# Technology Committee for Big Game Hunting



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So there are lots of threads that talk about this scattered throughout, but they are usually in other topics that end up discussing this topic. 

This is a hot topic right now as there is a technology committee that was formed somewhere and is discussing some things without much input from the public. People say they know of things that are being discussed, but they are being kept in innuendo and hushed tones, for some reason. Like our wildlife and how we pursue them should be a private discussion? I don't really get that, hence....this thread! 

I know one of the key things people are suggesting should happen is taking scopes back off muzzleloaders. Some of the reasons for this is to return the hunt to a "primitive" hunt or put the "hunt" back in hunting. To reduce harvest rates so that we can add more tags is another popular narrative. I think this change is the most likely recommendation to come out of the technology committee. It was not overwhelmingly popular when it passed anyway, and has always remained controversial. And the popular narratives seem logical and persuasive, especially when you might have been on the fence anyway. 

So because I logically believed adding scopes to MLs increased harvest rates, but wanted to know how much, I went and looked. I compared the last three years average harvest rate before the rule change allowing scopes on MLs passed to the most recent three years average harvest rate for the same units. (For purposes of my analysis, anything 4% or less is not considered statistically significant.) Here is what I found: 

There are 29 ML units for deer where harvest rates are available. Out of 29 units, only 11 saw any increase in harvest rate at all. Of those 11, only four of those units was greater than a 4% difference in harvest. So 7 of the 11 are 4% difference or less. 4 of those 7 were less than 1.5% difference. Plainly stated, we did not see a statistically significant increase on 25 of the 29 ML deer units. 

What about the other 18 units, you might be asking? Well, one was exactly the same, a 0.0% difference in harvest rates. 17 units actually decreased in harvest rate in the comparison. Of those 17, 11 of them decreased more than 4%. 10 of the 11 were actually 6% or greater in their decreased harvest rates. 

I realize there is an awful lot that goes into harvesting a deer during these two different 3-year periods. But it is clear that putting scopes on MLs didn't increase harvest rates to the point where taking them back off will allow any increase in tag allotment. That is a fallacy that simply does not hold water, and should no longer be part of the discussion for if this is a good policy or not. There may be other good reasons for it, but allowing us to issue more tags by decreasing harvest rates simply is not factual, even if when we hear it we thing that sounds very rational. (I was in that group until I looked at the data, just for the record.)


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So what are people hearing in regards to the technology committee and how they plan to recommend changes for our big game hunts? I think it's important to have a public dialogue on these issues, not just some committee that I don't even know who is on it deciding what is best. Then we can turn around and contact our RAC reps and the Wildlife Board and make the public's will known.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Alot of heartburn over the ML weapons, but the muzzleloader season isn't even responsible for the majority of deer killed. 

When I was a video game software engineer, we'd have to make sure games run fast and fluid. We'd run a tool called a profiler, which showed the slowdowns in code. It made no sense to spend time trying to adjust code that was anything lower than the top 20% of "slow" code (if you took a function that takes 1% of a frame time and halved it, now its taking .5%, so what! Especially when maybe another function take up 20%). We'd spend time and effort hitting the top 3 or 4 slowest spots of code. 

Apply that back to hunting management. I don't want to see more regulations unless there is an obvious win. As MooseMeat said in the other thread, this is more a SOCIAL change than an actual BIOLOGY based change. There just isn't any low hanging fruit, and I am still concerned with more wounded game causing FURTHER Tag reductions.

That's like running through new gun control legislation that really wont have any effect just as a "feel good" measure and for the powers to be to be able to say "Hey look, we did something!". I'm against that type of mentality.

-DallanC


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Harvest rates don't paint the entire picture. Harvest rates don't tell us the quality of the deer being harvested before vs after the change in scope laws. They don't tell us how many animals get wounded and never recovered either.

What bothers me is the idea that archery hunters still get such a long season. When archery hunters used to use long bows and recurves the furthest shots taken were probably 40 yards max!!!! This definitely made it a challenge to hunt and justified a longer season.

Fast forward 40+ years and people are shooting at animals from 100 yards with compound bows. Compound bows have made the archery hunt easier but they still get such long seasons.

Not only do modern compound bows make archery hunting easier when compared to stick bows but you also got a lot of idiots with no self control that can just go out and buy a $1,000.00 dollar bow and think they can hit a deer at 100 yards. This is unethical even if a guy can hit his target everytime at 100 yards because a deer or elk can literally take a step during the flight time of the arrow. I believe this is causing a large increase in injured and unrecovered animals.

Same concept applies to modern inline muzzle loaders.

Solution: maybe shorten the archery hunt a little. Than create a traditional hunt that has a longer season. No compound bows or modern inline muzzle loaders during this hunt.

Just some thoughts and ideas but I am sure I am wrong.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Biological reasons are not the only reasons the RACs and WB can take into consideration. In fact, social reasons are specifically articulated as part of their decision making process. (Whether that is a good idea or not is up for debate.) 

That said, it shouldn't be sold for biological reasons if it is a social reason. That much I very much agree with. That's why I say we need to quit talking about reducing harvest rates so we can increase tags. That simply won't work and shouldn't be sold as a biological solution to increase opportunity.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Good info. I have long felt that a lot of what drives these moves to "primitivize" some of these hunts are from the so called "purists" who are upset that they can no longer draw "their" tag. They are mad that a bunch of wannabe muzzy and archery hunters started to apply to their hunts because of the availability of easier-to-use equipment. 

They often can't come out and say that when presenting arguments so other narratives are adopted that may not stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I want to know the backgrounds of the people on this "Technology Committee". What experience do they have on the weapons they are trying to restrict? How much of their opinion is bias vs actual experience?

-DallanC


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

ns450f said:


> Harvest rates don't paint the entire picture. Harvest rates don't tell us the quality of the deer being harvested before vs after the change in scope laws. They don't tell us how many animals get wounded and never recovered either.
> 
> What bothers me is the idea that archery hunters still get such a long season. When archery hunters used to use long bows and recurves the furthest shots taken were probably 40 yards max!!!! This definitely made it a challenge to hunt and justified a longer season.
> 
> ...


Any data to support the archery argument you are making? Have success rates gone up over time? You sure that people are just sending arrows at 100 yards? I'm clueless just wondering if that is hyperbole/assumption, or really backed by data or examples.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

TPrawitt91 said:


> Any data to support the archery argument you are making? Have success rates gone up over time? You sure that people are just sending arrows at 100 yards? I'm clueless just wondering if that is hyperbole/assumption, or really backed by data or examples.


I know a "family" that were all irate they wounded 12 bucks before they tagged out a few years ago (Archery). I have to be careful with what I say as a couple of them visit this site from time to time.

-DallanC


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

DallanC said:


> I know a "family" that were all irate they wounded 12 bucks before they tagged out a few years ago (Archery). I have to be careful with what I say as a couple of them visit this site from time to time.
> 
> -DallanC


Yeah that is an issue. I don't think the equipment is the issue exactly, but that is an issue.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

ns450f said:


> Harvest rates don't paint the entire picture. Harvest rates don't tell us the quality of the deer being harvested before vs after the change in scope laws. They don't tell us how many animals get wounded and never recovered either.
> 
> What bothers me is the idea that archery hunters still get such a long season. When archery hunters used to use long bows and recurves the furthest shots taken were probably 40 yards max!!!! This definitely made it a challenge to hunt and justified a longer season.
> 
> ...


So the area they should address is the lowest harvest hunt?

And the primitive hunt you suggest would put recurve hunters on the mountain with ML hunters? 




DallanC said:


> I know a "family" that were all irate they wounded 12 bucks before they tagged out a few years ago (Archery). I have to be careful with what I say as a couple of them visit this site from time to time.
> 
> -DallanC


Ok so, that's unethical hunters. Doesn't mean range or the bow was a factor. Having a recurve wouldn't make it so they injured less deer lol. 

Every weapon has unethical hunters and every weapon results in injuries and losses.


I am not saying you are "emotional" - but to the OP's point there are emotionally charged stances that will drive this committee despite them not having data to back said arguments. That is scary. Outside of mechanical broadhead restrictions in some states, and poundage requirements, how many archery restrictions exist in any state?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

DallanC said:


> I want to know the backgrounds of the people on this "Technology Committee". What experience do they have on the weapons they are trying to restrict? How much of their opinion is bias vs actual experience?
> 
> -DallanC


Austin Atkinson, from huntin fool, you know, the wildlife/hunt/area/e-scouting pimp platform is on the technology committee. Sounds like he’s running the show too. The same guy who goes all over the place finding big animals for clients to walk in and blast with a high tech rifle from long distances. They have discussed anywhere from range finder bans, to slider sight bans, to no scopes on muzzleloader bans, to single pin archery sights… you name it, they are talking about it. EXCEPT! for banning these escouting, technology platforms that sell out public wildlife for a financial gain. I asked him several questions on Facebook about what was being discussed. Completely ignored other than he confirmed he’s on the committee and are looking at things from “every angle”… again, except for anything that will impact them financially. The angles they aren’t looking at is changing season dates, weapon changes for those season dates, new management objectives/plans… you know, the stuff that biologically makes sense. It’s always interesting to see who ends up on these specific committees and what their background is and who they represent. It’s never just your average guy. The public as a whole is in the process of being phucked with zero input or transparency to the public. Another back room, closed door, circle jerk… just like they’ve done so many times prior.

there’s a lot more to it. You just wait until September when they submit the RAC/WB meeting materials. At that point the decisions will have already been made, but the public will get the honor of being allowed the ability to submit their comments online as a formality to follow the “public process” in place 🙄


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Hey DallanC--do you have any data that backs up your belief that more primitive weapons = higher wounding rates? I see this claim but never data to back it up

I appreciate Niller's data crunch but were there other unaccounted for factors that contributed to higher or lower harvest rates before and after the muzzy scope thingy? It's not like we have a static universe each year where the deer on the landscape, weather, conditions, hunters, and a bunch of other factors were the same and the only thing different were the scopes? Each season is unique so a broad brush of scope do or don't influence harvest may or may not be correct. 

This is science and if you have variable control factors that are not taken into account a one variable view may be skewed is all I am saying


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Moose- I would hope that the "Technology Committee" is not wasting their time talking about season changes. Not really the universe they were set up to address. In fact, I hope they ONLY thing they are discussing is the technology used to chase big game. I'm not suggesting I agree with the committee, but the committee was created and it is going to do its work. I hope it sticks only to its work, even if the recommendation is "no recommended changes" at all. 

Airborne- The other possible factors were acknowledged above, but the data is the data. Harvest rates are not up. That is a popular claim that is out there, and regardless of how many factors are contributing, the harvest rates are not up.


----------



## Hill Hunter (Dec 1, 2017)

MooseMeat said:


> It’s always interesting to see who ends up on these specific committees and what their background is and who they represent. It’s never just your average guy.


It is. Seems like it is usually those cooperative to the division who are perceived as giving the "correct" answers. Or just representatives of big money or other groups they cannot ignore. Every once in a while a survey is sent out to represent the average person, but those results rarely have any real sway.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> Moose- I would hope that the "Technology Committee" is not wasting their time talking about season changes. Not really the universe they were set up to address. In fact, I hope they ONLY thing they are discussing is the technology used to chase big game. I'm not suggesting I agree with the committee, but the committee was created and it is going to do its work. I hope it sticks only to its work, even if the recommendation is "no recommended changes" at all.
> 
> Airborne- The other possible factors were acknowledged above, but the data is the data. Harvest rates are not up. That is a popular claim that is out there, and regardless of how many factors are contributing, the harvest rates are not up.


Somebody needs to talk about it. WB and RACs refuse to.

my point was, we are talking about issues that don’t have much if any impact on the animals being hunted. There ARE other topics that should be looked at first, that would yield a much bigger impact on harvest, opportunity, etc


----------



## 2:22 (Jan 31, 2013)

Hunting is going backwards in my opinion if they keep trying to go back to primitive ways. They are taking away the ingenuity of progress and making things better and more proficient. We could still do old school hunts for those who like that but Colorado not allowing scopes on muzzle loaders or making hunters use a big heavy bullet and no bullets that are more proficient just wounds more animals in my opinion. 
I believe that as hunters, we should have an oportunity for success. We recieve tags that are difficult to obtain then clear a spot on the wall for the animal we feel likely to get. Later, we find that the DWR implimented season dates or limitations to our equipment so the success numbers don't get too high. Hunting should be an opportunity to succeed and not trying to create a long shot. I love my Mathews bow. I also love my 1985 Hoyt Rambo that I have tried for two years to kill a bear with. It has fixed pin sights that are individual and very difficult to adjust. It has a rubber rest on the side of the riser. I shoot alluminum arrows with Satelite broadheads.I don't use a release with that bow but only a leather finger glove. I do this because I want to shoot old school for some fun and excitement while knowing it decreases my chances of success. I shouldn't be told by the board or the DNR that I have to shoot oldschool.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

From the Wildlife Board workshop agenda.....

2. Technology Committee - Derrick Ewell and Gabe Patterson, co-chairs ● Committee make up and schedule ● What topics should the committee tackle first? Could include hunting big game with all three weapon types, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc. ● Survey needs 

I believe that during the discussion all the members were named. I do not see it published. Nor do I see any contact information.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Airborne- The other possible factors were acknowledged above, but the data is the data. Harvest rates are not up. That is a popular claim that is out there, and regardless of how many factors are contributing, the harvest rates are not up.


It is one thing to acknowledge that other factors exist, and yes the data is the data. But, without running regression analyses, testing for heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation, etc. you really can't make valid conclusions about what the data actually means. 

Do I think your conclusions are wrong? No, probably not. Do I think the p-value of the scope variable indicates that's there is a statistically significant correlation between scope restrictions and harvest rates? Based on the limited data set of reports, probably not, but in a perfect world where every shot is accounted for and confirmed as a hit/miss/kill I think it would. Do we live in such a world? No, but the hypothetical assumptions can help color in the noise when the analysis shows results that are inconsistent with face-value intuitive expectations. 

As the data pool increases, and you see harvest rates over a period of years (decades ideally) then you don't have to be as concerned about unaccounted for variables in any given year as the impact becomes marginalized. 

Which is a lot of funny words to say to reach the conclusion that I think the base harvest rate data is premature to use to draw conclusions-especially if such conclusions are used as a basis to make changes to wildlife management (biological or social).


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Airborne said:


> Hey DallanC--do you have any data that backs up your belief that more primitive weapons = higher wounding rates? I see this claim but never data to back it up


Annecdotal evidence is all based on my own experience with bows, muzzleloaders and rifles. Its alot easier to put a 9x crosshair on a heart than try and put a open sight front post on a heart at the same range. At 100 yards, a normal post covers most of an entire animals vitals.

But, IDK how you even begin a study... alot of people are embarrassed by wounding an animal so I doubt self reporting is all that accurate. But it is a question the DWR hunter survey does ask hunters. I'd be interested in hearing what that rate currently is.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Which is a lot of funny words to say to reach the conclusion that I think the base harvest rate data is premature to use to draw conclusions-especially if such conclusions are used as a basis to make changes to wildlife management (biological or social).


The only conclusion I've made is that harvest rates have not increased. The only data I need to analyze to determine if harvest rates have increased is the harvest rates. 

Specifically, there is the claim being floated out there that magnification scopes have caused harvest rates during the muzzleloader season to increase. Reviewing the harvest rates shows that claim is not correct. Are there other factors that can be impacting harvest rates other than a magnification scope? Absolutely! But that has nothing to do with the overall conclusion of harvest rates increasing on the muzzleloader season, or not increasing. It's actually not rocket science, so we should not try to make it such. 

If we want to say that there are million other reasons why harvest rates didn't increase, I'll look forward to you producing that analysis for us. But even if you do, it won't change my conclusion that harvest rates haven't increased on the muzzleloader hunts in any statistically significant way over when we were not allowing magnification scopes. 

If all those other things are making the harvest rates be down, and we remove scopes, all those other things are still going to be there. We won't see increased tags...so again, none of your post changes anything about the conclusion.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Airborne said:


> This is science and if you have variable control factors that are not taken into account a one variable view may be skewed is all I am saying


This. For example, you could have a super highly correlated variable but it has a small impact (beta/delta are commonly used in statistical models to measure this). Let's pretend we have a hypothetical world where allowing magnifying scopes and weather are the only two variables that impact harvest rates, and assume that both are highly correlated to harvest rates. But, if the beta coefficient for weather is larger than the beta for scopes, you could have a positive increase caused by scopes (even a large one) that is obliterated by a negative weather event leading to results that show no change. That wouldn't mean that scopes have no impact, even though it would certainly look that way by just looking at the data.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

DallanC said:


> Annecdotal evidence is all based on my own experience with bows, muzzleloaders and rifles. Its alot easier to put a 9x crosshair on a heart than try and put a open sight front post on a heart at the same range. At 100 yards, a normal post covers most of an entire animals vitals.
> 
> But, IDK how you even begin a study... alot of people are embarrassed by wounding an animal so I doubt self reporting is all that accurate. But it is a question the DWR hunter survey does ask hunters. I'd be interested in hearing what that rate currently is.
> 
> -DallanC


I have never wounded an animal that I didn't find, but would punch the tag if I thought I killed one that I wouldn't recover. Obviously others are quite a bit looser than that. But I agree, a lot of guys likely wouldn't answer that question honestly on the survey out of pure embarrassment.


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

Interesting topic, it seems when the regulations on baiting and trail cameras were presented I remember hearing and even posting where do we draw the line? Now scopes and such are on the table and those who are pro-rifle and ML aren't too happy. I don't blame you, I strictly archery hunt and get upset when people mess with a season I love. I've been archery hunting since I was able to pursue big game.ns450 points the finger at archery hunters willy nilly launching arrows at 100 plus yards, my experience in the field is that might apply if I hunted on a football field that was flat, level and no obstructions in that distant. Yes I have wounded some animals, just like I've wounded ducks and geese with a shotgun. I've been on rifle and ML hunts and witnessed lost or wounded animals by those who took 800 yards plus shots. so the argument of wounding animals and pointing at one weapon source doesn't hold much weight to me. Since 2009 I have shot my limited entry bull, cows, spikes and numerous bucks with the furthest shot at 35 yards. Yes technology does have an impact but perhaps the issue is building on winter range, higher amounts of people driving roads causing road kill and predators. When I started in law enforcement in 2000 traverse mountain was winter range to numerous mule deer, I took so many roadkill accident reports on the Alpine Highway with numerous trophy size bucks being hit. Now when I drive around Traverse I hardly see any animals, why? because we built residential homes on winter range. My point is there is much more at play as to declining numbers then technology.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Just for the record, I do not muzzleloader hunt. I simply wanted to verify if claims were true, which I found...they were not.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Just for the record, I do not muzzleloader hunt. I simply wanted to verify if claims were true, which I found...they were not.


We don't know if the claims are true or not--I think the best thing to say is we don't know if scopes increase or decrease muzzy harvest rates and we also don't know if 'primitive' weapons increase or decrease wounding rates. We have some data that may suggest certain things but nothing that would stand up to scientific scrutiny. 

I need to watch myself in some of these assertions as well

We have our anecdotal beliefs and experiences but neither should definitively shape policy but I'm betting they do in regards to those folks in power


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I feel like I have a lot to say, but it isn't anything that I haven't already typed above. You're missing the point with all this scientific scrutiny talk, because I've only made one assertion: Harvest rates have not gone up after the rule change. Ultimately, your conclusion below and my conclusion above on what that means for policy are exactly the same. I've just provided data to support why I feel that way! 😉




Airborne said:


> We have our anecdotal beliefs and experiences but neither should definitively shape policy but I'm betting they do in regards to those folks in power


If people want to dive into the other factors, be my guest. I'll gladly look over the information you provide. But as I said to someone else above: This is the TECHNOLOGY committee. Not the drought committee. Not the deer population committee. Not the which days of the calendar should people hunt which animals committee. But the technology committee. And I'm saying we don't have the data to even suggest that magnifying scopes have resulted in statistically significant increase in harvest, because I've looked at the harvest data. So that should not be parroted as being correct. That's all. It's not a complicated claim. It's one anyone can look at and show me where I'm wrong: Harvest data


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> I feel like I have a lot to say, but it isn't anything that I haven't already typed above. You're missing the point with all this scientific scrutiny talk, because I've only made one assertion: Harvest rates have not gone up after the rule change. Ultimately, your conclusion below and my conclusion above on what that means for policy are exactly the same. I've just provided data to support why I feel that way! 😉
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I definitely agree that it is at least as wrong to claim that scopes increased success as to say that they decreased/had no effect. Making any conclusion based on the harvest data alone is unsupportable.

But it's something that a technology committee should be looking at, and should be able to find a grad student willing to run the numbers and identify variables/data sets in order to draw reliable conclusions. It is not unknowable information that can never be derived.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

2:22 said:


> Hunting is going backwards in my opinion if they keep trying to go back to primitive ways. They are taking away the ingenuity of progress and making things better and more proficient. We could still do old school hunts for those who like that but Colorado not allowing scopes on muzzle loaders or making hunters use a big heavy bullet and no bullets that are more proficient just wounds more animals in my opinion.
> I believe that as hunters, we should have an oportunity for success. We recieve tags that are difficult to obtain then clear a spot on the wall for the animal we feel likely to get. Later, we find that the DWR implimented season dates or limitations to our equipment so the success numbers don't get too high. Hunting should be an opportunity to succeed and not trying to create a long shot. I love my Mathews bow. I also love my 1985 Hoyt Rambo that I have tried for two years to kill a bear with. It has fixed pin sights that are individual and very difficult to adjust. It has a rubber rest on the side of the riser. I shoot alluminum arrows with Satelite broadheads.I don't use a release with that bow but only a leather finger glove. I do this because I want to shoot old school for some fun and excitement while knowing it decreases my chances of success. I shouldn't be told by the board or the DNR that I have to shoot oldschool.


Well said!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

IMHO, If scopes are taken off muzzleloaders, more big game will be wounded. I want hunters to have the best chance at cleanly killing what they are shooting at, plain and simple.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Whatever direction this whole thing takes us, I think we need to proceed with extreme caution. Let’s remember what was being discussed 11 years ago. Breaking regions up into smaller units and managing them more specifically to their own habitat and weather pattern conditions. We were told by doing this, it would aid in the production of a better outcome for every aspect involved. I believe we were also sold that it would result in more opportunity for hunters. Once we went with it, we knew what we had at the time (opportunity wise) would never return, BUT! it was for the well being of everything. Well here we sit. Numbers of deer more in chitter than before. Less tags issued with every passing year. Point creep growing like wildfire. More demand for permits. More demand for trophies. More pizzed off hunters. Whatever we willingly or forcefully give up, will likely never be given back. It’ll be history and at some point probably regarded as ‘the good ol days’ by those of us still around and hunting, by whatever definition that consists of at that time. I just don’t see technology restrictions fixing any of our problems. If it biologically made sense and we’d have more animals than we would know what to do with as a result, I’d give up everything and hunt with a long bow only. But that just isn’t the case.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Whatever comes out in the wash in the committee debates and recommendations, they need to consider what will the hunters think about it. Some may give up hunting altogether in Utah and move on to fishing only. I'm at that tipping point now. I was very fortunate to have hunted prior to the state being split into five regions, You could hunt anywhere in the state and buy a tag over the counter. This is what I call the "Good Olé Days". 
I'm still pizzed off that trail cameras are not allowed come August. I have a fall bear tag and cant use a camera to see what is coming to the bait. If I could use a camera, I would have the opportunity to study the pics and determine the best bear to try and take. Knowing if there were bores, sows, sows with cubs and select a shooter that would coincide with the DWR's harvest objectives. But, it is what it is. I'm sure the harvest data will show more Sows and younger bears will be harvested since the new camera rule. 

It seems that the DWR is placing more and more restrictions on hunters, but yet they want the hunter to have an enjoyable experience and be successful. Restrictions for weapons used to hunt, isn't that way to do that IMO.


----------



## Hill Hunter (Dec 1, 2017)

I think part of the problem is they can't just let things be. They make changes every year, but never give time for any of the changes to impact anything before making more changes. So there is no feedback on what changes do, all the while making management more expensive and more complicated. The zillions being spent on collars and super detailed unit by unit data lets them debate if it should be 6 or 7 tags, but does it really have any impact on populations? Not to mention paying for that data has required Utah selling it's soul to the devil through expo tags.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

taxidermist said:


> Whatever comes out in the wash in the committee debates and recommendations, they need to consider what will the hunters think about it. Some may give up hunting altogether in Utah and move on to fishing only. I'm at that tipping point now. I was very fortunate to have hunted prior to the state being split into five regions, You could hunt anywhere in the state and buy a tag over the counter. This is what I call the "Good Olé Days".
> I'm still pizzed off that trail cameras are not allowed come August. I have a fall bear tag and cant use a camera to see what is coming to the bait. If I could use a camera, I would have the opportunity to study the pics and determine the best bear to try and take. Knowing if there were bores, sows, sows with cubs and select a shooter that would coincide with the DWR's harvest objectives. But, it is what it is. I'm sure the harvest data will show more Sows and younger bears will be harvested since the new camera rule.
> 
> It seems that the DWR is placing more and more restrictions on hunters, but yet they want the hunter to have an enjoyable experience and be successful. Restrictions for weapons used to hunt, isn't that way to do that IMO.


A few ruined the trail cameras before the new regulations were put in place. So now we all suffer for what they did. 

I still think that requiring a camera to be registered with the DWR with the owners name on the camera when out in the field would be a good way to go. They could even allow cameras at bait locations if you have a tag since you have to register the bait location with them, so there would be no questions about who's camera it was and as you mentioned it would be a big help.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Critter said:


> A few ruined the trail cameras before the new regulations were put in place. So now we all suffer for what they did.
> 
> I still think that requiring a camera to be registered with the DWR with the owners name on the camera when out in the field would be a good way to go. They could even allow cameras at bait locations if you have a tag since you have to register the bait location with them, so there would be no questions about who's camera it was and as you mentioned it would be a big help.


I sure hope the rule would be modified in the near future to allow the use of cameras for Bear. I agree 100% with you on the registration of a camera. I also feel placing a restriction on how many cameras one can register would be effective as well.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> Let’s remember what was being discussed 11 years ago. Breaking regions up into smaller units and managing them more specifically to their own habitat and weather pattern conditions.


That was a great lie, as most hunters didn't realize those "micro units" already existed, inside of the 5 existing regions. They already were managed independently based on weather and population. In fact the year or two prior to the implementation of the current system, they adjusted the season length to be shorter on the Nebo to account for population and weather.

The only thing the "micro" units added was restricting hunters to those small units. Now as you said, its contributed to more points being build up and therefore longer lines to get tags.

-DallanC


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

TPrawitt91 said:


> I'm clueless just wondering if that is hyperbole/assumption, or really backed by data or examples.


Go watch some hush videos.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

ns450f said:


> Go watch some hush videos.


Again, seems like hyperbole. I think most hunters aren't even practicing 100 yard archery shots. Furthest I have practiced is 90 yards. The statement I responded to asserted that due to slider sights on compound bows archers are shooting 100 yard shots at deer and wounding more animals. Does it happen, I bet it does. It is the norm? I highly doubt it.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

DallanC said:


> That was a great lie, as most hunters didn't realize *those "micro units" already existed, inside of the 5 existing regions. They already were managed independently based on weather and population*. In fact the year or two prior to the implementation of the current system, they adjusted the season length to be shorter on the Nebo to account for population and weather.
> 
> The only thing the "micro" units added was restricting hunters to those small units. *Now as you said, its contributed to more points being build up and therefore longer lines to get tags.*
> 
> -DallanC


Help me out here. If the 5 units were already managed based on the micro units under prop 2, then exactly how did prop 2 contribute to more points being built up and longer lines for tags? 

I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I think you're making causal assumptions that lack valid support. For example, I think that for very specific micro units (1000 lakes, Central Manti which are further exacerbated by lifetime license holders) to become harder to draw than the SE region generally was in the immediate years prior to the switch. But that is balanced out by places like Wasatch West that were (and often still are) easier to draw than SE used to be. 

The net average effect on draw odds for the switch when viewed across the micro units compared to the prior macro units was probably zero. Which would be consistent with the statement that the DWR was already managing the herds based on those micro units (which I think is true, and vaguely remember that but am too lazy to dig up and verify right now).


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

TPrawitt91 said:


> Again, seems like hyperbole. I think most hunters aren't even practicing 100 yard archery shots. Furthest I have practiced is 90 yards. The statement I responded to asserted that due to slider sights on compound bows archers are shooting 100 yard shots at deer and wounding more animals. Does it happen, I bet it does. It is the norm? I highly doubt it.


Hunters today, particularly ones that weren’t around archery much prior to 2010, don’t realize that 100 yard shots aren’t a “new” thing. Much like muzzleloaders, many people with little to no experience with it, love to assume the worst and think this is a new trend or that everyone with a bow or muzzleloader is doing. Before there were slider sights, PSE made a sight called the F-35. Fixed pins. Sure it came with 5 pins, but that longer housing design was no accident. And extra pins were made and sold specifically for adding more in. There were a handful of guys who could actually use this sight to the full potential and be lethal, but lots of guys had one. Just because guys have one doesn’t mean it’s being used or abused by everyone. The amount of guys who can pull off a 100+ shot on purpose on an animal is so small, it’s not even worth worrying about. Much like 500 yard muzzleloaders. Sure lots of guns can launch projectiles that far, but how many can accurately hit where they want to, on purpose. 1%? Like I’ve always said. Most Guys struggle to hit a buck at 300 yards on purpose with a rifle on the first shot. And you think these same guys are killing at longer distances with a less effective weapon type? No. Are the wounding and losing more animals at longer ranges? Also no. Wound loss happens at 10 yards. No one wants to talk about that. Just the ones at 80+ or 200+.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

TPrawitt91 said:


> Furthest I have practiced is 90 yards



Haha, you are just proving my point. 90 yards, really? Like 90 yards is any more ethical than 100 yards? 

Anything over 40 yards with a bow is unethical in my book. Thats what they taught me in hunters Ed.

And I didn't say anything about slider sights.

And yes I guarantee more animals are getting injured and not recovered nowadays compared to the Era before the advent of the almighty mechanical bow.

If you want to use stabilizers, trigger releases, and sights why not just shoot a rifle. It's not even a bow at that point, it's just another excuse for a rich prick to drop some cash after he payed for his dedicated hunter service hours so he can have an extra season to try and get the biggest buck possible to post on his social media. While at the same time breaking multiple laws like driving his $60,000 side by side on closed roads.

These kind of people don't care about the life of the animal and waste meat. These are the hunters that give our sport a bad name and ruin it for everyone else.

Is your name Eric by chance?


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

MooseMeat said:


> Sure lots of guns can launch projectiles that far, but how many can accurately hit where they want to, on purpose. 1%?


Yep, maybe 1% of people can pull it off. But 100% of the flat brim D bags attempt it.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

ns450f said:


> Haha, you are just proving my point. 90 yards, really? Like 90 yards is any more ethical than 100 yards?
> 
> Anything over 40 yards with a bow is unethical in my book. Thats what they taught me in hunters Ed.
> 
> ...


I said I practice 90, not I shoot 90 at animals. Max range for me on elk is 60, deer is 50, due to relative size of the target. Practicing at 90 helps proficiency at lesser yardage. Not rocket surgery. 

So no, your point has not, and never was, proven. Matter of fact, Moose did a pretty good job of illustrating how the longer range archery is not a new phenomenon. I still say people taking longer range, 75+ yard shots at animals, isn't even close to the norm.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

ns450f said:


> Yep, maybe 1% of people can pull it off. But 100% of the flat brim D bags attempt it.


Again, clearly you have a bone to pick with some fellow outdoorsmen, but your statements are HYPERBOLE!


----------



## CHIEF_10_BEERS (Mar 24, 2021)

ns450f said:


> Haha, you are just proving my point. 90 yards, really? Like 90 yards is any more ethical than 100 yards?
> 
> Anything over 40 yards with a bow is unethical in my book. Thats what they taught me in hunters Ed.
> 
> ...


Jesus dude????
You want to show us on the Hunter Dan doll where the flat brim wearing, arrow slinging, ear tucked in boogie man touched you???


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

ns450f said:


> Yep, maybe 1% of people can pull it off. *But 100% of the flat brim D bags attempt it*.


Interesting observation. What percentage of archers fit this demographic? Or if it makes it simple how many archery hunters?

No one is going to win an argument on how far is too far. With any weapon.

Bad decisions are made every day by people.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

CHIEF_10_BEERS said:


> Jesus dude????
> You want to show us on the Hunter Dan doll where the flat brim wearing, arrow slinging, ear tucked in boogie man touched you???


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

ns450f said:


> Haha, you are just proving my point. 90 yards, really? Like 90 yards is any more ethical than 100 yards?
> 
> Anything over 40 yards with a bow is unethical in my book. Thats what they taught me in hunters Ed.
> 
> ...


I get out quite a bit every season. I hunt some pretty popular places that attract a lot of guys. I’ve been hunting these spots for 25 years. I can’t recall ever seeing anyone launch arrows at deer over what I estimated to be 60 yards. I’ve watched many guys attempt 150 yard muzzleloader shots and miss. When reloaded and ready to go again, if the deer was at 200, they’d pass. Only twice did I see shooting continue at longer ranges and they weren’t even close to hitting the animals. The rifle hunt, I have seen a few prayers sent by guys, but those deer weren’t ever in harms way… the point is, I’m just not seeing the issue with shots too far that people are taking. Is it happening? Of course. But I’m not seeing it at the rate that many are claiming it is.

I have a pretty extensive archery competition resume from a past life. I won a lot. But it didn’t come from no work on my part. I shot hundreds of arrows 6 days a week for 9 months of the year, over a span on 16 years. I could and still can, stack softball size groups at 120+ any day of the week. What you consider to be unethical for anything over 40 yards, I’m just getting started. I’ve taken a few shots at animals exceeding 90 yards, when the situation was right. They all died within sight. Was I wrong for doing that when I determined it was “ethical” for me to do so? You can’t drag ethics into an argument like this. What you might determine to be unethical is well within the skill
Levels or ability of someone else. Same goes with muzzleloaders or rifles. I have more experience with those than most. Am I out of line when I know my rifles ability at 750 yards and kill a spike the first shot on purpose? Most have never even attempted a shot like that in practice. They’ll never come close in the field if they did. They are just making noise at that point. Like I said. It isn’t the bow, it’s the Indian.

Years ago I ran into a guy while on the cow elk hunt. He was set up on a herd of cows at 450 yards. He had the nicest gunwerks rifle available at the time, in a .300 win with a nightforce scope on it. I told him I’d spot for him. Right before he was getting ready to shoot, he asks how high he should hold over the elk in order to hit it. I asked him why he didn’t dial his turret for the range he was shooting. He looked at me like I was speaking another language to him. The elk walked away after 3 shots were fired and he never came close on any of them. There’s more of “those” guys out there than there is long range range assassins. Technology isn’t wiping out the herds. Everything else is.

Eric cheesedick is NOT an assassin. He’s one of the biggest embarrassments out there in the influencer world. Right next to the flaming ginger MuleyFelon. I think many see the chit they post and immediately assume everyone else is doing that too. They aren’t. But it sure looks that way if the heroes are doing it every chance they get


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> I could and still can, stack softball size groups at 120+ any day of the week.
> 
> It isn’t the bow, it’s the Indian.


Ya know I am feeling a credibility test is in order for old MooseMeat. I live in south Utah County and I think ole Moose does as well. What do ya say Moose--I have access to a farm off of the Benjamin exit, pretty close drive, wouldn't take but a minute to get there. I set an archery target out to 120 yards, a softball is 3.8" diameter, we can round up to 4" bullseye. We give ya 12 arrows (no warm ups) and if you can put 10 out of 12 arrows in that 4" circle at 120 yards I will hand you a nice $20 bill! I shall also post pictures of the event on this very website and you shall be a certified bada$$ who can walk the walk!

I have archery league tonight so if ya want to come to Timp archers we can shoot there as well. Just yell 'Airborne' real loud in the parking lot, have patience if I'm out on a course. 

Seriously--let's do this thing!--Benjamin exit--send me a PM and we can set up the time to lock in your legend status


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Airborne said:


> Ya know I am feeling a credibility test is in order for old MooseMeat. I live in south Utah County and I think ole Moose does as well. What do ya say Moose--I have access to a farm off of the Benjamin exit, pretty close drive, wouldn't take but a minute to get there. I set an archery target out to 120 yards, a softball is 3.8" diameter, we can round up to 4" bullseye. We give ya 12 arrows (no warm ups) and if you can put 10 out of 12 arrows in that 4" circle at 120 yards I will hand you a nice $20 bill! I shall also post pictures of the event on this very website and you shall be a certified bada$$ who can walk the walk!
> 
> I have archery league tonight so if ya want to come to Timp archers we can shoot there as well. Just yell 'Airborne' real loud in the parking lot, have patience if I'm out on a course.
> 
> Seriously--let's do this thing!--Benjamin exit--send me a PM and we can set up the time to lock in your legend status


My bow is currently ripped apart, and being setup for the hunts this year. Ask the old timp guys if I was any good. I’m not welcome at the ol jakes archery circle jerk club anymore, but find guys who shot archery competitively between 2004-2012, they’ll know me. Kevin Wilkey with kuiu can vouch for me and my abilities. He’s up there all the time. I smoked ol swbuckmaster many times in the pop up 3D. When I get my bow back together I’ll go shoot with you. It’ll be a little bit before that happens though.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Well, we will have to put off this cred challenge until you get your sh!t together--you let me know! I don't even know your name but I've known Wilkey for a long time--he's a good guy


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Airborne said:


> Well, we will have to put off this cred challenge until you get your sh!t together--you let me know! I don't even know your name but I've known Wilkey for a long time--he's a good guy


Kevin is one of the best! Ask him if Shaun from payson was any good with a bow the next time you see him


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

taxidermist said:


> Whatever comes out in the wash in the committee debates and recommendations, they need to consider what will the hunters think about it. Some may give up hunting altogether in Utah and move on to fishing only. I'm at that tipping point now. I was very fortunate to have hunted prior to the state being split into five regions, You could hunt anywhere in the state and buy a tag over the counter. This is what I call the "Good Olé Days".
> I'm still pizzed off that trail cameras are not allowed come August. I have a fall bear tag and cant use a camera to see what is coming to the bait. If I could use a camera, I would have the opportunity to study the pics and determine the best bear to try and take. Knowing if there were bores, sows, sows with cubs and select a shooter that would coincide with the DWR's harvest objectives. But, it is what it is. I'm sure the harvest data will show more Sows and younger bears will be harvested since the new camera rule.
> 
> It seems that the DWR is placing more and more restrictions on hunters, but yet they want the hunter to have an enjoyable experience and be successful. Restrictions for weapons used to hunt, isn't that way to do that IMO.


I thought the cams were only banned for big game?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

MooseMeat said:


> I get out quite a bit every season. I hunt some pretty popular places that attract a lot of guys. I’ve been hunting these spots for 25 years. I can’t recall ever seeing anyone launch arrows at deer over what I estimated to be 60 yards. I’ve watched many guys attempt 150 yard muzzleloader shots and miss. When reloaded and ready to go again, if the deer was at 200, they’d pass. Only twice did I see shooting continue at longer ranges and they weren’t even close to hitting the animals. The rifle hunt, I have seen a few prayers sent by guys, but those deer weren’t ever in harms way… the point is, I’m just not seeing the issue with shots too far that people are taking. Is it happening? Of course. But I’m not seeing it at the rate that many are claiming it is.
> 
> I have a pretty extensive archery competition resume from a past life. I won a lot. But it didn’t come from no work on my part. I shot hundreds of arrows 6 days a week for 9 months of the year, over a span on 16 years. I could and still can, stack softball size groups at 120+ any day of the week. What you consider to be unethical for anything over 40 yards, I’m just getting started. I’ve taken a few shots at animals exceeding 90 yards, when the situation was right. They all died within sight. Was I wrong for doing that when I determined it was “ethical” for me to do so? You can’t drag ethics into an argument like this. What you might determine to be unethical is well within the skill
> Levels or ability of someone else. Same goes with muzzleloaders or rifles. I have more experience with those than most. Am I out of line when I know my rifles ability at 750 yards and kill a spike the first shot on purpose? Most have never even attempted a shot like that in practice. They’ll never come close in the field if they did. They are just making noise at that point. Like I said. It isn’t the bow, it’s the Indian.
> ...


Moose - 
I think this is one of your best posts ever. Well said!

After reading through most of this, what really galls me is that we as hunters are always bashing others hunters that don't do things "our way". Most of the time, we just seem to get into each others way. And the argument that this weapon or that weapon wounds too many animals, so let's restrict said weapon is ridiculous IMHO. Again, refer to Moose's post. He said it better than I ever would.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

MrShane said:


> I thought the cams were only banned for big game?


Applies to bear and cougar too.






Trail camera regulations


The rule prohibits the use of any trail camera (or non-held device) in the harvest of big game — or to aid in the harvest of big game — between July 31 and Dec. 31 on public or private property. The rule also prohibits the sale or purchase of trail camera footage or data that could be used to...




wildlife.utah.gov


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

TPrawitt91 said:


> I said I practice 90, not I shoot 90 at animals. Max range for me on elk is 60, deer is 50, due to relative size of the target. Practicing at 90 helps proficiency at lesser yardage. Not rocket surgery.
> 
> So no, your point has not, and never was, proven. Matter of fact, Moose did a pretty good job of illustrating how the longer range archery is not a new phenomenon. I still say people taking longer range, 75+ yard shots at animals, isn't even close to the norm.


You keep proving my point

Google ethical archery hunting distance and the furthest you will find is 40 yards.

When you start getting fuether than 40 yards an elk can take a step and your arrows goes from well placed vital to gut shot while the arrow is still in flight.

But practice at 90 and keep shooting at 60. Hopefully when that trophy bull steps out broadside at 90 yards and you know you can make the shot from practicing you will have the self control to not let one fly.....


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

ns450f said:


> You keep proving my point
> 
> Google ethical archery hunting distance and the furthest you will find is 40 yards.
> 
> ...


So google is the new hunting ethics metric to go off?

Yep, we’re phucked. 🤦🏼‍♂️


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Ban any footwear for archery and muzzleloader hunts. That would keep the flat hat brah tribe out of primitive weapon hunts.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

OriginalOscar said:


> Ban any footwear for archery and muzzleloader hunts. That would keep the flat hat brah tribe out of primitive weapon hunts.


It would also keep you even closer to your truck on rainy days, no matter the weapon you are carrying


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

middlefork said:


> Applies to bear and cougar too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where is the regulation saying they can’t be used on Bears?


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

MooseMeat said:


> It would also keep you even closer to your truck on rainy days, no matter the weapon you are carrying


I'm in for $20 Airborne challenge. Brah!!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

OriginalOscar said:


> I'm in for $20 Airborne challenge. Brah!!


I’d smoke your ass at 60 yards


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

ns450f said:


> Yep, maybe 1% of people can pull it off. But 100% of the flat brim D bags attempt it.


No they don’t. And you know they don’t. Now if we were talking about waterfowl, that is a completely different story and I will agree with you there. But not everyone with a tag in their pocket is sending mail at every animal they see


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

MrShane said:


> Where is the regulation saying they can’t be used on Bears?


Never mind, I found it.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

MooseMeat said:


> So google is the new hunting ethics metric to go off?
> 
> Yep, we’re phucked. 🤦🏼‍♂️


Google is just a reflection of sources.

Sources like utah hunters ed and thousands of other responsible hunters that know the ethical distance for archery hunting is under 40 yards.

That being said you are the last person who should be saying anything about ETHICAL hunting Moose.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

ns450f said:


> Google is just a reflection of sources.
> 
> Sources like utah hunters ed and thousands of other responsible hunters that know the ethical distance for archery hunting is under 40 yards.
> 
> That being said you are the last person who should be saying anything about ETHICAL hunting Moose.


Can you google and tell me where it says ethics are the same among all hunters? I’d also like to see where I said something was unethical? I’ve always taken a pretty hard stance on if it’s legal, I’m good with it. 

I really don’t care if my 50 yard pin on my bow and willingly to use it, upsets you. I think im pretty ethical when it comes to hunting. Might not always have been the case, but in the last 10 years I’ve always done what I felt was right and stayed within the laws. If you’d like to give an example in that time frame of my lack of ethics you’re mad about, I’d be happy to discuss it with you and explain my side of it.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

ns450f said:


> Google is just a reflection of sources.
> 
> Sources like utah hunters ed and thousands of other responsible hunters that know the ethical distance for archery hunting is under 40 yards.
> 
> That being said you are the last person who should be saying anything about ETHICAL hunting Moose.


So I went ahead and googled it and the first thing that came up said to practice at twice the distance you intend to shoot while hunting. By your own logic, case F-IN closed. LOL 

Not sure what else to tell ya, haters gonna hate.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I took the Google challenge from ns450f. I googled “How far for an ethical archery shot?”

The very first link:
“As a general rule of thumb both vertical bow and crossbow shooters should not take any shot at any distance further than you can keep your arrows consistently inside a six inch circle.”

It also said you should practice at greater distances than you are able to hunt to make your closer shots more accurate. It specifically says that you should be shooting double the distance in practice than you are taking kill shots in the field. The article is even entitled, “The Ethical Bow Hunting Shot” Hmmmm…..


The Ethical Bow Hunting Shot | Bow Life



The second link in the results was an article about unethical archery shots. Here was an interesting snippet:

“And there it is…that word with a definition as elusive as a 200-inch whitetail buck — ethics. How does anyone define ethics? The variables in any moment where ethical decisions must be made are infinite. The skill level and the personal philosophy of each participant also varies widely. I might take a 60-yard shot at a stationary caribou, but never at a brown bear. A 50-yard shot at an unsuspecting pronghorn may be doable, but if it’s looking at me and wired to explode at the sound of my bow? Not so much. We could debate 40, 50, or 60-yard shots all day long, but 100 yards?”









Is it Ethical to Take Long-Distance Bowhunting Shots? - Bowhunter


Taking long-distance shots at big-game animals has become acceptable, but here's why it isn't the ethical choice.




www.bowhunter.com






I could go on, but that is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “if you Google it, 40 yards is the farthest you will find,” is pure crap. The two first links in the Google search disagree with everything he’s claimed here. ns450f’s claim fails.

Signed,

A rifle hunter that doesn’t shoot much beyond 300 yards


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Looks like more than one of us wanted to put that strong claim to test…


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> Looks like more than one of us wanted to put that strong claim to test…


Well...it was a pretty bold one hahah


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

ns450f said:


> Fast forward 40+ years and people are shooting at animals from 100 yards with compound bows. Compound bows have made the archery hunt easier but they still get such long seasons.
> 
> Not only do modern compound bows make archery hunting easier when compared to stick bows but you also got a lot of idiots with no self control that can just go out and buy a $1,000.00 dollar bow and think they can hit a deer at 100 yards. This is unethical even if a guy can hit his target everytime at 100 yards because a deer or elk can literally take a step during the flight time of the arrow. I believe this is causing a large increase in injured and unrecovered animals.


Back when BOU was active, I took a deep dive into wounding rates and published stats and findings in the newsletter. I found a correlation between wounding rates and season lengths - the shorter the season, the higher the wounding rate. I found similar correlations on all big game archery hunts across the country with some whitetail hunts back east reaching as high has 50%. Utah muley hunts typically have around 17% wounding rate. I presume that shorter seasons pressure bowhunters to take shots that they would otherwise pass.

Utah has no data to compare compound and traditional and I've seen no comparative data elsewhere that suggests higher wounding rates with compound bows. But I'm pretty sure that if the archery seasons were shortened, wounding rates would increase and a big percentage of compound shooters would give up on bowhunting.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Makes sense Finnegan, they've noted similar things when they shorten the rifle seasons on units, harvest rates actually go up, not down. People get in the mindset of shooting the first thing they see, because they might not get another chance.

-DallanC


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Looks like more than one of us wanted to put that strong claim to test…


Not me. I've seen Moose shoot and I've shot against him on a couple occasions. The guy is gifted, no doubt.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Finnegan said:


> Not me. I've seen Moose shoot and I've shot against him on a couple occasions. The guy is gifted, no doubt.


I guess for me it is not really a desire rooted in seeing him fail, I just like seeing a talented person perform something I cannot.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

ns450f said:


> You keep proving my point
> 
> Google ethical archery hunting distance and the furthest you will find is 40 yards.
> 
> ...


Dude, if a hunter can drill tacks at 60 yards with his bow, does that make him unethical if Google, of all sites, says it's unethical? Come on, you know the answer to that.

Perhaps YOU are the unethical hunter beyond 40 yards?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> Not me. I've seen Moose shoot and I've shot against him on a couple occasions. The guy is gifted, no doubt.


The claim I was putting to test was ns450f’s, not Moose’s. Although I’m here for a livestream of this little competition that’s been proposed.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Like Mr Cake, I just want to see it done--I make no judgements upfront but it's a rarity that someone pulls through on internet trash talk--just love that credibility! I am really hoping moose follows up with this cred test--will be disappointed if it gets left unanswered


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Been to enough archery shoots to know there are some that can back up their BS. I certainly wouldn't claim to know who they all are. I personally can't see that far.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Airborne said:


> Like Mr Cake, I just want to see it done--I make no judgements upfront but it's a rarity that someone pulls through on internet trash talk--just love that credibility! I am really hoping moose follows up with this cred test--will be disappointed if it gets left unanswered


As soon as I get my bow put back together, I’d be happy to go shoot with you one afternoon. With the setup I have in the works, I should be able to clear the housing out to 145ish. We can just shoot that distance the whole time. But I won’t claim sub MOA groups at that distance


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I shot my bow up at the Miners Peak archery range last night. (I have a little range set up at the cabin) Hadn't been able to shoot for a while. 
I may have to turn her down a bit. A bit disappointed at how I shot. Will keep working on it. 
I'm absolutely no threat to MM right now. 😎
Sounds like he is WAY out of my league. 
I was never know for being a great target shooter. But, I taken a LOT of animals with a bow. Always kept my shots under 60 yards. 
I have a dedicated poacher tag this year, so I'll get dialed back in so I can bow hunt.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

News Flash - MooseMeat unable to accept Airborne archery challenge due scheduling conflict of Medieval Faire with his Merry Men (aka fellow UWF brah posse). He has agreed to shoot plastic apple from Hobby Lobby off Little John's head with nerf arrow at 80 yards. Video will be uploaded to youtube including GoPro footage from Little John's perspective.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Can any one supply an email address to contact this committee?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

[="Hunter Tom, post: 2249458, member: 6093"]
Can any one supply an email address to contact this committee?
[/QUOTE]
That depends on what you want to say to them! 😉


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Hunter Tom said:


> Can any one supply an email address to contact this committee?





middlefork said:


> From the Wildlife Board workshop agenda.....
> 
> 2. Technology Committee - Derrick Ewell and Gabe Patterson, co-chairs ● Committee make up and schedule ● What topics should the committee tackle first? Could include hunting big game with all three weapon types, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc. ● Survey needs
> 
> I believe that during the discussion all the members were named. I do not see it published. Nor do I see any contact information.


I have been unable to find any contact information searching Utah.gov or DWR.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

OriginalOscar said:


> News Flash - MooseMeat unable to accept Airborne archery challenge due scheduling conflict of Medieval Faire with his Merry Men (aka fellow UWF brah posse). He has agreed to shoot plastic apple from Hobby Lobby off Little John's head with nerf arrow at 80 yards. Video will be uploaded to youtube including GoPro footage from Little John's perspective.
> 
> View attachment 152290


says the fat round road hunter. That’s back to his truck by 9 am cuz it’s raining and he’s afraid his puzzy will rust shut


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> I have been unable to find any contact information searching Utah.gov or DWR.


And this right here should be a giant red flag to everyone. More secret closed door meetings. Wanna bet there’s more an just the committee members sitting in on these meetings?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

This wager between Airborne and Moose has me thinking about the debate I had a guy with a guy on a Utah hunting FB page that was asking if somebody could zero his scope for him. He claimed he could drill the bullseye all day long at 900 yards he just wasn't good at zeroing a scope. I expressed doubt that somebody that couldn't even zero a scope was a 900 yard bullseye slaying assassin. He offered to meet up with me to prove it, but I declined. Sometimes I wish I would've just cleared an afternoon one weekend and took him up on it. I would've even zeroed his scope for him 😜


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

colorcountrygunner said:


> This wager between Airborne and Moose has me thinking about the debate I had a guy with a guy on a Utah hunting FB page that was asking if somebody could zero his scope for him. He claimed he could drill the bullseye all day long at 900 yards he just wasn't good at zeroing a scope. I expressed doubt that somebody that couldn't even zero a scope was a 900 yard bullseye slaying assassin. He offered to meet up with me to prove it, but I declined. Sometimes I wish I would've just cleared an afternoon one weekend and took him up on it. I would've even zeroed his scope for him 😜


Hey I can hit a milk jug at 1k in 5 shots or whatever the limit is, with my wife’s 6.5 creedmoor. Don’t need a fancy sticker on my truck to brag about it either 😎


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> Hey I can hit a milk jug at 1k in 5 shots or whatever the limit is, with my wife’s 6.5 creedmoor. Don’t need a fancy sticker on my truck to brag about it either 😎


Probably no room for anything on the window after you got that fire bull antler put up!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Probably no room for anything on the window after you got that fire bull antler put up!


There was, but I put a “keep hammering” one up just last week. Looks pretty legit now!


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> There was, but I put a “keep hammering” one up just last week. Looks pretty legit now!


Good ol' Cam "humble brag" Hanes.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Good ol' Cam "humble brag" Hanes.


Ever seen him shoot a bow in person? It’s hilarious. He was at the ISE one year, sometime around the whole “beast mode” thing and they had a pop up 3D shoot. He stands up there like he’s a God, and proceeds to shoot the plywood wall they had set up, 4/5 times. Oh it was glorious 🤣 he was hammering something, but it wasn’t the targets on that particular day


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Cam loves his “backcountry Utah elk hunts” on Deseret! 

I’ve emailed multiple people looking for info on the technology committee. I’ve not had much luck getting responses thus far. I may have to see how far I have to go barking up this tree before I can get some answers?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Cam loves his “backcountry Utah elk hunts” on Deseret!


His buddy Rogan sure loves to fly from sunny LA (or I guess it is Texas now) into SLC and show the world what a backcountry badass he is. I will give Hanes his due respect, he showed he could get it done on public land OTC tags before he had the opportunities he does now. Rogan never had to bother slumming it with the peasants.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Cam loves his “backcountry Utah elk hunts” on Deseret!
> 
> I’ve emailed multiple people looking for info on the technology committee. I’ve not had much luck getting responses thus far. I may have to see how far I have to go barking up this tree before I can get some answers?


I too am awaiting a reply. I'm sure you have much more "pull" than I so good luck.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

MWScott72 said:


> Dude, if a hunter can drill tacks at 60 yards with his bow, does that make him unethical if Google, of all sites, says it's unethical? Come on, you know the answer to that.
> 
> Perhaps YOU are the unethical hunter beyond 40 yards?


Yes it does. It's not a question of accuracy. Rather it's a question of flight time. An arrow traveling 320 ft per second will be in the air for .56 seconds at 60 yards. 

Can an elk's vital area move more than 8 inches if it jumps or steps at the right moment as your releasing your trigger? 

A human boxer can dodge a punch at .16 meters/second. So I personally believe an elk could move enough while an arrow is in the air to go from a great shot to a gut shot.

This is why any hunters education course in the country will say an ethical shot is 40 yards max.

But it's like anything else. People are great at justifying their behavior. The road is closed but there is no sign and I don't want to hike an extra mile. My side by side won't hurt anything so it's okay if I break the law and drive down this closed trail if I want.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Finnegan said:


> I found a correlation between wounding rates and season lengths - the shorter the season, the higher the wounding rate.


That is really interesting, totally makes sense though. With a longer season people don't feel like the first legal animal they see will be their only opportunity so they are more patient and wait for a better more ethical shot.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

First it was any Google website will tell you 40 yards max, now it's every hunter education course in the country will say it. I'm guessing your second claim is as equally inaccurate as your first.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> First it was any Google website will tell you 40 yards max, now it's every hunter education course in the country will say it. I'm guessing your second claim is as equally inaccurate as your first.


Someone had to say it.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

It's nowhere near close enough to Halloween for me to break out my inner thoughts on the autofellative nature of projecting one's subjective ethics on the interwebs as THE metric by which all others are judged. 

There aren't enough ptarmigan livers in the world to recover from that cred-point deficit


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Interesting thread here. We've gone from backdoor secret meetings to a way too early discussion of hunter ethics in less than 5 pages. Much faster than that actually. That's some high level ADHD happening there.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Next meeting is June 30th at Springville DWR office at 5:00 pm. You are allowed to attend but not participate.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Next meeting is June 30th at Springville DWR office at 5:00 pm. You are allowed to attend but not participate.


I received the same response along with the list of members on the committee.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

middlefork said:


> I received the same response along with the list of members on the committee.


I sent a GRAMA request to the DWR office for the list of committee members and their contact info.,but was informed that it may take 19 days to process. If you have that info, please post it for the rest of us and I'll cancel my GRAMA. Thanks!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> I sent a GRAMA request to the DWR office for the list of committee members and their contact info.,but was informed that it may take 19 days to process. If you have that info, please post it for the rest of us and I'll cancel my GRAMA. Thanks!


Here is a contact for one of the co-chairs.

NamePhoneDepartmentE-mailEwell, Derrick435 781-9453Dept of Natural Resources[email protected]

The list I was sent was names only. No contact information. At this point I don't see a need for everyone's contact information. They are not accepting input from the public.

If you want the names PM me and I'll get them to you.

On the subject of committees in general I guess it would be too much to ask that the meetings are streamed so it would be easier to listen in. Maybe that is not how the committees are set up to operate?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

If it's not, I hope they eventually make them more transparent to the public. If for nothing else, even the appearance of secrecy undermines public trust.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

middlefork said:


> The list I was sent was names only. No contact information. At this point I don't see a need for everyone's contact information. They are not accepting input from the public.
> 
> If you want the names PM me and I'll get them to you.
> 
> On the subject of committees in general I guess it would be too much to ask that the meetings are streamed so it would be easier to listen in. Maybe that is not how the committees are set up to operate?


I think you can feel free to post their names here as it's not a secret who they are. If not PM them to me. I would be interested in seeing who is on the committee.



backcountry said:


> If it's not, I hope they eventually make them more transparent to the public. If for nothing else, even the appearance of secrecy undermines public trust.


I doubt they will be streaming their meeting. It's a working group like the mule deer and elk working groups which are not streamed. Nothing they discuss, propose, consider etc. is binding. Most of it will be throwing ideas at the wall to see what gets traction and then it can be addressed through the division to see if it's viable or to see if data exists to clarify potential impacts or determine if data needs to be gathered. I suspect it will be a while before anything concrete comes out of this committee.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

PM sent


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So here is the best intel I have at this point: 

The committee hasn't nailed down much so far. They have been looking at what definitions of "fair chase" are out there and trying to figure out what all that means. Ultimately it appears they are settling on a mission statement surrounding limiting technology to increase opportunity and also maintain quality. The definitions of "fair chase" and "ethics" are likely impossible to attain a consensus, so it's probably wise to narrow the focus of the mission statement to something most everyone can agree upon, and then let that mission guide the recommendations moving forward. If we are going to legislative what we each subjectively believe is ethical or fair chase, we are in trouble! 

I'm not sure if that narrowing the vision resulted in specific technology being discussed yet or not. It sounds like everyone is skeptical of any technology that has yet to come out, but will undoubtedly come out in the future. If I was a betting man, someone that was in that meeting room last night is reading my post and I'd love for them to post up if they are specifically discussing any technology in particular yet, and how that is going. Nothing discussed in these committees is secret, so I'd love to get more information about specifics from the committee. 

The public may attend the meetings but not participate. I wonder if that goes for EVERYONE or just the public they don't want to speak?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PS- here is your committee. 

The co-chairs are Derrick Ewell and Gabe Patterson. The members of the committee are as follows: 


StakeholderNameSFWKevin NormanMDFDoug PetersonManufacturerMark ThompsonUAARandy WalkGuide/RACAustin AtkinsonFS OfficerTawny MeyerWild Arrow OwnerThylissa PlyerSocial MediaBen DentamonteWBBryce ThurgoodGuideRusty FarnsworthPublic at LargeKaden RobertsCWMUDave FreissUniversityRandy LarsenYounger Generation HunterHadlee Sulivan


It is important to remember that this committee only makes recommendations to the DWR, who then takes all that through the public process, which could include surveys, and then the RACs and Wildlife Board. That said, it's useless to have a committee meeting to not follow what they are recommending at least to some extent. There is also a Wildlife Board member on the committee, so this committee will be influential, for sure. This committee will have a large sway in how things are presented to the public. From there, it's up to us if we like it and how much we want to be involved. But the time for sitting on your duff complaining about things in online forums is over! Yes, if you're reading this, I'm talking to you!!!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> So here is the best intel I have at this point:
> 
> The committee hasn't nailed down much so far. They have been looking at what definitions of "fair chase" are out there and trying to figure out what all that means. Ultimately it appears they are settling on a mission statement surrounding limiting technology to increase opportunity and also maintain quality. The definitions of "fair chase" and "ethics" are likely impossible to attain a consensus, so it's probably wise to narrow the focus of the mission statement to something most everyone can agree upon, and then let that mission guide the recommendations moving forward. If we are going to legislative what we each subjectively believe is ethical or fair chase, we are in trouble!
> 
> ...


I bet if Mr. $FW himself showed up to these meetings and had something to say, they would certainly allow him to speak. You or I, wouldn’t have a chance in hell at speaking.

i asked Austin Atkinson on a Facebook discussion what was being discussed over a month ago and was completely ignored.

thanks for the update. I tried to make my schedule work to where I could go last night, but I just couldn’t swing it with work.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Vanilla,
How were the members picked?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

MrShane said:


> Vanilla,
> How were the members picked?


Through prayer and guidance from the brotherhood…

or in other words, Very carefully by the WB….


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MrShane said:


> Vanilla,
> How were the members picked?


I have no clue. I never saw any announcements go out for applications or anything. They may have and I missed them, but I didn’t see them.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> I have no clue. I never saw any announcements go out for applications or anything. They may have and I missed them, but I didn’t see them.


I'd send you a copy of the minutes from the meeting, but they misplaced the napkin after the left the diner.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> PS- here is your committee.
> 
> The co-chairs are Derrick Ewell and Gabe Patterson. The members of the committee are as follows:
> 
> ...


Stakeholder categories are laughable. Social Media, University, Younger Generation Hunter. 

Better option randomly invite hunters from Dedicated Sportsman, Hunters Who've Had License 10+ Years, Disabled Hunters.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I received a reply from the DWR regarding my GRAMA request for the names, positions and contact information of the members of the Technology Committee. DENIED! per:

"The Technology Committee is not considered a public body because it is not "vested with the authority to make decisions regarding the public's business" "
"It is classified as an ad hoc committee and therefore not subject to the Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA)."
"The personal contact information for the Technology Committee members would not be public." 

It appears to be politics as usual, with the general hunting public on the sharp end of the screw!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It’s interesting that this was the response. I say that because the email I got from one of the co-chairs told me to find which person represents me on the committee and communicate with them so my interests are represented on the committee. 

That is going to be rather hard for someone to do if all that information is considered private.

Interesting, indeed.


----------



## fobit (Mar 1, 2017)

When Reid Radmal and the boys were petitioning the Fish and game to get a muzzleloader hunt in the 50s they had no idea it would be just an alternate rifle hunt with in-line space guns being called muzzleloaders and kids riding in the back of their pick up trucks , road hunting.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

I think we should begin expressing our concerns early on to the Tech committee before they start making decisions.

I emailed Mr. Ewell the following: 
I am writing in regard to discussion of removing scopes from muzzle loaders. _ I am a 77 year old avid muzzy hunter who has had his eye lenses replaced such that I can no longer effectively use iron sights. Without a scope, my 55 year muzzy hunting ends._


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

fobit said:


> When Reid Radmal and the boys were petitioning the Fish and game to get a muzzleloader hunt in the 50s they had no idea it would be just an alternate rifle hunt with in-line space guns being called muzzleloaders and kids riding in the back of their pick up trucks , road hunting.


You do know inline muzzleloaders existed 100 years before the traditional "Hawkin" style we use today right? 

And you don't think anyone ever took a shot from a jeep in the 50s? LOL...


-DallanC


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

DallanC said:


> You do know inline muzzleloaders existed 100 years before the traditional "Hawkin" style we use today right?
> 
> And you don't think anyone ever took a shot from a jeep in the 50s? LOL...
> 
> -DallanC


I bet if I mentioned 26X turreted Night Force Scopes on muzzleloaders, ole DallanC would reference some Galileo type scope contraption that was mounted on a cannon from the Napoleonic wars and used against the Czars men during the Moscow offensive of 1812 as a justification for the Night Force


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Airborne said:


> I bet if I mentioned 26X turreted Night Force Scopes on muzzleloaders, ole DallanC would reference some Galileo type scope contraption that was mounted on a cannon from the Napoleonic wars and used against the Czars men during the Moscow offensive of 1812 as a justification for the Night Force


LOL. I actually am against the current "no restriction on scope power" on MLs. I used a 1x shotgun scope for a very long time, still have it. I wish they would have capped max power at 2x or 4x though. But, the research before the change, and anecdotal evidence after, does show scope power really doesn't matter. 

But yea, they had scopes on Hawkins in the mid 1850s. Research "Chapman-James optical sight".

Force hunters to use full bore lead conicals and it will limit the range for everyone. That's an easy win to reign in the long range crowd, and and that point it doesn't really matter what power your scope is. Lead is too soft to handle high pressures without some form of gas check, so that's a limiting factor. Blackhorn 209 will fall by the wayside, its too stout for lead.

Sidenote: I have a fantastic full bore lead conical that shoots as nearly as fast as my XTPs and just as accurate. So such a regulation change wouldn't affect me in the slightest. I have half a box left. If they did restrict projectiles, I might buy a hobby lathe and make some molds based off the original design.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Dallan, the one challenge is see with that proposal is forcing all muzzleloader hunters to use lead only. Many hunters have moved away from lead willingly, and in some areas of the state the use of lead is very frowned upon. (Pauns unit is one that comes to mind, since the DWR sends a letter to all hunters on that unit suggesting they not use lead.) Even off those units, there is a movement away from lead for many reasons not related to how a bullet performs. So I think that while the limitations that provides in the field is reasonable and likely what they are looking for in the end, I think there are some outside consequences of that which make it a difficult regulation to implement.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The one difference between a lead muzzle loader round and jacketed lead bullet from a high power rifle is that the jacketed round will fragment and send pieces of lead through the wound channel, where the solid lead round from the muzzle loader will mostly stay in one piece creating a massive wound channel with no fragmentation. 

There is still a chance of a stranger picking up that piece of lead but much less so.

I'd like to have the regs change to full size conicles or lead round balls. Thor Bullets market a full size conicles that are manufactured by Barnes that are solid copper.

As for sights I am also visually challenged but have found open or peep sights that work for me on my Colorado legal muzzle loaders that work quite well out to 150 yards

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Any stronger metal (copper or even plastic skirt) at the base, acting as a gas check to prevent blow-by, allows the bullet to be driven at much higher velocities and therefore some people really push the range.

All I'm saying is that out of all the technological advances to muzzle loading, its the one simple change that has the biggest bang for the buck in limiting longer range performance.

Now, what could you do with bows and rifles to have the same effect? /scratches head

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I actually really like that simple change, and think it is in line with what the committee should be trying to do, but I think the lead aspect of it may make it unpalatable for the DWR.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Any stronger metal (copper or even plastic skirt) at the base, acting as a gas check to prevent blow-by, allows the bullet to be driven at much higher velocities and therefore some people really push the range.
> 
> All I'm saying is that out of all the technological advances to muzzle loading, its the one simple change that has the biggest bang for the buck in limiting longer range performance.
> 
> ...


Here's one for ya! I recently bought 3 Sabatti Saphires, (a 30.06 and 2 @ 6.5 Creedmores), a bolt-action Italian rifle with Multi-Radius rifling (Look it up!) that squeezes the bullet to turn it rather than cut it like normal rifling. As a result, there is less friction and the bullets go through the barrel cooler, cleaner and faster (up to 12%), with flatter trajectories, tighter groups and fewer flyers. I guess I better get rid of them before the Technology CO's issue me a ticket for big game hunting after they are banned.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

That is strange. 

There's crazy stuff out there for sure. Like the rifling's on Goob's 256 Newton... or heck even the weird polygonal barrel on Glocks

I'd still like to use a 1800's Ferguson rifle on the black powder hunt  Cant though... technology from 1780 is too "Advanced"

-DallanC


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I guess I better get rid of them before the Technology CO's issue me a ticket for big game hunting after they are banned.


Nah, they come with open sights. You'll be fine to hunt them.....


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

DallanC said:


> Any stronger metal (copper or even plastic skirt) at the base, acting as a gas check to prevent blow-by, allows the bullet to be driven at much higher velocities and therefore some people really push the range.
> 
> All I'm saying is that out of all the technological advances to muzzle loading, its the one simple change that has the biggest bang for the buck in limiting longer range performance.
> 
> ...


Straight walled cartridges only during rifle seasons?
No compounding forces with archery equipment, including crossbows.
You asked, I answered!


----------



## bowguyonly (Dec 31, 2018)

Seems to be an invite into political hunting corruption if you ask me. Tired of 'officials' elected or not taking our freedoms. Expo already takes our tags and money. Why the hell are we even considering allowing them to regulate more when there are plenty of other opportunities to improve hunting?

At the end of the day regardless what you're hunting with, hunting is hunting. Anti hunters give two dookies less what you hunt with. A "technology committee"? Yeah that'll end well. Everyone restrict each other so everybody has better hunting....


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm really having a hard time getting behind the idea of making it harder for someone to kill a big game animal once they choose to pull the trigger. Why are we wanting to set more people up to possibly wound more animals? I personally want more people to cleanly and efficiently kill what they shoot at. The hard part is finding something to put a tag on anyways.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

One interesting thing about this technology committee is it contains an individual who posted a YouTube video not too long ago of him whacking a mule deer at nearly 1000 yards.

Hello kettle, meet pot. 🙄


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

CPAjeff said:


> One interesting thing about this technology committee is it contains an individual who posted a YouTube video not too long ago of him whacking a mule deer at nearly 1000 yards.
> 
> Hello kettle, meet pot. 🙄


Wouldn’t that be a good thing for guys that just want to be Deer shooters and not actually Deer hunters?


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Whatever this "secret committee" designs and takes to the WB, they better have the science to their recommendations to back it up! Not just public opinion or a fad idea.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> Whatever this "secret committee" designs and takes to the WB, they better have the science to their recommendations to back it up! Not just public opinion or a fad idea.


There is zero chance this committee will have "science" to back up their recommendations. This is not a scientific committee. Prepare to be disappointed.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> There is zero chance this committee will have "science" to back up their recommendations. This is not a scientific committee. Prepare to be disappointed.


I'm sure I will be. They haven't impressed me in the last 40+ years at all.


----------

