Idaho proposed special season open sight centerfire

[Formidilosus]

I get that and agree, but if we truly want to get more opportunity, making hunting harder, keep more animals on their feet, etc…why stop at rangefinders?

Because electronic RF’s and mapping software are the two greatest contributors to finding and killing animals. They are the two pieces of technology that have dramatically changed the landscape. Thermals are the next.

But to your point- all of the weapons have gotten out of hand. Archery is laughable now- that’s outside of crossbows which is insane that they are allowed in “archery”.
Muzzleloader aren't “primitive” in any way- the way in which almost all states agreed to have a “muzzle loader” season; they are just front loaded modern rifles now.

Do binocs and spotters not provide an advantage?

Not any substantive way. The amount of people that sit and truly pick apart a hillside with glass is minuscule. People walk until they see animals, and they look at them with glass to determine if they will shoot. Well, most just see animals with the naked eye, then use the scope to look at and shoot them.

In any case, standard binos and spotters do not materially move the needle either way on numbers of animals killed.

 

[HunterGatherer]

As I understand the issue, the proposed changes are to decrease success rates without taking away opportunity. They can either just start dropping tags or they can make the tags harder to fill through equipment restrictions. Which would you prefer ?

As I said, mule deer are hurting. Stop looking at this is someone trying to take away “muh freedoms” and look at it as rule changes with a lot of hunter input to let people continue to hunt while addressing declining animal populations

 

[flyfisher117]

I'm generally in favor of limiting technology in locations where game is particularly vulnerable to hunter success and I do like non-magnified centerfires as an option. I'm with you on allowing red-dots or non-magnified scopes for the eyesight impaired to not screw over a specific subset of existing hunters.

I commented in favor of adding more Muzzy seasons. I even commented in favor of adding iron sight seasons. I also got the chance to talk to my regional director while out fishing and running into him randomly. But yeah I don’t want to see guys forced out of hunting just because their eyes can’t focus properly with a 3 plane sighting system.

It’s wild we can’t even remove handheld thermals first. I know they’re trying but the F4WM and their posse is crying because “it’s a critical wolf hunting tool” and “it’s a critical tool for tracking wounded game”. Meanwhile we have guys cruising ridgelines at 4 am scanning with thermals and locating game.

 

[HunterGatherer]

I commented in favor of adding more Muzzy seasons. I even commented in favor of adding iron sight seasons. I also got the chance to talk to my regional director while out fishing and running into him randomly. But yeah I don’t want to see guys forced out of hunting just because their eyes can’t focus properly with a 3 plane sighting system.

It’s wild we can’t even remove handheld thermals first. I know they’re trying but the F4WM and their posse is crying because “it’s a critical wolf hunting tool” and “it’s a critical tool for tracking wounded game”. Meanwhile we have guys cruising ridgelines at 4 am scanning with thermals and locating game.

Thermal is a no-brainer in my book. No one should be able to pack a thermal during an open ungulate season. But I also see the need to increase wolf hunting success rates. So make thermals legal ONLY outside the ungulate seasons. If you need a thermal to find your ungulate you need to get better at tracking, and probably shooting

 

[Flyjunky]

As I understand the issue, the proposed changes are to decrease success rates without taking away opportunity. They can either just start dropping tags or they can make the tags harder to fill through equipment restrictions. Which would you prefer ?

As I said, mule deer are hurting. Stop looking at this is someone trying to take away “muh freedoms” and look at it as rule changes with a lot of hunter input to let people continue to hunt while addressing declining animal populations

No offense but buck harvest is NOT causing a decline in our herds, @nevadabugle said it above. Anyone who researches the subject knows this. Our md herds have been steadily declining since the 90’s, long before this “new” tech.

I would push back and say, stop looking at this and thinking these restrictions are going to bring back herds. It’s providing nothing but opportunity, that’s it.

 

[Rizzy]

I like the current opportunity in Idaho to have an OTC deer tag every year. If that means putting restrictions on the weapon I can use in certain areas to maintain that opportunity, then I'm fine with it. I will take the scope off my rifle and still go hunt the same areas.
I attribute my harvest success more to being able to consistently hunt an area, rather then the weapon I use.

 

[nevadabugle]

No offense but buck harvest is NOT causing a decline in our herds, @nevadabugle said it above. Anyone who researches the subject knows this. Our md herds have been steadily declining since the 90’s, long before this “new” tech.

I would push back and say, stop looking at this and thinking these restrictions are going to bring back herds. It’s providing nothing but opportunity, that’s it.

Only thing I would ad is that there is a discussion to be had around can restricted weapons help with older age classes over time. The data is not settled there yet. Utahs efforts will hopefully inform that over time.

 

[Flyjunky]

Only thing I would ad is that there is a discussion to be had around can restricted weapons help with older age classes over time. The data is not settled there yet. Utahs efforts will hopefully inform that over time.

True, which could help with getting does bred in a timely manner.

 

[HunterGatherer]

No offense but buck harvest is NOT causing a decline in our herds, @nevadabugle said it above. Anyone who researches the subject knows this. Our md herds have been steadily declining since the 90’s, long before this “new” tech.

I would push back and say, stop looking at this and thinking these restrictions are going to bring back herds. It’s providing nothing but opportunity, that’s it.

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 …. ?

 

[RockAndSage]

From your own arguments hear-

Limit season/duration (opportunity)= people being more serious. That’s fact.

Focus on “trophy”= more hunters being very serious about it. That is a fact.

Less total animals= people looking for any advantage they can get. That is a fact.

Have heightened technology available= people turn to technology and to gain an advantage and increaee success.

Limit season/duration and opportunity= people being more concerned and fixated on gear and technology. That is a fact.

Artificial drive to promote/pump up western hunting via common social media platform= more people that take it serious, AND a brand new artificial population to backfill lost hunters every year. That is a fact.


Now the real kicker…

Because of reduced opportunity and the artificial “drive” to promote western hunting as cool, the love of technology in humans, and the drive for technology to increase success or make it easier, and companies marketing to sell product, and social media (mostly YouTube and instagram) driving the desire or “need” to share or gain followers for individuals= all of that combines to drive people to look at areas and species they never would otherwise, buy gear they never would otherwise, research like they never would otherwise, scout like never would otherwise, and hunt like they never would otherwise.


Interestingly, take away technology and much the artificial “market” around all of this goes away. The conversation is t about whitetails that live anywhere and everywhere- it’s specifically about mule deer. Mule deer are dumb. Well, let’s say “out of time evolutionarily”. They are not the same skittishness as WT’s and they do not rebound like WT’s. The pressure has to give- and I’m not saying that technology is the greatest driver behind numbers- there are several things that need to be done. However, it does play a very large part of what we can control. And that is with all weapons- archery, muzzle loaders, and modern rifles.

All true, as far as I can tell*.

My biggest points on the issue are this:

1) I don't have any problems with iron-only seasons, if they're akin to another season like archery or MZ. It's another option for a tag I'd jump at, giving more opportunity for those who want to take the chance, voluntarily.

2) Completely disagree with iron-only zones for whole seasons, for the slippery-slope issues and strategic protection of our hunting and firearms rights I've outlined in a couple of posts above. It sets extremely bad precedent, easily abused through arbitrary political fiat - especially in places politically unfriendly to hunters.

3) There genuinely does need to be consideration in tag restrictions for youngest and oldest hunters, and those with legit disabilities. A 12yo girl, a 75yo who can't use irons anymore because of eyes, a vet who lost a leg and is getting around on a prosthetic - let these people hunt with whatever modern rifle they want, and leave the other seasons for the young, fit, and dedicated. It's very much still fair-chase in this context.

4) In the Utah context of whole-zone bans on optics - that's not the kind of thing that should be tolerated as a "pilot project" to gather data or experiment. Not broadcloth on a whole zone like that. It sets precedent and opens things up for unbelievable abuses of power - especially in places not politically favorable to hunters. If the stated goals are to be believed, then that data can and should be gathered through hunter surveys. Done well, especially in partnership with a place like BYU with competent researchers less likely to be politically biased, the info on who is successful and why (tech factors, scouting days in field, cartridge, misses, total shots fired, total years hunting, hours glassing, etc, etc) could be incredibly illuminating about what actually leads to success. Decisions like this need to be done based on hard data first though. Not experiments that set dangerous restrictive precedent by fiat, based on assumptions, feelsies, or politics.


*MD bucks over 4yrs old tend to get extremely intelligent if they're in areas pressured by hunters and predators, but they're almost like a different species at that point, that doesn't detract from your point.

 

[Steve300xcw]

A 12yo girl, a 75yo who can't use irons anymore because of eyes, a vet who lost a leg and is getting around on a prosthetic

why cant a 12 year old or a guy with one leg use open sights?

 

[RockAndSage]

But to your point- all of the weapons have gotten out of hand. Archery is laughable now- that’s outside of crossbows which is insane that they are allowed in “archery”.
Muzzleloader aren't “primitive” in any way- the way in which almost all states agreed to have a “muzzle loader” season; they are just front loaded modern rifles now.

Totally agree. When these seasons first got going, it was traditionalist stick-bow guys and rendezvous buckskinners with sidelocks flinging patched roundball. Entirely different classes of weapons now, in a different universe practically. If the tech-restricted seasons are there to provide a specific space for restricted tech, that tech needs to be restricted to the original intent of the seasons.

 

[RockAndSage]

why cant a 12 year old or a guy with one leg use open sights?

I'm seeing a lot of this type of argument from seasoned, fit, multi-season successful hunters who have had their day and still know they can get it done.

If the 12yo, the old dude with old eyes, or the hobbling vet want to try iron sights, then they should have that opportunity voluntarily - without having some $h*t in a state capital wiping out their ability to have a successful deer hunt through tech restrictions that only advantage the fit, experienced, dedicated hunter.

New people, old people, and hurt people can't be allowed to be pushed off this mountain.

 

[Steve300xcw]

First handful of deer I killed as a kid were with muzzleloaders. 12 years old running around the woods with a flintlock lol. I can guarantee you, I was not "the fit, experienced, dedicated hunter"

Sights are just another platform. Learn how they work and use them in the range they are made for and it isnt a big deal.

See a lot of the dont forget about me and my such an such condition.... Reads like the results of too many years of participation trophies being handed out.

 

[RockAndSage]

First handful of deer I killed as a kid were with muzzleloaders. 12 years old running around the woods with a flintlock lol. I can guarantee you, I was not "the fit, experienced, dedicated hunter"

You are not the average 12yo girl. And it's clear your eyes haven't crapped out on you yet.

A big part of my arguments above is about multi-generationally protecting hunting - some kids need more time to ease into things, and just won't be as enthused about a bow, a flinter, or hunting in general like you and I were. And you and I cannot be taken as the benchmark of what it means to be worthy of getting a tag or a buck. Forcing a kid into a primitive weapon, and the stalking and marksmanship skills needed to be successful, is a fantastic way to ensure a larger percentage of our kids just take zero interest in hunting - especially across a couple of generations.

 

[Formidilosus]

All true, as far as I can tell*.

My biggest points on the issue are this:

1) I don't have any problems with iron-only seasons, if they're akin to another season like archery or MZ. It's another option for a tag I'd jump at, giving more opportunity for those who want to take the chance, voluntarily.

That would do the exact opposite of what the believe is needed. The last thing states need is another “special” season added on top of normal seasons.

2) Completely disagree with iron-only zones for whole seasons, for the slippery-slope issues and strategic protection of our hunting and firearms rights I've outlined in a couple of posts above. It sets extremely bad precedent, easily abused through arbitrary political fiat - especially in places politically unfriendly to hunters.

Explain please- without emotional heart strings, how limiting technology will be used in an anti-hunting way.

3) There genuinely does need to be consideration in tag restrictions for youngest and oldest hunters, and those with legit disabilities. A 12yo girl, a 75yo who can't use irons anymore because of eyes, a vet who lost a leg and is getting around on a prosthetic - let these people hunt with whatever modern rifle they want, and leave the other seasons for the young, fit, and dedicated. It's very much still fair-chase in this context.

No there doesn’t. The 12 yo can use irons. The 75yo can use irons- that is a 100% fallacy. If you can legally drive, you can use iron sights effectively. 80+ year old men all over this country use irons every day.
As for veterans- what does a prosthetic leg have to do with anything about sighting systems? Furthermore- why does being a veteran grant favoritism for hunting at all? Do Firefighters, or EMT’s, or nurses get preference?

4) In the Utah context of whole-zone bans on optics - that's not the kind of thing that should be tolerated as a "pilot project" to gather data or experiment. Not broadcloth on a whole zone like that. It sets precedent and opens things up for unbelievable abuses of power - especially in places not politically favorable to hunters. If the stated goals are to be believed, then that data can and should be gathered through hunter surveys. Done well, especially in partnership with a place like BYU with competent researchers less likely to be politically biased, the info on who is successful and why (tech factors, scouting days in field, cartridge, misses, total shots fired, total years hunting, hours glassing, etc, etc) could be incredibly illuminating about what actually leads to success. Decisions like this need to be done based on hard data first though. Not experiments that set dangerous restrictive precedent by fiat, based on assumptions, feelsies, or politics.

I disagree completely. It’s exactly to the kind of thing that should have real data through experimentation- not make believe surveys. The Utah seasons have a subset- it either worked and will stay, or it didn’t and will revert back to a normal season.

 

[HunterGatherer]

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

 

[flyfisher117]

That’s an advantage. Red dots (annd 1x scopes) are a massive advantage at any vision ability.






View attachment 976823


There are multiple already in the market, and more coming. The one above is an absolute monster at 500 yards.




No. It’s reducing success. Either through drastically cutting available tags, or through reducing the amount animals per capita that can be killed.

Humor me. Instead of going to a direct iron sight rifle only perhaps a modified short range:

Example:
-rifle with irons.
-muzzy with irons
-traditional bow
-smooth bore slug gun with red dot or 1x scope
-Handgun, straight wall cartridge, not semi automatic, with red dot or 1x scope.

How much does the dot or 1x scope give someone an advantage? How much of an advtage would the 2nd two give a hunter who physically can not use a multi plane sight system.

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.

 

[RockAndSage]

That would do the exact opposite of what the believe is needed. The last thing states need is another “special” season added on top of normal seasons.

What is it that you think is needed? And, why?

Personally, I'm completely fine with breaking things up into 2-week segments by weapon type, with the harder the hunting, the less weapon-restriction. Bows and MZ for August and rut hunts, unrestricted rifle in early October, etc. It's all debatable on the merits and on the margins, but I'd be fine a bunch of 2-3 week seasons, with more opportunity to get a tag across different weapon types. Whatever tag I get, I'm still going to be putting in 20+ days of scouting for mule deer before season.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm seeing a lot of this type of argument from seasoned, fit, multi-season successful hunters who have had their day and still know they can get it done.

If the 12yo, the old dude with old eyes, or the hobbling vet want to try iron sights, then they should have that opportunity voluntarily - without having some $h*t in a state capital wiping out their ability to have a successful deer hunt through tech restrictions that only advantage the fit, experienced, dedicated hunter.

New people, old people, and hurt people can't be allowed to be pushed off this mountain.

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.