Idaho proposed special season open sight centerfire

[Formidilosus]

I don’t understand the complaints about archery. These comments must be from people who don’t actually bow hunt.

Yeah no. Most would choke at the amount of game animals I have killed with a bow.

The difference between effective range of trad archery and compound archery is only 20-30 yds, depending on the shooter. The advancements in compound technology account for about another 20 yds increase in effective range in, say from 40yds to 60yds. Do people really think that is a major shift in tech that leads to overharvest ? The success rates for archery tags would suggest otherwise. The 100yd archery kill is still extremely uncommon. It seems common because when it happens there’s so much talk about it.

You either have no real experience with traditional archery versus modern compounds, or you are being deliberately disingenuous. If someone buys a longbow today, and practices for a week, they will have few deer that they believe are in their range, and they will shoot at dozens of deer between each one that draws blood. If that same person buys a modern compound setup and RF today, and practices for a week- not only will they have twice as many deer (or more) that they feel are in range of them and shoot at, they will draw blood on around 50% of the deer they shoot at.

The work required to be remotely competent with traditional cranberry is worlds apart from the ease of being remotely competent with modern compounds.

 

[Sully_44]

Those are fallacies. Not long ago I was in a wheelchair with a feeding tube and had to have others wipe my butt. I went hunting when I was supposed to still be in a wheelchair, did not then, and would not ask for preference or exemptions.
There is no one being pushed off a mountain due to iron sights.

It seems to be you are stuck on this due to two main reasons:

1). You don’t want to use irons- that understandable, but doesn’t change reality or the facts of irons reducing killing.

2). You believe somehow that weapons restrictions in hunting- an activity that we volunteer to do for fun; will somehow lead to anti hunting and gun outcomes(?). Except that hunters already had to make weapons and restrictions over 100 years ago due to the ability to kill too many animals. Techolyhas gotten almost mind bendedly out of hand.

Your own slippery slope argument is the same for technology. No- you do not want people to use the most success producing weapons available. A modicum of internal reflection bear that out.

I want to know why the same guys arguing that red dots and 1x scopes don’t change anything and that they’re no different than iron sights are the same guys saying that old people and kids can’t figure out irons, but can use a red dot. What is it? Better, easier tech? Or the same?

Also, these changes aren’t state wide, if kids, old people, and disabled vets don’t like what a unit offers, why can’t they go somewhere else that does offer what they want.

Last thought right now for the guys saying there needs to be an exception for people that can’t use irons, anyone can find a doctor to sign off for anything. I Utah there are people that get exemptions to use crossbows in archery season because their shoulder is sore from throwing a baseball too hard the week before the hunt. Utah gives hundreds and hundreds of exemptions for archery and muzzleloader hunts every year to people that aren’t disabled, just lazy. You want to talk about a slippery slope?

 

[flyfisher117]

Some of these configurations are much more deadly than most would believe.

For sure. There is a reason a Contender is still a bucket list gun for me. Absolutely love shooting my fathers in 30 Herret.

In the scheme of reducing success does a 1x scoped handgun have higher success than an iron sight 6 UM?

 

[WeiserBucks]

In the scheme of reducing success does a 1x scoped handgun have higher success than an iron sight 6 UM?

Can't answer that one, the only rifles I have with irons are lever 30-30 and 45-70.

 

[Flyjunky]

It’s not just bucks, it’s does as well. Are you also thinking that doe harvest doesn’t affect population ? Like I said before , there are much larger drivers affecting the herds than hunter harvest but it’s the one thing we can actually control. If hunting regulations have absolutely no impact on herds then why even have seasons or regulations at all ? By your logic we should just shoot bucks year round with whatever weapon in whatever unit because it has no effect on the overall population …. ?

Come on, be an adult, let’s not get into hyperbole. I’ve stated above about stopping rut hunts, all doe hunts in under objective units, etc.

Harvest of bucks, in a hunting season is not in the top 20 factors affecting herd size. If a biologist is telling you that buck harvest is the or a top factor then they are issuing way too many tags.

 

[Formidilosus]

How much does the dot or 1x scope give someone an advantage?

Massively. A smooth bore slug gun and especially a straight wall pistol with optics are significantly easier to make 200 yard hits with on animals than any rifle with irons for the vast majority of minimally practiced people.

How much of an advtage would the 2nd two give a hunter who physically can not use a multi plane sight system.

Who are these mythical people that can’t use irons, but can safely hunt (or drive)? Most of my life I have been in sports that irons are required, and no one ages out of the sport due to aging eyesight- that aren’t nearly legally blind.

Let’s compare the average Idaho Hunter who drives around and road hunts the first fork and horn to cross the road. And Form himself. The man the myth the legend.

I don’t know what you mean here.

 

[RockAndSage]

Trying to get to each of the points and questions you're bringing up - will get to the political one in a moment, as it takes a little more time to cover properly.

Those are fallacies. Not long ago I was in a wheelchair with a feeding tube and had to have others wipe my butt. I went hunting when I was supposed to still be in a wheelchair, did not then, and would not ask for preference or exemptions.

This is you, right?

An utterly obsessed, dedicated, nearly genius level of both shooter and hunter, across a very wide range of disciplines? Someone who eats, lives, breaths, anything related to guns and hunting, personally and professionally?

You are not normal - and you cannot be held as the benchmark of normal. Or the benchmark of what normal people should be held to. Aspire to, sure. But not baseline expectations.

It is not right to eliminate hunting for a kid, a broken body, or an old body, if they aren't willing to learn to bowhunt, or stalk in under 100yds.

It is immoral.

Is morality subjective? Sure.

But there's also a reason we don't draft 12yo girls, or 75yo men. We keep them off that mountain.

It seems to be you are stuck on this due to two main reasons:

1). You don’t want to use irons- that understandable, but doesn’t change reality or the facts of irons reducing killing.

I've already said I'd jump at the opportunity for an iron-only tag, and a season - the issue I disagree with is entire zones being iron-only for the whole season. I've personally used irons to kill, my entire life, and have competed with them at very high levels. Including primitive, side-lock muzzleloaders flinging patched roundball. I do recognized their limitations, and yes, they do limit killing ability - and I have no problem using them if that's the only option, or I volunteer for that restriction.

Your own slippery slope argument is the same for technology. No- you do not want people to use the most success producing weapons available. A modicum of internal reflection bear that out.

Not sure exactly what angle your argument is taking here...is it that I don't want Tactical Timmy clacking off a claymore on a buck while monitoring through thermals before calling in a JDAM?

Or are you simply offering up that we need to have an honest discussion about what our ethics and morals argue for reasonable restrictions on tech while hunting?

 

[flyfisher117]

Massively. A smooth bore slug gun and especially a straight wall pistol with optics are significantly easier to make 200 yard hits with on animals than any rifle with irons for the vast majority of minimally practiced people.



Who are these mythical people that can’t use irons, but can safely hunt (or drive)? Most of my life I have been in sports that irons are required, and no one ages out of the sport due to aging eyesight- that aren’t nearly legally blind.





I don’t know what you mean here.

If I take Jim bob randomly selected from the cabelas parking lot. And Form himself. Jim bob shoots 20 rounds a year and Form shoots 20,000.
Put them in a hunting situation. How much more effective are they with a 1x scoped handgun vs an iron sight rifle?

What is “massively” does it have a hit percentage?


In my short time in this earth I have had the blessing of meeting and knowing people in their 60s whose eyes couldn’t focus fast enough or at all on irons. After talking with my eye doctor it’s a pretty common problem with aging eyes.

My father is is a great example. He’s been a Type 1 diabetic for 62 years, it wasn’t a life style choice. His eyes, being diabetic, have struggles beyond a normal set of eyes. No he’s not blind, he can for what ever reason see very well at distance but his eyes no longer work with irons.

 

[HunterGatherer]

Yeah no. Most would choke at the amount of game animals I have killed with a bow.





You either have no real experience with traditional archery versus modern compounds, or you are being deliberately disingenuous. If someone buys a longbow today, and practices for a week, they will have few deer that they believe are in their range, and they will shoot at dozens of deer between each one that draws blood. If that same person buys a modern compound setup and RF today, and practices for a week- not only will they have twice as many deer (or more) that they feel are in range of them and shoot at, they will draw blood on around 50% of the deer they shoot at.

The work required to be remotely competent with traditional cranberry is worlds apart from the ease of being remotely competent with modern compounds.

How long it takes for a hunter to become proficient with their weapon is beside the point. Incompetence abounds with all weapons. So are you saying that bows are way too effective now ?

Without doing a whole research project here - A quick search returns results that trad guys have about a 10% success rate and compounds have about 17% on average. Some units the difference is much greater so I’m sure you could find stats to back your argument as well BUT Rifle success rates are so much higher there’s no point in even comparing them to archery if the goal is to decrease harvest without eliminating tags. Changing rifle seasons and/or equipment is the easiest/ most effective way to change harvest rates.

Also, compound archery success rates are skewed by the states that allow crossbows during archery, which accounts for the biggest increase in archery harvest in the last 20 years. Crossbows don’t belong in archery season IMO unless we’re talking about the states ( not in the West) where whitetails are actually a problem and they’re doing everything they can to get herds whittled down.

 

[Oregon]

O God, I can only imagine all the wounded deer running around from guys flinging bullets at them at a range they shouldn't be, and not being able to see where they hit either.

Kinda like bow season, rifle season and muzzleloader season?

 

[HunterGatherer]

It feels like we’ve gotten into the weeds here a bit. We already have weapon restrictions, that’s nothing new. Adjustment of those restrictions to meet management objectives is the core of conservation through hunting. No one is trying to keep certain people from hunting with these restrictions. At least in hunting , the user group has some input in setting rules around the resource they’re trying to conserve. We need to be more objective instead of freaking out because we can’t use a scope in X unit during a certain timeframe.

 

[BasicUtahrd95]

If I take Jim bob randomly selected from the cabelas parking lot. And Form himself. Jim bob shoots 20 rounds a year and Form shoots 20,000.
Put them in a hunting situation. How much more effective are they with a 1x scoped handgun vs an iron sight rifle?

What is “massively” does it have a hit percentage?

I don't have any solid numbers for you, but I have switched from a magnified scope, to a red dot, to open sights on my muzzleloader over the past 3 seasons. I am a solidly in the "novice shooter" category by RS standards, so consider me Jim Bob from Cabela's.

As has been said before, muzzy's with dialable scopes are basically single shot rifles. My first year hunting with a muzzy I killed a buck at 260 yards without issue. I shot my muzzleloader less than 20 times total that year.

When I had to switch to a red dot, I was hitting steel at 200 yards easy on my first range session. I killed a buck from 150 yards across a draw. I was in the sun and he was bedded in the shade against a gray background. I had to switch back and forth from my binos to my red dot multiple times to make sure I was aiming at the right spot. The buck was totally exposed, but I had a really hard time picking him out through the scope. Open sights would have made that shot significantly harder because the target would have been even harder to see. I shot my muzzy maybe between 30-40 times total that year.

This year, it took me a while to get used to iron sights. I hadn't shot with them since I was a teenager. I spent my first range session just getting sighted in and getting consistent groups at 100 yards. It took another few range sessions to feel comfortable at 200 yards. I am over 100 shots with my muzzleloader this year. That comes out to roughly 3 times the practice for a similar level of capability with iron sights vs red dots. Not only is it harder to see the target itself, but it takes me a lot longer to get the shot off because I have to concentrate on keeping multiple things aligned.

 

[flyfisher117]

I don't have any solid numbers for you, but I have switched from a magnified scope, to a red dot, to open sights on my muzzleloader over the past 3 seasons. I am a solidly in the "novice shooter" category by RS standards, so consider me Jim Bob from Cabela's.

As has been said before, muzzy's with dialable scopes are basically single shot rifles. My first year hunting with a muzzy I killed a buck at 260 yards without issue. I shot my muzzleloader less than 20 times total that year.

When I had to switch to a red dot, I was hitting steel at 200 yards easy on my first range session. I killed a buck from 150 yards across a draw. I was in the sun and he was bedded in the shade against a gray background. I had to switch back and forth from my binos to my red dot multiple times to make sure I was aiming at the right spot. The buck was totally exposed, but I had a really hard time picking him out through the scope. Open sights would have made that shot significantly harder because the target would have been even harder to see. I shot my muzzy maybe between 30-40 times total that year.

This year, it took me a while to get used to iron sights. I hadn't shot with them since I was a teenager. I spent my first range session just getting sighted in and getting consistent groups at 100 yards. It took another few range sessions to feel comfortable at 200 yards. I am over 100 shots with my muzzleloader this year. That comes out to roughly 3 times the practice for a similar level of capability with iron sights vs red dots. Not only is it harder to see the target itself, but it takes me a lot longer to get the shot off because I have to concentrate on keeping multiple things aligned.

Hence why I said muzzy with irons.

Though I got my first muzzle loader this spring. My first range session with a globe sight I shot a rock chuck at 225 yards.

 

[Formidilosus]

It is not right to eliminate hunting for a kid, a broken body, or an old body, if they aren't willing to learn to bowhunt, or stalk in under 100yds.

Irons aren’t eliminating anyone from doing anything. That is my largest counter. Kids shoot irons just as well now as they did 100 years ago- better actually. An old body doesn’t effect iron sight use- there are 80+ year old men all over the country shooting iron sights on black powders every day. And I’m still trying to understand how a “broken body” means you can’t use irons?

So stalking within 100 yards is now some arduous task? Ok. What about 200? Or 600 yards? Just using your line of reasoning that you are giving here- why should we exclude a 12 year old that doesn’t want to leave their house? Why shouldn’t they be able to use a drone? Or, baring that- why shouldn’t they be able to use thermals to locate game, I mean they are less physically capable and less experienced- shouldn’t they have concessions to make it easier on them and help their success rates?

But there's also a reason we don't draft 12yo girls, or 75yo men. We keep them off that mountain.

Please stop. You show far too much intelligence to continue this fallacy- using iron sights isn’t keeping anyone from hunting.

I've already said I'd jump at the opportunity for an iron-only tag, and a season - the issue I disagree with is entire zones being iron-only for the whole season. I've personally used irons to kill, my entire life, and have competed with them at very high levels. Including primitive, side-lock muzzleloaders flinging patched roundball. I do recognized their limitations, and yes, they do limit killing ability - and I have no problem using them if that's the only option, or I volunteer for that restriction.

Ok. “You” volunteer. Well, I don’t volunteer to give up thermals or drones for big game hunting. It increases my success rate, and it’s slippery slope for you to say no.

Not sure exactly what angle your argument is taking here...is it that I don't want Tactical Timmy clacking off a claymore on a buck while monitoring through thermals before calling in a JDAM?

Or are you simply offering up that we need to have an honest discussion about what our ethics and morals argue for reasonable restrictions on tech while hunting?

Both. Use the absurd (currently) to see the ridiculous trap that “allow for the best chance of success” set you up for. Then, once it is understood that current technology has gone way too far already, you can have a real discussion about what must change.

 

[Formidilosus]

In the scheme of reducing success does a 1x scoped handgun have higher success than an iron sight 6 UM?

Maybe, maybe not. But a 1x scoped modern muzzleloader does.

 

[BasicUtahrd95]

Hence why I said muzzy with irons.

Though I got my first muzzle loader this spring. My first range session with a globe sight I shot a rock chuck at 225 yards.

I should have been more clear. I was trying to provide some context for what it might take your average guy off the street to get comfortable with a red dot or 1x scope vs open sights. For me, I had to put in roughly 3x the practice with open sights to get to the same level of capability as a red dot on the same weapon.

 

[Formidilosus]

How long it takes for a hunter to become proficient with their weapon is beside the point.

No- that’s exactly the point. When archery seasons were allowed in almost all the states, it was precisely because there were so few archers relative, and their success rates were so abysmally low that giving them a season did not have any material effect on the herd or animal take. That is now not remotely true. It is the same for muzzleloaders.

Incompetence abounds with all weapons. So are you saying that bows are way too effective now ?

Yes actually. They are beyond the intended purpose when those seasons were established.

Without doing a whole research project here - A quick search returns results that trad guys have about a 10% success rate and compounds have about 17% on average

So nearly twice? And, that isn’t reliable true side by side. People that use traditional bows are by and large dedicated to some level to it, which is not the same for compounds. So you are seeing a wide population (including extremely low skill) have nearly twice the kill rate of a small population that by and large are dedicated to the traditional bow.

Compounds are drastically more efficient at killing than traditional bows- saying they aren’t is being purposely deceitful.

BUT Rifle success rates are so much higher
there’s no point in even comparing them to archery

That’s not true across the board. It depends on species and terrain, and seasons. A few years ago this very topic came up on here, and I showed quite a few units where rifle and archery were neck and neck on elk kill numbers.

if the goal is to decrease harvest without eliminating tags. Changing rifle seasons and/or equipment is the easiest/ most effective way to change harvest rates.

Sure- but doing so while not addressing that a crap ton of animals are being killed in “special” seasons that were allowed because they weren’t going to kill any real numbers of animals- also needs to be addressed. Bow hunters aren’t any more special than rifles hunters in this.

Also, compound archery success rates are skewed by the states that allow crossbows during archery,

In the west that is relatively few, and most that are, were very recent.

which accounts for the biggest increase in archery harvest in the last 20 years. Crossbows don’t belong in archery season IMO unless we’re talking about the states ( not in the West) where whitetails are actually a problem and they’re doing everything they can to get herds whittled down.

Why do cross bows get regulated out of archery, but massive technological advancements in mechanical bows doesn’t?


Keep in mind/ I teach courses that are dedicated to modern, optimum rifles and equipment, and it is purposefully to make hunters more lethal. Technology needs to be heavily curtailed- the only difference is that I am being intellectually honest and willing to put “my thing” on the table; I just want the other communities to do so as well.

 

[IdahoBeav]

A lever action 30-30 with open sights is the perfect first hunting rifle. I think I killed 5 deer with one before I got my first scoped rifle.

I have heard elderly hunters say that they prefer iron sights and shots within 75 yards due to eyesight and physical limitations.

 

[cal30_sniper]

I should have been more clear. I was trying to provide some context for what it might take your average guy off the street to get comfortable with a red dot or 1x scope vs open sights. For me, I had to put in roughly 3x the practice with open sights to get to the same level of capability as a red dot on the same weapon.

Just hear to say you are 101% correct that the red dot or 1X scope has a HUGE advantage in picking out target contrast at anything beyond football throwing range. The types of really good iron sights that can be used to produce groups that warrant longer range shooting are without exception light-transfer limiting. A tiny diopter and a hooded globe front sight limit light to the point that it can be very difficult to break out a target (that has tens of millions of years of evolution selection on blending in) from the background, especially under shadowy conditions that game like to lurk in during the day, or the dawn/dusk conditions that crepuscular ungulates are most active in. 1X Red Dots and Scopes don't suffer these same handicaps, and are also must faster to use as they represent a single focal plane and point of alignment vs 3.

Lots of guys on here talking about 300 or 600 yard iron sight shots (I don't remember a time I didn't go 10 for 10 shooting these kinds of targets with iron sights at 500yds while in the servitude of Uncle Sam). Sure, that works on high contrast targets on a bright sunny range. It might even work on game animals that are caught in a field on a bright day. It doesn't work on a mule deer bedded down on the shady side of a ridge, or under a juniper, or anywhere else he isn't contrasted against a background in hunting scenarios at anywhere close to those ranges.

Sure, you can still bang away, just like guys ineffectively bang away with scoped rifles on shots they shouldn't be taking. Either way, it's reducing hit rates and by extension hunter success, which is exactly the goal of the proposed legislation. Less success = more opportunity (which has absolutely zip to do with deer herd survival, but will put a tag in your pocket more often). We already show insane preferential treatment to youth hunters in draw odds and season/weapons type in most state. What's better for hunter recruitment, more tags or less?

I spent an entire week wandering around in my restricted unit in Utah sighting on various objects at various ranges and lighting conditions to try and better establish what my actual field capabilities were. 200-300yds is about it with irons outside of very special circumstances.

Also, Form has said it multiple times in this thread already, but GOOD irons work just as well for old dudes as they do for young dudes. Diopter focusing removes the issues that older folks have with multiplane focus on blade, buckhorn, or ring peep style sighting systems. I know, because 20 years after PRK, my eyes aren't doing so great either, and a diopter snapped my iron shooting right back into place.

 

[Formidilosus]

Vets was just an example, not a special category of privilege. I'm talking about broken and old bodies in this context. It simply strikes me as deeply morally wrong for there to be so many weapon/tech restrictions that some old f*cker, a wrecked dude, or 12yo girl is forced to have a much higher level of stalking and physical stamina skillsets to be successful.

Why? Why is it morally wrong that everyone abides by the exact same rules? Tugging on heart strings doesn’t work for me. Americans have became lazy, entitled weak wretches precisely because of this belief: “the 12yo needs to be successful easily, without any undue hardship or struggle”. It’s hunting, not life and death. Kids need to learn to hunt- not be trigger pullers.
Not only does that produce crappy human beings, it also has the opposite effect- kids do not get addicted to easy things- it’s a mistake that parents can’t seem to understand. I have written pretty extensively about that very subject on here, and my experience with dozens and dozens of new hunters and children. By and large children want an adventure- not a trophy.

Again, these restricted tech seasons only serve to advantage already skilled, fit, and dedicated hunters. This shouldn't be a game of worthiness.

No. It lowers success for everyone/requires everyone to work and practice a bit more. Again, this is hunting, not war.