Nameless Range
Well-known member
I really enjoy the Meateater podcast. In Steve Rinella's most recent podcast he ended with this,
With technology creep and the inevitable rise in efficacy of hunters, fish and game agencies are going to adjust, and they have a couple tools at their disposal: shorter seasons and fewer tags, or moving seasons to less opportune hunting times......Like it or not, it's coming to you.
If the future of hunting were a prediction market, I'd put my money on those outcomes as the most probable actions of fish and game agencies to reduce hunters' effect on the resource. That said, there is another option, though certainly less likely, that wasn't and isn't discussed - that being reducing the technology allowed by hunters.
The golden age of bowhunting elk in which we currently live can't last forever, with today's gear and technology associated with recon, everyone is slaying them. Sooner or later the state of Montana will shorten the season, or increase the amount of districts requiring a draw. This will happen incrementally, district by district, until we are looking at the aggregate of districts and realizing that statewide, our opportunities have been severely diminished. It's like bringing the frog in the pot to a slow boil.
But we really do have other options, I'd sooner prefer the state of Montana ban game cameras than put districts to draw. I'd rather keep my 6 week bow season on OTC tags with traditional archery gear than a two week season with my compound. These are extreme examples and technology could be limited in all sorts of ways that would reduce hunter efficacy, which would be the goal. I like to hunt more than I like to be succesful with ease.
Take rifle season. I for one would be fine with no longer allowing rut hunting for mulies, but I'd take a Montana that only allows muzzle loaders statewide over a Montana that follows the lead of Utah where I only get to hunt mulies once every two or three years with high-powered centerfires. Just thinking out of the box off the top of my head. I haven't researched how these effect efficacy, but I would seriously rather keep my opportunity and 12 week ungulate season and employ these tools of technological limitation than limit my opportunity and go the way of LE tags and shorter seasons. Things like:
-Limiting archery gear to traditional
-Muzzleloader only
-Open sights only on centerfire
-No game cameras
-Etc.
I know this is unlikely, and I'm not even necessarily arguing for it, but to say the only two options for reducing hunters' effect on the resource are less tags or shorter seasons just isn't true. Of course Fish and Game agencies would be up against a crapload of industry money and boys with their toys, but me personally, I want to hunt as much as possible. Whether it be with my open sighted Moisin or my recurve, I'd rather hunt with those for 12 weeks than with my .308 and my compound for 3 weeks every two years.
Meanwhile the frog in the pot just bought a bow that approaches 350 fps and will be putting cameras up once bear season is over......
With technology creep and the inevitable rise in efficacy of hunters, fish and game agencies are going to adjust, and they have a couple tools at their disposal: shorter seasons and fewer tags, or moving seasons to less opportune hunting times......Like it or not, it's coming to you.
If the future of hunting were a prediction market, I'd put my money on those outcomes as the most probable actions of fish and game agencies to reduce hunters' effect on the resource. That said, there is another option, though certainly less likely, that wasn't and isn't discussed - that being reducing the technology allowed by hunters.
The golden age of bowhunting elk in which we currently live can't last forever, with today's gear and technology associated with recon, everyone is slaying them. Sooner or later the state of Montana will shorten the season, or increase the amount of districts requiring a draw. This will happen incrementally, district by district, until we are looking at the aggregate of districts and realizing that statewide, our opportunities have been severely diminished. It's like bringing the frog in the pot to a slow boil.
But we really do have other options, I'd sooner prefer the state of Montana ban game cameras than put districts to draw. I'd rather keep my 6 week bow season on OTC tags with traditional archery gear than a two week season with my compound. These are extreme examples and technology could be limited in all sorts of ways that would reduce hunter efficacy, which would be the goal. I like to hunt more than I like to be succesful with ease.
Take rifle season. I for one would be fine with no longer allowing rut hunting for mulies, but I'd take a Montana that only allows muzzle loaders statewide over a Montana that follows the lead of Utah where I only get to hunt mulies once every two or three years with high-powered centerfires. Just thinking out of the box off the top of my head. I haven't researched how these effect efficacy, but I would seriously rather keep my opportunity and 12 week ungulate season and employ these tools of technological limitation than limit my opportunity and go the way of LE tags and shorter seasons. Things like:
-Limiting archery gear to traditional
-Muzzleloader only
-Open sights only on centerfire
-No game cameras
-Etc.
I know this is unlikely, and I'm not even necessarily arguing for it, but to say the only two options for reducing hunters' effect on the resource are less tags or shorter seasons just isn't true. Of course Fish and Game agencies would be up against a crapload of industry money and boys with their toys, but me personally, I want to hunt as much as possible. Whether it be with my open sighted Moisin or my recurve, I'd rather hunt with those for 12 weeks than with my .308 and my compound for 3 weeks every two years.
Meanwhile the frog in the pot just bought a bow that approaches 350 fps and will be putting cameras up once bear season is over......
Last edited: