Idaho proposed special season open sight centerfire

[wind gypsy]

I'm pretty certain you didn't do this on purpose, but it's been bizarre watching my words get warped and twisted across this thread to the point where this is what someone would pick up - that I'm somehow arguing for special, privileged seasons. It's the exact opposite - just leave people TF alone to hunt how they have been with common modern weapons, and anyone wanting additional tags/seasons for restricted tech can be left TF alone to voluntarily pursue those. Leave the ALW category alone. The young, the old, and the broken can keep doing what they've been doing - that's my point about those types of people. Leave them TF alone.

It's bizarre watching you get frustrated about someone construing your posts as special treatment for the young, old, and broken and within the same post advocate for special treatment of the young, old, and broken.

 

[RockAndSage]

It's bizarre watching you get frustrated about someone construing your posts as special treatment for the young, old, and broken and within the same post advocate for special treatment of the young, old, and broken.

Can you explain how leaving the ALW tag alone, is asking for special treatment?

 

[WeiserBucks]

It’s hard to help with predator management because of tree huggers.

This thread is about Idaho specifically, have you any knowledge of the Idaho predator regs?

 

[wind gypsy]

Can you explain how leaving the ALW tag alone, is asking for special treatment?

I wouldn't say it is unless you're asking specifically for the "young, old, and broken" to be left alone. If we're only talking about everyone or nobody we dont need to mention special groups of people a bunch of times.

 

[RockAndSage]

I wouldn't say it is unless you're asking specifically for the "young, old, and broken" to be left alone. If we're only talking about everyone or nobody we dont need to mention special groups of people a bunch of times.

That makes more sense. The post I just put up above, makes reference to "normal people", young, old, broken, together, which is what was intended in earlier posts. But they were mentioned explicitly, because they'd be the most negatively impacted by removing normal, ALW tags and seasons.

 

[2531usmc]

I'm pretty certain you didn't do this on purpose, but it's been bizarre watching my words get warped and twisted across this thread to the point where this is what someone would pick up - that I'm somehow arguing for special, privileged seasons. It's the exact opposite - just leave people TF alone to hunt how they have been with common modern weapons, and anyone wanting additional tags/seasons for restricted tech can be left TF alone to voluntarily pursue those. Leave the ALW category alone. The young, the old, and the broken can keep doing what they've been doing - that's my point about those types of people. Leave them TF alone.

I read this and keep going back to “the broken can keep doing what they’ve been doing”.

It’s like wtf dude, referring to fellow hunters like that.

 

[RockAndSage]

I read this and keep going back to “the broken can keep doing what they’ve been doing”.

It’s like wtf dude, referring to fellow hunters like that.

I've been the broken. It's said with love man, not disdain. Hunting was core to helping heal body and soul.

 

[Sundodger]

This would be an interesting experiment with a couple of comparable units then switch after a number of years. I know the consensus in the wildlife biology world is antler point restrictions don't have an impact on mule deer, so I am skeptical something like this would either, but it would be interesting to test.

Would have to control for loss of hunters in these units and increase of hunters in the "open" units.

 

[wind gypsy]

Man Form, I'm trying really hard to figure out here what the disconnect is...whether it's that my exact words are being skimmed, or innocently misinterpreted, of if this is picking a fight where one is just not necessary.

So, before hitting reply, please - read each of these points from a well-meaning, well-intended lens and point of view, and let's see if we can clear things up. I've already made each of them before, but in brief:



1) Irons-only tags = more opportunity = more hunters in woods each year = good. I'd be happy to see it as an additional option in every state for every zone, and I'd apply every year too.

Generally there's a reason seasons/opportunities are limited how they are. Of course we can point to lots of poor examples but the point stands. Providing more opportunity without giving up something doesn't make hunting better.

2) Whole zones being tech-restricted all year = f'cking over people. Leave the majority of the season the normal Any-Legal-Weapon category, so that normal people, along with the young, broken, and elderly can continue their way of life, and keep passing that culture on with minimum barrier to that.

Whole zones have been hard to even get a tag for decades. Whole zones have had tags restricted due to population struggles. Whole zones have changed season dates from when people used to hunt them. Is that "f'cking people over" when they reduce ALW tags because the wildlife population demands it? Its a weak argument. We're not entitled to anything. If making a change could result in better experiences for more people, some people not liking it is part of the deal.

3) Hunter kill has just about the least impact of all the things affecting herd numbers, compared to winter kill, habitat loss, and especially the last decade or so, wolf, cougar, and bear predation, as well as disease in some areas. Restricting hunter opportunity rates when those other pressures are vastly more dominant in impacting herd sizes is like giving someone a hair tonic when they're going bald from cancer. Focus on the root problem. Herd sizes are just not impacted significantly from overhunting by Leupold. It's a red-herring argument. It's also one that is internally divisive, and keeps us focused on the wrong things.

While maybe applicable to certain locations that have low density, low pressure, low hunter success, and good escape cover or sanctuary for deer, it's dang sure not applicable to everywhere. Like you think we should have no limits to tags? Year round season? Why is it that getting a ALW tag in your home state is an unusual thing and why do people value those tags? Answer-because hunter opportunity is restricted and hunter effectiveness is intentionally built into the season structure and regulations.

4) Governance: Running an experimental season tag is great - wiping out a whole zone's any-legal-weapon season as an "experiment" is 3rd world $h*thole levels of governance, based on feelsies, not data.

In this case the demand for data is just denial of common sense. There's data on weapon effectiveness but anyone with a brain understands hunters would be less effective without magnified rifle sights. If it weren't so obvious you wouldn't be in a tizzy about it.

5) Politics: The pro-wolf, anti-hunting crowd is doing every indirect and direct policy action they can to limit hunter success, and to wall off vast swaths of land to anything other than foot-borne, non-hunting recreation. Which also f'cks over the same people on the margins as would happen in tech-restricted hunt zones. They're already packing our wildlife departments, in their "long march through the institutions" (google it). Any precedent set in pro-hunting states in removing optics and making it harder to hunt - not matter how well-meaning - will be leveraged by places like CO, OR, CA, WA, etc, to make it harder to hunt at all. It will be salami-sliced down over decades into an increasingly burdensome, onerous event that will kill off hunting culturally in the majority of the voting population - and giving the ability, eventually, to just ban it entirely. It's their playbook, it's strategic, it's got a long time-horizon, and wiping out ALW tags plays right into that. No matter how well-meaning.

Disagree. You know what kills off hunting culturally? Having such a horseshit deer population that people stop hunting them or being so difficult to get a tag that people stop hunting them.

Want more animals? It won't come from arguing over the scraps of tag allotment, arguing with each other which gun control hunt-restrictions are more palatable this year. It comes from addressing the roots of population numbers, and fighting like hell against those external threats - not against each other.

All of this stuff is interrelated - preserving the values in our culture of hunting is the only thing that will ensure our great-grandchildren will be able to hunt on public lands. We need to be strategic.

Our great-grandchildren? Did your great grandfather only go hunting because he had a magnified scope? What an absurd argument. This idea that we need to be free to use every piece of technology to make it less likely an animal an animal we want to kill could put the slip on us or its an attack on gun rights or hunting culture or heritage is illogical to put it kindly.

 

[RockAndSage]

Generally there's a reason seasons/opportunities are limited how they are. Of course we can point to lots of poor examples but the point stands. Providing more opportunity without giving up something doesn't make hunting better.

Whole zones have been hard to even get a tag for decades. Whole zones have had tags restricted due to population struggles. Whole zones have changed season dates from when people used to hunt them. Is that "f'cking people over" when they reduce ALW tags because the wildlife population demands it? Its a weak argument. We're not entitled to anything. If making a change could result in better experiences for more people, some people not liking it is part of the deal.

While maybe applicable to certain locations that have low density, low pressure, low hunter success, and good escape cover or sanctuary for deer, it's dang sure not applicable to everywhere. Like you think we should have no limits to tags? Year round season? Why is it that getting a ALW tag in your home state is an unusual thing and why do people value those tags? Answer-because hunter opportunity is restricted and hunter effectiveness is intentionally built into the season structure and regulations.

In this case the demand for data is is just denial of common sense. There's data on weapon effectiveness but anyone with a brain understands hunters would be less effective without magnified rifle sights. If it weren't so obvious you wouldn't be in a tizzy about it.


Disagree. You know what kills off hunting culturally? Having such a horseshit deer population that people stop hunting them or being so difficult to get a tag that people stop hunting them.

Our great-grandchildren? Did your great grandfather only go hunting because he had a magnified scope? What an absurd argument. This idea that we need to be free to use every piece of technology to make it less likely an animal an animal we want to kill could put the slip on us or its an attack on gun rights or hunting culture or heritage is illogical to put it kindly.

Seriously, at this point, this is just intentionally obtuse. You're not looking to understand any of the points I'm making, just finding bizarre little angles to disagree with them and then ignore the rest of what was written.

Deer populations aren't declining from hunter numbers - "anyone with a brain" knows that killing bucks doesn't impact the next year's fawn rates. We aren't killing does. Winter, wolves, loss of habitat, and disease are.

YES, you're f'ing over people's families by taking away whole zones from ALW. The old and broken people in them aren't going to stalk in under 200yds because a lot of them just physically can't, and a 12yo little girl shouldn't have to be a f'ing Daniel Boone before getting culture-building success on a buck that can be had by just leaving the ALW tag system across a whole zone alone.

But above all, quit squabbling over the scraps of tag allotments, and focus on growing herd sizes by fighting the pressures that have ZERO to do with hunters.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Man Form, I'm trying really hard to figure out here what the disconnect is...whether it's that my exact words are being skimmed, or innocently misinterpreted, of if this is picking a fight where one is just not necessary.

So, before hitting reply, please - read each of these points from a well-meaning, well-intended lens and point of view, and let's see if we can clear things up. I've already made each of them before, but in brief:



1) Irons-only tags = more opportunity = more hunters in woods each year = good. I'd be happy to see it as an additional option in every state for every zone, and I'd apply every year too.

2) Whole zones being tech-restricted all year = f'cking over people. Leave the majority of the season the normal Any-Legal-Weapon category, so that normal people, along with the young, broken, and elderly can continue their way of life, and keep passing that culture on with minimum barrier to that.

3) Hunter kill has just about the least impact of all the things affecting herd numbers, compared to winter kill, habitat loss, and especially the last decade or so, wolf, cougar, and bear predation, as well as disease in some areas. Restricting hunter opportunity rates when those other pressures are vastly more dominant in impacting herd sizes is like giving someone a hair tonic when they're going bald from cancer. Focus on the root problem. Herd sizes are just not impacted significantly from overhunting by Leupold. It's a red-herring argument. It's also one that is internally divisive, and keeps us focused on the wrong things.

4) Governance: Running an experimental season tag is great - wiping out a whole zone's any-legal-weapon season as an "experiment" is 3rd world $h*thole levels of governance, based on feelsies, not data.

5) Politics: The pro-wolf, anti-hunting crowd is doing every indirect and direct policy action they can to limit hunter success, and to wall off vast swaths of land to anything other than foot-borne, non-hunting recreation. Which also f'cks over the same people on the margins as would happen in tech-restricted hunt zones. They're already packing our wildlife departments, in their "long march through the institutions" (google it). Any precedent set in pro-hunting states in removing optics and making it harder to hunt - not matter how well-meaning - will be leveraged by places like CO, OR, CA, WA, etc, to make it harder to hunt at all. It will be salami-sliced down over decades into an increasingly burdensome, onerous event that will kill off hunting culturally in the majority of the voting population - and giving the ability, eventually, to just ban it entirely. It's their playbook, it's strategic, it's got a long time-horizon, and wiping out ALW tags plays right into that. No matter how well-meaning.

Want more animals? It won't come from arguing over the scraps of tag allotment, arguing with each other which gun control hunt-restrictions are more palatable this year. It comes from addressing the roots of population numbers, and fighting like hell against those external threats - not against each other.

All of this stuff is interrelated - preserving the values in our culture of hunting is the only thing that will ensure our great-grandchildren will be able to hunt on public lands. We need to be strategic.

So, irons-only tags and seasons = good.

Eliminating ALW tags entirely = cutting our own throats culturally and playing into anti-hunting efforts.

This is a reasonable post.

I am never going to be in favor of restricting lethality. I hate special seasons. I want animals killed humanely and recovered to feed people.

These changes won’t solve the root cause problems, which are due to poor management and overdevelopment.

The irresponsible slobs who are slinging lead past their maximum effective range will still be doing it without rangefinders and scopes.

If the herds need relief because too many animals are being killed, then limit tags, starting with cow/doe tags. Then NR tags. Western states need to decide whether they want out-of-state dollars or a good experience for residents.

As long as the population is healthy, I don’t care whether there are any 375 bulls or 180 point deer. Hunting is about the experience, not bragging rights.

 

[wind gypsy]

This is a reasonable post.

I am never going to be in favor of restricting lethality. I hate special seasons. I want animals killed humanely and recovered to feed people.

These changes won’t solve the root cause problems, which are due to poor management and overdevelopment.

The irresponsible slobs who are slinging lead past their maximum effective range will still be doing it without rangefinders and scopes.

If the herds need relief because too many animals are being killed, then limit tags, starting with cow/doe tags. Then NR tags. Western states need to decide whether they want out-of-state dollars or a good experience for residents.

As long as the population is healthy, I don’t care whether there are any 375 bulls or 180 point deer. Hunting is about the experience, not bragging rights.

Right. The experience of hunting buck:doe ratios of 6:100 and those 6 being mostly 1 or 2 year olds is awesome.

 

[Lou432]

That Idaho lever action only deer proposal likely a limited any weapon tweak in SE units like 73A/76, per the advisory committee's Jan 2026 pitch sounds like a fun throwback less long range sniping, more woods stalking. No direct Utah parallel they're all weapon with no lever mandate, but lever guns rule eastern deer woods hunts there Marlin 336 in .30-30 or .35 Rem drops whitetails DRT at 50-150 yds with Hornady LeveRevolution, zero jams in brush, and that quick follow up thump shines for hogs too. Silhouette skills'll translate perfect your rigs'll feel at home. If it passes, it'll cull crowds and boost fun vote yes and grab LeveRevs for the flatter arc.

 

[Wrench]

I have a blr in 284win that would be a great fit....

 

[Rotnguns]

That Idaho lever action only deer proposal likely a limited any weapon tweak in SE units like 73A/76, per the advisory committee's Jan 2026 pitch sounds like a fun throwback less long range sniping, more woods stalking. No direct Utah parallel they're all weapon with no lever mandate, but lever guns rule eastern deer woods hunts there Marlin 336 in .30-30 or .35 Rem drops whitetails DRT at 50-150 yds with Hornady LeveRevolution, zero jams in brush, and that quick follow up thump shines for hogs too. Silhouette skills'll translate perfect your rigs'll feel at home. If it passes, it'll cull crowds and boost fun vote yes and grab LeveRevs for the flatter arc.

Say, where did you find this information? I've been searching and I can't even locate an agenda for the January 2026 meeting. I found a proposed strategic plan with goals but no details or mention of the open sight proposal.

 

[Formidilosus]

Man Form, I'm trying really hard to figure out here what the disconnect is...whether it's that my exact words are being skimmed, or innocently misinterpreted, of if this is picking a fight where one is just not necessary.

You have multiple people that generally are in agreement with what you write, that are saying the same thing to you. Now consensus doesn’t mean “correct”, but it would at least make me take a step back and see why that is.

So, before hitting reply, please - read each of these points from a well-meaning, well-intended lens and point of view, and let's see if we can clear things up. I've already made each of them before, but in brief:

I did, and you are still saying what you said to start man.

2) Whole zones being tech-restricted all year = f'cking over people.

How exactly is the screwing people over?

Leave the majority of the season the normal Any-Legal-Weapon category, so that normal people, along with the young, broken, and elderly can continue their way of life, and keep passing that culture on with minimum barrier to that.

You keep saying it’s not about “special” allowances- and then say- “it’s about special allowances”.

What culture is lost if certain units go to iron sights only- please be specific on this one point. What “culture” is lost?

3) Hunter kill has just about the least impact of all the things affecting herd numbers, compared to winter kill, habitat loss, and especially the last decade or so, wolf, cougar, and bear predation, as well as disease in some areas. Restricting hunter opportunity rates when those other pressures are vastly more dominant in impacting herd sizes is like giving someone a hair tonic when they're going bald from cancer. Focus on the root problem. Herd sizes are just not impacted significantly from overhunting by Leupold. It's a red-herring argument. It's also one that is internally divisive, and keeps us focused on the wrong things.

Correct. Unfortunately it is the only one that politically will or can be done. And, massive numbers of people posted on every opening does affect deer movements and stress. I am a “long range” hunter- and when most people aren’t, it is a way to lesson stress on animals being pressured. However, when every opening has someone with a LR rifle, and every deer gets shot at every time it steps in an opening- that’s stress on animals. Combined with all the hunters stomping around, the animals have nowhere to go. Then on top of that, all the MASSIVE amount of road hunters and hunters on UTV’s all day long stopping and shooting from every opening…. It’s a lot.

4) Governance: Running an experimental season tag is great - wiping out a whole zone's any-legal-weapon season as an "experiment" is 3rd world $h*thole levels of governance, based on feelsies, not data.

What? Third world shithole to say let’s try reducing technology to maybe give deer a small break? This comment doesn’t even make sense.

5) Politics: The pro-wolf, anti-hunting crowd is doing every indirect and direct policy action they can to limit hunter success, and to wall off vast swaths of land to anything other than foot-borne, non-hunting recreation. Which also f'cks over the same people on the margins as would happen in tech-restricted hunt zones. They're already packing our wildlife departments, in their "long march through the institutions" (google it). Any precedent set in pro-hunting states in removing optics and making it harder to hunt - not matter how well-meaning - will be leveraged by places like CO, OR, CA, WA, etc, to make it harder to hunt at all. It will be salami-sliced down over decades into an increasingly burdensome, onerous event that will kill off hunting culturally in the majority of the voting population - and giving the ability, eventually, to just ban it entirely. It's their playbook, it's strategic, it's got a long time-horizon, and wiping out ALW tags plays right into that. No matter how well-meaning.

This is Idaho- they aren’t doing any of that. It really seems that you are caught in an emotional net about this, that has nothing objectively to do with “a couple units will try iron sights only for a year or two”.

Want more animals? It won't come from arguing over the scraps of tag allotment, arguing with each other which gun control hunt-restrictions are more palatable this year. It comes from addressing the roots of population numbers, and fighting like hell against those external threats - not against each other.

No one is fighting each other.

All of this stuff is interrelated - preserving the values in our culture of hunting is the only thing that will ensure our great-grandchildren will be able to hunt on public lands. We need to be strategic.

Values requires scopes?

So, irons-only tags and seasons = good.

The herd numbers cannot sustain an additional hunt.

Eliminating ALW tags entirely = cutting our own throats culturally and playing into anti-hunting efforts.

No sir. You are off on this.

 

[HuntHarder]

So much emotion comes out when any mention of technology pull back or ban gets proposed. Happened in Az when they banned trail cameras. Some of the defenses to them were comical and driven from a pure emotional place. I see nothing wrong with the proposal. I often wonder if closing a unit a year completely wouldn't be a success. Spread the # of tags lost throughout all the other units equally.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I often wonder if closing a unit a year completely wouldn't be a success. Spread the # of tags lost throughout all the other units equally.

For Idaho, there is no spreading the regular deer tags. Residents can hunt any open unit in the state. I think most of the people posting in this thread aren't familiar with the Idaho regs.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

These topics always sound to me like a bunch of kids debating about “you must be this tall to ride” at the amusement park. And the minimum height for which they advocate is always about 0.1” shorter than they are. They all want to ride, but they don’t want to wait in line.

The real killers will always find a way to kill. They don’t mind limiting themselves as long as it drives away competition.

When I listen to people talking about passing up bulls or bucks to “wait for a better one”, I don’t get impressed. That’s an attitude that only makes sense if animals are so abundant that the challenge is in finding a big one. And a feeling that is anathema to to anyone who gets excited just to be out hunting and is happy just to see animals. I don’t think much of someone who is only going to be happy with a 360 bull or 180 deer (or whatever number applies here. I loathe the idea of trophy hunting and have never paid much attention to scores).

 

[Ozarkansas]

It is not right to eliminate hunting for a kid,

and a 12yo little girl shouldn't have to be a f'ing Daniel Boone before getting culture-building success on a buck

Kids are probably the least impacted by an iron sights rule. They learn fast and generally have better eyesight than adults. Many (and at one point not so long ago, most) kids start learning on iron sights, so they have a lot more recent experience with it than adults. I know I cut my teeth head-shooting squirrels with an iron-sighted pellet gun, and 12 year-old Ozarkansas would whoop 31 year old Ozarkansas in an iron sight shoot-off. “Think of the children” is not a valid argument against this, imo.

If we’re having to choose between cutting back on season length, cutting back on number of tags, or restricted weapons to reduce harvest, I would choose restricting weapons every time. It’s valid to disagree with that or take the position that no change is necessary, but I don’t see how restricting modern guns to open sights is going to cause the cultural death of hunting.

If whitetail hunting in the Midwest thrived under shotgun-only restrictions, I expect western hunting will do just fine under iron. Sight restrictions.