BDX Bluetooth systems are not legal in Idaho

[HookUp]

Yeah we need to do it without electronic assistance

Most guys do not want to put in the work!

 

[BRTreedogs]

Most guys do not want to put in the work!

I hear yeah, this mite be better then just flingin them though and hoping to get lucky.
Honestly like previously mentioned the bdx has to be tried up like a dialing system.
Only real advantage I see is your spotter giving updated ranges as while your waiting for a shot.

Big failure I see is no hard copy dope card if it fails.

 

[scooter25]

I was trying to keep it as simple as possible. But if you watch some of the videos of it’s use it’s a game changer if you do a little due diligence.

I am curious what you consider a game changer as I have watched every video made on this thing and used it the past year and cant say its any more advantages than the turret system I have on a 22-250 or the BDC reticle I have on a 270. One of the major disadvantages with the BDX scopes is you don't know the actual MOA that is illuminated, so you don't know whether you are aiming a little high or low.

 

[Buck Naked]

New reg also being considered in BC
Someone somewhere feels the BDX and like are an unfair advantage , whatever that is
Maybe this is the line in the sand , having electronic input into the scope is just one step away from having electronic input into the actual aiming of the rifle , the devils tool

 

[87TT]

Hate "those " guys. Years ago I watched a guy, who had been bragging on his custom rifle that he paid a gob of money on, shoot a calf elk that was standing broadside at about 150 yards crying for it's mama. He was resting it on a large log. I think it took him three shots to hit it. He was a veterinarian from a fancy city but a total idiot. Personally, and it's just my opinion, I don't shoot farther that 200-300 yards, I also haven't ranged anything until after I shot it just to see how far it was.

 

[SDHNTR]

This BS has gone too far. It’s a good law IMO. The animals have no chance.

I was recently having a conversation with a game warden during a late season archery hunt I just had. Took 12 years to draw and the hunting was lousy. The warden said he’d watched it get worse every year. I asked him why he thought. Of course he said Predators, human encroachment on habitat, highways, etc, but his thoughts were the biggest reason was we were just becoming too efficient at killing. He linked the worst of the decline in recent years to us hunters being able to kill virtually any deer we spot. Big optics on tripods to find them and then dials and 24x magnification on scopes to kill them.

His solution? 3-9x scopes max And no turrets. And yes, he didn’t leave out the archery guys either... he said 3 pin fixed sights, no more.

I’ll admit, it got me thinking. I do think we’ve gone too far. There’s no fair chase when an animal has no ability to sense danger and flee due to extreme shot distances. If we aren’t going to limit ourselves somehow, something or someone needs to. The animals deserve better than to be shot at 800+ yards with electronically assisted machines. Bluetooth crosses that line to me. JMHO.

 

[fbhandler]

This BS has gone too far. It’s a good law IMO. The animals have no chance.

I was recently having a conversation with a game warden during a late season archery hunt I just had. Took 12 years to draw and the hunting was lousy. The warden said he’d watched it get worse every year. I asked him why he thought. Of course he said Predators, human encroachment on habitat, highways, etc, but his thoughts were the biggest reason was we were just becoming too efficient at killing. He linked the worst of the decline in recent years to us hunters being able to kill virtually any deer we spot. Big optics on tripods to find them and then dials and 24x magnification on scopes to kill them.

His solution? 3-9x scopes max And no turrets. And yes, he didn’t leave out the archery guys either... he said 3 pin fixed sights, no more.

I’ll admit, it got me thinking. I do think we’ve gone too far. There’s no fair chase when an animal has no ability to sense danger and flee due to extreme shot distances. If we aren’t going to limit ourselves somehow, something or someone needs to. The animals deserve better than to be shot at 800+ yards with electronically assisted machines. Bluetooth crosses that line to me. JMHO.

This argument only makes sense if you do away with rangefinders as well... that’s the whole issue. “Bluetooth” or the ability to take a range and have the scope pick it up vs having to reach up and “turn the dial” is a moot point. I sure hope anyone having this opinion doesn’t dial for distance or have some kind of hold over reticle, really anything other then a simple cross hair, cuz that would make for a very inconsistent argument at best, very hypocritical at worst...

Come to think of it... If giving the animals a “better chance” is what this is all about then a scope itself would have to be honestly looked at. Wasn’t there a time when that would have been new technology ?? We crossed lots of lines since the spear...

 

[SDHNTR]

This argument only makes sense if you do away with rangefinders as well... that’s the whole issue. “Bluetooth” or the ability to take a range and have the scope pick it up vs having to reach up and “turn the dial” is a moot point. I sure hope anyone having this opinion doesn’t dial for distance or have some kind of hold over reticle, really anything other then a simple cross hair, cuz that would make for a very inconsistent argument at best, very hypocritical at worst...

Come to think of it... If giving the animals a “better chance” is what this is all about then a scope itself would have to be honestly looked at. Wasn’t there a time when that would have been new technology ?? We crossed lots of lines since the spear...

I disagree, but that’s ok. In my mind, the line should be drawn at equipment that allows for shots to be made at ranges outside of an animal’s ability to sense danger and react accordingly. In my experience this is usually somewhere around 400 ish yards. Just my take. A rangefinder is still useful to determine if it’s 310 yards and a reasonable shot, or 450 yards and a no-go. Sometimes, like across a canyon, that’s hard to tell without a rangefinder.

We can have this debate, and have, till the cows come home. To me, I draw my ethical lines at ranges where the animal can no longer sense fear. It’s that simple. If equipment enables or encourages shots beyond that range, well, that’s where the ethical debates start.

 

[mt100gr.]

This BS has gone too far. It’s a good law IMO. The animals have no chance.

I was recently having a conversation with a game warden during a late season archery hunt I just had. Took 12 years to draw and the hunting was lousy. The warden said he’d watched it get worse every year. I asked him why he thought. Of course he said Predators, human encroachment on habitat, highways, etc, but his thoughts were the biggest reason was we were just becoming too efficient at killing. He linked the worst of the decline in recent years to us hunters being able to kill virtually any deer we spot. Big optics on tripods to find them and then dials and 24x magnification on scopes to kill them.

His solution? 3-9x scopes max And no turrets. And yes, he didn’t leave out the archery guys either... he said 3 pin fixed sights, no more.

I’ll admit, it got me thinking. I do think we’ve gone too far. There’s no fair chase when an animal has no ability to sense danger and flee due to extreme shot distances. If we aren’t going to limit ourselves somehow, something or someone needs to. The animals deserve better than to be shot at 800+ yards with electronically assisted machines. Bluetooth crosses that line to me. JMHO.

I gotta say, I don't disagree with this. I have been wondering for awhile now if/when the "tools" for LR will be regulated for hunting animals. It's all a slippery slope when more regulations come up.

As much as I love shooting long range, I almost never use that skill set while hunting. Unless you go looking for long shots, it's almost always possible to cut the distance to conventional hunting distance. The cool factor and "1000 yards out of the box " nonsense is ruining the reputation that a handful of well practiced, very qualified marksmen earned.

I wont be a bit surprised if regulations against the equipment show up more in the future. Obviously they cannot limit the sales but field checks (like for approved fishing tackle and shotgun plugs) would deter the legal hunters. And penalties, if severe enough, would keep a lot of that gear in the safe during hunting season.

I'm not advocating for more laws, just saying it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[fbhandler]

This argument only makes sense if you do away with rangefinders as well... that’s the whole issue. “Bluetooth” or the ability to take a range and have the scope pick it up vs having to reach up and “turn the dial” is a moot point. I sure hope anyone having this opinion doesn’t dial for distance or have some kind of hold over reticle, really anything other then a simple cross hair, cuz that would make for a very inconsistent argument at best, very hypocritical at worst...

Come to think of it... If giving the animals a “better chance” is what this is all about then a scope itself would have to be honestly looked at. Wasn’t there a time when that would have been new technology ?? We crossed lots of lines since the spear...

Naa... your assuming the only use for the system is extreme long range. Well, I can tell ya, guys have been doin that long before this whole thing came out. The only difference with this is it stream lines the process, which if a guy “is going” to take long shots I’d hope he would use every possible means to ensure an ethical kill.

Unless your arguing for an actual limit on how far one can shoot, then your arguing for less efficiency and probably less effectiveness. I’m not saying I totally agree with all of this “new stuff” and I don’t know where you personally fall into all this but it drives me a little crazy to see guys pull out their smart phones/GPS to determine property lines, range finder and illuminated reticle to ensure the best legal shot possible, $1000 clothing systems and battery operated insoles so they can sit out longer, and let’s not forget to throw in 4 wheelers and side by sides so they can get in deeper, then turn around and talk about some line in the sand. It was crossed along time ago is what I’m saying and if a guy is goin to snub some tech that makes a hunter more efficient... there better be a whole lot more on that list then BDX.

Somebody said something about not putting the work in... wonder how many hunters would find something else to do if they couldn’t ride their comfy side by side up the mountain “to hunt” or have to leave their dogs at home and find the birds themselves ??

 

[Trial153]

500 yard muzzle loaders, 100 yard bows...800 yard rifles... total bull shit at this point. Time for a reailty check.

 

[fbhandler]

500 yards muzzle loaders, 100 yards bows...800 rifles...

Yup... rather then find some little thing like “BDX” or the like to nitpick and act like we’re really holding the fort, time to look at a whole lot more....

If we’re going to be honest that is...

 

[Kevin Dill]

Since this thread has gone down the philosophical path....

In 50+ years of pursuing fish and game, I've been a witness to the development and use of many technologies designed to improve success....defined as bringing home the bacon. In every single case, these technologies exist for one over-arching reason: to help people overcome their normal physical limitations. It starts with 'better' and you can apply that adjective to almost 100% of the gear we own and use. Better ammunition is a great example, as are better optics. From 'better' (which implies improvements to existing things) you can jump to new forms of technology used in hunting and fishing.

Two of the best examples of new tech in the last 50 years are the electronic sonar unit and the laser rangefinder. Both devices are designed to do things the average human cannot do with their normal abilities. Use of tech like this has contributed enormously to improving the odds of a successful outcome. Their use has almost become de rigueur for a serious majority of hunters and fishermen.

Tech is part of the human experience. It's a hallmark of our development as a species. Trying to deny us from using better tech is like convincing a chimpanzee they can't eat bananas. Better and new tech is everywhere and in every aspect of our lives. It only makes perfectly logical sense that some people want to bring ALL of it to the sporting world. It's literally part of our DNA to do it. It's also in our DNA to examine and debate the cause-effect relationship of our decisions.

What bothers me? It's the certain knowledge that....as time and generations pass....the acceptance of better and newer technologies afield means we're surrendering some of our developed skills to the use of tech. We don't need to guess ranges, or twist turrets perhaps. We don't need to get inside 100 yards to kill. We don't have any use for a paper map or compass. We don't need to blow a predator call. We have no worries about finding fish in 30' of murky water. We don't need enough muscles to hold 60 pounds at full draw. We needn't walk when we can pedal with electric assistance, and we needn't pedal when we can ride. We don't need to build a brush blind....we can opt for a folding mirror.

At what point do we take the next (logical?) step and allow weapons which don't require constant physical contact (mounted weapons) and can be fired by electronic means? You and I both know those things already exist and someone wants them. Someone will argue they are inherently more accurate and therefore more humane. We owe it to the animals we hunt....to remove as much human error as possible....and this is what will bring in new hunters for our future. Really?

 

[tdhanses]

I dont see the system having an advantage that seems unreasonable. With some of my other rifles I range a target, click my scope and shoot. The bdx does the "clicking " for you but otherwise its the same basic system. Both systems require plenty of range time to set up.

This system is no different then the Garmin bow sight in operation, except there is a separate range finder but in function it’s the same thing.

 

[tdhanses]

This BS has gone too far. It’s a good law IMO. The animals have no chance.

I was recently having a conversation with a game warden during a late season archery hunt I just had. Took 12 years to draw and the hunting was lousy. The warden said he’d watched it get worse every year. I asked him why he thought. Of course he said Predators, human encroachment on habitat, highways, etc, but his thoughts were the biggest reason was we were just becoming too efficient at killing. He linked the worst of the decline in recent years to us hunters being able to kill virtually any deer we spot. Big optics on tripods to find them and then dials and 24x magnification on scopes to kill them.

His solution? 3-9x scopes max And no turrets. And yes, he didn’t leave out the archery guys either... he said 3 pin fixed sights, no more.

I’ll admit, it got me thinking. I do think we’ve gone too far. There’s no fair chase when an animal has no ability to sense danger and flee due to extreme shot distances. If we aren’t going to limit ourselves somehow, something or someone needs to. The animals deserve better than to be shot at 800+ yards with electronically assisted machines. Bluetooth crosses that line to me. JMHO.

But if that’s true why haven’t success rates increased? It seems to always sit right around 10% except for units with very few tags then it increases dramatically.

 

[SDHNTR]

But if that’s true why haven’t success rates increased? It seems to always sit right around 10% except for units with very few tags then it increases dramatically.

Do you actually buy publish success rates? I sure don’t! Most states lack mandatory reporting, so it’s just a wild ass guess anyways. You can’t tell me you believe a 40% “success rate” when everyone you know fills the tag.

 

[SDHNTR]

This system is no different then the Garmin bow sight in operation, except there is a separate range finder but in function it’s the same thing.

Agreed. And it’s a blasphemous piece of equipment in my book too!

States look to orgs like Boone and Crockett and Pope and Young for ethical guidelines that form laws. P&Y has long since had a policy of no electronics attached to the bow. Where is B&C on these matters?

 

[87TT]

But if that’s true why haven’t success rates increased? It seems to always sit right around 10% except for units with very few tags then it increases dramatically.

I wonder how many more animals are lost because of long shots? All this tech and talk about taking extreme distance shots makes me wonder. Unless the animal "drops" in sight, how many are never recovered?

 

[scooter25]

With all the technology advances in the last 10 years with better glass, rangefinders that can range out to a mile, longe range rifles out of the box you would think the success rate of hunters would be rising dramatically. However the harvest percentages have remained about the same. So it doesn't correlate that advancing technology increases success. While not everyone reports their success and some may lie the sample size of 50K (Wyoming) will give you a pretty accurate picture of what the success rate is. Whether the percentage is correct or not the trend has remained steady the last 10 years. That tells me it takes more than the latest gear to be successful.

 

[tdhanses]

I wonder how many more animals are lost because of long shots? All this tech and talk about taking extreme distance shots makes me wonder. Unless the animal "drops" in sight, how many are never recovered?

I bet you there are a larger number of wounded animals that never are recovered vs wounded that are, especially in archery. I’m not one to take a risky shot but I know many will take a shot I’ll pass on and maybe it’s successful for them.

No one posts up hey I shot three elk but never recovered them this year but hey look at the bull I did recover. There is nothing illegal to this but really how is it any different then a poacher shooting random animals and leaving them to lay?

Personally I think if there is a way to reducing wounding it should be allowed, I don’t think it’ll change the number of animals killed but may increase the number bringing meat out of the woods. Also maybe it needs to be a law that if you draw blood punch your tag even if you don’t recover it.