Idaho Long Range Hunting

[BlackTail]

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

My logic? Dig your heels in. HARD!!! Don’t give a single inch. When they ban something and it doesn’t solve a problem, they don’t give it back to you. They go looking to take more. We’re standing on top of a steep hill with roller skates on our feet. If we start down, it’s going to be really painful to try and get it stopped and almost impossible to go back up.

Maybe I’m just jaded because I live in Washington. Maybe Idaho can get it right. But we lose in this state every day (gun rights and hunting rights) because people blame things that aren’t even the real problem, and legislate based on emotion. And then we have people on “our side” that say, well I don’t do it that way so I’m ok if that goes away, and then we lose some more.

 

[wind gypsy]

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

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.

Since we're using analogies.. Outlawing 600+ yd shots would be like taking a road that doesn't have a speed limit but is about like what a 55 MPH road would be and giving it a 90-100 MPH speed limit. Its above what all but a tiny percentage of drivers/vehicles could safely drive at and even then only in the right conditions and those conditions would be tough to diagnose.

Sure, lots of drivers have enough sense to not drive faster than they safely can but a whole bunch of em either cant help themselves or dont have the sense.

 

[PathFinder]

My proposal isn't distance regulations, it's equipment restrictions. Iron sights only. Again, not for all hunts. Start with mule deer only, and experiment with certain units.
I cited the one piece of apples to apples data we have now. There was no emotion in what I wrote whatsoever. Over the last 5 years, early rifle seasons in Colorado had 2x the success rates of the open sight MZ seasons.
The assumption that I'm against long range hunting ethically, or that I don't do it, is entirely incorrect. I've taken animals out to over 1k yards, and commonly do so from 400-800 yards. It can be done very effectively and ethically. Where I'm willing to trade off is the opportunity to hunt with a scoped rifle vs hunting every year. Opportunity and quality trumps technology for me.
For example, what I'd most like to see is this applied in Wyoming G and H for mule deer. Run it for 3 years and see what happens to success rates.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

you can't have your cake and eat it too. If long range hunting was/is an issue to anyone, I would suggest getting rid of all scopes and laser range finders. I’m not advocating that but that is how I would approach the issue, if it was an issue to me.

Yep we go around and around with this. If this is an issue. Then sell less modern rifle tags and sell more: muzzy tags, archery tags, or iron sights straight wall cartridge tags.

I love my modern rifles, I impose limits on what I think I should shoot, that’s personal. Trying impose a yardage law is silly, just restricting certain top end scope magnification is also kind of silly. I think if the goal is to lower “long range hunting” then make the entire firearm/ weapon incapable, so that leaves iron sights muzzy, archery and straight wall cartridges with iron sights.

 

[BlackTail]

Since we're using analogies.. Outlawing 600+ yd shots would be like taking a road that doesn't have a speed limit but is about like what a 55 MPH road would be and giving it a 90-100 MPH speed limit. Its above what all but a tiny percentage of drivers/vehicles could safely drive at and even then only in the right conditions and those conditions would be tough to diagnose.

Sure, lots of drivers have enough sense to not drive faster than they safely can but a whole bunch of em either cant help themselves or dont have the sense.

So how many drivers are going over the speed limit? How many problems are they causing? Would it still be safe if the speed limit was 65? We know speed limits can be an arbitrary number. Just cross from Oregon into Idaho where the speed limit magically goes from 70 to 80 on the exact same road. Is it safer in Oregon? Are Idaho drivers better? Im just not one for creating laws just cuz.

To be able to solve a problem (if there even is one in this case) you have to identify the problem. Using your analogy, it sounds like you’re saying it’s too hard and almost no one should be doing it. But it seems like most guys are saying it’s too easy and people are killing too many animals and success rates are up and draw odds down because of long range hunting. It can’t be too hard and too easy. If you’re right here (and I agree with you on the difficulty of it), then long range hunting would have little to no effect on harvest rates and therefore draw odds.

My point in all of this is, people are just guessing. They’re guessing at how many animals are taken by long range hunting, they’re guessing at the impact that has on animal numbers and they’re guessing at the impact that has on draw odds. Worse yet, they’re guessing that making new laws limiting some hunters will somehow fix it. In my opinion, game regulations should not be based off of WAG.

 

[WeiserBucks]

There's nothing wrong with the current regs in my opinion.

 

[BlackTail]

I cited the one piece of apples to apples data we have now. There was no emotion in what I wrote whatsoever. Over the last 5 years, early rifle seasons in Colorado had 2x the success rates of the open sight MZ seasons.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Except that comparing a modern firearm to a muzzleloader isn’t apple to apples. Follow up shots with a modern repeating rifle is always going to make that a more effective weapon type, scoped or not. Also, you have the constraints of the actual ammo. Depending on the type of muzzleloader some are more primitive than others. I remember when Washington required an exposed flint. On a rainy day getting one shot to go off could be a chore, not to mention accuracy with that slight delay in the charge going off.

You would also need to include days afield and normalize it for both groups. Driving around for a day with my muzzleloader versus a guy that puts in 10 days in the backcountry with his rifle doesn’t tell us as much about the weapon, as it does the hunter.

 

[Flyjunky]

Another one of these threads? This is becoming a weekly thread topic these last few months.

For those in favor of creating new restrictions, what are you trying to accomplish? What is the end goal? Higher game numbers? What?

 

[magnum]

My proposal isn't distance regulations, it's equipment restrictions. Iron sights only. Again, not for all hunts. Start with mule deer only, and experiment with certain units.
I cited the one piece of apples to apples data we have now. There was no emotion in what I wrote whatsoever. Over the last 5 years, early rifle seasons in Colorado had 2x the success rates of the open sight MZ seasons.
The assumption that I'm against long range hunting ethically, or that I don't do it, is entirely incorrect. I've taken animals out to over 1k yards, and commonly do so from 400-800 yards. It can be done very effectively and ethically. Where I'm willing to trade off is the opportunity to hunt with a scoped rifle vs hunting every year. Opportunity and quality trumps technology for me.
For example, what I'd most like to see is this applied in Wyoming G and H for mule deer. Run it for 3 years and see what happens to success rates.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Well said Pathfinder. You were able to articulate not only the approach I think has a chance to work but also the rationale for the approach. Reduce hunter efficacy to maximize hunting opportunity.

Reduce scoped rifle season to just a few days or perhaps, in some cases, eliminate it entirely. Whatever portion of scoped rifle season was eliminated would be replaced by an open sight rifle season.

Here’s my attempt at summarizing the desired outcomes of this structure:

• Increased escapement.
• Stable or increased herd size.
• Increase in the median male ungulate age.
• Stable or increased per capita hunter hours.
• Hunter survey results indicate an increase in desirable ungulate encounters.
• Avoidance of controlled hunt management strategies in favor of general seasons.

 

[PathFinder]

Well said Pathfinder. You were able to articulate not only the approach I think has a chance to work but also the rationale for the approach. Reduce hunter efficacy to maximize hunting opportunity.

Reduce scoped rifle season to just a few days or perhaps, in some cases, eliminate it entirely. Whatever portion of scoped rifle season was eliminated would be replaced by an open sight rifle season.

Here’s my attempt at summarizing the desired outcomes of this structure:

• Increased escapement.
• Stable or increased herd size.
• Increase in the median male ungulate age.
• Stable or increased per capita hunter hours.
• Hunter survey results indicate an increase in desirable ungulate encounters.
• Avoidance of controlled hunt management strategies in favor of general seasons.

This is a very good summary. The one thing I'd add is that setting aside 5-10% for scoped rifles seems reasonable. Those who are adamant about hunting with an optic on their weapon will have the opportunity too, and it will keep the two groups in separate point/draw pools.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[BLJ]

The majority of hunters taking shots at game 600+ yards by a factor of multiples have no ethical business doing so.

How did you come up with 600?

 

[Flyjunky]

Well said Pathfinder. You were able to articulate not only the approach I think has a chance to work but also the rationale for the approach. Reduce hunter efficacy to maximize hunting opportunity.

Reduce scoped rifle season to just a few days or perhaps, in some cases, eliminate it entirely. Whatever portion of scoped rifle season was eliminated would be replaced by an open sight rifle season.

Here’s my attempt at summarizing the desired outcomes of this structure:

• Increased escapement.
• Stable or increased herd size.
• Increase in the median male ungulate age.
• Stable or increased per capita hunter hours.
• Hunter survey results indicate an increase in desirable ungulate encounters.
• Avoidance of controlled hunt management strategies in favor of general seasons.

So, you’re telling me that herd sizes will increase because an unknown number of animals that are killed by lr hunters will be eliminated? That’s laughable.

I’m guessing you still want to keep rut hunts…to keep stable/increase hunter hours. Any thought to adjusting seasons earlier to make them harder to find and not pressure mule deer during their most vulnerable time?

If you want to increase herd sizes a band aid fix like these restrictions isn’t going to solve the problems. You’d be better off getting everyone out to kill predators during the off season, especially spring/early summer when fawn take is high.

 

[IDMNT17]

There is nothing wrong with the current regs. There will be just as much wound/loss with open sight center fires as people taking unethical shots with scoped rifles. I'm sure success rates would remain close to the same as well with open sight centerfires. Biologist set the number of tags issued and what's acceptable considering success rates.

 

[BlackTail]

Well said Pathfinder. You were able to articulate not only the approach I think has a chance to work but also the rationale for the approach. Reduce hunter efficacy to maximize hunting opportunity.

Reduce scoped rifle season to just a few days or perhaps, in some cases, eliminate it entirely.

• Increased escapement.
• Stable or increased herd size.
• Increase in the median male ungulate age.
• Stable or increased per capita hunter hours.
• Hunter survey results indicate an increase in desirable ungulate encounters.
• Avoidance of controlled hunt management strategies in favor of general seasons.

Reduce hunter efficacy? That’s a pretty slippery slope to go down. Wouldn’t you have more of everything you just listed if you eliminated rifle hunts entirely? Just make muzzleloader and below. But then the compound bow guys will make the same argument about muzzleloaders and we can eliminate muzzleloaders. Then trad bow guys will make the same arguments about the compound bow guys and we can eliminate compound bows. Pretty soon you’re hunting with a sharp stick but hey, you have great escapement!

So honest question, where does it end?Something tells me it ends right where YOU want it to be for how YOU want to hunt. Like I said earlier, my line in the sand is the only one that’s right and everyone else should do it my way. It’s not at all about “muh freedom”, it’s about not thinking the minimum height to ride should be a quarter inch shorter than I am.