Idaho proposed special season open sight centerfire

[IDVortex]

...at least FRT aren't illegal to hunt with in ID yet.

 

[braydencase7]

I dont understand it. Is it to just make hunting harder for the sake of making it harder? Is it for more opportunity on top of the seasons we have? If that's the case sure. If they want to improve the mule deer herd there are other ways to do that which they havent done and im not sure a open sight season actually makes a reasonable impact. Seems like we are reinventing the wheel here

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

 

[cal30_sniper]

I dont understand it. Is it to just make hunting harder for the sake of making it harder? Is it for more opportunity on top of the seasons we have? If that's the case sure. If they want to improve the mule deer herd there are other ways to do that which they havent done and im not sure a open sight season actually makes a reasonable impact. Seems like we are reinventing the wheel here

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

It's proposed to reduce hunter success rates therefore allowing more tags for any given unit to be distributed with the same population reduction effect.

Many believe it will also help increase age class.

 

[SDHNTR]

If they offered a trad only unit I would be all about it! Switching to full time trad 5 years ago taught me a ton about animal behavior, how to really get close to critters sub 25-30 yards to kill em, and made me really realize how lazy most guys are when it comes to hunting.

How anyone could get enjoyment outta shooting a critter at 300-600-900 yards is mind boggling to me.

My kids are young. They all have stick bows. If they wanna kill deer with a stick bow it’s gunna take hard work on their part.

If they wanna compound hunt to break the ice that’s fine to, heck they can rifle hunt for all I care to get them into the sport.

I’m all about more time in the woods, hunting and teaching them woodsmanship. Once they have the fundamentals of woodsmanship, animal behaviors and actually learn how to hunt then the killing will come second nature.

I wish more states would go to harder ways to kill critters. Make guys actually work for it instead of punching a trigger hundreds of yards away.

Yes! Woodsmanship! Bring it back!

The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of tactical weekend Rambo’s acting like wannabe snipers.

I ran into some dudes antelope hunting in Nevada this year who looks like they just stepped off the battlefield. Rifles slung across their chest, tactical pants tucked into the top of tactical boots. They even had helmets on with communications equipment. It was absurd, and they looked like total dorks. That is not hunting!

 

[Steve300xcw]

Ida taken a picture of a clown show like that

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

Do you understand that the issue is that there aren’t enough animals for that? Irons only is an attempt to limit kill rates in certain units, so that they don’t have to cut tags.
Would young, old, and broken people be happier with “A” tag- or “no” tag? Beyond that, they’re not changing all seasons and units- just certain units. You want to use scopes- go to units that are normal. You will probably draw less tags, but you can use what you want. You want better odds of drawing a tag- you can choose to go to irons only. I fail to see why this is an issue.

 

[SDHNTR]

I dont understand it. Is it to just make hunting harder for the sake of making it harder? Is it for more opportunity on top of the seasons we have? If that's the case sure. If they want to improve the mule deer herd there are other ways to do that which they havent done and im not sure a open sight season actually makes a reasonable impact. Seems like we are reinventing the wheel here

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Everything else, which yes would probably be more helpful, is too politically challenging. It’s hard to fight development on winter range because of the Almighty dollar. It’s hard to help with predator management because of tree huggers. Habitat restoration takes money and manpower, both of which are in short supply. Any other actionable solution has major implementation challenges. Equipment/technology restrictions, while potentially less effective (yet still effective on some level ) is something that can actually be put into action.

 

[Str8shooter]

Speaking as a Colorado resident hunter, I could see this markedly improving the hunting experience. Its routine to see guys shooting well past their effective ranges at animals and often from roads. While Im not sure advances in optics and ballistics have impacted hunter success based on harvest statistics (hard to see how it wouldn't be, but thats an aside), its absolutely resulted in numerous stalks being ruined by guys fancying themselves Chris Kyle and sending rounds 800+ yds while Im midway on a stalk from antelope to elk. This simply doesn't happen during our open site only muzzleloader season. An open site season would also be just another opportunity to develop proficiency as a hunter in a unique arena. Having a hard time seeing the downsides.

 

[RockAndSage]

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.

 

[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.