In defense of new technology - www.ifish.net

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Hunting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-09-2020, 10:13 AM   #1
Frogger
Cutthroat
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 27
Default In defense of new technology

Many discussions have been made by our IFISH hunting community involving the acceptance or disdain for technological innovation in the field.

During the discourse there are two typical camps of thought:

The first is the techno-phile that rapidly accepts and employs new gear. The latter camp holds to the traditional gear.

As with many arguments, but perhaps more poignant with these discussions, a polarizing effect within each camp is noted. Wherein, the techno-philes use only the newest gear and adamantly claim it superior, conversely the polarized end of the traditionalist camp seem to claim that the tools and gear developed and used by early western explorers suffices and should exclusively be used.

---

With that preamble, I suggest that neither camp is right, but that the techno-phile camp is more correct than the traditionalists. Polarized extremists aside, I suggest that the modest acceptance of innovation has been, and continues to be, fundamental to the outdoorsman.

From the plainsman first-nations tribes accepting steel, to the tin cloth wearing, model 12 shooting duck hunter of years gone-by, our outdoor ancestors have always accepted the latest innovation and used the ones that work.

Those who abstain from the modernized innovations do so at their own risk, but I encourage all to consider what the black and white photos of yesteryear display. These iconic images of bucks on Model T roofs and hundreds of ducks lined up on float shack porches consistently have men in the background that are outfitted with newest of gear at the time.

As a youth hiking up the Snake River Canyons with a double Mackinaw I saved three years to buy, to an adult running up the hills in lightweight, breathable sitka, I can tell you that some pieces of gear are better suited to stay in camp because technology has outdone itself.

---

Just food for thought, and an argument whose logic can be debated.

Note: I still pack that Filson Mackinaw on every trip but wear it only in camp or on the trail. Proving that nostalgia has its place.

Frogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-09-2020, 10:51 AM   #2
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 6,233
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogger View Post
I still pack that Filson Mackinaw on every trip but wear it only in camp or on the trail. Proving that nostalgia has its place.
Could be quite useful on horseback packing into the Bob Marshall Wilderness in November too.
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 11:14 AM   #3
Flatfish
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mulletville
Posts: 12,948
Default Re: In defense of new technology

It's kinda based on the ability of the person operating said equipment.

I was a contractor for over a decade. None of the professionals spent much time arguing over Dewalt vs Makita kinda stuff. It didn't matter (So long as the tool was reliable), because we understood that the people running the equipment made the result.

My FIL was a weekend hobby guy who for years asked my opinion of this saw or that nail gun. He was always expecting a magic bullet answer. I never really cared, because as a pro, I knew his skill was the limiting factor, and not the air compressor or sawzall he wanted to blame shoddy work on.

With the outdoors industry (Hugely important to keep in mind that there's an INDUSTRY based on selling hooks and bullets), if they don't reinvent the wheel every year or two, they go broke. So stuff trends in whatever direction it does..... based on the whims of the relatively uneducated public that has disposable income.

In reality, it's mostly about the ability of the user to run a duck call or shoot a rifle well. But the outdoor industry never admits to that in any of their marketing.

There's times when the tool makes a difference. But often times, it's not as huge a gap as the marketing folks want you to think.

Clothing is much improved over wool/down of my youth.

Rifle accuracy standards were set in the 1850s. Little gains have been made since then. I do admit that scopes with accurate dials, smokeless powder, the optical sight, and rangefinders make longer range much easier for the uneducated public.

But if you place a modern scope on a Whitworth rifle and load it with modern components, and use a rangefinder .....you may well be let down at the advancements claimed by the folks who sold you the newest greatest modern plastic bolt rifle (For several thousand dollars). The mechanism itself has made only small gains.

Shotguns have improved very little since the smokeless cartridge choked 12 bore brought out.

One needs to be a little educated to understand how tech is making gains. I've done my fair share to help the industry. Looking to spend a more today in fact.
__________________
A curious thing happens when hatchery fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions

Last edited by Flatfish; 01-09-2020 at 11:16 AM.
Flatfish is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-09-2020, 02:21 PM   #4
SImudBogger
Brood stock
 
SImudBogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gresham
Posts: 6,176
Default Re: In defense of new technology

It’s the fiddler, not the fiddle stick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Time marches on, time marches on......
SImudBogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 02:46 PM   #5
scoutdog5
Tuna!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bend
Posts: 1,241
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Anyone who thinks the improvements in optics and rifles, and the huge promotion of long range shooting/killing (not hunting) is not having a negative impact on our deer and elk populations has smoked far too many funny cigarettes. Now, if you are comparing today to 15 years ago, maybe not a huge difference, but if you are comparing to the 60's and 70's, when deer populations were much larger, this is a huge factor in reduced populations. It is not just the 1000 yard shot either. 500-600 yard kill shots are common. Who knows how many 500-600 yard wounding shots there are, nobody admits to them. When I went on my first deer hunt in 1962, a shot like that would have been considered a miracle, for the most part. Were there a few people who could make them then? Sure, but not many.

And then there are the archers, who are regularly shooting at 75 plus yards. There were not many archers back then, since there were no separate seasons for the most part, but I doubt if any of them were shooting that far.

Then we have trail cams, which are replacing in person scouting and creating increased opportunity to kill mature males. Those did not exist 20 years ago, I don't think, let alone in the 60's.

Modern equipment is one more factor that is responsible for declining populations of deer and elk across the west. Not the largest factor, but certainly a significant factor when added to all the others. Unfortunately, I don't see any way you put that genie back in the bottle.

Scoutdog
scoutdog5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 03:15 PM   #6
Wreckless
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hillsboro OR
Posts: 11,496
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Of course technology is allowing more critters to be killed. Quads, GPS, ONX, scopes that do the work for you. Google earth, heck the 'net. If we don't police our ranks, I'm afraid that "over tech" will be the end of hunting as we know it.
I don't want laws too many limiting our practices, but there has to be a line. DON'T ask me where it is. Are animals going to get to the point where a human within 3/4 of a mile of them is perceived as a threat? I hope not. BUT I will defend a person's RIGHT to "long range kill" or wear a $1000 rain coat or ride a quad on a road or........
We don't need to be further divided.
My pet peeve: Sharing video of gruesome kills and people laughing as an animal dies. This does us as hunters NO GOOD. Non-hunters don't understand this. Yes, we have every right to do it, but we shouldn't.

This should be a great discussion that we need to have.

BTW - Yes, I have a variable scope on a rifle, an in-line muzzle loader, Omnitech/gortex clothing, GPS, GREAT decoys that look just like the birds they are intended to attract and I spend WAY too much time here. ALL "hi-tech".
__________________
Owner/Operator: "I Can't Believe it's a Guide Service".....I miss you Dale!

"Today's the day"......Mel Fisher
Wreckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 03:18 PM   #7
baltz526
King Salmon
 
baltz526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: lapine oregon
Posts: 23,202
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Take the range finder: One guy uses it to measure the distance from a point on a ridge to the far side of a canyon where a critter is standing 712 yards away. Another uses the range finder to check the distance to a point where he might be closer to the critter, to estimate if he has enough time before dark to get close enough for the easy 200 yard shot.
__________________
I have been wrong once before. Just once mind you. It was for several years, Ok A decade or more. But just the once.
baltz526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 07:12 PM   #8
Wreckless
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hillsboro OR
Posts: 11,496
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Fibre optic sights are another example. My eyes wouldn't allow me to hunt with my open sighted muzzle loader without that "new" technology. I don't draw a muzzle loader tag often, but when I do I want to hunt with my fibre optic ghost ring sights.
__________________
Owner/Operator: "I Can't Believe it's a Guide Service".....I miss you Dale!

"Today's the day"......Mel Fisher
Wreckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 08:15 PM   #9
Justin's Fly
Tuna!
 
Justin's Fly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,353
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoutdog5 View Post
Anyone who thinks the improvements in optics and rifles, and the huge promotion of long range shooting/killing (not hunting) is not having a negative impact on our deer and elk populations has smoked far too many funny cigarettes. Now, if you are comparing today to 15 years ago, maybe not a huge difference, but if you are comparing to the 60's and 70's, when deer populations were much larger, this is a huge factor in reduced populations. It is not just the 1000 yard shot either. 500-600 yard kill shots are common. Who knows how many 500-600 yard wounding shots there are, nobody admits to them. When I went on my first deer hunt in 1962, a shot like that would have been considered a miracle, for the most part. Were there a few people who could make them then? Sure, but not many.

And then there are the archers, who are regularly shooting at 75 plus yards. There were not many archers back then, since there were no separate seasons for the most part, but I doubt if any of them were shooting that far.

Then we have trail cams, which are replacing in person scouting and creating increased opportunity to kill mature males. Those did not exist 20 years ago, I don't think, let alone in the 60's.

Modern equipment is one more factor that is responsible for declining populations of deer and elk across the west. Not the largest factor, but certainly a significant factor when added to all the others. Unfortunately, I don't see any way you put that genie back in the bottle.

Scoutdog

I do worry this has drastically reduced our herds. Although there are many things. The efficiency in archery equipment needs to be looked at and I think will be reduced soon in the future.

I do use new gear for sure, but am not a huge fan of long shots. Too each his own, but I do think it should mean the reduction of tags. People are much more efficient than 50 years ago.
__________________
Take it easy, and if it's easy take it twice!
Justin's Fly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 09:19 PM   #10
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 15,220
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Success rates up=tag allocations down, unless you are ODF&W. Success rates up=game populations down.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 10:37 PM   #11
elkhuntinfool
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 312
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by SImudBogger View Post
It’s the fiddler, not the fiddle stick


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will admit that I use all the new technology at my disposal. Why not? Everyone else will!. I have paid good money for my optics, range finders, bows, rifles, etc!!!
I also can say that I enjoy learning how to use all of this technology, twenty year ago we did not have half of what we do today.
It is the way our hobby has progressed, I have friends that are hunting black powder, but the are using scopes??? That is not fitting with tradition, open sights only.
Make all tradition all hunts equal. The rifle hunts are free game, whatever you can afford.
elkhuntinfool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 01:16 AM   #12
Nightvisionary
Chromer
 
Nightvisionary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 502
Default Re: In defense of new technology

I have found a good use for my thermal observation unit that will detect a man at 1200 yards. There is a big field where I hunt elk. During the off season elk will graze this field until twilight or later. On opening day everybody and I mean everybody sneaks out to the field 2 to 3 hours before legal hunting and sits in the cold and rain until they can see to shoot. I head out there about 10 minutes before legal hunting, glass the field with my thermal for about 30 seconds, see there are no elk then walk back to camp and go back to bed.
Nightvisionary is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 08:59 PM   #13
Justin's Fly
Tuna!
 
Justin's Fly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,353
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightvisionary View Post
I have found a good use for my thermal observation unit that will detect a man at 1200 yards. There is a big field where I hunt elk. During the off season elk will graze this field until twilight or later. On opening day everybody and I mean everybody sneaks out to the field 2 to 3 hours before legal hunting and sits in the cold and rain until they can see to shoot. I head out there about 10 minutes before legal hunting, glass the field with my thermal for about 30 seconds, see there are no elk then walk back to camp and go back to bed.
Huh must be hunting some other place besides Oregon.

I know OSP on the coast have been trying to crack down on folks using thermal imaging. There are plenty of folks doing that and killing bulls in logged units during the night.

It does crack me up that OHA has an advertisement for Sig Sauer ballistic crap....basically telling you where and how to shoot an animal..................also illegal in Oregon. But OHA advertises it, must be legal!
__________________
Take it easy, and if it's easy take it twice!
Justin's Fly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 11:17 PM   #14
Nightvisionary
Chromer
 
Nightvisionary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 502
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin's Fly View Post
Huh must be hunting some other place besides Oregon.

I know OSP on the coast have been trying to crack down on folks using thermal imaging. There are plenty of folks doing that and killing bulls in logged units during the night.

It does crack me up that OHA has an advertisement for Sig Sauer ballistic crap....basically telling you where and how to shoot an animal..................also illegal in Oregon. But OHA advertises it, must be legal!
I am not using a thermal weapon sight I am using a handheld thermal camera viewer to observe. Specifically the Pulsar Quantum HD50S Thermal Monocular. There are no prohibitions against it.

Last edited by Nightvisionary; 01-10-2020 at 11:20 PM.
Nightvisionary is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 12:36 AM   #15
orwapitihunter
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 180
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightvisionary View Post
I am not using a thermal weapon sight I am using a handheld thermal camera viewer to observe. Specifically the Pulsar Quantum HD50S Thermal Monocular. There are no prohibitions against it.
If you are in Oregon, check pages 16-17 of the 2020 regs.
orwapitihunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 12:05 PM   #16
jimh
King Salmon
 
jimh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Area 8-1 to 13, WA
Posts: 7,154
Default Re: In defense of new technology

If you don’t have clothes/gear, might as well buy new tech. But, if you have clothes/gear that works, I think buying new stuff is more about catching hunters. Afterall, game isn’t getting smarter and weather isn’t getting worse.

Kind of like new fishing gear is better for catching fishermen but not necessarily better for catching fish.

Not much different than new tech on a truck. Other than bits of tiny improvements and cameras, how much better is a new truck compared to a 10 year old one that is 50K less. I’d say very little.

If it makes you happy, go for it though.
__________________
Wear a PFD if you want to live. CCA Life Member. NRA Life Member.
jimh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 12:50 PM   #17
backcountryhunter5
Chromer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 553
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoutdog5 View Post
Anyone who thinks the improvements in optics and rifles, and the huge promotion of long range shooting/killing (not hunting) is not having a negative impact on our deer and elk populations has smoked far too many funny cigarettes. Now, if you are comparing today to 15 years ago, maybe not a huge difference, but if you are comparing to the 60's and 70's, when deer populations were much larger, this is a huge factor in reduced populations. It is not just the 1000 yard shot either. 500-600 yard kill shots are common. Who knows how many 500-600 yard wounding shots there are, nobody admits to them. When I went on my first deer hunt in 1962, a shot like that would have been considered a miracle, for the most part. Were there a few people who could make them then? Sure, but not many.

And then there are the archers, who are regularly shooting at 75 plus yards. There were not many archers back then, since there were no separate seasons for the most part, but I doubt if any of them were shooting that far.

Then we have trail cams, which are replacing in person scouting and creating increased opportunity to kill mature males. Those did not exist 20 years ago, I don't think, let alone in the 60's.

Modern equipment is one more factor that is responsible for declining populations of deer and elk across the west. Not the largest factor, but certainly a significant factor when added to all the others. Unfortunately, I don't see any way you put that genie back in the bottle.

Scoutdog
Very well said scoutdog5 - it does not seem to be the "existence" of the new technology but the mindset of the person buying and using it - "old school" in reality is more like "honest mindset and realities" more often than not
backcountryhunter5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 12:54 PM   #18
backcountryhunter5
Chromer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 553
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin's Fly View Post
I do worry this has drastically reduced our herds. Although there are many things. The efficiency in archery equipment needs to be looked at and I think will be reduced soon in the future.

I do use new gear for sure, but am not a huge fan of long shots. Too each his own, but I do think it should mean the reduction of tags. People are much more efficient than 50 years ago.
good points - question: why is it that all but a few "new tech" archery stuff is OK to use and yet muzzle loaders are held to a long held limiting tradition of equipment ? I've often wondered why this is ….
backcountryhunter5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 01:12 PM   #19
DogZilla15
King Salmon
 
DogZilla15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 33,065
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Good post Scoutdog.

Probably what makes me wonder where it’s going the most is the primitive gear seasons, muzzle loaders and archery. Completely out of hand. I suppose the most obscene gear in regular rifle season is the use of range finders and scopes with bullet trajectory compensation abilities. Wouldn’t it be innovative for various DFW’s to limit big game scopes to 6X? Said it before, open sights are under rated.
DogZilla15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 01:29 PM   #20
chukardave1
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bend
Posts: 2,613
Default Re: In defense of new technology

I think everyone else does it wrong and my way is the only correct way to hunt
chukardave1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 02:01 PM   #21
DogZilla15
King Salmon
 
DogZilla15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 33,065
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Dave.... You probably drink the wrong beer too. Boxers or briefs?
DogZilla15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 02:15 PM   #22
OSU Fisher
Steelhead
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 226
Default Re: In defense of new technology

I get so tired of people looking down on others for the methods they use. We are ALL hunters and hunting. Whether your using a traditional setup at 15yrds or a trick rifle at 1000. You have no idea what kinda effort that person put into getting to that animal and getting him out. If you dont want to accept or use the new technology that's not my fault nor does it mean its bad. Everything is advancing. Same reason we don't drive around a horse and buggy anymore... Some that are saying this new technology is so bad for #'s your also most likely from the generation where it wasnt so uncommon to see 10-15+ mule deer hanging in camp. That was good for long term #'s

Last edited by OSU Fisher; 01-11-2020 at 02:18 PM.
OSU Fisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 05:16 PM   #23
Nightvisionary
Chromer
 
Nightvisionary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 502
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by orwapitihunter View Post
If you are in Oregon, check pages 16-17 of the 2020 regs.
Damn, thanks for the heads up. It looks like that was changed for 2019. Good thing I didn't hunt last year because I missed the change in the synopsis.
Nightvisionary is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 08:51 PM   #24
Wreckless
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hillsboro OR
Posts: 11,496
Default Re: In defense of new technology

OSU Fisher - I don't think anyone, OK most of us, are "looking down" on people who take advantage of all of all the new tech available to us. BUT, we as stewards of the resource need to be aware of the effect we are having on the game we care so much about.
As bows get easier & easier to use, they will need to be regulated, like muzzle loaders. As it gets to the point where anyone with a smart phone & a rangefinder & a good scope can take a fairly effective shot at a critter at 800 yards, there will need to be changes. I hate the thought of Oregon's "leadership" regulating hunters but unless we police ourselves "they" will do it for us and they will do a terrible job.

Like I said before, I have super realistic waterfowl decoys, Gortex clothing, scopes, heck my hunting rig is an F-350 (hardly needed). But there needs to be limits. We have plugs in shotguns, magazine limits, we can't bait waterfowl.....all to help keep it "fair chase".

Go Beav's!!!!!
__________________
Owner/Operator: "I Can't Believe it's a Guide Service".....I miss you Dale!

"Today's the day"......Mel Fisher
Wreckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 10:59 PM   #25
Lucky Guy
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 5,258
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Other sports limit tech if it tilts the game too far one way or the other, no metal bats in the majors, no range finders in pro golf. Not to minimize the life of a big game animal, but if there are too many home runs being hit because of the improved equipment, we can't just turn around and ask the ump for more animals.

Equipment handicapping would be one of not very many ways to limit take without reducing tag numbers and ODFW revenue. You'd think that would move it up the list. Ruling out all the existing equipment it would be hard on everybody and could be a hard thing to get passed though.

In archery if the velocities from the mechanical bows are too high, rather than outlaw the bows could you reduce the velocities with a heavy minimum arrow weight?
Lucky Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 08:40 AM   #26
baltz526
King Salmon
 
baltz526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: lapine oregon
Posts: 23,202
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Lead core arrows? New tech I could support.
__________________
I have been wrong once before. Just once mind you. It was for several years, Ok A decade or more. But just the once.
baltz526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 08:48 AM   #27
Justin's Fly
Tuna!
 
Justin's Fly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,353
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Tech stuff is great, but the regs should also change with the technology. Harvest for archery is increasing each year. I'm not a hater on archery specifically, but there should be decreases in tag numbers for archery if they are killing more.........just a numbers game. The problem with change is that everybody wants better equipment, but keep the tags in the same place.

I do enjoy my new and improved clothing.......especially boots. Still got my 2000 4runner and same basic rifle equipment I've had for 15 years. A rangefinder is nice to have, especially with my muzzleloader.
__________________
Take it easy, and if it's easy take it twice!
Justin's Fly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 10:15 AM   #28
Lucky Guy
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 5,258
Default Re: In defense of new technology

We eliminated rifle rut hunts long ago because too many animals were being killed as hunting equipment improved and pressure increased. It might be time to eliminate all rut hunts, limit them to traditional weapons, or only raffle tags?

Either way we are not going to be able to continue as we are now for long. If we really care about the herds and our kids having these opportunities down the road it's time to put on our long pants and make some hard choices. We're lucky an anti-group hasn't sued ODFW before now for mismanaging the herds and issuing too many tags.

I have a hunch the right ballot measure on limiting big game tags would pass. For example, "ODFW shall not permit the taking of any big game species in any WMU that has not met (2014?) management objectives for that species for the prior two years." Simple enough, the general idea makes sense to non-hunters and hunters too. Tying to a particular year would keep ODFW managers from cooking the books to get around it.

What arguments are there against it? It wouldn't work? Public's not likely to buy that. It's not fair? To who? I don't care, I wanna hunt anyway? Not a good answer. ODFW needs the money and so we can't do that? That's not a good one either. Bicker about which year to use as a baseline maybe but that's not likely to change many yes or no votes.

There's a lot of info and images available to a skilled and well-funded group like PETA or HSUS to sway people, as if the majority in Oregon would need much swaying to reduce big game hunting. I'm surprised it hasn't been tried already. Anybody really sure it couldn't pass?
Lucky Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 11:21 AM   #29
BarbDeep
Chromer
 
BarbDeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pendleton, OR
Posts: 756
Default Re: In defense of new technology

I wonder if its the chicken or the egg with some of this stuff. Success rates are certainly not better than they were 20+ years ago. The game numbers are declining, with that hunters are finding ways to increase that opportunity of harvest. You can't ride around with an old timer without hearing stories (one of my favorite aprts of hunting with Gramps/Grumps lol) of how plentiful the game was, compared to now. It's no wonder this age is implementing things to help tilt the tables. It is a bit frustrating to see all the blame be put on the new generation and the tech. We are only trying to enjoy the tradition (i realize some of you will say it's not tradition if its tech forward) of the past and for many continue family heritage. There are less animals, less huntable ground, less opportunity. I'm not against maximizing the opportunities we do have. I don't think sportsman are the answer to declining herds, we are the answer to fixing it though.
__________________
When it's all said and done, there's nothing left to say or do.
BarbDeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 11:25 AM   #30
Headhunter
Sturgeon
 
Headhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Oregon City
Posts: 4,981
Default

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
__________________
Fins, Feathers & Fur. Saltwater fish junkie

Last edited by Headhunter; 01-12-2020 at 11:28 AM.
Headhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 12:03 PM   #31
Lucky Guy
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 5,258
Default Re: In defense of new technology

[QUOTE=BarbDeep;16224929]It is a bit frustrating to see all the blame be put on the new generation and the tech. We are only trying to enjoy the tradition (i realize some of you will say it's not tradition if its tech forward) of the past and for many continue family heritage./QUOTE]

"Why's everybody always pickin' on me?" Hey millennial, that old Coasters' lyric might be before your time, but this isn't about you. I don't see any blaming of anyone based on age. Your gen has no lock on or entitlement to modern weapons or hunting tech. Nor do you get a pass on dealing with declining game numbers because you want to hunt (the long pants part, no whining allowed.) Nobody's attacking family hunting traditions, just the opposite - trying to preserve them for the next gen, millennial and beyond.

Either way you won't be hunting like you hope to for long if the numbers don't turn around. Many of us are aging out, it's more your problem than ours. But we do care about a lot of you and would like you to experience what we have as much as possible.

Your gramps might be sharing his experience and perspective about the decline in numbers so you can help everybody figure out how best to help. Think of it as one big family meeting, multiple generations working on a problem we all face together and that seems to be getting worse by the year. It's an example of the tragedy of the commons, everyone can come up with a reason why someone else should reduce their take of a declining resource first so I can have mine now. Until it's all gone. It's that simple however you dress it up. Gramps has likely seen it before and knows it can happen. You should believe it too, it can happen.
Lucky Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 12:18 PM   #32
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 6,233
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky Guy View Post
We eliminated rifle rut hunts long ago...

We did?

Because 143C - John Day Canyon, 145A - Fossil Unit No. 2, and 148A - Heppner, all with hunt dates of November 21-29, just got ADDED for 2020.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 02:28 PM   #33
BarbDeep
Chromer
 
BarbDeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pendleton, OR
Posts: 756
Default Re: In defense of new technology

[quote=Lucky Guy;16224971]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbDeep View Post
It is a bit frustrating to see all the blame be put on the new generation and the tech. We are only trying to enjoy the tradition (i realize some of you will say it's not tradition if its tech forward) of the past and for many continue family heritage./QUOTE]

"Why's everybody always pickin' on me?" Hey millennial, that old Coasters' lyric might be before your time, but this isn't about you. I don't see any blaming of anyone based on age. Your gen has no lock on or entitlement to modern weapons or hunting tech. Nor do you get a pass on dealing with declining game numbers because you want to hunt (the long pants part, no whining allowed.) Nobody's attacking family hunting traditions, just the opposite - trying to preserve them for the next gen, millennial and beyond.

Either way you won't be hunting like you hope to for long if the numbers don't turn around. Many of us are aging out, it's more your problem than ours. But we do care about a lot of you and would like you to experience what we have as much as possible.

Your gramps might be sharing his experience and perspective about the decline in numbers so you can help everybody figure out how best to help. Think of it as one big family meeting, multiple generations working on a problem we all face together and that seems to be getting worse by the year. It's an example of the tragedy of the commons, everyone can come up with a reason why someone else should reduce their take of a declining resource first so I can have mine now. Until it's all gone. It's that simple however you dress it up. Gramps has likely seen it before and knows it can happen. You should believe it too, it can happen.

I agree, which would be why I said we (sportsmen) are the answer to solving it... Your response looks much better by leaving that portion out though!


I do think the question is valid though. How much of the declining opportunities and game, is what pushes people towards tech and tactics that increases odds, or would that happen at the same rate regardless?
__________________
When it's all said and done, there's nothing left to say or do.

Last edited by BarbDeep; 01-12-2020 at 02:33 PM.
BarbDeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 08:26 AM   #34
Lucky Guy
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 5,258
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by loper View Post
We did?

Because 143C - John Day Canyon, 145A - Fossil Unit No. 2, and 148A - Heppner, all with hunt dates of November 21-29, just got ADDED for 2020.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was thinking elk, don't hunt deer much so wasn't aware of the new ones, what are they thinking?
Lucky Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 10:59 AM   #35
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 6,233
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky Guy View Post
I was thinking elk, don't hunt deer much so wasn't aware of the new ones, what are they thinking?
The agency thought process was that deer hunters in the Oregon Deer and Elk Hunters' Attitudes Toward Big Game Management and Hunting Opportunities survey stated that "Opportunity to harvest a trophy animal" was relatively unimportant on a scale of 0 (Unimportant) to 10 (Extremely Important).

That being said, archery deer hunters had it listed as 5.2, rifle hunters at 3.9, and muzzleloader hunters at 3.8 on the 0-10 scale.

Since there were some deer hunters across all types that desired the opportunity to harvest a trophy mule deer, the agency developed these 3 late mule deer hunts to offset the removal of the 168R2 - SE Whitehorse Bow and 171M - Juniper hunts in 2020.

Many do not agree with these hunts being put into place this hunt year.
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 03:31 PM   #36
I-Builtit
Tuna!
 
I-Builtit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,332
Default Re: In defense of new technology

As to technology, all I need is my 8x56 Zeiss binocs (extreme low light capability), and my 300 Wby mag loaded with 200gr Nosler partitions sighted in for 300 yds with a 6x50 scope. Hold dead on - simple and deadly.
I-Builtit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 04:13 PM   #37
jimh
King Salmon
 
jimh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Area 8-1 to 13, WA
Posts: 7,154
Talking Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Builtit View Post
As to technology, all I need is my 8x56 Zeiss binocs (extreme low light capability), and my 300 Wby mag loaded with 200gr Nosler partitions sighted in for 300 yds with a 6x50 scope. Hold dead on - simple and deadly.
What’s keeping you from upgrading?
__________________
Wear a PFD if you want to live. CCA Life Member. NRA Life Member.
jimh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 04:27 PM   #38
DogZilla15
King Salmon
 
DogZilla15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 33,065
Default Re: In defense of new technology

"What's keeping you from upgrading?" Yea, that Weatherby is so yesterday.
DogZilla15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 05:00 PM   #39
jimh
King Salmon
 
jimh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Area 8-1 to 13, WA
Posts: 7,154
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogZilla15 View Post
"What's keeping you from upgrading?" Yea, that Weatherby is so yesterday.
That’s what I think about my 300 Weatherby, too.
__________________
Wear a PFD if you want to live. CCA Life Member. NRA Life Member.
jimh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 05:17 PM   #40
uhmw
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: westlinn
Posts: 5,610
Default Re: In defense of new technology

In my case any new technology to hunting has been countered 5 fold by ever encroaching old man syndrome. All this new technology is enabling me to scare off more wild life than ever before.
uhmw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 05:20 PM   #41
chummer
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 4,308
Default Re: In defense of new technology

"Meditations on Hunting" by Spanish philosopher Ortega Y Gasset. Written years ago and no longer in print. He writes an excellent chapter on technology in hunting! It gives a hunter something to chew on while pondering how far to take technology. The whole book is a great read. Find it at your public library (it won't be on the shelf) or find it on Amazon (it will be expensive) If you really care why you hunt or how you hunt, you should find it, and read it offering an opportunity for self reflection.
chummer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 05:25 PM   #42
in 'em
 
in 'em's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Salem
Posts: 6,710
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Can someone with more knowhow than me post the number deer and elk taken each year for the last 20-30-40 years? I'm sure it's on Ifish already, I'm just curious, I don't remember what those numbers look like.

Did someone say we kill more critters each year? Or was it that success rates have increased by percentage? Is that true?



Quote:
Originally Posted by scoutdog5 View Post
Anyone who thinks the improvements in optics and rifles, and the huge promotion of long range shooting/killing (not hunting) is not having a negative impact on our deer and elk populations has smoked far too many funny cigarettes. Now, if you are comparing today to 15 years ago, maybe not a huge difference, but if you are comparing to the 60's and 70's, when deer populations were much larger, this is a huge factor in reduced populations. It is not just the 1000 yard shot either. 500-600 yard kill shots are common. Who knows how many 500-600 yard wounding shots there are, nobody admits to them.

And then there are the archers, who are regularly shooting at 75 plus yards. There were not many archers back then, since there were no separate seasons for the most part, but I doubt if any of them were shooting that far.

Modern equipment is one more factor that is responsible for declining populations of deer and elk across the west. Not the largest factor, but certainly a significant factor when added to all the others.
I don't disagree with this, of course technology has helped, it's much easier to shoot a deer at 500 than it used to be. But just to play devil's advocate a little...

Anything that kills an animal has a negative impact on animal population, and dare I say, a high percentage of hunters getting into the "long range game" and make that investment (thousands of dollars) are already pretty successful hunters without advanced technology. So I'm not sure folks can say it's greatly increased animal take. That said, I can hear your brain churning...Billy the amazing hunter can now set up the gun for his wife and kids to shoot critters on the hillside 600 yards away, I get it.

Another thought...some % of the animals taken at long range could've been stalked and shot at closer range...so not every long range shot is a tag notched that wouldn't otherwise have been.

And as for the modern day long range hunter wounding more animals, I would argue that the rate of wounded critters has potentially gotten better each year, not worse. "Back in the day when there were a lot more animals", lots of families were out there flinging lead and everything that ran by, taking longer shots before ballistics were even understood to most hunters, shooting 300 yards with open sights off hand at running bucks across the canyon, the list goes on. I believe there is a greater understanding of shot placement and proper ethics now a days than ever before. It's more easily promoted and people are more educated with the experiences shared in magazines, tv shows, and now the internet.

Just food for thought...not really arguing the general point made.

Last edited by in 'em; 01-13-2020 at 05:28 PM.
in 'em is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 06:16 PM   #43
scoutdog5
Tuna!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bend
Posts: 1,241
Default Re: In defense of new technology

in em, two comments on your post.

1. The problem with long range shooting is not necessarily that it takes more animals. As you said, without it, the hunter might still have taken an animal. i think the problem is it focuses on mature males. Insufficient mature males to breed all the females is a primary cause of declining populations in most areas.

2. On a numerical basis when it comes to wounded animals, you are probably correct. The actual number wounded was higher 40 years ago. On a percentage basis, however, I think the opposite is true. When we had 600,000 mule deer, wounded animals were not a big factor. At less than 190,000, where we are now, it can be a big factor.

Scoutdog
scoutdog5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 05:47 AM   #44
baltz526
King Salmon
 
baltz526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: lapine oregon
Posts: 23,202
Default Re: In defense of new technology

The explosion in Bow hunting coincides with the decline of the Muledeer. Why is that
__________________
I have been wrong once before. Just once mind you. It was for several years, Ok A decade or more. But just the once.
baltz526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 06:10 AM   #45
Reel fortunate
Tuna!
 
Reel fortunate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Silverton Hills
Posts: 1,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baltz526 View Post
The explosion in Bow hunting coincides with the decline of the Muledeer. Why is that
Balz- In my opinion it's from the restrictions put on rifle hunting in regards to limiting the draw tags in most units.
When I started archery hunting in 1982 it wasn't uncommon to not see a hunter while hunting and area. Hunters were mostly considerate as well. That has changed considerably now.. now it's a race to your spot if you want to hunt a specific area or trailhead on foot. (In example, Eastern Oregon)
__________________
Randy

23x84 HT, Raider Coastal
Reel fortunate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 06:46 AM   #46
Hun10-freak
Chromer
 
Hun10-freak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SO. Oregon
Posts: 798
Default

I believe the explosion of bow hunting has nothing to do with the technology. It has everything to do with being able to hunt long seasons almost anywhere in the state for deer and elk. People can buy points for there coveted rifle tags and go bow hunting while they wait. Seems pretty obvious to me...
Hun10-freak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 07:51 AM   #47
DogZilla15
King Salmon
 
DogZilla15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 33,065
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Technology is about the attitude of the person who uses it. There are those who think they need it and those who use it because it's there. When it comes to archery, modern compound bows simply aren't made to be shot with fingers and further technology is required because of bow design. It's a package deal. It isn't like a rifle where we have complete control over the sights we use, anything will work. We don't need a mechanical device to pull the trigger, we don't need to know yardage to the target if it's 300 or less.
DogZilla15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 09:10 AM   #48
raised2hunt
Chromer
 
raised2hunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Mulino, Or
Posts: 504
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoutdog5 View Post
in em, two comments on your post.

1. The problem with long range shooting is not necessarily that it takes more animals. As you said, without it, the hunter might still have taken an animal. i think the problem is it focuses on mature males. Insufficient mature males to breed all the females is a primary cause of declining populations in most areas.

Scoutdog

I believe the biggest reason we have less mature males to breed isn't due to the increase technology. Although it likely has an impact, I believe it has more to do with the increase in predator's. In the 1960's the estimated cougar population in Oregon was 200. Today it is well over 6,000 (probably bigger). Every location in the state you find deer and elk you will find multiple cats hunting them 365 days a year. Their kills include mature males (we've found them), but killing smaller males has an impact because they won't get big.

Technology does have some negative hunting impacts and should be regulated by sportsman. I'm pretty old school and still wear the old Mackinaw and wool pants . However, some of the old school hunting practices were horrible for our deer and elk herds also.

In the 70's, 80's, and 90's "party hunting" was very much an accepted practice for many hunting parties. I would often hear stories of folks who shot multiple animals a year to fill tags in their hunting party. My dad taught me at a young age that this was wrong and it always bothered me. I would often tell people it was wrong, but it seemed to be a very common practice. I think that has changed the last 20 years or so? I very seldom hear people brag about this anymore. Maybe because there are less animals to shoot . Who knows, maybe hunting parties still do it, but keep quiet because they don't want to get caught.
raised2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 09:53 AM   #49
Headhunter
Sturgeon
 
Headhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Oregon City
Posts: 4,981
Default

Not that Oregon practices such things as game management....but technology helps manage game as well as take game.

Planes for game/bird counts, radio collars and tracking devices to understand migrations, data bases to manager applications and harvests, phone apps to buy or show proof of licensing and tags, mechanical decoys to catch poachers, websites to educate public on rules and regulations and the list goes on.

Technology advancement is inevitable.
__________________
Fins, Feathers & Fur. Saltwater fish junkie
Headhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 10:28 AM   #50
Reel fortunate
Tuna!
 
Reel fortunate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Silverton Hills
Posts: 1,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hun10-freak View Post
I believe the explosion of bow hunting has nothing to do with the technology. It has everything to do with being able to hunt long seasons almost anywhere in the state for deer and elk. People can buy points for there coveted rifle tags and go bow hunting while they wait. Seems pretty obvious to me...
Agreed
__________________
Randy

23x84 HT, Raider Coastal
Reel fortunate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 12:29 PM   #51
Justin's Fly
Tuna!
 
Justin's Fly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,353
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hun10-freak View Post
I believe the explosion of bow hunting has nothing to do with the technology. It has everything to do with being able to hunt long seasons almost anywhere in the state for deer and elk. People can buy points for there coveted rifle tags and go bow hunting while they wait. Seems pretty obvious to me...

Very true although bows have changed a lot in the past 20 years. They harvest a lot more animals today for a couple reasons. Simply more people using them And way more efficient than they used to be.
Sounds like ODFW is kicking around the idea of limiting archery for the 2021 season.
I know reasons my buddy started was increased opportunity.
__________________
Take it easy, and if it's easy take it twice!
Justin's Fly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 02:53 PM   #52
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 15,220
Default Re: In defense of new technology

What is missing is a metric in measuring hunter efficiency. We have hunter numbers, effort in days hunted and success rates, but we don't fully measure the effort aspect. We are always hearing the guys that say go hunt harder and further and some hunters actually are!

Is not a hunter today more efficient due to the weapons he has today? The GPS and maps? The range finders? The improvements in clothing? Trail cams?

When I hear somebody say that for the Warner buck tag you need to put in 100 hours of scouting to find a good buck, that is startling when compared to back when we used to just drive over to E. Oregon, setup camp and hold out for a good 4pt, which we usually killed within a few days.

InEm deer harvest has gone from 101,600 deer harvested in 1970 to 31,388 in 2018, success went from 36% to 23%.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 04:37 PM   #53
in 'em
 
in 'em's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Salem
Posts: 6,710
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoutdog5 View Post
in em, two comments on your post.

1. The problem with long range shooting is not necessarily that it takes more animals. As you said, without it, the hunter might still have taken an animal. i think the problem is it focuses on mature males. Insufficient mature males to breed all the females is a primary cause of declining populations in most areas.

2. On a numerical basis when it comes to wounded animals, you are probably correct. The actual number wounded was higher 40 years ago. On a percentage basis, however, I think the opposite is true. When we had 600,000 mule deer, wounded animals were not a big factor. At less than 190,000, where we are now, it can be a big factor.

Scoutdog
I can't argue either of your points, although I'm not sure enough big bucks are wiped out each year that not enough are left to breed the hot does...and do fork in horns not breed? I suppose some "long range" guys target big bucks only, but I still think most will kill a legal buck if they find it. I'd never thought of killing big bucks as a problem, there always seems to be more that show up come rut. I can't speak for very many areas though. And of course buck/doe ratios are pointless when the whole herd is declining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hun10-freak View Post
I believe the explosion of bow hunting has nothing to do with the technology. It has everything to do with being able to hunt long seasons almost anywhere in the state for deer and elk. People can buy points for there coveted rifle tags and go bow hunting while they wait. Seems pretty obvious to me...
I also think archery hunting is promoted much more on several platforms, which certainly increases participation...Full Draw Film Tour, Born and Raised, hunting DVD's back in the day, YouTube, etc. There's a lot of rifle stuff out there too, but the "brotherhood" mentality and following is more noticeable for sure. Archery shoots, events, etc...archers are more active in the off season it seems, and rightfully so to refine the needed skill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank Amateur View Post
What is missing is a metric in measuring hunter efficiency. We have hunter numbers, effort in days hunted and success rates, but we don't fully measure the effort aspect. We are always hearing the guys that say go hunt harder and further and some hunters actually are!

Is not a hunter today more efficient due to the weapons he has today? The GPS and maps? The range finders? The improvements in clothing? Trail cams?

InEm deer harvest has gone from 101,600 deer harvested in 1970 to 31,388 in 2018, success went from 36% to 23%.
Maybe an added question in the reporting, "what's the furthest away from your vehicle you got during your hunt?" lol

Effort is definitely different for everyone, but it's probably too much info to gather for ODFW. Today's hunter can be more efficient, but access is greatly reduced at least in western OR, so I think the "effort" involved for me specifically is the willingness to hike or bike into areas most won't go. And that will suck when I'm too old to do that anymore, so I get it from that perspective. We used to be able to drive all over and spot bucks from roads, now those roads are closed, everyone's consolidated to a smaller area, etc.

Over east I can't really speak to outside of Paulina...the deer get picked through pretty good each rifle season except for the ones hiding in the timber that never come out in daylight, and don't get jumped.

Last edited by in 'em; 01-14-2020 at 04:57 PM.
in 'em is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2020, 05:33 PM   #54
Cathunter1
Ifish Nate
 
Cathunter1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,999
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Since bows are single shots and no scopes allowed,no lighted sights.All rifles for biggame should be limited to single shots and iron sights,well im generous today i think rifle guys should be able a 4x optics.If you argue about it ill change my mind a bring it down to 2 x optics.::
Cathunter1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2020, 07:32 AM   #55
baltz526
King Salmon
 
baltz526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: lapine oregon
Posts: 23,202
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathunter1 View Post
Since bows are single shots and no scopes allowed,no lighted sights.All rifles for biggame should be limited to single shots and iron sights,well im generous today i think rifle guys should be able a 4x optics.If you argue about it ill change my mind a bring it down to 2 x optics.::
I suggest we limit the Bow hunters to one hunting arrow a year. Per species of course. Then shrink season to the first 12 days of September for Deer. All units under Management objectives, Draw only. Then $1000 fine for everyone in a truck caught driving around with Bows ready to shoot road deer.
__________________
I have been wrong once before. Just once mind you. It was for several years, Ok A decade or more. But just the once.
baltz526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2020, 07:45 AM   #56
chukardave1
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bend
Posts: 2,613
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Have to choose before the season and. The draw which weapon type you will use. Easy as that.....except for all the complaining that would occur.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
chukardave1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2020, 07:49 AM   #57
spoonmaster
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 339
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by chummer View Post
"Meditations on Hunting" by Spanish philosopher Ortega Y Gasset. Written years ago and no longer in print. He writes an excellent chapter on technology in hunting! It gives a hunter something to chew on while pondering how far to take technology. The whole book is a great read. Find it at your public library (it won't be on the shelf) or find it on Amazon (it will be expensive) If you really care why you hunt or how you hunt, you should find it, and read it offering an opportunity for self reflection.

Excellent book. I had a copy for years and it sadly disappeared.
spoonmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2020, 07:49 AM   #58
Cathunter1
Ifish Nate
 
Cathunter1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,999
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baltz526 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathunter1 View Post
Since bows are single shots and no scopes allowed,no lighted sights.All rifles for biggame should be limited to single shots and iron sights,well im generous today i think rifle guys should be able a 4x optics.If you argue about it ill change my mind a bring it down to 2 x optics.:[IMG class=inlineimg]https://www.ifish.net/board/images/smilies/wink.gif[/IMG]:[IMG class=inlineimg]https://www.ifish.net/board/images/smilies/facepalm.gif[/IMG][IMG class=inlineimg]https://www.ifish.net/board/images/smilies/doh.gif[/IMG][IMG class=inlineimg]https://www.ifish.net/board/images/smilies/whistle.gif[/IMG]
I suggest we limit the Bow hunters to one hunting arrow a year. Per species of course. Then shrink season to the first 12 days of September for Deer. All units under Management objectives, Draw only. Then $1000 fine for everyone in a truck caught driving around with Bows ready to shoot road deer. [IMG class=inlineimg]https://www.ifish.net/board/images/smilies/lurk.gif[/IMG]
That works for me .All units should be some kind of draw .Apply as firearm or archery .Ya don't get picked ,Do something else.No rifle elmers picking up a bow because of otc tags .I carry five arrows .this year six animals ,All one arrow each .One arrow is still under the snow .But I don't reuse arrows or BH'S .Hope if I lose an arrow you'll let me hike back and get a fresh one .😳
Cathunter1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2020, 09:31 AM   #59
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 6,233
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by in 'em View Post
And of course buck/doe ratios are pointless when the whole herd is declining.
Which is the point of being opposed to the addition of 148A - Heppner in 2020; adding a late mulie rut hunt in a unit that is at 61% of population management objective is ridiculous.
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2020, 09:34 AM   #60
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 6,233
Default Re: In defense of new technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by baltz526 View Post
All units under Management objectives, Draw only.
That is an interesting concept.
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:22 AM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 0.74907 seconds with 74 queries