Tech #4 Rifle Recommendations

slamdunk · Jul 22, 2022

Vitalwave said:
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?

Let me try to twist this a little bit and go backwards with a glimpse of coming into the future.

Many of us here remember the 90's when the herds were so healthy we could harvest 2 deer per year. We could use our rifle tag to take a second buck during the archery. We had strong numbers and great quality and basic technology in those times. But we could see it coming with archery equipment trying to stretch their capabilities with overdaws, carbon arrows, fiber optic sights etc, etc.
Muzzies went from Hawkin style to the new inlines and rifle scopes were seeing major changes in reticles, better glass and much larger objectives.
All of these emerging technologies were to give us an additional edge over our quarry, but we also had well over 200k tags and hunters in the field with extremely good success rates on both quality and numbers, it was hunting paradise.

Then it all started spiraling for numerous reasons.
Except technology, it grew faster as thousands of tags were cut and the hunger for success remained and even grew faster every year.

We didn't respond to the declining numbers like perhaps we should have, we fed the hunger for bigger bucks.
Everyone wanted to be the best hunter, or best outfitters because it was getting tougher every single year.

Here we are on that same path of declining numbers and quality, yet the emerging technology is snowballing to keep us where we were 30 years ago with success.

Numerous things can be done to help improve our experience in our hunting world and there are a lot of things being done with conservation and biology to help in those areas, but us as the killers can do more as well.

roadrunner · Jul 22, 2022

slamdunk said:
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!!

Then pitch shorter seasons, since other states do that as well...

Robiland · Jul 22, 2022

That was a perfect response Slam. I agree 100% with everything you just wrote. As hunters, we need to draw a line. Those that argue that tech is not the problem are the ones ( I feel) that are the problem and love what they have because they either love to see the success and advantages they have over what they "USED" to have. Or, its all they have know to use, and the unknown for them is a bit scary.
Its a bit scary for me to see where our herds are going. I have 2 boys that LOVE to hunt more than I ever did as a teenager. My other 2 boys like it, but dont LOVE it. But when I look back to hunting in the 80's and 90's on boulder mountain for open bull elk hunts, monroe for deer, and all over actually for deer, and seeing so many deer it was crazy. We DONT HAVE THAT. And the difference from then to now, makes we wonder what will happen from NOW to the future of 30-40 years. What will my kids hunt. Or their kids hunt? WE HAVE TO TAKE A STEP BACKWARDS and look into the future.

Elkslayer2015 · Jul 22, 2022

Vitalwave said:
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?

Vital
I think there is two types of satisfaction in my book

1- having a tag.
2- quality

But the number one thing is getting a tag. I'm primarily a Elk hunter and I have been saying this for years we need to make it harder.
I have thrown out ideas on MM for years.

I'm a firm believer that if we move some dates around on the LE Elk it will definitely accomplish that.

I also thought of moving the rifle Rut hunt to the first weekend of October

Mid season hunt like it is right on top of the spike hunt.

Then have the late season hunt on top of the rifle deer hunt.

But this is the response we all hear on here.
We still will harvested the same no matter where they are at. Is this because of technology or what?

Then someone said make later season a HAMS hunt Which I would be okay with that. But then we are pushing them way to hard.

People want shorter dates. Well that won't work because data shows that hunters on average harvest within the first 5 days or less.
This goes for Muzzleloader/Rifle. A lot more tags and a lot higher success.

Archery is roughly 15 days and with a lot lower success.

So here we are again. Restriction on Technology No that won't work either. I'm all for the change Data or not.

Like Slam said we need to Address something so what is it?

D33RHNTR · Jul 22, 2022

slamdunk said:
Let me try to twist this a little bit and go backwards with a glimpse of coming into the future.

Many of us here remember the 90's when the herds were so healthy we could harvest 2 deer per year. We could use our rifle tag to take a second buck during the archery. We had strong numbers and great quality and basic technology in those times. But we could see it coming with archery equipment trying to stretch their capabilities with overdaws, carbon arrows, fiber optic sights etc, etc.
Muzzies went from Hawkin style to the new inlines and rifle scopes were seeing major changes in reticles, better glass and much larger objectives.
All of these emerging technologies were to give us an additional edge over our quarry, but we also had well over 200k tags and hunters in the field with extremely good success rates on both quality and numbers, it was hunting paradise.

Then it all started spiraling for numerous reasons.
Except technology, it grew faster as thousands of tags were cut and the hunger for success remained and even grew faster every year.

We didn't respond to the declining numbers like perhaps we should have, we fed the hunger for bigger bucks.
Everyone wanted to be the best hunter, or best outfitters because it was getting tougher every single year.

Here we are on that same path of declining numbers and quality, yet the emerging technology is snowballing to keep us where we were 30 years ago with success.

Numerous things can be done to help improve our experience in our hunting world and there are a lot of things being done with conservation and biology to help in those areas, but us as the killers can do more as well.

Ok, that sounds great and I’m all for doing all that’s necessary to promote a quality hunt with restrictions. But until they pull the rifle LE bull hunt out of the rut or stop shooting cows in late January when they don’t have an option to winter anywhere except for just off a plowed highway due to deep snow, or make the late LE muzzy tag on the general units archery only, in an effort to create more opportunities for hunters by making the hunt “harder”, I refuse to stand behind any further restrictions. Shorten seasons, change dates, there’s a lot that can be done. If this is all truly about the animals, then we must also do what’s fair to them as far as hunting them when they are the most vulnerable. Because right now, it sure looks like the powers that be are only interested in making it harder for the average general season hunter to have success and not the guys who pay 50k for a premium tag. Season dates are just as important as technology when it comes to “fairness” of the entire thing.

Vitalwave · Jul 22, 2022

slamdunk said:
Let me try to twist this a little bit and go backwards with a glimpse of coming into the future.

Many of us here remember the 90's when the herds were so healthy we could harvest 2 deer per year. We could use our rifle tag to take a second buck during the archery. We had strong numbers and great quality and basic technology in those times. But we could see it coming with archery equipment trying to stretch their capabilities with overdaws, carbon arrows, fiber optic sights etc, etc.
Muzzies went from Hawkin style to the new inlines and rifle scopes were seeing major changes in reticles, better glass and much larger objectives.
All of these emerging technologies were to give us an additional edge over our quarry, but we also had well over 200k tags and hunters in the field with extremely good success rates on both quality and numbers, it was hunting paradise.

Then it all started spiraling for numerous reasons.
Except technology, it grew faster as thousands of tags were cut and the hunger for success remained and even grew faster every year.

We didn't respond to the declining numbers like perhaps we should have, we fed the hunger for bigger bucks.
Everyone wanted to be the best hunter, or best outfitters because it was getting tougher every single year.

Here we are on that same path of declining numbers and quality, yet the emerging technology is snowballing to keep us where we were 30 years ago with success.

Numerous things can be done to help improve our experience in our hunting world and there are a lot of things being done with conservation and biology to help in those areas, but us as the killers can do more as well.

I started hunting around the year 2003 and must have missed the party. Sounds to me like they pulled the parachute too late so to speak on reducing tags and we reached a point of no return. Your illustration from the past is interesting.

200K tags! Doesn't matter what weapon you use when they issue that many. Recurves, Hawkins, or 30-30 would still result in a major slaughtering. I wonder what would happen if we did something equally as drastic on the other end of the spectrum and shut hunting deer off completely for a couple years? Maybe that would be the catalyst we need to get back to the good ol' days? I have wondered that since I started hunting what that would look like and how many more animals there would be.

Hunter satisfaction is different for everyone I guess. What I would like to see is more animals, bigger animals, fewer people, and high success rates. A tag in my pocket that is basically a camping permit doesn't ring my bell.

Bigwiffy · Jul 22, 2022

These tech bans ALL of them have nothing to do with producing more deer as Slam has said. They have everything to do with "quality". for how many years on this site has the rifle hunt come and gone and the WHINING begins. You don't hear it from the archery hunters, or muzzy hunters, but the rifle hunters sure howl after the hunt crying there are no big bucks.

These bans won't produce anything other than a few better bucks for the rifle guys and that is who cries the loudest, and that is what they want.

How do we get a rep from the season dates, habitat restoration, fencing. Etc committee on here? Those are where more animals will be produced.

curlycoyote · Jul 22, 2022

slamdunk said:
Let me try to twist this a little bit and go backwards with a glimpse of coming into the future.

Many of us here remember the 90's when the herds were so healthy we could harvest 2 deer per year. We could use our rifle tag to take a second buck during the archery. We had strong numbers and great quality and basic technology in those times. But we could see it coming with archery equipment trying to stretch their capabilities with overdaws, carbon arrows, fiber optic sights etc, etc.
Muzzies went from Hawkin style to the new inlines and rifle scopes were seeing major changes in reticles, better glass and much larger objectives.
All of these emerging technologies were to give us an additional edge over our quarry, but we also had well over 200k tags and hunters in the field with extremely good success rates on both quality and numbers, it was hunting paradise.

Then it all started spiraling for numerous reasons.
Except technology, it grew faster as thousands of tags were cut and the hunger for success remained and even grew faster every year.

We didn't respond to the declining numbers like perhaps we should have, we fed the hunger for bigger bucks.
Everyone wanted to be the best hunter, or best outfitters because it was getting tougher every single year.

Here we are on that same path of declining numbers and quality, yet the emerging technology is snowballing to keep us where we were 30 years ago with success.

Numerous things can be done to help improve our experience in our hunting world and there are a lot of things being done with conservation and biology to help in those areas, but us as the killers can do more as well.

I remember the 90's a little different. You could hunt deer with a bow and rifle but if you killed on the bow hunt you used your tag and could not hunt the rifle. I have keep all my tags since the 60's and the bow tag starting some where in the 80's did not even have the tag to cut off to tag your deer it was on your combo license. Also in the early 90's they went from your combo license having your tag to having to buy a deer permit with it on. I think that is when they went to the 5 units and you had to pick your unit to hunt you could no longer hunt state wide. This is not just a guess I have my tags to back me up.

In the early 90's around 92 or 93 we had one of the hardest winters in a long time and it devastated our herds. Go look it up. Then in mid 90's the great and wonderful SFW was formed to save our deer. That worked out well because according to you we are in big trouble.

You have never answered a couple of my question and they are honest questions. 1. If taking the scopes will save some quality bucks how many of those will survive the rifle hunt? 2. What did you and this committee say about the money and time folks put into putting these legal scopes on? Was it tuff sh** it was their choice.

You have me confused because you have said all along that this change is not about increasing the deer herd but in your attached post it seems that you are saying it is.

slamdunk · Jul 22, 2022

D33RHNTR said:
Ok, that sounds great and I’m all for doing all that’s necessary to promote a quality hunt with restrictions. But until they pull the rifle LE bull hunt out of the rut or stop shooting cows in late January when they don’t have an option to winter anywhere except for just off a plowed highway due to deep snow, or make the late LE muzzy tag on the general units archery only, in an effort to create more opportunities for hunters by making the hunt “harder”, I refuse to stand behind any further restrictions. Shorten seasons, change dates, there’s a lot that can be done. If this is all truly about the animals, then we must also do what’s fair to them as far as hunting them when they are the most vulnerable. Because right now, it sure looks like the powers that be are only interested in making it harder for the average general season hunter to have success and not the guys who pay 50k for a premium tag. Season dates are just as important as technology when it comes to “fairness” of the entire thing.

I agree with the September Rifle hunt situation, but ripping 20+ years away from those who have invested specifically for that would cause an uproar.
It's a very sticky subject and even several of the one's who agree it shouldn't be there understand it'll be an extremely tough sell to move it.
Maybe a compromise would be to shorten it to 5 days?
I really don't know....

Bigwiffy · Jul 22, 2022

slamdunk said:
I agree with the September Rifle hunt situation, but ripping 20+ years away from those who have invested specifically for that would cause an uproar.
It's a very sticky subject and even several of the one's who agree it shouldn't be there understand it'll be an extremely tough sell to move it.
Maybe a compromise would be to shorten it to 5 days?
I really don't know....

It's easy actually.......if it's part of the boards agenda. Just like bait, cameras, statewide archery, AR301, electronic archery sights,....why cater to the rifle guys? Rip the band aid off.

slamdunk · Jul 22, 2022

Bigwiffy said:
It's easy actually.......if it's part of the boards agenda. Just like bait, cameras, statewide archery, AR301, electronic archery sights,....why cater to the rifle guys? Rip the band aid off.

I agree....it SHOULD move.

roadrunner · Jul 22, 2022

Elkslayer2015 said:
People want shorter dates. Well that won't work because data shows that hunters on average harvest within the first 5 days or less.
This goes for Muzzleloader/Rifle. A lot more tags and a lot higher success.

Well, if most people fill out in the first 5 days of a 14 day hunt, that makes it easy to make the hunts 5 days.

Elkslayer2015 said:
Archery is roughly 15 days and with a lot lower success.

Because archery a much lesser weapon. Even with the ability to hit a 12" circle at 100 yds. Regardless of what that Nok-On Dudley guy can do, most archers can't or won't.

D33RHNTR · Jul 22, 2022

slamdunk said:
I agree with the September Rifle hunt situation, but ripping 20+ years away from those who have invested specifically for that would cause an uproar.
It's a very sticky subject and even several of the one's who agree it shouldn't be there understand it'll be an extremely tough sell to move it.
Maybe a compromise would be to shorten it to 5 days?
I really don't know....

Oh so the investment many people have made in technology, especially in todays financial situations, doesn’t matter. But some guy with 20+ elk points waiting for a canned elk hunt is where we draw the lines on things we refuse to change for the sake of opportunity? I thought this whole thing was about improving hunting quality and opportunity? Your reply indicates that is not the bottom line with all this.

D33RHNTR · Jul 22, 2022

Vitalwave said:
I started hunting around the year 2003 and must have missed the party. Sounds to me like they pulled the parachute too late so to speak on reducing tags and we reached a point of no return. Your illustration from the past is interesting.

200K tags! Doesn't matter what weapon you use when they issue that many. Recurves, Hawkins, or 30-30 would still result in a major slaughtering. I wonder what would happen if we did something equally as drastic on the other end of the spectrum and shut hunting deer off completely for a couple years? Maybe that would be the catalyst we need to get back to the good ol' days? I have wondered that since I started hunting what that would look like and how many more animals there would be.

Hunter satisfaction is different for everyone I guess. What I would like to see is more animals, bigger animals, fewer people, and high success rates. A tag in my pocket that is basically a camping permit doesn't ring my bell.

When bucks start giving birth to does, shutting down a hunt would make sense when wanting to rebuild the herds. But until bucks start dropping fawns, shutting down buck hunts will do absolutely nothing except for allowing younger age class bucks to mature a little more and then be absolutely slaughtered again the first year hunts are allowed again.

elkassassin · Jul 22, 2022

Utah's Deer Management =

FUBAR:

F'D!

Up!

Beyond!

A!

Repair!

We're Right At 50 Years Worth Of All Kinds Of PISS POOR Management That Didn't & Hasn't Worked!

Vitalwave · Jul 22, 2022

D33RHNTR said:
When bucks start giving birth to does, shutting down a hunt would make sense when wanting to rebuild the herds. But until bucks start dropping fawns, shutting down buck hunts will do absolutely nothing except for allowing younger age class bucks to mature a little more and then be absolutely slaughtered again the first year hunts are allowed again.

True points. I think you'd want to shut the doe hunts down too. However, I question how many doe go unbred each season as well? Doe only go into heat for a very short time so if the window is missed then no fawns. I would like the see the numbers I guess before I agree with you completely. If the doe aren't getting bred due to shortage of bucks then I still think it would make an impact.

slamdunk · Jul 22, 2022

D33RHNTR said:
Oh so the investment many people have made in technology, especially in todays financial situations, doesn’t matter. But some guy with 20+ elk points waiting for a canned elk hunt is where we draw the lines on things we refuse to change for the sake of opportunity? I thought this whole thing was about improving hunting quality and opportunity? Your reply indicates that is not the bottom line with all this.

Are we really arguing dollars versus half a persons life?

gundog2 · Jul 22, 2022

D33RHNTR said:
When bucks start giving birth to does, shutting down a hunt would make sense when wanting to rebuild the herds. But until bucks start dropping fawns, shutting down buck hunts will do absolutely nothing except for allowing younger age class bucks to mature a little more and then be absolutely slaughtered again the first year hunts are allowed again.

This might be true in a closed system like a jar of fruit flies, but I think the Utah deer herd is much more complicated than this. Just my opinion.

slamdunk · Jul 22, 2022

Vitalwave said:
True points. I think you'd want to shut the doe hunts down too. However, I question how many doe go unbred each season as well? Doe only go into heat for a very short time so if the window is missed then no fawns. I would like the see the numbers I guess before I agree with you completely. If the doe aren't getting bred due to shortage of bucks then I still think it would make an impact.

The chore here is getting landowners who's property is agricultural and gets used by wintering game and depredation tags hurt our does.

Bigwiffy · Jul 22, 2022

slamdunk said:
Are we really arguing dollars versus half a persons life?

How many elk points you got Slammy?

slamdunk · Jul 22, 2022

Only 6 now, wish I could add 10 to that......

roadrunner · Jul 22, 2022

slamdunk said:
Are we really arguing dollars versus half a persons life?

If that person has only been investing half a life into points and nothing else, then that is half a life wasted.

UT can take away everyone's points easier than you think. People will squawk, rent their clothes in two, wail and nash their teeth, but they'll get over it and apply again anyway.

slamdunk · Jul 22, 2022

roadrunner said:
If that person has only been investing half a life into points and nothing else, then that is half a life wasted.

UT can take away everyone's points easier than you think. People will squawk, rent their clothes in two, wail and nash their teeth, but they'll get over it and apply again anyway.

I cannot argue that.....you are correct Sir.
The cycle will continue regardless.

JakeH · Jul 22, 2022

Vitalwave said:
True points. I think you'd want to shut the doe hunts down too. However, I question how many doe go unbred each season as well? Doe only go into heat for a very short time so if the window is missed then no fawns. I would like the see the numbers I guess before I agree with you completely. If the doe aren't getting bred due to shortage of bucks then I still think it would make an impact.

The DWR have been checking pregnancy rates on does for years now, and the number is very high, over 90% of checked does are pregnant in the winter when they do the checks.

D33RHNTR · Jul 22, 2022

slamdunk said:
Are we really arguing dollars versus half a persons life?

Are we really going to argue that waiting 20+ years for a bull tag in utah isn’t by choice?

scopenstalk · Jul 23, 2022

I would support no thermal imaging or night vision of any sort on rifles for big game hunting. No self dialing scopes of any kind or ones that are electronically linked to your range finder to find a shot solution. Then leave it at that. Make people dial if they want to take a long shot.

slamdunk · Jul 23, 2022

D33RHNTR said:
Are we really going to argue that waiting 20+ years for a bull tag in utah isn’t by choice?

Yes we are.
Every one of us who willingly apply for any Utah tag know it can take 20+ years to draw a top tier tag under the current system.
That Sir is a choice.

slamdunk · Jul 23, 2022

scopenstalk said:
I would support no thermal imaging or night vision of any sort on rifles for big game hunting. No self dialing scopes of any kind or ones that are electronically linked to your range finder to find a shot solution. Then leave it at that. Make people dial if they want to take a long shot.

Very similar to the proposal we are currently working on.

Basically "no electronics" on the scope.

buckhorn · Jul 23, 2022

slamdunk said:
Yes we are.
Every one of us who willingly apply for any Utah tag know it can take 20+ years to draw a top tier tag under the current system.
That Sir is a choice.

I Applied this year with 25 points knowing full well I likely wouldn’t draw.
My Choice!
I’m thinking IF we can get more of these technology restrictions passed, maybe in a couple years there will be more bigger bucks!

I’m willing to hunt without a scope on A Muzzleloader or without a Dial scope on a rifle.
I would rather be hunting knowing there are some big bucks available than be hunting when there aren’t any big bucks.

My Choice.

Now if we could get some more Rain Please!!!

roadrunner · Jul 23, 2022

buckhorn said:
I Applied this year with 25 points knowing full well I likely wouldn’t draw.
My Choice!
I’m thinking IF we can get more of these technology restrictions passed, maybe in a couple years there will be more bigger bucks!

I’m willing to hunt without a scope on A Muzzleloader or without a Dial scope on a rifle.
I would rather be hunting knowing there are some big bucks available than be hunting when there aren’t any big bucks.

My Choice.

Now if we could get some more Rain Please!!!

More bigger bucks means more applications - even if you have to hunt with a 3x9 "dumb scope".

It's all about the bragging rights these days...

D33RHNTR · Jul 23, 2022

slamdunk said:
Yes we are.
Every one of us who willingly apply for any Utah tag know it can take 20+ years to draw a top tier tag under the current system.
That Sir is a choice.

Re-read what I said, then get back to me

D33RHNTR · Jul 23, 2022

buckhorn said:
I Applied this year with 25 points knowing full well I likely wouldn’t draw.
My Choice!
I’m thinking IF we can get more of these technology restrictions passed, maybe in a couple years there will be more bigger bucks!

I’m willing to hunt without a scope on A Muzzleloader or without a Dial scope on a rifle.
I would rather be hunting knowing there are some big bucks available than be hunting when there aren’t any big bucks.

My Choice.

Now if we could get some more Rain Please!!!

There’s always big bucks. You just want to increase the odds of you accidentally running in to one

slamdunk · Jul 23, 2022

D33RHNTR said:
There’s always big bucks. You just want to increase the odds of you accidentally running in to one

"One" is the key word.....that's the whole frickin issue.
There shouldn't be "one" opportunity, period.

hossblur · Jul 23, 2022

slamdunk said:
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.

Just for fun can we circulate a plan to do just that?

Can you imagine the EXPLOSION in the guide universe if they saw something like that

Bluehair · Jul 23, 2022

D33RHNTR said:
When bucks start giving birth to does, shutting down a hunt would make sense when wanting to rebuild the herds. But until bucks start dropping fawns, shutting down buck hunts will do absolutely nothing except for allowing younger age class bucks to mature a little more and then be absolutely slaughtered again the first year hunts are allowed again.

At what buck:doe ratio?

ReelGame · Jul 23, 2022

slamdunk said:
Very similar to the proposal we are currently working on.

Basically "no electronics" on the scope.

Just curious would that include an illuminated reticle?

twopointdn · Jul 23, 2022

I was wondering the same thing. If it did, by removing the batteries you are back to a non eliminated reticle so it will hopefully not require a scope change out to meet any new regulations if it happens. I support the concept of removing electronic functioning scope off rifles that communicates ballistic compensation, night vision, etc.

D33RHNTR · Jul 24, 2022

slamdunk said:
"One" is the key word.....that's the whole frickin issue.
There shouldn't be "one" opportunity, period.

There are far more “opportunities” than just one. Opportunity doesn’t equate to trophy animals. Never has, never will. (Unless you hire WLH) You and I both know that. Don’t play stupid

slamdunk · Jul 24, 2022

D33RHNTR said:
There are far more “opportunities” than just one. Opportunity doesn’t equate to trophy animals. Never has, never will. (Unless you hire WLH) You and I both know that. Don’t play stupid

Of course there's more than one, my comment was meant in jest.

Being "stupid" is thinking we don't have a problem with quality and quantity yet demanding we continue all our same practices and paths without sacrifices and point the finger at the Division for mismanagement as the sole cause.

Don't play stupid......

slamdunk · Jul 24, 2022

twopointdn said:
I was wondering the same thing. If it did, by removing the batteries you are back to a non eliminated reticle so it will hopefully not require a scope change out to meet any new regulations if it happens. I support the concept of removing electronic functioning scope off rifles that communicates ballistic compensation, night vision, etc.

There are at least two sticking points in this that we are discussing as a committee.

#1 Simply removing a battery only temporarily disables the scope, making it still fully capable of being considered "electronic".

#2 is if illuminated reticles by definition are removed, that causes conflict with 1x red dot muzzleloader scopes.

elkantlers · Jul 24, 2022

roadrunner said:
Well, if most people fill out in the first 5 days of a 14 day hunt, that makes it easy to make the hunts 5 days.

Because archery a much lesser weapon. Even with the ability to hit a 12" circle at 100 yds. Regardless of what that Nok-On Dudley guy can do, most archers can't or won't.

Most Muzzleloader hunters don't shoot 300 yards either, but that's who the DWR is targeting.

elkantlers · Jul 24, 2022

Here's what will happen. The E-Tech committee will make their recommendations to the board. The board will pass a few changes to Muzzleloaders that will allow a few more buck to reach the rifle hunt. Everyone will have a big circle jerk and say how proud they are to be part of saving the deer and elk and helping quality.
Meanwhile, there are rifle hunters killing well past 1000yds, archery guys shooting deer at 150yds. Rifle hunts in the Rut. rifle hunts in the late season. Cow hunts until the day they drop their calves. doe hunts. Shed hunters running physically depleted critters around in their most vulnerable time which causes cows and does to lose fetuses. Cars hitting deer at an unprecedented rate. Thousands of homes being built on Winter range that are directly contributing to less of every ungulate.

But hey, 1x is going to move the needle. SMH

roadrunner · Jul 24, 2022

slamdunk said:
Of course there's more than one, my comment was meant in jest.

Being "stupid" is thinking we don't have a problem with quality and quantity yet demanding we continue all our same practices and paths without sacrifices and point the finger at the Division for mismanagement as the sole cause.

Don't play stupid......

So, what's going to happen when the changes don't have an impact?

twopointdn · Jul 24, 2022

slamdunk said:
There are at least two sticking points in this that we are discussing as a committee.

#1 Simply removing a battery only temporarily disables the scope, making it still fully capable of being considered "electronic".

#2 is if illuminated reticles by definition are removed, that causes conflict with 1x red dot muzzleloader scopes.

Thank you for the your response and consideration. #2 makes sense for the 1x red dot scopes and/or simple illuminated reticles. Maybe defining (smart) electronics as the ability to transfer or communicate data in or out of a scope so simple illuminated reticles are not a issue where the reticle is still a fixed aiming point in the scope and is not altered by the electronic in a simple illuminated scope. I’m sure a lawyer can work up a statement that will make it understood by all. ?