Idaho proposed special season open sight centerfire

[Steve300xcw]

So stalking within 100 yards is now some arduous task? Ok. What about 200? Or 600 yards?

Yes. I think kids oughta stick to killing animals 478 yards and out. Worry about getting close when they are older and more skilled

 

[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.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Less success = more opportunity (which has absolutely zip to do with deer herd survival, but will put a tag in your pocket more often).

How can we get a tag in our pocket more often than every year?

 

[cal30_sniper]

How can we get a tag in our pocket more often than every year?

Do you really think that will last at the current rate? Does that apply for non-residents?

The switch of the unit I hunted in UT this year dropped it from something like a 6-7 point unit to a 1-2 point unit for non-residents. YMMV in ID as a resident. Here in NM, my preferred muzzy gotten tag has gotten much higher draw odds since the switch to irons only.

 

[Steve300xcw]

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.

Playing in a pit with a 30-30 the other day. 125yrds is about all I was good for, using the factory sights. Guy can do a lot of killing inside of 125yrds though.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Do you really think that will last at the current rate? Does that apply for non-residents?

Yes, and no to the NR's.

 

[bowrunner81]

I personally think an open sights rifle season would be a heck of a lot of fun. I shot open sights for most of my youth in target shooting and really only got into scoped rifles in the last 10 years. I get both sides of the argument, but I would participate if it went to that.

 

[cal30_sniper]

Yes, and no to the NR's.

There are more people hunting now than there ever has been before. Percentagewise, maybe, maybe not, but total number without a doubt, and they're doing it with orders of magnitude more effective weapons systems than previous generations used.

Even your seemingly bottomless reserve of resident tags will likely run out eventually.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Even your seemingly bottomless reserve of resident tags will likely run out eventually.

You may be proven correct at some point.