Idaho Long Range Hunting

[WeiserBucks]

If you hunt more than a few hundred yards from a road, this isn't a problem.

Nailed it.

 

[flyfisher117]

If you hunt more than a few hundred yards from a road, this isn't a problem.

This year I hunted a ridgeline, with a road in the bottom of the canyon. Range finder said my glassing spot to the road was maybe 800 yards. I sat there for hours watching does, fork and horns, and a mediocre 3 pt. All day the same 2 SxS patrolled said road driving up and down it every 20 min on the dot. Occasionally stopping to glass the hillside below me.

The deer didn’t care. They just sat there and enjoyed their lives.

Darkness came so I started down the face of the ridge to the road. Here comes the side by sides for one more pass. They saw me coming down so they stopped and watched me. I kicked a doe out of a hidey hole about 30 yards off the road. The next thing I know 9 dudes are crawling out of the 2 side by sides, hooting, hollering, and hog squallering “deeer deer deer deer!!!!!” I look at them and yell “it’s only a doe, don’t shoot me”

By the time I got down to the road they cooled down, and immediately ask “what’s up there?!” Confused I turn around look up to realize they could only see the top 1/5 of this hill side (where the deer didn’t live) they couldn’t see any of the deer.

I turned back and told them they should hike up and check it out. Immediately one says “eff that I ain’t hiking”.

I’m guessing the next day he was in the 208 hunter Facebook group blaming the lack of deer on outta staters, wolves, and F&G

The next day I hiked up the other side of the road and saw more 2 pts than I have ever seen in one day. My buddy also shot a 4 pt on the backside of the ridge I was on the previous day. The same 2 SXS just kept patrolling.

 

[peterk123]

If you hunt more than a few hundred yards from a road, this isn't a problem.

Truth. Was cutting a xmas tree last year up a hill, 100 yardss off the road. Decided to climb further up just to take a look. Hunters driving by every ten minutes. The runs I can across were worn hard. I kicked up six does too, maybe 200 yards from the road. It was steep so nobody goes there. I just laughed because the deer were literally beddded watching the trucks.

 

[SodakJay]

Not to thread hijack, but I’m curious about the weight restriction on rifles. What’s the rationale on that?

 

[Pescetism]

Not to thread hijack, but I’m curious about the weight restriction on rifles. What’s the rationale on that?

I've been told it's to keep people from shooting ELR at game with 50 BMG, Cheytacs, etc.

If that's wrong, I'd love to hear the actual answer.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

I doubt that would really do anything. You couldn't set the maximum any lower than 9x without making 90% of the scopes on the market verboten, and 9x is enough to reach you 900 to 1,000 yards on an elk sized target. The guy would probably prefer a little more of those ranges, but it's very doable.

Shooting targets is one thing, I don't like shooting targets past 200 yards without at least 16. But just getting the crosshairs lined up on center mass of an elk chest? Pfft.. it's never even occurred to me to dial the scopes up past minimum (3 or 4) until they are out past 250.

 

[BlackTail]

This is the exact same “logic” that democrats use to try and take away guns. It’s absolutely baffling that we have hunters that want to go along with this kind of nonsense!

 

[JohnJohnson]

This is the exact same “logic” that democrats use to try and take away guns. It’s absolutely baffling that we have hunters that want to go along with this kind of nonsense!

My experience from working a gun counter is if we'd sold boot flavored lollipops they'd have been a hit. Most "Don't Tread On Me" attitude is performative BS in the gun community. Those guys just want to be the ones "treading" on other people. Same goes for the holier than thou part of the hunting community who, by some strange coincidence, define what the law should be based on their capabilities and preferences.

 

[BlackTail]

Same goes for the holier than thou part of the hunting community who, by some strange coincidence, define what the law should be based on their capabilities and preferences.

Exactly!! More liberal, snowflake Karen mindset. “The line in the sand that I draw is the only one that is right, and everyone else should do it my way or be canceled!” About as un-American as it gets!

 

[PathFinder]

No, it isn't. It's a way to balance opportunity and success rates. Is it a restriction of freedom to set season dates and bag limits? Or should we all just be able to hunt any time of day or night, any species, anywhere, all year with thermal optics from aircraft?
It's about game management, not fundamental human rights.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[JohnJohnson]

No, it isn't. It's a way to balance opportunity and success rates.

There have been about 10 threads about this in the last year. People always talk about success rates which is odd given that rifle success rates have hardly increased at all in the last 20-30 years based on data we have access to. If memory serves, the success rate that has increased the most is muzzleloader. Followed by archery (I could have those two backwards). Followed distantly by a couple percent increase for rifle.

But the threads are always about rifles. I guess since what normally inspires the posters is seeing a Youtube video of a guy shooting an elk at long distance and then extrapolating that to say it's some existential threat to game populations.

 

[PathFinder]

The best comparison of success we have are Colorado early rifle seasons. Scoped rifle and MZ seasons overlap. The success rates double for scoped rifles on the same hunt.
I don't think it's the solution for every hunt, area, and species. But faced with a choice between waiting 5 years between tags and hunting every year without a scope, that's a no brainer to me.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

I think anyone who thinks a 15x scope is a limitation doesn't really know much about long range shooting. I think it's an unwise take, to put it nicely.

Regulating vehicle usage wont work. Either a road/trail exists and is legal for vehicle travel or it isn't and they need to enforce it. If there is too much vehicle access to allow animals any sanctuary, they need to restrict those roads. Road hunters will never not be a thing.

There have been about 10 threads about this in the last year. People always talk about success rates which is odd given that rifle success rates have hardly increased at all in the last 20-30 years based on data we have access to. If memory serves, the success rate that has increased the most is muzzleloader. Followed by archery (I could have those two backwards). Followed distantly by a couple percent increase for rifle.

Success rates in a vacuum can be misleading. In most places, there isn't the numbers and quality of animals there was 20-30 years ago. If there's fewer animals and the same success rate, that means any animal that is living has a lower odds of survival. A step further - a special animal has WAY less chance of surviving or getting to maturity now than they did 20-30 years ago because technology has made hunters more effective at finding and killing it. To part of your point though, i see no reason why archery or muzzleloader regs shouldn't also be considered if there is a concern with hunters being too effective.

The "muh freedoms" takes are stupid. There has been and needs to remain regulated seasons if we are to have animals to support quality hunting experiences in many or most locations.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Success rates in a vacuum can be misleading. In most places, there isn't the numbers and quality of animals there was 20-30 years ago. If there's fewer animals and the same success rate, that means any animal that is living has a lower odds of survival.

Sure but that would also affect archery/muzzleloader too, wouldn't it? Yet their rates have increased far more than rifle. Have the advances in muzzleloader/archery technology been so dramatic that they shine through even with lower population numbers? I don't actually know since I don't do either of them.

To part of your point though, i see no reason why archery or muzzleloader regs shouldn't also be considered if there is a concern with hunters being too effective.

That's my main gripe with this. I don't mind regulations but cloaking the anti LR hunting stuff in BS about increased success rates (which are theoretical and have not yet been demonstrated) while ignoring the types of hunting where success rates have actually increased comes off as insincere virtue signaling.

 

[wind gypsy]

Sure but that would also affect archery/muzzleloader too, wouldn't it? Yet their rates have increased far more than rifle. Have the advances in muzzleloader/archery technology been so dramatic that they shine through even with lower population numbers? I don't actually know since I don't do either of them.

That's my main gripe with this. I don't mind regulations but cloaking the anti LR hunting stuff in BS about increased success rates (which are theoretical and have not yet been demonstrated) while ignoring the types of hunting where success rates have actually increased comes off as insincere virtue signaling.

I think archery competency has increased dramatically and range finders, proliferation of slider sights, and lots of long range 3d shoots has driven some of it. But also just hunters getting better with polishing their tactics/scouting/etc has come a long way making for more effective archery hunters. I listed to the Epic podcast with some of the most renowned big muley killers this fall and they were talking about how not long ago, nobody believed archery hunters could target individual monster bucks with a high success rate. Folks like Randy Ulmer opened their eyes to what was possible and now there are lots of high level killers out there who are very effective with archery equip.

Muzzle loading equipment has absolutely progressed a lot. They have had to go back to restricting it more already in certain states. Smokeless muzzle loaders are near centerfire precision. Models that support big charges of blackhorn 209 aren't far off from smokeless (and often use either depending on state regs). Pushing a 275-325 gr 45 cal pill with the BC of a 77 SMK at 2600+ fps with precision.

Frankly, with Archery, Muzzleloader, and sometimes new youth seasons prior to firearm seasons - if firearm success rate stayed stable that itself is a testament to increased firearm hunter leathality because a higher percentage of animals probably "get got" prior to firearm seasons in many places. All very dependent on a specific state's management obviously.

 

[BlackTail]

No, it isn't. It's a way to balance opportunity and success rates.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

So what should the max distance be? How many animals are shot past that every year? How many are wounded and not recovered? How many more opportunities would you get if a max distance was imposed? How much sooner would you draw tags? How much would success rate go up or down? If you don’t know the answer to all of those how can you say imposing a new law would help anything?

The "muh freedoms" takes are stupid. There has been and needs to remain regulated seasons if we are to have animals to support quality hunting experiences in many or most locations.

This has nothing to do with “muh freedom”. There is and will remain to be regulated seasons and rules of taking game. If new regulations are to be passed I want them based on some sort of statistical, meaningful, and RELEVANT data. I do not want regulations passed based on emotions and people saying “I don’t hunt that way and I don’t like it so get rid of!” There is a massive difference.

The fact that some people think some arbitrary number of yards is going to fix anything is puzzling, to say the least. Not to mention it takes nothing about the actual shot into consideration other than yardage. Let’s say a law was passed that 600 yards is the max distance allowed to shoot. So proned out on a bipod and rear bag, with no wind at 601 yards would be illegal. But 599 freehand at a moving target, with a 20 mph crosswind is ok? And that doesn’t even begin to address the actual enforceability of a law like this.

 

[magnum]

This is the exact same “logic” that democrats use to try and take away guns. It’s absolutely baffling that we have hunters that want to go along with this kind of nonsense!

The irony of criticizing the OP’s logic without offering any of your own.

 

[wind gypsy]

The fact that some people think some arbitrary number of yards is going to fix anything is puzzling, to say the least. Not to mention it takes nothing about the actual shot into consideration other than yardage. Let’s say a law was passed that 600 yards is the max distance allowed to shoot. So proned out on a bipod and rear bag, with no wind at 601 yards would be illegal. But 599 freehand at a moving target, with a 20 mph crosswind is ok? And that doesn’t even begin to address the actual enforceability of a law like this.

That's how laws and regulations work. They are not perfect rules under every circumstance and they basically never "fix" something completely.

A guy could drive 110 MPH in 55 speed limit and be safe under certain conditions but not safe on that road at 20 MPH when it's glare ice.. Speed limit is still 55. Lewis Hamilton in an audi r8 could safely drive faster than the speed limit if taking all the external factors into play but traffic laws aren't based upon Lewis Hamilton in an Audi r8.

I don't believe strongly for or against any distance regulations. I could get on board with equipment restrictions on specific seasons where habitat and population dynamics would justify it. I do think it's a solid argument that unless there is significant evidence that such long shots are causing problems, nothing should be done. But I would not be upset if game managers made rules based on the majority rather than outliers. The majority of hunters taking shots at game 600+ yards by a factor of multiples have no ethical business doing so.

 

[Matt5266]

This year I hunted a ridgeline, with a road in the bottom of the canyon. Range finder said my glassing spot to the road was maybe 800 yards. I sat there for hours watching does, fork and horns, and a mediocre 3 pt. All day the same 2 SxS patrolled said road driving up and down it every 20 min on the dot. Occasionally stopping to glass the hillside below me.

The deer didn’t care. They just sat there and enjoyed their lives.

Darkness came so I started down the face of the ridge to the road. Here comes the side by sides for one more pass. They saw me coming down so they stopped and watched me. I kicked a doe out of a hidey hole about 30 yards off the road. The next thing I know 9 dudes are crawling out of the 2 side by sides, hooting, hollering, and hog squallering “deeer deer deer deer!!!!!” I look at them and yell “it’s only a doe, don’t shoot me”

By the time I got down to the road they cooled down, and immediately ask “what’s up there?!” Confused I turn around look up to realize they could only see the top 1/5 of this hill side (where the deer didn’t live) they couldn’t see any of the deer.

I turned back and told them they should hike up and check it out. Immediately one says “eff that I ain’t hiking”.

I’m guessing the next day he was in the 208 hunter Facebook group blaming the lack of deer on outta staters, wolves, and F&G

The next day I hiked up the other side of the road and saw more 2 pts than I have ever seen in one day. My buddy also shot a 4 pt on the backside of the ridge I was on the previous day. The same 2 SXS just kept patrolling.

Haha thats my favorite. Did that a couple years ago, came off a hill with a deer on my back. I was wearing all solids. They were covered head to toe in camo and had their faces painted. We both looked at each other like we were crazy. I just waved and walked off.

 

[BlackTail]

That's how laws and regulations work.

Agreed. But they shouldn’t. New regulations should be based on some sort of facts. Emotions should not be any part of that equation.

A guy could drive 110 MPH in 55 speed limit and be safe under certain conditions but not safe on that road at 20 MPH when it's glare ice.. Speed limit is still 55.

And I guess there in lies the rub for me. You have guys that are basically saying “Well I feel like 55 is too fast and I only ever drive 20 mph anyway, so make that the law for everybody.” It does not take into account conditions, it does not take into account equipment, it does not take into account skill level. It also doesn’t even address if driving 55 was even a problem to begin with for 99% of drivers 99% of the time. And it doesn’t say how many guys were driving 110 and how many problems did they cause. Just guess at a random number and apply it liberally.