# Lethality/Opportunity



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

It's been suggested by more than one person within my circle of influence that the reason archery hunters are continually getting the shorter end of the stick every year (no statewide archery anymore) is because the people that make the rules are looking at the lethality and technology associated with todays archery equipment as a bigger threat to animals and therefore cutting opportunity because we're killing/maiming more critters than ever before. We all know that Archers have a least amount of impact on hunted species of wildlife, but is the impact becoming to great with the advancements made in modern equipment? In the hands of an archer with the skills to get it done a deer can easily be killed out to as far as 120 yards. Twenty years ago the realistic max distance for a skilled archer was half that. Have we become to lethal for our own good?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I believe so Tex. A perfect example is a friend of mine that recently purchased his first bow for himself and also picked one up for his son. The first day slinging arrows his son (17 years old) set a target at 100 yards after shooting a few from 40 and immediately hit the target on three of four shots.

My brother and I are going to be making the switch to traditional methods in the next couple of years just to up the anti. That and just get back to a form of hunting that is more in line with that of our ancestors. Just looking at bows to find out what we are going to get.


----------



## RoosterKiller (May 27, 2011)

Perhaps,but if that is the case then let it be known so it can be managed. You can always restructure it so that it's not an issue.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yes, It is definitely a factor!

3 Years ago I took a professional archery shooter from back east ..

His archery abilities were the best I've ever seen,, could hit a baseball from
100 yards consistently ............

I watch him stick a bull elk at 120 yards ,, It took 4 steps and tipped over dead!

The same thing is happening with muzzle loaders as well ..


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> The same thing is happening with muzzle loaders as well ..


For Sure!


----------



## Duckholla (Sep 24, 2007)

This is a good topic Tex. I've found that within my circle of inflouence, I make it very clear that although I can hit a target all day at 100 yards, consistently, I will not attempt that shot on an animal past 40 yards. Not because I can't do it, but I feel like there are far too many variables to consider, and it isn't fair to the animal if I misjudge something, and wound the animal. I feel like it's my responsibility as an individual who has encouraged other hunters to pick up a bow, to set that standard. It's helped amungst my group.

Just .02 cents.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Hell, by this logic there are rifle shooters who can hit at 1,000 yards. I guess that means all rifle shooters should only get one day to hunt? 

Just because one guy can do something sure doesn't mean that the majority can. I would no more attempt a 120 yard archery shot at big game and expect success than I would expect to hit the moon with a shot from my .270.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> Hell, by this logic there are rifle shooters who can hit at 1,000 yards. I guess that means all rifle shooters should only get one day to hunt?


We are getting there. We are down to 3 in some areas.

As much as archers feel like their hunting opportunities have been limited, it pales in comparison to the reductions on rifle hunters over the last 20 years. And before you go off on me - think of how many people migrated to archery years ago, because rifle hunting in this state become too restrictive.

But addressing the restrictions for ALL hunters - I find little to no rhyme or reason to any of it. There is no reason for a 3-day rifle hunt vs. a 7-day hunt. No biological reason. No hunter management reason. No logical reason. There is no logical reason in my mind to drop statewide archery. I see no reason to "pick your weapon." In my view, if you have a tag, who cares what weapon you use to fill that tag? I do understand management of smaller units, but its also been ingrained (rightly or not) that herd numbers are controlled by doe harvest, not buck harvest. And doe harvest has always been on a smaller hunting unit basis anyway!

So back to your question Tex - restrictions on archers just might be from increased distances due to technology. It might be from improved camo patterns and scent masking. It might be because a Board member has a bee in his bonnet over his wife getting fat and ugly over time. I really don't know. None of it makes any sense or has any semblance of reason to it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

true Birddogger. Nobody says that the logic has to be sound but the perception is there. There have been many people that have wounded game while having the best of intentions. A poorly placed arrow IMO is worse than a poorly placed shot with a gun. A poorly placed gun shot still often leads to a harvest. A poorly placed arrow often just leads to a lost arrow and wounded game. This is a multifaceted topic for sure.

Duckholla hit the nail on the head. The friend of mine that recently purchased the bow asked me several times "what is the furthest distance you would ever consider shooting an animal?". I thought about for a moment and told him that I did not know. I continued by telling him that I have never taken a shot when I was not certain in my mind that the animal would soon be dead. Fact is, every shot I have taken has been at the moment I felt the conditions assured an ethical harvest. I can honestly say that I have never taken a questionable shot. That said most shots that I have taken with a rifle or a bow have therefore been at the maximum distance that I was comfortable with at that time. If they weren't I would try to get closer or pass up the shot. The few shots that remain were shots where the animal presented itself at a range that was already closer than was necessary for the given conditions.

My friend put me on the spot and asked me "OK......lets say the conditions are perfect and you are stalking an animal......how far would you shoot?" 

My reply was "20-40 yards"

He said "bullcrap, I have heard you can hit a bullseye from 100+"

I replied "you said "perfect conditions" right? In my mind that means the animal is far closer than 100 yards, so once again 20-40 yards, in perfect conditions I would like to smell them"


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

We need "primitive" hunts.


----------



## Moostickles (Mar 11, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> We need "primitive" hunts.


 I can see the proclamation now, "Loin cloths required"


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

UtahHuntingDirect said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > We need "primitive" hunts.
> ...


I am going to push for optional, it is hot at the end of August.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Tex.. Agree. TV Hunting Shows.. Most push the envelope.some archery shops do the same.No doubt... if your going to shoot 120 yards. get yourself a primitive muzzy..Can't for the life of me see how any archer can get his rocks off that far away. Thats why I gave up the gun hunt 38 years ago.. to get in close with a bow and arrow is an absolute rush.. To think.. MAN!! I got this close to a wild animal.. rather you make the shot or not>> SOOO if it's the hunters who are taking these100 yard or better shots cost me and 5 other people in my family to go 0 for 6 not getting an archery tag this year.HEY Thanks! Also when you talk to Men and Woman who work with in the Department (DWR) That R Archers Tell you , taking away of STATE WIDE ARCHERY was just PLAIN DUMB!!


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

I'm a little late to this conversation, but the elimination of the statewide archery hunt has ZERO to do with weapon effectiveness and 100% to do with the ability of conservation organizations to auction and sell conservation, convention and land owner permits on the better of the now effectively limited entry general deer units.

They can't sell tags for high dollar values when every archer in the state can go there at their pleasure. It's as simple as that.

There are going to be more desirable genneral deer units now and therefore they will have value and the organizations see nothing but $$$ in them these days.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Hmmm...maybe. Tex, the reason I don't really see this as the issue is because the same evovlement is happening with all weapons...Muzzleloaders, archery, even the technology with rifles is far more advanced than what it was 20 years ago.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

The "problem" as I see it is that people are less interested in "the hunt" and more interested in "the kill".

I really like what muleskinner said:



Mr Muleskinner said:


> My friend put me on the spot and asked me "OK......lets say the conditions are perfect and you are stalking an animal......how far would you shoot?"
> 
> My reply was "20-40 yards"
> 
> ...


How often do hunters take that 100+ yard shot without attempting to get closer? Part of the reason I started archery hunting 23 years ago was the challenge associated with getting close to the animal. Back then, we had to. Our equipment just didn't have the zip that today's equipment does. I'm thankful it didn't -- because it provided me with a hunt that felt challenging. I still hunt that way. I shot my elk last year at less than 20 yards. I had numerous opportunities to shots at the same elk from further distances -- but I wanted to get closer. I wanted to smell him.

While rifle hunting with my in-laws we spend a lot of time looking for deer through spotting scopes. The challenge, for them, is to make a shot at over 700 yards. While they're calculating elevation drop, windage, humidity, reticle line, etc., etc., I'm trying to figure out how I can close the distance to less than 100 yards. Difference of hunting style I guess. (the last elk I shot with my rifle was taken after stalking to within 70 yards....what was I thinking?)

With today's equipment, I believe that many hunters have changed their objectives. Instead of working hard to get as close as possible to an animal before pulling the trigger, many hunters work to get as far away as possible to pull the trigger. Bragging rights used to belong to the guy that claimed "I could have reached out and grabbed that elk!". Today, those same bragging rights go to the guys that claims "I ranged the deer at 120 yards, downhill with a crosswind, and I still hit it!" (too bad he hit it in the ass)


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> We need "primitive" hunts.


I agree with this totally. If there are limits on general archery areas, how about some added opportunity for traditional archery hunters? I used to hunt the Trout Creek Mountains in Oregon with a recurve. You can wait three lifetimes to hunt this area with a rifle or modern bow, but you can hunt with a longbow or recurve every year. The season is long and you get to chase some huge bucks. Kill rate is next to nothing, but fun level is way high. Back when I had way more time and way less money, I used to fill one of my blacktail tags with the same recurve fairly regularly. I get a big laugh out of modern archers who bag on rifle hunters. Hello pot, I'm kettle! ---------SS


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

heres all i have to say about all the new technology. the equipment is only as good as the shooter. 30 years ago, we had people shooting perfect scores in a vegas round with extremely basic compound bows. today, people are still shooting perfect scores, but not everyone is. archery is all about the skill of the shooter and their capability to make the shot count. you can give a guy the best bow in the world, set up perfectly, but the bow will only perform as well as the shooter can handle it. some guys are in to long range rifles. i own one. its fun to shoot, but when hunting, i prefer a close shot. i also enjoy long range archery. i like watching the arrow fly and shooting long ranges makes me a better shot. especially on the longer distances. i dont shoot for the 10 ring, i shoot for the X. im not scared to shoot long ranges at animals either. i wont take a long shot over a close one, but if everything is perfect and the conditions are right, i'll launch a bomb. for the record, ive taken 3 shots over 100 yards. all 3 arrows found their mark and all animals were recovered within 100 yards of the impact spot... i'll swear it on my life. 

the success rate of archery has climbed a little over the years, but i think its peaked. we cant improve much more than what we already have. now its up to the hunter and not the equipment. in the end, we are still playing with a stick and string, chasing wild animals who are extremely good at staying alive.


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

Here's a question...

As a lead slinging p*ssy... I can't really speak to anything regarding the Archery world. HOWEVER... I will offer this up. When we all took hunter education, we had to pass a shooting test with our fancy high powered .22 caliber rifles, yeah? Had to put 25 of 30 in the kill zone of a couple of targets, if I remember correctly.

When we learned how to drive, we all had to pass a driving test. Let's take that one a step further... Does your vehicle license cover you to drive a motorcycle or a diesel? I realize I've taken the conversation in to the "Apples & Oranges" territory... But not really.

Is there an archery hunting or archery ethics course that needs to be passed, before being able to purchase an archery tag? I realize this wouldn't stop ALL of the idiots, but could it help? I realize that even with a course, people will continue to push the edge of the envelope with their weapons. So it's definitely NOT a foolproof plan, more of just a thought.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

The archery ethics course is in the DWR building in the room next to the rifle ethics course. Did you not see it?

Do you believe a ethics course for rifle hunters would be effective? We all took hunters safety, what more do you want? There are idiots in all fascists of hunting, my experience is I have seen the worst of the worst during the "any weapon hunts" (rifle). 

On a side note...The funny thing to me is I just realized duckhunter1096 called out people that use salt and cameras as "lazy"...and he is a rifle hunter! :mrgreen: That really cracks me up. No offense duckhunter1096, I just noticed the irony.


----------



## Moostickles (Mar 11, 2010)

I come and go on UWN because I get tired of the junior-high school girl mentality that pops up constantly here. The "I can do everything you can do better" cat-fights get old quick, and does nothing but separate us more and more in a sport that we are constantly at risk of losing. It doesn't matter if we hunt over bait/no bait, rifle/archery, modern archery/traditional archery, road hunt/hike, hunt for wall hangers/for food* (*though that one may actually take precedence...). We all hunt because we enjoy being outdoors away from the regular stresses of life. We may like to hunt to get away from people, or we may hunt to get closer to certain people we want to be around. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Everybody may have different reasons why they hunt, but there is one thing we all have in common, we enjoy it. So why pick on the next guy because he does it a different way than you?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

??? Who was that directed towards?


----------



## Moostickles (Mar 11, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> ??? Who was that directed towards?


You if you want... :mrgreen:

It wasn't directed towards any single person. If you look through half the threads on Big Game or Archery you'll see what I'm talking about. Archery hunters calling rifle hunters lazy, rifle hunters blaming archery hunters for "wounding twice as many animals as they take." Hunters who like to "hike in a few miles" look at road hunters as fat, lazy slobs. Hunters who scout more days than they work look at those who do their scouting opening morning as lazy idiots who don't belong on the mountain, while the latter looks the the scouters as somebody who doesn't have (or take) any responsibility at home and only does it for a big set of antlers. This is painting with a broad brush of course...

It just seems that "sportsmen" on this site are way more willing to throw out an insult than they are a helpful suggestion. And we wonder why everybody is so douchy up on the mountain?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

This lazyass hunter (me) comes on here just to confirm why I try to not hunt on public lands. It's topics like some of the ones you mentioned why I don't. 

I really don't care what you hunt with, how you hunt, where you hunt, who you hunt...I really don't. I just found irony in duckhunter1096's opinion on what lazy is. Many in this section of the forum (archery) could say the same thing about throwing lead, but we don't.


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

Just cuz I use a rifle, doesn't make me lazy. I also will be the first to admit that I lack patience. 

If you go back and read my post about baiting & camera's, I believe it says that I get a kick out of people using camera's and calling it "scouting". To me, that's not scouting. According to Webster's, that's not scouting. That's all I was trying to point out. Sorry you got your panties in a bunch over it.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

duckhunter1096 said:


> Just cuz I use a rifle, doesn't make me lazy. I also will be the first to admit that I lack patience.
> 
> If you go back and read my post about baiting & camera's, I believe it says that I get a kick out of people using camera's and calling it "scouting". To me, that's not scouting. According to Webster's, that's not scouting. That's all I was trying to point out. Sorry you got your panties in a bunch over it.


Shane doesn't wear panties, he wears a thong... :mrgreen:

I didn't want this threat to become a weapons choice battle. I only wanted to put forth a theory that I've had under my bonnet for several years. Is technology ruining hunting? Is it making us more lethal? Is the increased lethality in todays hunter the reason the powers that be keep chipping away at our opportunities making our sport less and less enjoyable. I know technology has effected my experiences over the years in a negative way and a positive way. But the negatives have FAR out weighed the positives. Wheelers, speed-bows, long range rifles, range-finders, GPS, Google earth, The Internet, chat-rooms, and on and on and on... Where does it all end? Has technology replaced hunting skill and woodsmanship?


----------



## josh12ga (Nov 23, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> We need "primitive" hunts.


+1+1+1+1 
I agree on many levels of this statement.....


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

josh12ga said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > We need "primitive" hunts.
> ...


So by primitive you mean: No scope rifle. Cap/flint lock and ball muzzy. Recurve/Longbow Archery. That would be cool but when would the seasons be? How much time do they get? Where can they hunt?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I don't think the specifics matter. Opportunity is the key. I think we need to be more creative in ways that we create opportunity to replace the opportunity that is being lost every year. I personally don't like to ever give anything up without some sort of return. If you are going to take away general archery opportunity, what do we get in return? Many of these solutions help allieviate pressure on animals by ditributing portions of the hunting pressure to methods that are far less successful yet still give the masses of sportsmen opportunity to get outside. Don't get me wrong, I wish things could stay the way they have been for the last 100 years, but that is not on the table. So I ask, what would it hurt to offer statewide primitive archery tags that are good for all general zones? Even if you might not be interested in this type of hunting, it would relieve some of the pressure on whatever hunt you participate in. Some primitive archery on the LE hunts would be fun too. I'm no biologist, but from experience hunting in Oregon, a few guys chasing around bucks in the summertime with long-bows doesn't have alot of impact. Even though I choose a rifle as my weapon of choice right now, I am all for any way of increasing and expanding our sport.---------SS


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

UtahHuntingDirect said:


> I come and go on UWN because I get tired of the junior-high school girl mentality that pops up constantly here. The "I can do everything you can do better" cat-fights get old quick, and does nothing but separate us more and more in a sport that we are constantly at risk of losing. It doesn't matter if we hunt over bait/no bait, rifle/archery, modern archery/traditional archery, road hunt/hike, hunt for wall hangers/for food* (*though that one may actually take precedence...). We all hunt because we enjoy being outdoors away from the regular stresses of life. We may like to hunt to get away from people, or we may hunt to get closer to certain people we want to be around. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Everybody may have different reasons why they hunt, but there is one thing we all have in common, we enjoy it. So why pick on the next guy because he does it a different way than you?





UtahHuntingDirect said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > ??? Who was that directed towards?
> ...


Wow, these are two of the best responses I've read in along time. I agree 100%.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Also, I don't think the guys at the DWR have thought about your question Tex but maybe it should be something to look at.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> It's been suggested by more than one person within my circle of influence that the reason archery hunters are continually getting the shorter end of the stick every year (no statewide archery anymore) is because the people that make the rules are looking at the lethality and technology associated with todays archery equipment as a bigger threat to animals and therefore cutting opportunity because we're killing/maiming more critters than ever before. We all know that Archers have a least amount of impact on hunted species of wildlife, but is the impact becoming to great with the advancements made in modern equipment? In the hands of an archer with the skills to get it done a deer can easily be killed out to as far as 120 yards. Twenty years ago the realistic max distance for a skilled archer was half that. Have we become to lethal for our own good?


Per the *1962* harvest report under SPECIAL HUNTS, there were 11,939 archery (either sex) deer permits issued and there were 1,232 bucks killed and 908 does killed for a total of 2,140 which is an *18.5%* archery hunter success rate. (Assuming all 11,939 hunters actually hunted. If not, it would be even higher!)

Edited: Per the *2010* Big Game Annual Report there were 13,984 archery deer hunters afield and there were 2,281 bucks killed and 159 does killed for a total of 2,440 which is a *17.4%* success rate. So, in 48 years, even with all the technology, the success rate went DOWN 1.1%!

So, what technologically advanced lethality are you and your circle of influence talking about? :O•-:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Also, I don't think the guys at the DWR have thought about your question Tex but maybe it should be something to look at.


We've been hearing this for years! And it has been seriously looked at for at least 3 years that I know of per the Southern RAC's meeting on the overcrowding issue!


----------



## Anaconda Pintler (Oct 29, 2007)

How far you willing to step back Tex? Cus with me the "primitve" would mean self bow (no glass) no recurves and all stone points!


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Anaconda Pintler said:


> How far you willing to step back Tex? Cus with me the "primitve" would mean self bow (no glass) no recurves and all stone points!


Yup, that's about as primitive as it gets that's for sure. Right now they've got a primitive weapon classified as an in line muzzle loader with only a 1X scope... :?


----------

