Idaho Long Range Hunting

[willfrye027]

It’ll be interesting to see what comes out of the southern Idaho and Utah experimental weapon restrictions. Maybe there will be more big bucks on the hill because of it, and maybe not.

I’m all for experimenting with open sights. Heck I don’t own a rifle with open sights but I’d be happy to go on a hunt with open sights IF it meant I’d probably see bigger/more bucks. Or if that was the only way to get a tag every year.

To be fair, right now I’m in the “there is no problem” camp. I seem to find some nice deer now and then even with crappy/otc type tags. I can shoot long range, but that is always a means to an end—if my odds are better killing an animal at 600, I’ll do it. If there is a high percentage stalk that will put me at 300, I’ll do it. I think the vast majority of “long range guys” fall into that camp, with a select few attention-seeking types who title their YouTube video 1000 YARD KILL SHOT GIANT BUCK. Those guys are a different problem entirely and a small minority of hunters out there. I don’t think you can really fix that short of demonetizing hunting content on YouTube/insta/whatever. Even then they would probably still do it for attention.

I don’t see a compelling need to drastically change regulations across the board. I also don’t see a problem experimenting with and implementing some open sight seasons/units and see if that has a positive affect on numbers of big deer, and potentially allowing more tags/engagement so we can all continue to have a tag every year.

Keep in mind we as hunters need to have the long game in mind. 30 years from now, can we still get a tag? Can we still own a gun? Are there deer herds left to hunt? Those kinds of things matter..someone taking a shot beyond their capability and wounding..does not matter in the scheme of things.

 

[Pistolpete28]

It’ll be interesting to see what comes out of the southern Idaho and Utah experimental weapon restrictions. Maybe there will be more big bucks on the hill because of it, and maybe not.

I’m all for experimenting with open sights. Heck I don’t own a rifle with open sights but I’d be happy to go on a hunt with open sights IF it meant I’d probably see bigger/more bucks. Or if that was the only way to get a tag every year.

To be fair, right now I’m in the “there is no problem” camp. I seem to find some nice deer now and then even with crappy/otc type tags. I can shoot long range, but that is always a means to an end—if my odds are better killing an animal at 600, I’ll do it. If there is a high percentage stalk that will put me at 300, I’ll do it. I think the vast majority of “long range guys” fall into that camp, with a select few attention-seeking types who title their YouTube video 1000 YARD KILL SHOT GIANT BUCK. Those guys are a different problem entirely and a small minority of hunters out there. I don’t think you can really fix that short of demonetizing hunting content on YouTube/insta/whatever. Even then they would probably still do it for attention.

I don’t see a compelling need to drastically change regulations across the board. I also don’t see a problem experimenting with and implementing some open sight seasons/units and see if that has a positive affect on numbers of big deer, and potentially allowing more tags/engagement so we can all continue to have a tag every year.

Keep in mind we as hunters need to have the long game in mind. 30 years from now, can we still get a tag? Can we still own a gun? Are there deer herds left to hunt? Those kinds of things matter..someone taking a shot beyond their capability and wounding..does not matter in the scheme of things.

My thoughts exactly, well said!

 

[magnum]

I don’t see a compelling need to drastically change regulations across the board. I also don’t see a problem experimenting with and implementing some open sight seasons/units and see if that has a positive affect on numbers of big deer, and potentially allowing more tags/engagement so we can all continue to have a tag every year.

Keep in mind we as hunters need to have the long game in mind. 30 years from now, can we still get a tag? Can we still own a gun? Are there deer herds left to hunt? Those kinds of things matter..someone taking a shot beyond their capability and wounding..does not matter in the scheme of things.

Great post Will! I think we have a similar outlook. Especially regarding hunter engagement and the long game.

 

[BLJ]

I didn’t, it was just a range referenced earlier in the thread so I ran with it.

I missed it then. My fault on that.

I’m just curious where the range numbers come from.
Seems like 500-600 is a common number.

I wonder if there is info anywhere to substantiate those numbers.

 

[longrangelead]

The topic of long range hunting has been around for a long time, especially in Idaho. This topic ramps up in intensity especially before and during hunting season. I was recently watching a podcast with the Director of F&G Jim Fredericks made the claim that hunters are shooting elk out at a mile (1760 yards), and made it sound like your average joe blow was doing it on the regular, which is a lie.
Several of my coworkers and I were talking, and there’s no logical legal means, nor should there be, of regulating morals and ethics for hunters. That being said we also don’t believe that there should be a yardage limit (ex: 500 yard max) because it would turn into here say and nothing could ever be proven and create enemies where there should be allies.
The conclusion we came to, and the most logical rule would be a gear restriction on the maximum magnification allowed in your scope. For instance having a maximum magnification of 15x or 25x. Before you get all up in a tisy fit, this wouldn’t be any different than a caliber restriction, or rifle weight restriction (max 16lbs in Idaho). We think limiting a scope magnification would limit those hunters that don’t practice a lot to reasonable distances, but at the same time, keep the shooters who practice free to shoot as far as they want. Basically, the higher magnification scopes encourage bad shooters to shoot at something because they can see it too well. This can increase injuries and lost large game animals due to poor shots. “They get to see their misses in HD.” To discourage the shot that’s outside of their skill set, if they have a harder time looking at the target, maybe that will help save a few more animals from injury or suffering.
What would people think of that rule? What would you switch?
Again, I’m not for making more rules, so I would also suggest taking a rule off the books; the 16lb max rifle weight restriction would be taken away (if someone wants to carry a heavy rifle, that’s their prerogative).

P.S. The real reason that it’s harder to find game like elk and deer is due to people using quads, SxS, and E-Bikes to get further back in. And there are just generally more people and development.

Do they have any actual data on range/wounding or are they just using a hot topic to create a problem to fix?
A guy I know had a good LE tag in Utah this year. Just last week he had someone lobbing bullets at over 1000 yards at a bull he was watching, presumably to knock it down before anyone else could get to him.
The result was the bull was not hit and nobody got him.
A guy like that would probably do the same thing even with open sights. More laws won't change much.

 

[packgoatguy]

FYI, the "16 lb MAX" rule was originally created to address "long range" hunting. Apparently there were guys using heavy 50BMG rifle setups to shoot game cross canyon.

As far as more rules go... a problem to consider is that rules like you propose are inherently difficult to enforce... which means they will have no teeth and will be widely disregarded. The current motorized hunting rule is a good example. There are so many loopholes, that some prosecutors and judges in the state will just toss out every violation of the MHR that comes across their desk. Ive talked to officers who simply refuse to even write a MHR ticket because they know its a waste of time and resources.

I think the answer is with better education for hunters.

The last couple days, I was watching deer in a few popular spots for spotting deer from the road. On 3 different occasions, I watched guys hike up the hill a few hundred yards, take aim at running deer from unsupported positions, from too far away. In all three situations, the "hunter" took multiple shots. I watched one couple of guys take 6 shots, and then concluded they had missed, so they hiked back down the hill without going to check for blood. Another, I watched different guys take 7 shots before they finally gut shot a little buck. Lucky for them, the buck ran a few hundred yards and just stood there until they finally relocated it about 10 minutes later and were able to put an end to the misery. I didn't stay long enough to see the outcome of the third situation. I doubt more rules would have made these guys better hunters...

 

[WeiserBucks]

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

Please tell us more about the point pools in Idaho.

 

[PathFinder]

This is an Idaho specific thread and I got thinking more broadly of other states...but for the sake of semantics, call them draw pools in Idaho.

Sent from my Pixel 10 using Tapatalk

 

[WeiserBucks]

This is an Idaho specific thread and I got thinking more broadly of other states...but for the sake of semantics, call them draw pools in Idaho.

Sent from my Pixel 10 using Tapatalk

Nobody cares about draw pools when the vast majority of the people are hunting OTC. Good tags are less than 2% odds and every resident that doesn't draw gets a tag anyways.

 

[HunterGatherer]

I support a 360° no scope season …
Seriously though, I like the no optics, centerfire season idea. I’d rather hunt that tag than a muzzy tag. Also, let people shoot bows in muzzy season