When did Technology surpass Fair Chase?

[MountainSqwabler]

It's those dang trail cameras I tell ya....

 

[slamdunk]

And to think I used to consider an "over draw" unfair because my arrows were only 23" long, weighed 87 grains and shot 323 out of my bow at 83 pounds ?

 

[roadrunner]

I am trying to follow your logic on the slider sight issue.

Doesn't surprise me...

With Thermal imagery and radios... and you want to take a stand against SLIDER SIGHTS on compound bows. Compound bows that shoot arrows at 320 fps instead of 3200 feet per second like a rifle or close to that for a muzzleloader. With archery rates that are <20% which will likely go down with trail camera regulation since many animals are shot over water that were previously surveilled with cameras. and you are focused on SLIDER SIGHTS.

What? Not even close to a comparison.

Roadrunner, I believe you were one of the ones that spoke against trail camera regulation prior to the 3/10 meeting. Maybe your rant against Slider sights is just a demonstration to prove a slippery slope related to the trail camera ban but SLIDER SIGHTS...cmon man.

I spoke against other people making decisions for others based on a personal desire or bias. The camera "ban" as absolutely nothing to do with good herd management. My comment was based on two people that know the yardage, from a rangefinder. One can dial in the sight, the other has to hold over or under. The guy that can dial in has the advantage.

Don't make it more difficult on yourself with overthinking it...

As a guy that has been primarily a bow hunter most of my life I have seen archery technology slightly improve since I was a young kid in the 80s. Clearly the game changer was electronic rangefinders however manual rangefinders existed before then even though they were more complex and less reliable. My early 90s Browning Mirage with an overdraw and high draw weight shot in the 330s which wouldn't be that impressive nowadays. That said, bows aren't that different today than they were a long time ago. They still require more skill and movement than a rifle, crossbow or muzzleloader.

Not telling me something I already don't know. Been there, done that, and have the t-shirt for it as well. The mechanics of the bow are the same today as yesterday, but I do shoot a newer design today better than my old PSE Strato-Flite Express with a hard cam and a 55% let off.

So bottom line, rangefinders we're a big step change for all weapon types but the benefits to reduced wounding rates seem to clearly offset the higher harvest rates. Since muzzies are classified as primitive weapons it seems reasonable to regulate their sights.

Now you're getting it. The rangefinder is an equalizer for everything and it's the individual set up that will give more of an advantage, hold over vs dialing in...

I guess there are different strokes for different folks but focusing on pebble problems like sliders when others are focused on moving big technology rocks like trail cameras, posse hunting and rifles in the rut seems pretty dumb to me.

There have been several threads started by the trail camera lovers since the 3/10 WB meeting and these additional tech regulation threads seem to be more of a demonstration or hissy fit than appeals for actionable technology change.

Not a trail cam lover here. I've used them occasionally and think they are a pain in the ass to have to go and check twice a month or so.

Changes to muzzle sights are probably happening because it makes sense, Camera regulation happened because it made sense. Good luck arguing against rangefinders and compound bow technology. You better hope the decision makes have little to no actual bow hunting experience or they will realize they are probably wasting time and need to reprioritize their list.

Cheers
Ryan

It's not the sight (or scope), it's everything else that makes the muzzy shoot to 600 yds. Precision barrels, powder QC, magnum load ability, projectile design, breach design, adjustable trigger, etc.

Long shots can and have been made throughout history with an open Vernier sight since the modern rifled barrel hit the scene. You will see more animals wounded as a result...

 

[JakeH]

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

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

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

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

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

If we have my 1968 Dammon-Howatt Hunter on one side and a crossbow on the other, where does this compound bow fall along the scale? Please educate me

Can't use a magnified peep for hunting,

Honestly if you can't tell the difference between a compound bow and a x-bow I can't help you. They are not even remotely the same, I suggest you go shoot both. The fact you are trying to compare the two is laughable.

And I hope the people they put on the committee have at least a better understanding of all the issues they are discussing.

 

[elkfromabove]

Has anyone examined actual success rates, or are we just spouting off about things that we want to take away from the other guy…. Even though I’d bet most of the guys preaching for the ban of some device, are probably using that themselves?

Has anyone examined actual success rates, or are we just spouting off about things that we want to take away from the other guy…. Even though I’d bet most of the guys preaching for the ban of some device, are probably using that themselves?

The only probable solution, if success rates are really unsustainable, is to move more opportunity into primitive weapons

Most of the posts on this thread and others are speculative about what technology has actually done to hunting rates. We "think" it's changed a lot over the years because those technologies "should" increase the rates. 'TAINT SO!!!! The following lists are taken from the Yearly Annual Big Game Reports that I've GRAMA'ed or saved over the years. They are taken from the General Archery Deer, General AW Deer and General Muzzy Deer stats. It appears that the Muzzy tech may have increased the rates, but the Archery and Rifle tech hasn't. In fact, some years the Muzzy success rate is HIGHER than the rifle rate. Also, look long term and you'll see that the rifle rate has actually gone down!

Example: Compound bows were thought to be the end of archery hunting as we know it, but I challenge you to discover on the archery list when they first showed up. By the same token, I would challenge you in the future to pinpoint when we banned all this technology, if we do!

 

[hossblur]

Most of the posts on this thread and others are speculative about what technology has actually done to hunting rates. We "think" it's changed a lot over the years because those technologies "should" increase the rates. 'TAINT SO!!!! The following lists are taken from the Yearly Annual Big Game Reports that I've GRAMA'ed or saved over the years. They are taken from the General Archery Deer, General AW Deer and General Muzzy Deer stats. It appears that the Muzzy tech may have increased the rates, but the Archery and Rifle tech hasn't. In fact, some years the Muzzy success rate is HIGHER than the rifle rate. Also, look long term and you'll see that the rifle rate has actually gone down!

Example: Compound bows were thought to be the end of archery hunting as we know it, but I challenge you to discover on the archery list when they first showed up. By the same token, I would challenge you in the future to pinpoint when we banned all this technology, if we do!

The muzzy report doesn't show anything.

We hunted side hammers before white)knight(early 90's).

But we hunted them in November.

So it's not a real fair comparison.

Your also trying to compare with rifles, the ability to hunt state wide, vs now. CWMU of N Utah vs back in the day.

Muzzies would show the biggest leap.

Side hammer, lead slugs, #11 to today. If hunted Nov, with lines, scopes, LR, there is no way, the success rates wouldn't be a lot bigger.

Go look at what the military is developing. That is coming to hunting down the road, if it doesn't get stopped.

LR tech, came from sniper development that came from urban conflicts our military was in the last 20 years.

LR itself, will continue to get better, and cheaper

 

[elkfromabove]

The muzzy report doesn't show anything.

We hunted side hammers before white)knight(early 90's).

But we hunted them in November.

So it's not a real fair comparison.

Your also trying to compare with rifles, the ability to hunt state wide, vs now. CWMU of N Utah vs back in the day.

Muzzies would show the biggest leap.

Side hammer, lead slugs, #11 to today. If hunted Nov, with lines, scopes, LR, there is no way, the success rates wouldn't be a lot bigger.

Go look at what the military is developing. That is coming to hunting down the road, if it doesn't get stopped.

LR tech, came from sniper development that came from urban conflicts our military was in the last 20 years.

LR itself, will continue to get better, and cheaper

I'm not "trying" to do anything. El Gringo asked if anyone had examined the actual success rates and since none of you took up the challenge, I did. And since I didn't want to inject my own numbers or opinions into the mix, I'm just giving you the DWR numbers from the categories they came up with. If you don't like the numbers or disagree with them or want to super analyze them then that's your problem, not mine. But, regardless of when or where we take the shot, if technology is responsible for our hits or misses it should show that, but it doesn't!

 

[hossblur]

I'm not "trying" to do anything. El Gringo asked if anyone had examined the actual success rates and since none of you took up the challenge, I did. And since I didn't want to inject my own numbers or opinions into the mix, I'm just giving you the DWR numbers from the categories they came up with. If you don't like the numbers or disagree with them or want to super analyze them then that's your problem, not mine. But, regardless of when or where we take the shot, if technology is responsible for our hits or misses it should show that, but it doesn't!

I didn't mean YOU personally.

My point is, we aren't showing apples vs apples, especially with muzz rates.

 

[roadrunner]

Which is why this anti-tech crusade is nothing more than a witch hunt orchestrated by those who "don't need no technology to kill a deer ' cause I gots woodsmanship skills".

 

[quest]

I’ve harvested more deer when I didn’t have a range finder. But now I’m more selective! There are many season’s where I’ve chosen not to harvest and ate the tag.

 

[2lumpy]

I’m way off the original question asked but it seems fitting, seeing as this has evolved into how we should or shouldn’t be killing bucks.

There was a time, in 1982, when all I cared about was reducing the killing of bucks, because I believed there were too few and the age class was way too young. Then I didn’t care how you hunted/killed bucks, with a howitzer or a spear,……. I just wanted more bucks to survive, regardless how you did it, as long as more buck survived the hunt.……. and I wanted the age class to shift a year or two, at the least.

A lots has changed since 1982, a whole lot.

By the time I stopped caring, which was five or six years ago, all I cared about was the population of the antlerless mule deer, I didn’t give a damn about the number of bucks or their age class anymore. Now, if I cared and I don’t, I would still care less how you kill deer, as long as it is never a doe, of any age. Feed them then apples or deernip, take their picture with 50 or 500 cameras at a water hole or over a dump truck load of alfalfa pellets, just make sure no females are killed…. with any weapon or weapon enhancement, by spear or with nerve gas.

You are one major winter kill, like there was in 1983 and again 1993, away from loosing the entire hunt-able mule deer population.

Until you’re seeing a long, on going tread, of much much higher female survival rates, spring count, and at least two of three times as many mule deer in the State, get rid of all the technology or none of the technology you want. The tool or the method of how you kill your buck makes no difference to me. Once you are producing a viable surplus of mule again, then you can start thinking about the number of bucks you have and what their age class is,or anything else you do
about what tool or what method you kill bucks. I this time, in the condition the resources in it is not going to make a bit of difference until you solve the elephant in the room problem.

Think about it.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

I’m way off the original question asked but it seems fitting, seeing as this has evolved into how we should or shouldn’t be killing bucks.

There was a time, in 1982, when all I cared about was reducing the killing of bucks, because I believed there were too few and the age class was way too young. Then I didn’t care how you hunted/killed bucks, with a howitzer or a spear,……. I just wanted more bucks to survive, regardless how you did it, as long as more buck survived the hunt.……. and I wanted the age class to shift a year or two, at the least.

A lots has changed since 1982, a whole lot.

By the time I stopped caring, which was five or six years ago, all I cared about was the population of the antlerless mule deer, I didn’t give a damn about the number of bucks or their age class anymore. Now, if I cared and I don’t, I would still care less how you kill deer, as long as it is never a doe, of any age. Feed them then apples or deernip, take their picture with 50 or 500 cameras at a water hole or over a dump truck load of alfalfa pellets, just make sure no females are killed…. with any weapon or weapon enhancement, by spear or with nerve gas.

You are one major winter kill, like there was in 1983 and again 1993, away from loosing the entire hunt-able mule deer population.

Until you’re seeing a long, on going tread, of much much higher female survival rates, spring count, and at least two of three times as many mule deer in the State, get rid of all the technology or none of the technology you want. The tool or the method of how you kill your buck makes no difference to me. Once you are producing a viable surplus of mule again, then you can start thinking about the number of bucks you have and what their age class is,or anything else you do
about what tool or what method you kill bucks. I this time, in the condition the resources in it is not going to make a bit of difference until you solve the elephant in the room problem.

Think about it.

"Wildlife management" changed long ago, and it happened because hunters clamored it for it in a contradictory sort of way. More of them want to hunt but as we've have seen on this site, many want that to happen with little or no restrictions.

So...decades ago, besides managing critters, the state agencies had to make greater efforts to manage hunters. To steal a Yogi Berra sort of saying, 'Fifty percent is game management, the other 90 percent is what I call 'social engineering' -- managing hunters.

 

[hossblur]

I’m way off the original question asked but it seems fitting, seeing as this has evolved into how we should or shouldn’t be killing bucks.

There was a time, in 1982, when all I cared about was reducing the killing of bucks, because I believed there were too few and the age class was way too young. Then I didn’t care how you hunted/killed bucks, with a howitzer or a spear,……. I just wanted more bucks to survive, regardless how you did it, as long as more buck survived the hunt.……. and I wanted the age class to shift a year or two, at the least.

A lots has changed since 1982, a whole lot.

By the time I stopped caring, which was five or six years ago, all I cared about was the population of the antlerless mule deer, I didn’t give a damn about the number of bucks or their age class anymore. Now, if I cared and I don’t, I would still care less how you kill deer, as long as it is never a doe, of any age. Feed them then apples or deernip, take their picture with 50 or 500 cameras at a water hole or over a dump truck load of alfalfa pellets, just make sure no females are killed…. with any weapon or weapon enhancement, by spear or with nerve gas.

You are one major winter kill, like there was in 1983 and again 1993, away from loosing the entire hunt-able mule deer population.

Until you’re seeing a long, on going tread, of much much higher female survival rates, spring count, and at least two of three times as many mule deer in the State, get rid of all the technology or none of the technology you want. The tool or the method of how you kill your buck makes no difference to me. Once you are producing a viable surplus of mule again, then you can start thinking about the number of bucks you have and what their age class is,or anything else you do
about what tool or what method you kill bucks. I this time, in the condition the resources in it is not going to make a bit of difference until you solve the elephant in the room problem.

Think about it.

You are older than I.

Would you explain to the younger fellas who see pics from the 60's and believe that to be the norm, what deer hunting was like prior to that.

Also explain to them, why even with 2x as many deer running around, deer season wasn't 3rd week of Nov. And why spotlighting was illegal. Why hound hunting was illegal, etc.

There seems to have been an idea created where there should be a 30" buck behind every juniper.

When in reality, the history of mule deer, shows the "golden age", a biological freak show, not the norm

Tell the younger guys, what your grandpa knew and saw about deer hunting please

 

[OutdoorWriter]

Most of the posts on this thread and others are speculative about what technology has actually done to hunting rates. We "think" it's changed a lot over the years because those technologies "should" increase the rates. 'TAINT SO!!!! The following lists are taken from the Yearly Annual Big Game Reports that I've GRAMA'ed or saved over the years. They are taken from the General Archery Deer, General AW Deer and General Muzzy Deer stats. It appears that the Muzzy tech may have increased the rates, but the Archery and Rifle tech hasn't. In fact, some years the Muzzy success rate is HIGHER than the rifle rate. Also, look long term and you'll see that the rifle rate has actually gone down!

Example: Compound bows were thought to be the end of archery hunting as we know it, but I challenge you to discover on the archery list when they first showed up. By the same token, I would challenge you in the future to pinpoint when we banned all this technology, if we do!

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.

 

[hossblur]

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.

Archery and muzzy, then, are also the easiest to restrict.

Especially muzzy, as physics is pretty constant, and archery, for 95% of dudes, is a 70yrds or less proposition.

I started hunting muzzy in 1991.

They were very short range, unreliable.

Today, mine will outshoot my 30-30, and that's shooting pretty basic set up, 100 gr pyrodex, 240gr power belt.


I agree with you. The only real true way to slow down rifle advancement is restricting tags for them

But if we do that, and encourage dudes to go muzzy or archery, without some limits, especially muzzy, we don't accomplish much.

As has been pointed out. Despite a downward trend in pop #, which would also mean fewer bucks, the success rates have remained constant. Showing advancement in tech, is bridging the gap vs opportunity.
Or in other words. You see fewer bucks than 20-30 years ago, meaning less chances to kill one, yet despite less chances, we kill the same percentage.

 

[OutdoorWriter]

But if we do that, and encourage dudes to go muzzy or archery, without some limits, especially muzzy, we don't accomplish much.

As has been pointed out. Despite a downward trend in pop #, which would also mean fewer bucks, the success rates have remained constant. Showing advancement in tech, is bridging the gap vs opportunity.
Or in other words. You see fewer bucks than 20-30 years ago, meaning less chances to kill one, yet despite less chances, we kill the same percentage.

The push to other weapons has already been happening as permits for general rifle hunts have been much harder to draw. In AZ, several OTC archery hunts have gone to a draw because the bow harvest was more than 20% of the general gun rate. Muzzleloader permits for elk, deer & antelope are all now considered premiums.

Your last comment agrees with what I believe, as well. Fewer deer numbers but consistent & growing success rates. BUT...none of this will actually 'grow' more deer. The only consideration for the buck harvest is leaving enough of them to fornicate with the does.

 

[340Wby]

Has anyone examined actual success rates, or are we just spouting off about things that we want to take away from the other guy…. Even though I’d bet most of the guys preaching for the ban of some device, are probably using that themselves?

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

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

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

For perspective, most of the guys on here debating are probably killers, and we just think that everyone out there is as effective, which I don’t think is accurate, IMO.

Take a look at the harvest rates on the DWR webpage and examine success rates 2018-2021 and 2013-2015 and you will see success rates for muzzleloader general season deer was 28% in 2013-2015 compared to 2018-2021 success of 20%. Difference in tags issued in those time frames roughly 1000 more tags were issued in 2013-2015. Data indicates That technology is not the issue, but it’s an easy target.

I’ll be looking at archery rates (more for personal curiosity ) to see if there is a similar outcome. On its face the data doesn’t indicate a reason to discuss however because it’s a social issue they’ll talk about it.

One thing I am certainly tired of is the constant change for change sakes, think we would be better off letting things pan out with hard data (to remove) the emotional response. Believe we would be better off if the wildlife Board, our state legislatures and congress did us all a favor and passed less rules, laws and mandates

 

[elknr]

Take a look at the harvest rates on the DWR webpage and examine success rates 2018-2021 and 2013-2015 and you will see success rates for muzzleloader general season deer was 28% in 2013-2015 compared to 2018-2021 success of 20%. Difference in tags issued in those time frames roughly 1000 more tags were issued in 2013-2015. Data indicates That technology is not the issue, but it’s an easy target.

I’ll be looking at archery rates (more for personal curiosity ) to see if there is a similar outcome. On its face the data doesn’t indicate a reason to discuss however because it’s a social issue they’ll talk about it.

One thing I am certainly tired of is the constant change for change sakes, think we would be better off letting things pan out with hard data (to remove) the emotional response. Believe we would be better off if the wildlife Board, our state legislatures and congress did us all a favor and passed less rules, laws and mandates

The harvest rates are not True harvest rates like the limited entry. That’s why we should make mandatory harvest report for GS . Then we can actually see how many are getting killed.