Simplify what tech should be banned/restricted

[Vanilla]

Goodness…when did this turn into the political forum?

 

[Bigfoot 1]

Goodness…when did this turn into the political forum?

Hunting is political. I believe if we want to hunt and make it better we should vote for like minded people.

 

[Vanilla]

Hunting is political. I believe if we want to hunt and make it better we should vote for like minded people.

Hunting is so not political for me. Hunting is where I go to get away from all the stupidity that is in the world. Politics lead the way in the stupidity category.

 

[Bigfoot 1]

Agree. But you can’t take the politics out of it unfortunately.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

PS. Here's a challenge I made on another forum. From the Archery list tell us when compound bows hit the market. They were said to be the end of archery hunting as we know it.

I posted the following in that other thread:

Without other statistical data, analyzing just success rates for changes in technology is impossible. Other changes in critter numbers, season lengths, etc. will also affect success rates.

I've been around long enough to see myriad changes from the 1960s to the present, & in some cases actually was part of it. There was no comparison between my bare 45# Ben Pearson wooden recurve & wooden arrows of the 60s to the souped-up PSE 65# compound with alum/carbon arrows I shot in the '90s. And that was before 75-80 let-off came about. At 40 yds., just hitting a pie plate with the BP was an accomplishment. With the PSE, I often put 6 arrows within a 6" circle at that distance. With all the technology advances in archery equipment coupled to that of the latest rangefinders, it would be somewhat difficult for me to say there's no difference in the harvest rates.

I owned a regular reproduction muzzle loader. Like the BP bow, it had a very limited range, at least for me. In the 1980s, Tony Knight supplied me with one of his first production 50 cal. inline rifles. Using a scope, sabot & .45 cal. pistol bullets with Pyrodex, a 1-2" group at 100 yd. was quite doable, with a working range out to 200 yds. when sighted properly.

IMO, standard centerfire rifles & their accessories have probably been the least improved of any weapons, as far as altering success rates. The biggest gains have been with the optics involved -- more sophisticated scopes, rangefinders & binoculars. But those pale compared to archery & muzzleloader changes.

 

[elkfromabove]

I posted the following in that other thread:

Without other statistical data, analyzing just success rates for changes in technology is impossible. Other changes in critter numbers, season lengths, etc. will also affect success rates.

I've been around long enough to see myriad changes from the 1960s to the present, & in some cases actually was part of it. There was no comparison between my bare 45# Ben Pearson wooden recurve & wooden arrows of the 60s to the souped-up PSE 65# compound with alum/carbon arrows I shot in the '90s. And that was before 75-80 let-off came about. At 40 yds., just hitting a pie plate with the BP was an accomplishment. With the PSE, I often put 6 arrows within a 6" circle at that distance. With all the technology advances in archery equipment coupled to that of the latest rangefinders, it would be somewhat difficult for me to say there's no difference in the harvest rates.

I owned a regular reproduction muzzle loader. Like the BP bow, it had a very limited range, at least for me. In the 1980s, Tony Knight supplied me with one of his first production 50 cal. inline rifles. Using a scope, sabot & .45 cal. pistol bullets with Pyrodex, a 1-2" group at 100 yd. was quite doable, with a working range out to 200 yds. when sighted properly.

IMO, standard centerfire rifles & their accessories have probably been the least improved of any weapons, as far as altering success rates. The biggest gains have been with the optics involved -- more sophisticated scopes, rangefinders & binoculars. But those pale compared to archery & muzzleloader changes.

In all of the threads we see regarding banning or regulating technologies as a solution to success rates that are too low (or too high), the one ingredient that ties them all together, but is never mentioned is: human nature. "When you change the rules of the game, you change the way it is played." In this case, we will not be able to ban or regulate enough technologies to reduce the success rates, 'cause hunters will legally adjust their hunting behavior and/or strategies in order to get the same results.

Until this year, I have used salt and/or apples to get the intended target to hold still long enough to provide a clear, clean, level, standing broadside shot at a relaxed animal with my bow. But since I can no longer use bait to get those results, this year I'll rig up a moving turkey decoy to draw his attention away from me while providing some confidence that the waterhole is safe. For distances, I'll simply pre-measure some trees, brush, sticks and stones, and then color tape them to match my sight colors. Cameras? Don't need them. Smooth out the ground near the waterhole and read the tracks. They have keener senses than I do, but I have a better brain and that's what I'll use. And that's an advantage you can't ban or regulate!

 

[slamdunk]

In all of the threads we see regarding banning or regulating technologies as a solution to success rates that are too low (or too high), the one ingredient that ties them all together, but is never mentioned is: human nature. "When you change the rules of the game, you change the way it is played." In this case, we will not be able to ban or regulate enough technologies to reduce the success rates, 'cause hunters will legally adjust their hunting behavior and/or strategies in order to get the same results.

Until this year, I have used salt and/or apples to get the intended target to hold still long enough to provide a clear, clean, level, standing broadside shot at a relaxed animal with my bow. But since I can no longer use bait to get those results, this year I'll rig up a moving turkey decoy to draw his attention away from me while providing some confidence that the waterhole is safe. For distances, I'll simply pre-measure some trees, brush, sticks and stones, and then color tape them to match my sight colors. Cameras? Don't need them. Smooth out the ground near the waterhole and read the tracks. They have keener senses than I do, but I have a better brain and that's what I'll use. And that's an advantage you can't ban or regulate!

That's perfectly fine, at least you're not changing the natural diet and behavior of the animal anymore.
Use all the decoying you want.
I like your attitude!

 

[OutdoorWriter]

In all of the threads we see regarding banning or regulating technologies as a solution to success rates that are too low (or too high), the one ingredient that ties them all together, but is never mentioned is: human nature. "When you change the rules of the game, you change the way it is played." In this case, we will not be able to ban or regulate enough technologies to reduce the success rates, 'cause hunters will legally adjust their hunting behavior and/or strategies in order to get the same results.

Until this year, I have used salt and/or apples to get the intended target to hold still long enough to provide a clear, clean, level, standing broadside shot at a relaxed animal with my bow. But since I can no longer use bait to get those results, this year I'll rig up a moving turkey decoy to draw his attention away from me while providing some confidence that the waterhole is safe. For distances, I'll simply pre-measure some trees, brush, sticks and stones, and then color tape them to match my sight colors. Cameras? Don't need them. Smooth out the ground near the waterhole and read the tracks. They have keener senses than I do, but I have a better brain and that's what I'll use. And that's an advantage you can't ban or regulate!

Improving the way you hunt has never been frowned upon, and if that leads to greater success, all the better.

When my two sons first began hunting with me, they were like the proverbial 'bull in the china closet.' In fact, so was I when I first began. But I soon learned to slow down & watch where I stepped to avoid unnecessary noise. Then I eventually taught them, as well.

I like to think of hunting big game as a 'mano y mano' -- me against my quarry. Yeah, I might have a bow or a scoped rifle & binocs, but that deer or elk is gonna have super senses of smell, hearing & eyesight to compensate for my advantages.

 

[hossblur]

In all of the threads we see regarding banning or regulating technologies as a solution to success rates that are too low (or too high), the one ingredient that ties them all together, but is never mentioned is: human nature. "When you change the rules of the game, you change the way it is played." In this case, we will not be able to ban or regulate enough technologies to reduce the success rates, 'cause hunters will legally adjust their hunting behavior and/or strategies in order to get the same results.

Until this year, I have used salt and/or apples to get the intended target to hold still long enough to provide a clear, clean, level, standing broadside shot at a relaxed animal with my bow. But since I can no longer use bait to get those results, this year I'll rig up a moving turkey decoy to draw his attention away from me while providing some confidence that the waterhole is safe. For distances, I'll simply pre-measure some trees, brush, sticks and stones, and then color tape them to match my sight colors. Cameras? Don't need them. Smooth out the ground near the waterhole and read the tracks. They have keener senses than I do, but I have a better brain and that's what I'll use. And that's an advantage you can't ban or regulate!

Your turkey rig, doesn't change migration patterns, or deer behavior.

Further, I doubt your apples did either.

Send corporate hunters a note thanking them for the ban, their inability to control themselves lead to it. Same with cams.

 

[Bigfoot 1]

I remember when old timers used to haul a Shetland pony into the mountains, kill it, cut it open and leave it as bear bait.

 

[Airborne]

I remember when old timers used to haul a Shetland pony into the mountains, kill it, cut it open and leave it as bear bait.

In Utah that's still legal--I've given thought to doing this with an old horse that needs to be put down regardless. Lot's of free old pasture ponies on KSL. The bait even walks itself to the registered bait site. Only problem would be cleaning up the bait site after so maybe a shetland would be the way to go or a few goats. here is the reg:

You may use domestic livestock or its parts—including processed meat scraps—as bait, as long as you have a certifcate of brand inspection, bill of sale or other proof of ownership or legal possession.

 

[elkfromabove]

Your turkey rig, doesn't change migration patterns, or deer behavior.

Further, I doubt your apples did either.

Send corporate hunters a note thanking them for the ban, their inability to control themselves lead to it. Same with cams.


View attachment 72748

I think I'll send the thank you notes to the RAC and Wildlife Board members! It wasn't the corporate hunters who are responsible for the ban, it was the knee-jerk/all-or-nothing solution to the problem from the RACs and Wildlife Board that was responsible for the ban. There were plenty of other alternatives that they could have taken, but didn't.

(Chris Rock's bad joke wasn't responsible for the slap at the Oscars. Will Smith's response was.)

 

[hossblur]

I think I'll send the thank you notes to the RAC and Wildlife Board members! It wasn't the corporate hunters who are responsible for the ban, it was the knee-jerk/all-or-nothing solution to the problem from the RACs and Wildlife Board that was responsible for the ban. There were plenty of other alternatives that they could have taken, but didn't.

(Chris Rock's bad joke wasn't responsible for the slap at the Oscars. Will Smith's response was.)

Ya. The semi loads of apples all over the top LE deer units didn't have anything to do with it.

It was a bow hunter, on the west Wasatch who put out 3 apples

It wasn't the outfitters running thousands of cams on every water hole on an LE unit, it was you, with your one cam watching your 3 apples.


You got burned by a group who told you "we are all in the same boat", while they cut holes in the boat

 

[Tristate]

 

[eelgrass]

You can easily save the deer herds and not ban any technology. Why step on someone's toes? Just pass a law that you must be 50 years old or older to apply for a deer tag. You young guys can hunt elk, bears, antelope, ducks, moose, etc.

 

[hossblur]

You can easily save the deer herds and not ban any technology. Why step on someone's toes? Just pass a law that you must be 50 years old or older to apply for a deer tag. You young guys can hunt elk, bears, antelope, ducks, moose, etc.

Tell your grandkid that typed that for you, they did good?

 

[elkfromabove]

Ya. The semi loads of apples all over the top LE deer units didn't have anything to do with it.

It was a bow hunter, on the west Wasatch who put out 3 apples

It wasn't the outfitters running thousands of cams on every water hole on an LE unit, it was you, with your one cam watching your 3 apples.


You got burned by a group who told you "we are all in the same boat", while they cut holes in the boat

View attachment 72795

Thanks for making my point about the Wildlife Board throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Their only approach to solving the problem was just like the one you just made.

 

[hossblur]

Thanks for making my point about the Wildlife Board throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Their only approach to solving the problem was just like the one you just made.

What were they supposed to do, limit apples to 1lb per hunter?

I mean seriously.

And yes, the cam season will fail. Not because the board didn't try to strike a compromise, but because the Utards will get clever, and do what they always do.

That will lead to a total ban, and then we can listen to the tears and screaming.

The issue ain't the board. The issue is the Utard mentality that comes to the forefront, ALWAYS.

 

[elkfromabove]

What were they supposed to do, limit apples to 1lb per hunter?

I mean seriously.

And yes, the cam season will fail. Not because the board didn't try to strike a compromise, but because the Utards will get clever, and do what they always do.

That will lead to a total ban, and then we can listen to the tears and screaming.

The issue ain't the board. The issue is the Utard mentality that comes to the forefront, ALWAYS.

How do they successfully currently manage bear bait sites and baited trap lines? Some of those regulations could apply.
It's been a while since I checked, but I know some of the western states regulate (or regulated) the amount of bait per volume or weight (Yes, seriously!), number of bait sites allowed per hunter, locations of the sites per GPS coordinates, quotas per area, type of bait allowed, timing of sites, duration of sites, registration of sites, appropriate fees and site owner info among other things. But, that boat has sailed (or sunk!) hasn't it?

As far as "Utards" (I hate that word.) misbehavior goes, SOME do it now with the standard regulations, but we don't change those regulations every time someone is caught violating them. We enforce the ones we have and punish the hunters who violate them and leave the hunters who obey them alone.

The legal tactics being used now to stop the shenanigans of a few are the same tactics the gun control advocates use to stop the mass murders. Lump all gun owners into the same group (boat) as the mass murderers and BAN ALL GUNS. Problem solved!

Finally, I believe the efforts used to lower the success rates are designed to not just lower the success rates, but to reduce the number of hunters in the field. That way, we'll need fewer tags which will save the herds.

Enough already! Tomorrow we'll have an idea where a lot of this is going. Stay tuned!