on straight walled cartridges (for the folks with eye problems--seems like most of this forum)

Bottleneck rifle cartridges must be open sight

Of course this will not happen. There will be no substantive changes for the rifle crowd, too much political pull. They will probably keep electronics off of scopes--so what, that's not a big deal

Mark my words--this entire committee will accomplish one thing--they will pull scopes off of muzzleloaders and that's it. Utahn's love their toys too much.
 
I agree with rookie hntr does anyone really believe that cutting back on the weapons we use is going to make much difference on a deer herd that has been sadly miss managed for the last 30-40 year's c'mon I don't think technology has much to do with it the dwr ought to be thinking about improving winter feeding grounds, all habitat as far as that goes, road kill on major hiways, predators and killing all these does every year to make the buck to doe ratios better the hi ways pretty much take care of that and the list goes on and on...my rant is over
 
Scopes allowed on straight walled cartridges (for the folks with eye problems--seems like most of this forum)

Bottleneck rifle cartridges must be open sight

Of course this will not happen. There will be no substantive changes for the rifle crowd, too much political pull. They will probably keep electronics off of scopes--so what, that's not a big deal

Mark my words--this entire committee will accomplish one thing--they will pull scopes off of muzzleloaders and that's it. Utahn's love their toys too much.
I agree with you that the only thing coming out of this is scopes being taken off muzzleloaders and a perhaps caps on new emerging technologies. Thats my prediction.

I have a completely different stance all together with this stuff BUT if they were serious about their proposed mission statement of "creating more opportunity" by "putting the hunt back in hunting", "fair chase" "lowering success rates" then rifles would be the most restricted weapon choice of all since the data shows it has the highest success rates. But it isn't going to happen... this state doesn't tend to make decisions based on data. They make decisions based on opinions and squeaky wheels.
 
This whole deal that started with trail cams has blow WAY out of proportion IMO. I feel the agenda or scope of this tech committee is flawed to begin with sorry @slamdunk I know you are looking for specific feedback on rifles but lets be honest here... they aren't going to follow the data anyways..

"Put the hunt back into hunting" - SUBJECTIVE - People hunt for all sorts of reason not just sport.
"Fair Chase" - SUBJECTIVE - What does this even mean? Fair to who? It would only be fair to the animal if we had to kill them with our bare hands.
"Create More Opportunity" - Opportunity for more tag revenue? Opportunity to have the mountain crawling with people which kind of contradicts "fair chase" for the animal don't you think?
"Lowering Success Rates" - Lowering success rates just to sell more tags is like taking one step forward and two steps back. This is Homer Simpson logic.
 
Here is my 2 cents!!!

Leave archery alone.

1x or open sights on muzzy.

Leave rifle alone.

If muzzy guys want to use high powered scopes, use it on the ALW hunts.

Eliminate half the hunts. I saw they were looking into a yearling buck hunt for youth, STOP WITH THIS SHIZZZ!!!! Something is hunted from Aug to Feb. Like mentioned above, Eliminate doe hunts. If ranchers want compensation, cut back grazing on public land for them. Its a give and take type thing.

Focus on predators, highways, water sources, poaching.
 
Here is my 2 cents!!!

Leave archery alone.

1x or open sights on muzzy.

Leave rifle alone.

If muzzy guys want to use high powered scopes, use it on the ALW hunts.

Eliminate half the hunts. I saw they were looking into a yearling buck hunt for youth, STOP WITH THIS SHIZZZ!!!! Something is hunted from Aug to Feb. Like mentioned above, Eliminate doe hunts. If ranchers want compensation, cut back grazing on public land for them. Its a give and take type thing.

Focus on predators, highways, water sources, poaching.
I’m guessing you don’t hunt with a muzzleloader?
 
I’m guessing you don’t hunt with a muzzleloader?
I do and it won't change a thing for me by removing my 4x12 tactical on my Knight because I rarely shoot 200 yards at a target let alone game.
I make that personal call because of the energy of my specific load, not to mention my groups at 200 are about as wide as a barn door.

But my buddies Remington?
Now that thing is just crazy and even he admits it's ridiculous.
 
My Paramount Set up is accurate out to 400 Yards and can shoot plenty further. I would not shoot game past 400 due to loss of energy to efficiently kill. With that said, I am all for restrictions on Muzzy's. We have gotten too good at our game and More and More Top end bucks are paying the price on LE units. Just my .02
 
My Paramount Set up is accurate out to 400 Yards and can shoot plenty further. I would not shoot game past 400 due to loss of energy to efficiently kill. With that said, I am all for restrictions on Muzzy's. We have gotten too good at our game and More and More Top end bucks are paying the price on LE units. Just my .02
Honesty ☝?
 
Honesty ☝?
@OpeningDay Its not about the bucks. Unless you are referring to these bucks...
Top End Bucks.jpeg
 
The mandatory reporting would be a wonderful input to this process and should be required for several years before ANY changes are made, but will any be courageous enough to pause this charade in order to do that so decisions can be made using data rather than emotion???‍♂️
 
The mandatory reporting would be a wonderful input to this process and should be required for several years before ANY changes are made, but will any be courageous enough to pause this charade in order to do that so decisions can be made using data rather than emotion???‍♂️
Trust me, I have urged mandatory report for years and again questioned it on our second meeting of this committee.

They believe they do not need feedback from 97,000 GS hunters to create a model of data.
 
Why can't you just leave chit alone? Man!


Why can't anyone else.

Guys act like them continually pushing the envelope is leaving things alone, while the DWR trying to stop the push, is being aggressive.

If we was all shooting Enfield's, lever actions and win 70 30-06 with weaver 4x scopes, this committee wouldn't be necessary.
 
Trust me, I have urged mandatory report for years and again questioned it on our second meeting of this committee.

They believe they do not need feedback from 97,000 GS hunters to create a model of data.
What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results - fits perfectly in this situation.

Current DWR GS model = garbage in-->garbage out
 
I agree with rookie hntr does anyone really believe that cutting back on the weapons we use is going to make much difference on a deer herd that has been sadly miss managed for the last 30-40 year's c'mon I don't think technology has much to do with it the dwr ought to be thinking about improving winter feeding grounds, all habitat as far as that goes, road kill on major hiways, predators and killing all these does every year to make the buck to doe ratios better the hi ways pretty much take care of that and the list goes on and on...my rant is over


If you don't, then why do you use it?

You (we) spent a ton on newer and newer tech. But it doesn't do anything?
 
There's a thread in Utah section.

Every dude bitching about "cutting tags, units, days, etc", stop in that thread and post them up
 
Hoss-
I can't post them up since I only draw my selected deer unit once every three years or so. Now if the deer were plentiful or of a mature class that waiting period would not be bad, but the herd just keeps getting worse and quality has been steadily decreasing. And I haven't purchased an over-the-counter elk tag in years for the same reason.
 
Look where that has gotten us......
There are two main problems I see...

1. We are ASSUMING that tech is the driver of our hunting woes in Utah. However, no one has really done the in depth homework to find out if that is the case.
2. The data we do have they don't listen to anyways.

My recommendation would be to run a test on a unit or two. Collect the before and after data along with other relevent variables and then run a regression analysis on it. There are WAY smarter people than me out there that could conduct some very meaningful research. If I was king for a day that is where I would tell them to focus their efforts. This shot in the dark stuff is hard to get behind.
 
Trust me, I have urged mandatory report for years and again questioned it on our second meeting of this committee.

They believe they do not need feedback from 97,000 GS hunters to create a model of data.
Seriously, "they" are sticking their heads in the sand on this one. Good on you for continuing to bring it up. It is a stupid easy thing to do and use in todays world--and I would actually wager it takes LESS time, effort, and $$$ to have mandatory online reporting for all tags--which could then be programmed to autopopulate a spreadsheet and very efficiently sort the data as needed--versus having employees cold call XX% of tag holders and ask questions and enter the responses from there.
Plenty of states have used mandatory reporting for tags for decades now.

Here in Alaska, you usually have 15 days after the harvest or the close of the season (some hunts only 24-72hrs) to submit your reports or you are not allowed to participate in the draw the following year. Then the state makes that harvest and hunt report data public and you can go through decades of data reports for species statewide. And the biologists up here actually use that data (especially the "did not hunt" vs "Hunted--successful kill/wounding" info) to set tag numbers/seasons/etc.

Tell the dinosaurs (again) that they need to get with the times.
 
Seriously, "they" are sticking their heads in the sand on this one. Good on you for continuing to bring it up. It is a stupid easy thing to do and use in todays world--and I would actually wager it takes LESS time, effort, and $$$ to have mandatory online reporting for all tags--which could then be programmed to autopopulate a spreadsheet and very efficiently sort the data as needed--versus having employees cold call XX% of tag holders and ask questions and enter the responses from there.
Plenty of states have used mandatory reporting for tags for decades now.

Here in Alaska, you usually have 15 days after the harvest or the close of the season (some hunts only 24-72hrs) to submit your reports or you are not allowed to participate in the draw the following year. Then the state makes that harvest and hunt report data public and you can go through decades of data reports for species statewide. And the biologists up here actually use that data (especially the "did not hunt" vs "Hunted--successful kill/wounding" info) to set tag numbers/seasons/etc.

Tell the dinosaurs (again) that they need to get with the times.
I couldn't agree more....
 
Guys.....this committee is NOT trying to bring our HERDS back, period!!
Not the goal here......just stop already!!???
What is the primary problem the committee and Board are trying to solve with this and the camera ban? I am genuinely asking and would like to know - what is the problem statement and what is the vision/primary objective of the committee?
 
What is the primary problem the committee and Board are trying to solve with this and the camera ban? I am genuinely asking and would like to know - what is the problem statement and what is the vision/primary objective of the committee?
I was wondering the same thing... This is what I could find from Slam - "This is to keep success rates in check so as to increase hunter opportunity along with fair chase in mind for each respective weapon and season."
 
Thanks Vitalwave - I went back to the beginning of the Tech posts as well and see a primary objective is to reduce harvest success, so I am guessing the primary problem is that we are killing too many animals in Utah?

Another serious question - how in the HE!! do we even know that if we don't have mandatory reporting, especially for GS hunts?

And if we are killing too many animals, shouldn't the primary objective of EVERYTHING we do be to address issues that are preventing us from "growing the pie" so that we have enough animals to allow for a well managed harvest while maintaining a healthy and productive herd.

So I guess my main question is this really: if we are doing anything that is not directly focused on bringing our herds back, why in the world are we doing it?!?!?!?
 
Well this turned out just like the last 3.

This is a spitting image of the trail cameras.
He ask for ideas and this is what he got ?

Keep it up.

The board reads all of your comments and that is a fact.
It’s pretty obvious that people can’t give up any technology.
I think this should of been addressed 20 years ago and it shows.

Unbelievable.
 
Oh We Can Give Up Some Technology as Long As It's For Good Reason & Fair & F'N Square Across The Board of WEAPONRY!

To Give It Up For More People In The Field,JUDAS!

Like Our Deer Herd Isn't Already Being Over Hunted!

And Even When They're Not Being Hunted They're Getting Pushed Around With Other NON STOP & OVER-LAPPED Hunts!

I'd Give Up My Current SmokePoles Even Though I Don't Have Any Considered LONG RANGE,Mine Are Medium Range Guns At Best to Go Back To The HAWKENS Days!

At Least I Was Seeing Decent Bucks With Not Enough Gun To Harvest Them Very Often!

Now I Have Better/Medium Range SmokePoles & What I See In The Field Now Doesn't Even Compare To What I Was Seeing When I Was Packing My HAWKENS!

If It's For More Quantity & More Quality I'm In!







Well this turned out just like the last 3.

This is a spitting image of the trail cameras.
He ask for ideas and this is what he got ?

Keep it up.

The board reads all of your comments and that is a fact.
It’s pretty obvious that people can’t give up any technology.
I think this should of been addressed 20 years ago and it shows.

Unbelievable.
 
I think slam and this committee are doing a good thing. They are trying to address concerns of hunters and outdoorsman like myself. I don’t like seeing trail cameras all over a water hole or bait piles while I’m out hunting. I don’t like people launching 600 yard shots on a muzzleloader hunt.
We have to do something to control ourselves. If we don’t restrict our technology in hunting it won’t be long till there will not be any public land animals left to hunt.
Am I selfish or emotional? Probably but I think there are a lot of us that are like-minded.
 
Oh We Can Give Up Some Technology as Long As It's For Good Reason & Fair & F'N Square Across The Board of WEAPONRY!

To Give It Up For More People In The Field,JUDAS!

Like Our Deer Herd Isn't Already Being Over Hunted!

And Even When They're Not Being Hunted They're Getting Pushed Around With Other NON STOP & OVER-LAPPED Hunts!

I'd Give Up My Current SmokePoles Even Though I Don't Have Any Considered LONG RANGE,Mine Are Medium Range Guns At Best to Go Back To The HAWKENS Days!

At Least I Was Seeing Decent Bucks With Not Enough Gun To Harvest Them Very Often!

Now I Have Better/Medium Range SmokePoles & What I See In The Field Now Doesn't Even Compare To What I Was Seeing When I Was Packing My HAWKENS!

If It's For More Quantity & More Quality I'm In!
I'd gladly give up my Knight and go back to my Hawken in a heartbeat, it would actually make me a better hunter having to hunter "bow hunter style again".

But since it's looking like I just limit my distance of vision, I'll keep myself a 200 yard max guy when using it.

And I'm with you on the fact that we are hunting too much with all these seasons on top of seasons and constant pressure on our game, but that's a completely different infantry fighting that dragon.
 
I think slam and this committee are doing a good thing. They are trying to address concerns of hunters and outdoorsman like myself. I don’t like seeing trail cameras all over a water hole or bait piles while I’m out hunting. I don’t like people launching 600 yard shots on a muzzleloader hunt.
We have to do something to control ourselves. If we don’t restrict our technology in hunting it won’t be long till there will not be any public land animals left to hunt.
Am I selfish or emotional? Probably but I think there are a lot of us that are like-minded.
Thank you ??
 
We want to complain about less game, poor quality, poor management, points creep, new hunter recruitment, no game for grandkids in the future, etc, etc.

But by Gawd don't mess with my trail cams, bait piles, sliders, Garmin bow sights, 15× tactical scopes on my smoke pole or built in automatic rangefinders with ballistics calculator inside my rifle scope, all so my own success isn't disrupted ?
 
Hoss-
I can't post them up since I only draw my selected deer unit once every three years or so. Now if the deer were plentiful or of a mature class that waiting period would not be bad, but the herd just keeps getting worse and quality has been steadily decreasing. And I haven't purchased an over-the-counter elk tag in years for the same reason.


Nothing is stopping anyone, except excuses.
 
We want to complain about less game, poor quality, poor management, points creep, new hunter recruitment, no game for grandkids in the future, etc, etc.

But by Gawd don't mess with my trail cams, bait piles, sliders, Garmin bow sights, 15× tactical scopes on my smoke pole or built in automatic rangefinders with ballistics calculator inside my rifle scope, all so my own success isn't disrupted ?


LOUDER, for the hearing impaired
 
We want to complain about less game, poor quality, poor management, points creep, new hunter recruitment, no game for grandkids in the future, etc, etc.

But by Gawd don't mess with my trail cams, bait piles, sliders, Garmin bow sights, 15× tactical scopes on my smoke pole or built in automatic rangefinders with ballistics calculator inside my rifle scope, all so my own success isn't disrupted ?

Do you even know what a slider sight on a bow does?
 
Ok MM'ers, give me something to take to the committee meeting on Centerfire Rifles and other various gadgetry used in the aid of taking big game.

My stance?
No electronics inside rifle mounted scopes.
This will eliminate a lot of fast developing and implementing of automated ranging and angle compensation scopes and reticles, both internal and external.
Agreed, auto ranging scopes is just cheating...
 
Well this turned out just like the last 3.

This is a spitting image of the trail cameras.
He ask for ideas and this is what he got ?

Keep it up.

The board reads all of your comments and that is a fact.
It’s pretty obvious that people can’t give up any technology.
I think this should of been addressed 20 years ago and it shows.

Unbelievable.
I don't know why I keep picking your comments to respond to haha.

While I agree and commend that slam came here for ideas, it appears that this may be less of a discussion. There have been some good suggestions along the way and I'm sure slam is taking note. But, using muzzleloaders as the example, the only thing that they want to stick is no scopes. There is no middle ground!

Is it too much to ask for some effort to show why these restrictions should happen? If it should have been addressed 20 years ago, what has been put together in that time frame to suggest now is the moment?

We've each stated we would be ok with said restrictions. We just want to be shown it will work. The same desire is shared by many when it comes to politics. But it's always the other way around. It needs to pass first, then we'll see if it works.

And yes, the same thing happened with trail cameras. What was passed didn't coincide with the majority of responses on the survey.

Gosh I hope we stand a little stronger on issues that matter in our country. Or we're in for a lot more hurt.
 
I don't know why I keep picking your comments to respond to haha.

While I agree and commend that slam came here for ideas, it appears that this may be less of a discussion. There have been some good suggestions along the way and I'm sure slam is taking note. But, using muzzleloaders as the example, the only thing that they want to stick is no scopes. There is no middle ground!

Is it too much to ask for some effort to show why these restrictions should happen? If it should have been addressed 20 years ago, what has been put together in that time frame to suggest now is the moment?

We've each stated we would be ok with said restrictions. We just want to be shown it will work. The same desire is shared by many when it comes to politics. But it's always the other way around. It needs to pass first, then we'll see if it works.

And yes, the same thing happened with trail cameras. What was passed didn't coincide with the majority of responses on the survey.

Gosh I hope we stand a little stronger on issues that matter in our country. Or we're in for a lot more hurt.
This is a great comment, thank you.

I'm with you, the entire committee, wildlife board and RAC is with you in hopes we'll all see positive evidence in the future from all the changes on tap coming down the pipe.

No one is trying to punish anyone or be mean, ruthless or non understanding.
We will all be making sacrifices for the betterment whether it's a scope, reduced odds of drawing a permit or even having to walk into places we used to drive into. We must make changes collectively because our current trend in big game hunting is not going in a good direction whatsoever.

Technology needs to fit itself into our management plans - not the other way around
 
I believe there are better ways to control harvest, other than limiting technology.

It sounds like the division wants to sell more tags with a worse opportunity. Sounds like a great experience ?.

None of this addresses the root cause of the issue. Just give us all a sling shot tag and put more hunters in the field next year, and all our problems will be solved.
 
I have no problem with magnified scopes on muzzleloaders. I also have no problem with high power scopes with turrets. The shooter still has to manually use a ballistic app and input data to make corrections. I’m all for this.

I want to see tags significantly reduced and seasons shortened. Big game are pressured from August until January and that is taking a toll on them.
 
The outcome I predict is that we’ll lose muzzleloader scopes, and rifles will remain unchanged other than eliminating electronic scopes. The committee will all pat each other on the back, and act like they’ve really accomplished something, but in the end, it will likely not make a damn bit of difference.
 
The outcome I predict is that we’ll lose muzzleloader scopes, and rifles will remain unchanged other than eliminating electronic scopes. The committee will all pat each other on the back, and act like they’ve really accomplished something, but in the end, it will likely not make a damn bit of difference.
The committees job is to offer "proposals" to give to the Board, then it goes to the RAC for review and public input.

The Board asked for a tech committee to be developed and here we are.

Perhaps we are not as evil as ya'll are feeling, maybe just maybe we are actually trying to help you keep a few of your gadgets from a bigger bear??‍♂️
 
HELLTER SKELTER & Anything Goes In TAHNVILLE Forever!

Then All Of a Sudden One Weapon Type Is Singled Out.........!

Anybody Think The TECHNOLOGY & GADGETRY Will Be Banned As Quick as It Showed Up?

I Can See It Now!

Scopes On SmokePoles will Take a Hit While The Next Technology Will Do 20 Times The Damage To Game Herds as the Scopes Ever Did!

Ain't The Next Neat New F'N Toy About To Show Up?

Hey Joe:

You See That PISSCUTTER out There With Your 400X Spotter That Thinks He's Safe Hiding behind that Tree at 2 Miles away?

Yes I Do Chuck:

What The Buck Doesn't Know Is I'm Setting Up As We Speak and I Can & Will Shoot around Corners for The CHIP SHOT!
 
I have no problem with magnified scopes on muzzleloaders. I also have no problem with high power scopes with turrets. The shooter still has to manually use a ballistic app and input data to make corrections. I’m all for this.

I want to see tags significantly reduced and seasons shortened. Big game are pressured from August until January and that is taking a toll on them.

I haven't seen your video posted in the yearly challenge to end BS thread in the Utah section.

If your for tag cuts, let's see vids of you cutting up your tag, PRIOR to the season, and staying home.
 
HELLTER SKELTER & Anything Goes In TAHNVILLE Forever!

Then All Of a Sudden One Weapon Type Is Singled Out.........!

Anybody Think The TECHNOLOGY & GADGETRY Will Be Banned As Quick as It Showed Up?

I Can See It Now!

Scopes On SmokePoles will Take a Hit While The Next Technology Will Do 20 Times The Damage To Game Herds as the Scopes Ever Did!

Ain't The Next Neat New F'N Toy About To Show Up?

Hey Joe:

You See That PISSCUTTER out There With Your 400X Spotter That Thinks He's Safe Hiding behind that Tree at 2 Miles away?

Yes I Do Chuck:

What The Buck Doesn't Know Is I'm Setting Up As We Speak and I Can & Will Shoot around Corners for The CHIP SHOT!
Exactly why this is part of the Mission Statement.

"the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources recognizes that new and emerging technologies may challenge the ethics or perceived ethics associated with hunting which may negatively influence public support for this critical source of conservation funding. Moreover, technological advancements have the potential to limit opportunity and reduce quality of animals available to hunters in the future."
 
The committees job is to offer "proposals" to give to the Board, then it goes to the RAC for review and public input.

The Board asked for a tech committee to be developed and here we are.

Perhaps we are not as evil as ya'll are feeling, maybe just maybe we are actually trying to help you keep a few of your gadgets from a bigger bear??‍♂️
Slammy, I know I’m being vocal and pessimistic about this, and I’m sorry. I’d honestly be fine going back to the very basics if I truly felt like it would increase opportunity for the average hunter. I apply for hunts for my 16 year old brother, and it’s tough telling him he’s putting in for some hunts he realistically may never draw.

The way Utah is with the any legal weapon hunt, I don’t see any real changes being passed. Hell, we can’t even get them to take it out of the rut for LE elk! If they really wanted to create more opportunities, that would be the first, and most logical step, but that could possibly hurt their bottom line on banquet tags, so that won’t happen.
 
Slammy, I know I’m being vocal and pessimistic about this, and I’m sorry. I’d honestly be fine going back to the very basics if I truly felt like it would increase opportunity for the average hunter. I apply for hunts for my 16 year old brother, and it’s tough telling him he’s putting in for some hunts he realistically may never draw.

The way Utah is with the any legal weapon hunt, I don’t see any real changes being passed. Hell, we can’t even get them to take it out of the rut for LE elk! If they really wanted to create more opportunities, that would be the first, and most logical step, but that could possibly hurt their bottom line on banquet tags, so that won’t happen.
Don't give up yet, the support for your closing statements are being heavily discussed and has great support.

Forecast-
When quality goes up, so will demand for the best tags hunters can acquire, regardless of the hunt dates.

I fully support moving the LE "Any Weapon" out of the prime rutting weeks......but that's not in the scope of this committee.
 
I understand that’s not the objective of the committee. I just think that until we take a serious look at limiting the “rifle” hunts, we’re just pissing in the wind. There’s a lot of animals killed nowadays at 500+ yards that wouldn’t have been killed 10-15 years ago. Although I have a “long range” setup, my furthest shot in recent memory is 415 on my Montana bear from this year. Limit scopes to capped turrets with a max of 9x magnification, and in my opinion, it would do more than any other proposal combined.

I realize that’s being discussed by the tech committee, but I’m truly skeptical any major restrictions on rifles will be approved in the foreseeable future.
 
I believe there are better ways to control harvest, other than limiting technology.

It sounds like the division wants to sell more tags with a worse opportunity. Sounds like a great experience ?.

None of this addresses the root cause of the issue. Just give us all a sling shot tag and put more hunters in the field next year, and all our problems will be solved.
This is exactly how I feel @Hunter81. Additionally, there are other ways to increase opportunity but those ways don't add incremental dollars to their budgets.

Thats the problem when you have a group of government type salaries are tied to the proceeds made off OUR natural resources. They are going to make decisions that benefits them over the wildlife and public they are supposed to be serving.

Are there average Joe hunters begging for more opportunity and annoyed at technology? Sure! But there is a reason those squeaky wheels are getting greased over others and its because it fits their agenda. $$$
 
This is exactly how I feel @Hunter81. Additionally, there are other ways to increase opportunity but those ways don't add incremental dollars to their budgets.

Thats the problem when you have a group of government type salaries are tied to the proceeds made off OUR natural resources. They are going to make decisions that benefits them over the wildlife and public they are supposed to be serving.

Are there average Joe hunters begging for more opportunity and annoyed at technology? Sure! But there is a reason those squeaky wheels are getting greased over others and its because it fits their agenda. $$$
How would you suggest the entire administration receives compensation?
 
How would you suggest the entire administration receives compensation?
In a way that isn't a conflict of interest.

How about their ability to add employees, resources, and receive raises is performance based? That is how it works at most private companies. This is the beef I have with any government agency is they don't have to perform because there is no direct negative consequence like a normal business that isn't doing a great job.
 
How would you suggest the entire administration receives compensation?
I know there are some great people who work there that do a great job. But overall, do you think they are performing and exceeding expectations when you look at the status of our deer herds?
 
I know there are some great people who work there that do a great job. But overall, do you think they are performing and exceeding expectations when you look at the status of our deer herds?
I'm not so sure it's fair to compare managing wildlife to a "company".
They aren't trying to mange objects on a shelf that aren't subjected to natural occurrences completely out of their control, just for starters.

Could they do better?
Yes I "believe" so but I am just assuming and thinking hypothetical because the fact is, I just don't know how they operate or do things.

I am with many others and agree mandatory reporting to every tag holder could be done and information be more realistic.
But they have their reasons why they don't and I (we) have to accept it.
 
I'm not so sure it's fair to compare managing wildlife to a "company".
They aren't trying to mange objects on a shelf that aren't subjected to natural occurrences completely out of their control, just for starters.

Could they do better?
Yes I "believe" so but I am just assuming and thinking hypothetical because the fact is, I just don't know how they operate or do things.

I am with many others and agree mandatory reporting to every tag holder could be done and information be more realistic.
But they have their reasons why they don't and I (we) have to accept it.
There are lots of things beyond a private business' control. Talk to any trucking company right now. Fuel cost isn't within their control. Inflation, supply chain issues, and labor shortages really aren't either. Nevertheless, if they cant navigate through these challenges and deliver a product or service that people are willing to voluntarily spend money on then they go out of business.

I'm not going to act like I personally could do a better job managing our wildlife. But that doesn't mean we can't challenge those that do to be better. Especially since they kind of have a monopoly on our natural resources... Its not like we have another choice within the state to let our dollars vote.

I agree with you on mandatory reporting as long as they don't ignore the data.

Sorry for beating this horse to death. Ill shut up now. :)
 
Slam,

Thanks for your service and openness on this matter. We don't always agree but we usually do.
Rifle/Muzzleloader: I'm in your camp to eliminate electronic drop/rangefinding in rifle scopes and ban further technology as it pops up.

Zeke
 
Slam,

Thanks for your service and openness on this matter. We don't always agree but we usually do.
Rifle/Muzzleloader: I'm in your camp to eliminate electronic drop/rangefinding in rifle scopes and ban further technology as it pops up.

Zeke
Thank you Sir.
We are trying to leave the door open in the wording to something on the likes of "as further technology emerges" so that future gadgets can be evaluated as they arrive.....and they will.

Ironically, our military and law enforcement technology is bleeding over into our hunting world.
 
No more electronics used to pursue or take game?

Sounds horrible but I guess it would be 'fair' across the board.


This all reminds me of a Hank Williams Jr. song.
 
Here is my 2 cents!!!

Leave archery alone.

1x or open sights on muzzy.

Leave rifle alone.

If muzzy guys want to use high powered scopes, use it on the ALW hunts.

Eliminate half the hunts. I saw they were looking into a yearling buck hunt for youth, STOP WITH THIS SHIZZZ!!!! Something is hunted from Aug to Feb. Like mentioned above, Eliminate doe hunts. If ranchers want compensation, cut back grazing on public land for them. Its a give and take type thing.

Focus on predators, highways, water sources, poaching.
Ah, lest one forgets, when the debate was archery only OIL; use your bow on any weapon!
 
So let me get this straight.
When we passed scopes on Muzzleloaders. There was no data to know if it was going to increase success correct?

Now we need data to take them back off makes perfect sense.

I still have open sights on one Muzzleloader and a 1x on the other.
My son at 17 has harvested 4 elk over the last 4 years.
he started hunting elk when he turn 14.

His first harvest was rag horn bull with a 270 with a 3x9 scope.

Now the other 3 where with open sights.

He hunted with my muzzleloader open sights for the first time 2 years ago and he harvested 2 elk that year.
He shot a bull opening day.
Then he harvested his cow on the last day.

Last year he shot a cow during the rifle hunt with grandpa 8mm Mauser open sights.

This is why I'm kind of confused on all this, My son has harvested more with open sights since he's been hunting. Then he has with a scope.

I have all the data I need to back this up right here. This is why I have been pushing so hard because we know how effective we have become.

Either way this really doesn't concern me or my family we will be just fine.

Good luck to you all.
 
So let me get this straight.
When we passed scopes on Muzzleloaders. There was no data to know if it was going to increase success correct?

Now we need data to take them back off makes perfect sense.
:ROFLMAO:

The argument has been the whole time to limit technology (and any other advantage) to limit success rates to increase opportunity. If you're going to make that claim, show the numbers. Except now, data has been shown that demonstrates the addition didn't do much of anything to increase success rates, so the argument is a moot point on removing them to limit success.

This is merely a personal bias and desire of what one guy wants against a guy that doesn't.

Where have you been??
 
:ROFLMAO:

The argument has been the whole time to limit technology (and any other advantage) to limit success rates to increase opportunity. If you're going to make that claim, show the numbers. Except now, data has been shown that demonstrates the addition didn't do much of anything to increase success rates, so the argument is a moot point on removing them to limit success.

This is merely a personal bias and desire of what one guy wants against a guy that doesn't.

Where have you been??
You heard what I said.
If we never had any data for allowing them in the first place.
Why do we need data to keep them?


Pretty simple question
 
Last edited:
You heard what I said.
If we never had any data for allowing them in the first place.
Why do we need data to keep them?


Pretty simple question

The entire premise to "ban" them is based off of a false narrative since now there is data regardless of how limited it may be.

This entire campaign is nothing more than a bunch of self-righteous idealists that had their fun in the sun and now no longer think they need it, so nobody else should either.

If it's a spade, you call it a spade. Not a diamond, heart, or a club...
 
The entire premise to "ban" them is based off of a false narrative since now there is data regardless of how limited it may be.

This entire campaign is nothing more than a bunch of self-righteous idealists that had their fun in the sun and now no longer think they need it, so nobody else should either.

If it's a spade, you call it a spade. Not a diamond, heart, or a club...
Do you have data to back this up?
 
Exactly why this is part of the Mission Statement.

"the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources recognizes that new and emerging technologies may challenge the ethics or perceived ethics associated with hunting which may negatively influence public support for this critical source of conservation funding. Moreover, technological advancements have the potential to limit opportunity and reduce quality of animals available to hunters in the future."
Where does a scope on a muzzleloader negatively influence perception? I can that rationale for a a drone, aircraft spotting, but scope no........and again, where is it shown that B:D ratios have dropped? Anyone checked with B&C or SCI for all these monster bucks that are supposedly being killed with these muzzleloaders?

We used to congratulate a hunter when they got a nice buck; now we are saying harvesting one limits the quality for other hunters? Well hello Captain obvious, there are only so many 160 and above bucks, not enough for everyone. Again what are we doing?
 
Last edited:
My vote is to leave it as is and set tag numbers appropriately based on success rates for appropriate unit quotas UNTIL we can make data driven decisions.

Then after the division can present meaningful data to justify these changes along with a plan, then we can talk about remedies in specifics and formulate committees instead of supposition and opinion based legislation. I appreciate the passion but this is laughable how subjective the purpose of this committee is.

The Draft Charter reads: "Address and outline ISSUES"

What are the issues that the data can support?

"We need to fix it now!" Well, what is the problem that the data can prove is directly tied to the proposed solution?

This whole premise is flawed from inception and has elements of a strawman argument.

Not being personally critical because I appreciate the discussion and the volunteering spirit of those trying to take a stance but I don't believe this is the hill we should try to capture.

Also the timing of this from the division on the heels of the trail camera decision makes me skeptical that the majority is being heard on this or will be heard. It feels like they are going through their paces to show the appearance that due diligence was conducted only to justify an inevitable outcome.

We might be taking the wrong actions in a fight for a seemingly noble cause but one that wont move the needle for the majority of hunters satisfaction and wont improve our hunting quality of life but instead will satisfy the minority beef and further regulate all of us.

Not proposing we do nothing ever or that no further regulations are needed ever because they obviously need to be looked at, but we need to make measured decisions, ones that are not driven by emotion.

Clearly define the problem at hand, generate possible causes/solutions, collect the data points, study the data, carefully cater a proposed solution to solve the identified problem, test the proposed solution in a controlled environment, study the data points, THEN we can have a discussion about implementation.

The knee-jerk reactions are as exhausting as reading my post!
 
My vote is to leave it as is and set tag numbers appropriately based on success rates for appropriate unit quotas UNTIL we can make data driven decisions.

Then after the division can present meaningful data to justify these changes along with a plan, then we can talk about remedies in specifics and formulate committees instead of supposition and opinion based legislation. I appreciate the passion but this is laughable how subjective the purpose of this committee is.

The Draft Charter reads: "Address and outline ISSUES"

What are the issues that the data can support?

"We need to fix it now!" Well, what is the problem that the data can prove is directly tied to the proposed solution?

This whole premise is flawed from inception and has elements of a strawman argument.

Not being personally critical because I appreciate the discussion and the volunteering spirit of those trying to take a stance but I don't believe this is the hill we should try to capture.

Also the timing of this from the division on the heels of the trail camera decision makes me skeptical that the majority is being heard on this or will be heard. It feels like they are going through their paces to show the appearance that due diligence was conducted only to justify an inevitable outcome.

We might be taking the wrong actions in a fight for a seemingly noble cause but one that wont move the needle for the majority of hunters satisfaction and wont improve our hunting quality of life but instead will satisfy the minority beef and further regulate all of us.

Not proposing we do nothing ever or that no further regulations are needed ever because they obviously need to be looked at, but we need to make measured decisions, ones that are not driven by emotion.

Clearly define the problem at hand, generate possible causes/solutions, collect the data points, study the data, carefully cater a proposed solution to solve the identified problem, test the proposed solution in a controlled environment, study the data points, THEN we can have a discussion about implementation.

The knee-jerk reactions are as exhausting as reading my post!
This would be refreshing.
 
I am not seeing any knee-jerk reactions here.
It seems the wildlife board has requested these committees bring suggestions for their review for possible changes in the future.
Seems like a slow and well thought out process to me.
We as hunters have to control and regulate ourselves. If we don’t eventually there will be nothing left to hunt.
We have an increasing demand and a shrinking supply.
Something has to give?
 
The more and more I see these conversations the more apparent it is you’ll get no where with equipment restrictions. Shorten the seasons
 
People can't hunt without modern technology, something else needs to give.

I'm ok either way, as long as something gives.
We cannot continue this path!!
@slamdunk What will make your hunter satisfaction rate higher? What about our current path do you dislike?

Seems like you are really set on REDUCING SUCCESS rates either through tech restrictions or season date changes. Why do you feel like this will increase your hunting satisfaction? Are these the only two paths you feel we can take to improve your hunting satisfaction?
 
@slamdunk What will make your hunter satisfaction rate higher? What about our current path do you dislike?

Seems like you are really set on REDUCING SUCCESS rates either through tech restrictions or season date changes. Why do you feel like this will increase your hunting satisfaction? Are these the only two paths you feel we can take to improve your hunting satisfaction?
Current path?
It's no argument that it is declining in every aspect for the majority of hunters.
We shouldn't cater to the "elitists", or should we?

My hunting satisfaction isn't my concern.
I've taken more big game through guiding 20+ years and my own personal hunts that most hunters only dream about.
My concerns are the future and where hunting will be for our kids and grandkids.

Only two paths?
No absolutely not, but they do get the ball rolling.
There is a lot of supplemental ways to help make improvements, and they are currently in motion.
 
Current path?
It's no argument that it is declining in every aspect for the majority of hunters.
We shouldn't cater to the "elitists", or should we?

My hunting satisfaction isn't my concern.
I've taken more big game through guiding 20+ years and my own personal hunts that most hunters only dream about.
My concerns are the future and where hunting will be for our kids and grandkids.

Only two paths?
No absolutely not, but they do get the ball rolling.
There is a lot of supplemental ways to help make improvements, and they are currently in motion.
Thanks for the reply @slamdunk. Let me ask a better question... How do you envision lowering success rates will promote higher hunter satisfaction in future generations?
 
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