In Utah, new this year: No electronics may be attached, except for illuminated reticles. I found that out this weekend during the Utah rifle hunt.
I called the DWR this morning for clarification. She was very quick to confirm the Sig BDX system is unlawful. When I asked about the Veracity PH she put me on hold for a bit but came back and said it was unlawful unless I have vision problems and filled out a telescopic sight form from my doctor.
If you are buying any of these new techy scopes, read your guidebooks first, and know that they might be outlawed sometime in the near future.
Dang it! I hadn’t heard this news. Hate that. Completely unnecessary. The narrative that hunters are too successful these days with advanced equipment is false. Hunter success rates have remained consistent for 40 years or more.
R657-5-8. Rifles, Shotguns, Airguns, and Crossbows.
(1) A rifle used to hunt big game must:
(a) fire centerfire cartridges and expanding bullets; and (b) have no attachment capable of electronic function, other than illuminated reticles.
Strange. I was always under the impression that the correct response to Hunters becoming too good at what they do and decimating the animal population was to reduce the amount of tags available for that species. Not go make weird regulations about what equipment can be used.
Very misguided. Not as accurate does not mean fewer animals shot at. Here are the choices: 1. shoot and hit maybe off target, says 6 inches off and wound the animal to run off and die. 2. Better calculations and accuracy and put the animal down.
So monumentally stupid - a shot at animal is shot at whether using fancy electronics or open buckhorn sites.
BTW this covers Tactacam or gopro mounted on the gun or bow. You can have it on your head or chest but heaven forbid on the firearm. At least this way in Oregon. Took us years to get lighted nocks and expandable broadheads. The reg makers confuse better accuracy and recovery with killing more animals. Not recovering more animals which should be the goal.
I cannot understand why better accuracy is worse.
Agree with both of you. Feels like there are rules about every single step you take in the woods.
Remember the good old days when you could just pick up a shed antler and say “cool! Found a shed!” Now, there’s a season, rules, a mandatory class, etc.
Trail cams taught me so much about animals and kept me going out with the kids. No more.
Clearly some of these rules are not as well thought out as some would assume. I’d be interested in hearing the rationale. I want to give people a chance to explain before landing on my assumptions… not that I use any of the aforementioned tech personally.
I think there should be a balance to the conservation but I’d say that issuing fewer tags would be the way rather than limiting the equipment… unless there is some data that supports the reality that it’s contributing to an increase in wounded animals (for instance to play devils advocate say that the tech is pushing SOME hunters to taking more marginal shots with marginal cartridges with the increase in folks wanting to long range hunt) but I would think there would be a hard time proving any of this. I do know group punishment is usually the result of having to overcome the lowest common denominator… but as they say “some people’s kids.”
I believe that the vast majority of shooters who invest in ballistics solver technology are those most interested in accuracy. It takes time and money and other considerations to use them properly. Again, can anyone explain why better accuracy at any distance is worse?And what is the big difference between this and me range finding and clicking my scope 8 moa taking a few seconds more. And when needed typically you will have all the time needed. Not using in thick woods at 75 yds. I will probably not use but certainly do not think you should not. There are lots of arguments against technology for accuracy and this could go all the way back to the first rifled barrels and on to bolt actions or scopes or stock design or tighter tolerances or new ammo designs to trail cams and on and on. I know traditional bow shooters that are against some compound bow technologies but use gps in the woods to track their wallow locations or using atv’s to get there and so on. We should all go
back to spears in loin clothes and hunt within a days walk from where we live. So ridiculous. As said - take away tags which of course takes away money. Or use rule of supply and demand and raise tag prices until numbers go down. But Idaho gets like $800 for a non-res elk tag and sells out in on Dec 1.
Maybe but we hear anecdotes all the time of the folks that show up without ever sighting their rifles in, haven’t tested ammo, and buy what they feel are “turnkey” solutions without real world validation. I’m not justifying the ban… I’m actually curious about the decision. Maybe Jim can get someone to speak on behalf of the state with how the decision was made.
That is my point exactly. People who use ballistic solvers do not spend that money and just show up.
Those who just show up more likely to wound animals and end up hurting the population more because if they are that sloppy - likely to keep hunting even if they wound an animal and not recovered. So the logic to ban the electronics is incorrect. I wonder if any hunting organizations were part of the lobbying for these restrictions or set by anti groups looking to get anything they can.
I agree. People who invest in nice optics probably spend more time with their guns and therefore would make a more ethical shot.
One of my big problems with this regulation is that there was NO public input, at least from me. In the past I’ve gotten surveys of equipment changes to allow my input, however small it is.
The other thing is that I wasn’t alerted of the change. This went into affect this year! I didn’t know about it until I was out in the field already. If I had been hunting, instead of spotting for my brother, I would have been illegal. And I know, this is partly on me. I should read the guidebook every year, but honestly, who does that?
