Technology Creep

[greatwhitebuffalo]

If you think it's bad now you should have seen it in the 50's and 60's when there was a lot less game and the equipment was 25% quality of what we have today.

Yes, cowboy. Amen. You've got to admit that sheer statistics alone show a positive correlation with overall game numbers and technological improvements. So, it's not all bad. I believe that some of the biggest payoff from technology has been an increased interest in hunting. As much as we might hate "the crowds"; numbers in the ranks = improvements. Generally, speaking that is. There will always be a few bad apples and some down side...

My vote is for pulling the reigns back on technology though. I'll try to stay out of arguing the pro's and con's of individual advancements, and simply distill my point down to one question: Do we NEED it???

I admit guilt here. In the past, technology has weakened me as a hunter. I found myself getting lazy and not concentrating on what I already knew. Success can usually be found in the drive to work harder.

How many times has the question on perfect caliber been posed??? Or, optics? When the truth is that you don't need a better caliber, you just need to learn how to shoot/hunt.

A lot of us couldn't find our asses with both hands if we didn't have a GPS, and wouldn't even consider using tactics that didn't look cool on t.v. or online. Do all of us a favor and draw the line.

 

[cowboy]

How many times has the question on perfect caliber been posed??? Or, optics? When the truth is that you don't need a better caliber, you just need to learn how to shoot/hunt.

A lot of us couldn't find our asses with both hands if we didn't have a GPS, and wouldn't even consider using tactics that didn't look cool on t.v. or online. Do all of us a favor and draw the line.

Greatwhitebuffalo - you have hit the nail on the head with a couple of your comments. TV and today's almost instantaneous world wide news and advertising is a whole new ball game and that is the constant media reminder that you have to spend more money to be better.

The majority of hunters would be much better off if they just worked on their shortcomings with the equipment they have rather than trying to buy a new and better gadget and buying their way into being better.

There are still people out there that kind of "Get It" - never had the pleasure of meeting the gentleman but I'll use a guy on here as an example - Lawnboy - makes fun of himself by being an ambassador for Walmart equipment then shows a picture of him with 3 generations of his family on a successful DIU hunt in Alaska. He's got it figured out.

 

[mtmuley]

Which one is the problem? The guy buying gadgets to compensate for the shortcomings of his woodsmanship, or the guy that buys the gadgets and has the skills to use them in addition to skilled woodsmanship? mtmuley

 

[cowboy]

Which one is the problem? The guy buying gadgets to compensate for the shortcomings of his woodsmanship, or the guy that buys the gadgets and has the skills to use them in addition to skilled woodsmanship? mtmuley

No problem either way - just saying I think that things are not gloom and doom today. We have many more and better better choices than anytime previously in my lifetime- it is up to the individual to figure out what is best for himself.

When I started in this game the only way we learned anything other than from our dad's was to read the 2 main monthly hunting magazines that came in the mail.

 

[greatwhitebuffalo]

Either. It depends on how much they rely on it. I understand splurging on some George Jestson equipment every now and then for kicks and giggles. But, what's better? - Having all the latest gadgets? Or, not needing them and being able to do just fine without???

 

[double_a85]

I hate to say it, but I have fallen into the technology trap. My dad taught me at a young age how to navigate with map and compass, but since the GPS has come along I no longer carry a compass in my pack...

Just look at the GPS with the fancy chip and keep on hiking away.

 

[Cornell2012]

Its all relative. Those same people that made the bad shots are doing so at longer ranges. It's not making them stop.

I agree that stupid people will be stupid. I'm not sure I've seen any idea proposed that would really stop them from going out in the field and making poor decisions.

I was thinking something like this, though I did not articulate it very well: I go out hunting for deer. I get within a reasonable range for a centerfire rifle (50 or 100 yards, let's say) and then I make a little too much noise and the deer has me pegged. There isn't much chance to get closer so I prepare to take a shot. With open sights, there is a pretty good chance I wind up wounding the deer (I know I am not good with open sights), leading to a wounded escape or having to chase it down and shoot it again. With a scope (even a relatively primitive, low power one) my odds of making a clean kill go way up due to the consistency it provides.

As an average, trying-to-be-ethical hunter, I would probably not take the shot, but I would be tempted. Perhaps after enough of these types of encounters, I eventually take a shot anyhow due to frustration. Maybe it goes well, and maybe it doesn't. In either case, the lack of technology would have tempted me to take a less ethical action than I would otherwise.

So, I see where some of the disagreements are coming from, but I still stand by my original assertion: I would be in favor of making it more difficult to find animals, but I would not support elimination of technology that helps the average hunter make clean kills.

 

[Bambistew]

Has anyone seen actual data to back up the claims that technology is having an impact? It should be pretty easy to find. Success rate then verses now, and compare it to game populations.

I've spent probably 200 hours analyzing the sheep harvest stats in Alaska from about 1980 to present. I've not seen any appreciable jump in success that wasn't attributed to available animals to harvest, nor has there really been an appreciable increase/decrease in days to harvest.

Colorado has decent info online, would be interested to know if anyone has looked it up. Should be an easy trend to see if in fact we're seeing it.

I also don't think that long range hunting will really ever increase the harvest rate, unless a whole lot more people get into it and start spending a lot more time at the range. The reason being, that most people I've seen get into this LR stuff, are not the average joe hunter... most were successful before they needed another tool in their box. These guys would have likely been successful either way.

No matter what the technology, humans will push the limit. We could make all seasons spear only, and someone would come up with a long range spear...

Pretty sure a few of the guys who have replied have built long range rifles... just say'n being a hypocrite is something we all excel at.

 

[Nameless Range]

A quick Google led me to this report about compound vs trad archery gear. No surprise, compounds lead to greater hunter efficacy.

http://wp.auburn.edu/deerlab/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/601996-SEAFWA.pdf

That said, if multiple biologists and F & G agencies are aware of and acknowledge the increased effectiveness of hunters nowadays, I don't know if it is controversial to say that technology makes hunters more successful. I would put the burden of proof on the guy saying that technology doesn't help hunters be more successful. I'm certainly aware that many other western states have limited entry/reduced seasons not necessarily because of technology, but simply hunter numbers.

Anecdotal sure, but if I look at my own experience:

I started archery hunting with a recurve. Killed a couple MT whitetail does. Was within compound range of elk and bucks that I simply couldn't kill. Bought a compound. I am absolutely more successful now in terms of the probability that I will fill my tag in a given year.

I've done about half my hunting with a model 59 Moisin with peep sights. Over the course of a decade, I had numerous instances where my tag would have been filled if only I had a scope, because the critter was out further than 150 yds or so. I rarely hunt with that Moisin anymore, and know that when I walk out the door on any given hunt, my probability for success is greater because my effective range is doubled.



Or, let's have a thought experiment:

Nameless Range is king for a day.

Two Universes exist: Universe 1 and Universe 2. Both Universes are identical except for the changes Nameless Range dicates.

350,000 people are hunting for elk in Montana in Universe 1. They are allowed to hunt using currently legal technology.

350,000 people are hunting for elk in Montana in Universe 2. They are limited to open sighted muzzle loaders and recurve/longbow stick and strings.

What is more likely? That hunter success would be identical between both universes, or that more elk would be killed in Universe 1? I'd say the latter is obvious.

Now, if we establish that limiting technology can reduce the probablity of the efficacy of any given hunter, then hypothetically, we could limit the allowed technology of hunters as a whole and the aggregate would have less effect on the resource, all else being equal.

 

[SunRiverMan]

Be careful what you ask for. We can't even get lighted nocks which affect nothing but knowing if the shot was good. Scopes on muzzleloaders help with less wounding of an animal. I have no problem with technology as you can tell. Peace!

 

[teamhoyt]

When generally speaking most western states can only kill one buck/bull per year anyway do you really think that we are over harvesting our resources? Me personally in mt I use the length of seasons to hunt for a more mature animal(in theory) and just generally being able to spend more time out of doors. The Shorter seasons that I have participated in in Wyoming seamed to put a lot of forkies on the ground. We have all seen the threads on elk units being over objective and deer making a comeback after some bad winters, so are we really killing to many? Or are we arguing more for every one to be limited for other personal reasons?

 

[The Hedgehog]

Primitive weapons haven't been primitive for decades.

I was shooting 60 yards in the early 80s with arrows, and accurately over 100 yards since 97. Shot a pronghorn with a muzzleloader at 220 yards in 1997.

Rinella's correct - but at least in MT, we ain't there yet. There's still good resources, plenty of places to hunt, and the techy gear guys aren't killing more than they used to before they got the fancy hunting stuff.

 

[Oak]

I think that on the archery side in CO, the way we will see technology affect future opportunity is through increased participation in these seasons forcing CPW to limit permits in the OTC units. There has not been a significant increase in percent harvest success, but there has been an increase in participants.

The data online only goes back to 2005, but here is total archery hunters and percent success:

2005 - 35,628 - 14%
2006 - 38,634 - 12%
2007 - 37,186 - 14%
2008 - 40,954 - 12%
2009 - 36,654 - 13%
2010 - 40,568 - 12%
2011 - 39,589 - 12%
2012 - 39,883 - 13%
2013 - 41,967 - 13%
2014 - 44,536 - 14%

 

[The Hedgehog]

I think that on the archery side in CO, the way we will see technology affect future opportunity is through increased participation in these seasons forcing CPW to limit permits in the OTC units. There has not been a significant increase in percent harvest success, but there has been an increase in participants.

The data online only goes back to 2005, but here is total archery hunters and percent success:

2005 - 35,628 - 14%
2006 - 38,634 - 12%
2007 - 37,186 - 14%
2008 - 40,954 - 12%
2009 - 36,654 - 13%
2010 - 40,568 - 12%
2011 - 39,589 - 12%
2012 - 39,883 - 13%
2013 - 41,967 - 13%
2014 - 44,536 - 14%

That basically proves it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with #s of people out hunting.

 

[Ben Long]

teamhoyt raises and interesting question: "so are we really killing to many? Or are we arguing more for every one to be limited for other personal reasons?"
Obviously, it depends on the species and location. I would say where I live, NW MT, the whitetail deer population and population structure is not particularly impacted by hunting pressure, but more by winter kill. Elk are different, IMO. Certainly, hunting pressure skews the herd structure, with relatively few bulls living to maturity. I would guess the same to be said for mule deer. That's what I see from here, but would be interested if others see different.

 

[Nameless Range]

That basically proves it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with #s of people out hunting.

I would disagree. Most people bowhunting in 2005 were probably using compounds with performance close to what we see in today's compounds. In terms of performance, 2005 bows were surely closer to today's compounds than the longbows and recurves that were available 40 years ago.

With such a small sample size, and the data not being normalized in any way to consider weather during peak rut, the percentage of those bowhunters using traditional gear, the somewhat cyclical nature of animal populations, and a host of other things - it's just not enough to draw a conclusion from.

I'd absolutetly agree that hunter numbers may be the chief driver in the hunting community's effect on animal populations. But when we consider that technological advances in hunting aren't created equal (going from a map to a gps won't effect hunter success as much as the change from longbow to modern compounds for instance), we would need data going back a lot further, with a lot more detail.

I don't think this is a simple subject.

 

[kansasdad]

I think that on the archery side in CO, the way we will see technology affect future opportunity is through increased participation in these seasons forcing CPW to limit permits in the OTC units. There has not been a significant increase in percent harvest success, but there has been an increase in participants.

The data online only goes back to 2005, but here is total archery hunters and percent success:

2005 - 35,628 - 14%
2006 - 38,634 - 12%
2007 - 37,186 - 14%
2008 - 40,954 - 12%
2009 - 36,654 - 13%
2010 - 40,568 - 12%
2011 - 39,589 - 12%
2012 - 39,883 - 13%
2013 - 41,967 - 13%
2014 - 44,536 - 14%

A little number crunching:

So using these figures (rounded off percentages) you get an archery harvest low of 4992 elk in 2005, to a high of 6235 in 2014. The percentage success hardly changes year to year, but the increasing numbers of archery hunters added 1243 more dead elk reported in 2014 vs 2005.

Total population estimated by CWP is just under 280,000 animals.

 

[Joe Hulburt]

Be careful what you ask for. We can't even get lighted nocks which affect nothing but knowing if the shot was good. Scopes on muzzleloaders help with less wounding of an animal. I have no problem with technology as you can tell. Peace!

This one always kills me! Why do you need lighted nocks to know if a shot was good??? Because of advancements in TECHNOLOGY! If you were hunting with a 1980 compound bow with 2317 arrows with 5" fletch zipping along at 190 FPS you could easily see where your arrow just hit. Additionally if you only took 100% guaranteed shots you would already know where they were going to hit.

The whole argument for lighted nocks proves exactly how technology creep has got us to where we are today yet so many people emphatically claim they will have zero impact of harvest. That is BS. They are just another step towards the ultimate primitive weapon.

If anybody believes we are not loosing archery opportunity due to technology they are kidding themselves. It's happening all around and it's happening fast....

 

[Oak]

That basically proves it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with #s of people out hunting.

Agreed that it is about the number of people hunting. Why have we seen a 25% increase in archery participation since 2005? Some might argue that it is the fact that folks can "pick up two sticks and a string a week before the season and zip an [elk] at 54 yards no problem."

I would like to see the numbers back another 20 years.

 

[shoots-straight]

So, I see where some of the disagreements are coming from, but I still stand by my original assertion: I would be in favor of making it more difficult to find animals, but I would not support elimination of technology that helps the average hunter make clean kills.

I don't mean to pick on you, but still wondering where your coming from.

The smart bullet has been invented. All you have to do is get the target identified in the scope and pull the trigger. The bullet will do the rest. Clean kill with no skill.

If allowing average hunter to make clean kills is the consideration then that should be OK>

Making animals harder to find will happen because technology will make killing too easy. WE might have already reached that point.