Utah Wildlife Forum banner

Technology Committee for Big Game Hunting

9K views 137 replies 31 participants last post by  taxidermist 
#1 ·
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.)


 
See less See more
#2 ·
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.
 
#3 ·
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
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#5 ·
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.
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#12 ·
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 🙄
 
#13 ·
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
 
#20 ·
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
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#16 ·
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
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#29 ·
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!
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#24 ·
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.
 
#26 ·
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
 
#31 ·
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.
 
#36 ·
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
 
#32 ·
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.
 
#34 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
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.
 
#68 ·
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 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?”



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
 
#77 ·
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
 
#80 ·
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.
 
#81 ·
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.

Shoe Smile Plant Tree Leisure
 
#85 ·
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
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top