Idaho Seeks to Limit Scope Turrets and Rangefinders

[Bob-WY]

Typically banning a tool is the wrong answer. But after watching idiots like hushin just "dial in" 600 and proceed to shoot and miss multiple times, maybe its time

 

[338win]

And 338 you would testify in court as to what those index marks indicate and also testify as to their accuracy ?? How many hunting licenses have you checked over the years ??

Reading comprehension is not your strength. I said that they render a turret rule pointless. To answer your question. Yes, I would. Your elevator doesn’t need to go very high to find manufacturer data which spells out exactly what the reticle marks equal and the formulas for using them. Your second question. None because I am not G&F and every time I have been checked by a warden they looked at a license.

 

[44hunter45]

I am completely uninterested in legislating gear. I was the kid on the dirtbike wearing the "No Helmet Laws" tee shirt and cutoffs back in the day. I've seen motorcycle mayhem. I get the collateral cost of head injuries to family, society, and friends. I still don't think adults should be forced to wear a helmet. I do think parents who let their kids ride bikes and ATVs unsupervised should be locked up. Behavior, not gear.

If you look at the history of gear changes in Idaho, most are driven by industry or interest groups. When they don't get what they want from the Commission, they go to the Legislature. This happened recently with lighted nocks and the softening of muzzle loader ammo limits.

I am interested in learning where this is coming from. There has to be someone who put this to the Commission or the Department. After getting my ass handed to me for proposals I floated on HT last year, I assume no one previewed their idea here on the forums. We're a tough crowd.

I do not recall ever being surveyed about this by IDFG. It seems like I get a survey every couple of weeks almost.

I don't care if it increases opportunity or not, just want less animals wounded.

What is "more opportunity"? In the Palouse Zone we have late muzzle loader seasons with outrageous wound loss. I find dead animals every year. Those losses are included in the Game Management Plan. Idaho has zones where we hate elk as much as Montana does. Now we are talking about Fair Chase and tech limits? This is not biologist driven, it is sociologist driven.

Maybe what we really need is Alaskan type "Draw blood and you are done" laws and tougher recovery requirements.

Let's explore this. Jim Bob comes up from Utah with his made to order Gunwerks LR shooting rig. He hires an outfitter to put him on a 400 class bull. He buggers the 600 yard shot. They go to where the bull was standing and find blood. They look until dark and give up. When they call off the search the guide tells Jim Bob to he has to punch his tag.

Guides and outfitters caught violating would lose their permits or face fines. (We all know IOGA would fill their pants over this. They would call all those legislators and complain that their outfitter allotment tag was wasted. )

 

[338win]

So you put a piece of black tape around it until the time of the shot.

“The moment or truth, let me range animal, fumble with tape, peel tape off while likely spinning turret 180 degrees, find correct value, get back on gun, make shot or a lifetime.” Pretty stupid solution for something I didn’t think would be a good rule to begin with

 

[F250]

Reading comprehension is not your strength. I said that they render a turret rule pointless. To answer your question. Yes, I would. Your elevator doesn’t need to go very high to find manufacturer data which spells out exactly what the reticle marks equal and the formulas for using them. Your second question. None because I am not G&F and every time I have been checked by a warden they looked at a license.

 

[cgasner1]

If more guys would run suppressors we wouldn’t be having this conversation. People are tired of being out shot and hearing the report of the rifle. If they are gonna go down this road in some fashion which I think they should the bows should also be addressed guys shouldn’t be hunting with a adjustable sight on that either.

 

[BAKPAKR]

If more guys would run suppressors we wouldn’t be having this conversation. People are tired of being out shot and hearing the report of the rifle. If they are gonna go down this road in some fashion which I think they should the bows should also be addressed guys shouldn’t be hunting with an adjustable sight on that either.

If I ever get to the point that I am comfortable shooting my fancy new bow beyond 20 yards so I can choose the right sight tape, the yardage marks go out to 100 yards . . .

 

[Forkyfinder]

If more guys would run suppressors we wouldn’t be having this conversation. People are tired of being out shot and hearing the report of the rifle. If they are gonna go down this road in some fashion which I think they should the bows should also be addressed guys shouldn’t be hunting with a adjustable sight on that either.

i can only imagine the 15 pin sight that will come out.... "hushin" edition spot hog or something.

 

[Matthew57]

If you look at the history of gear changes in Idaho, most are driven by industry or interest groups. When they don't get what they want from the Commission, they go to the Legislature. This happened recently with lighted nocks and the softening of muzzle loader ammo limits.

I found this to be the case when I sat in on the meetings IDFG had with the public regarding the muzzleloader bullet rule change. It seemed there was also political pressure from an influential state representative. Some of the people against the rule change argued that increasing the lethality of a muzzleloader setup would mean less "opportunity". I didn't find that to be the most persuasive argument for keeping the rule unchanged. I anticipated a similar argument would be used to advocate for rifle equipment restrictions. Equipment restrictions aren't my preference. I'd much rather social pressure or a conscience keep people from doing it. Maybe the "draw blood" rule is the way to go. I'm alarmed at the amount of people that casually say they need to cut the distance to 800 yards so they're in range. I've noticed that sentiment spreading, and frankly, it gets celebrated or given a pass by too many hunters. I'm scared that ultimately what will kill our opportunity is the general public thinking this is the way most hunters behave.

 

[brymoore]

I am interested in learning where this is coming from. There has to be someone who put this to the Commission or the Department. After getting my ass handed to me for proposals I floated on HT last year, I assume no one previewed their idea here on the forums. We're a tough crowd.

Third party rumor said it might be Mike Moyle.

 

[TOGIE]

how much really does a turret differ over a BDC? both are point and shoot cheat codes for ranges over your zero.

 

[44hunter45]

Third party rumor said it might be Mike Moyle.

Great -
So we are gonna waste a bunch of time and energy on this and he will introduce it as a bill when he doesn't get what he (or his secret constituents) wants.

 

[Forkyfinder]

how much really does a turret differ over a BDC? both are point and shoot cheat codes for ranges over your zero.

Imo - one of those is responsible to shoot at distance.

A bdc reticle is inferior to turrets or mil/mla reticle in a variety of ways. Primarily - its way less precise.

 

[TOGIE]

Imo - one of those is responsible to shoot at distance.

A bdc reticle is inferior to turrets or mil/mla reticle in a variety of ways. Primarily - its way less precise.

meaning BDC is irresponsible? at what distance does that happen?

i've heart shot a handful of critters at 300 with a BDC and i would contend my rodeos involving poor shooting on a few other critters had zero to do with the BDC itself.

nonetheless, where's the line? what the real motive? going after turrets and ignoring MIL Dot and BDC?

 

[Forkyfinder]

meaning BDC is irresponsible? at what distance does that happen?

i've heart shot a handful of critters at 300 with a BDC and i would contend my rodeos involving poor shooting on a few other critters had zero to do with the BDC itself.

nonetheless, where's the line? what the real motive? going after turrets and ignoring MIL Dot and BDC?

Im not sure. I guess i wasnt talking about 300 - my point is that you could be very far off at 500+ without correcting for elevation, true bullet speed, etc

 

[Firedude]

Long range shooting came up over a decade ago. I was in a meeting where the whole room was arguing for it and there should be no limits on equipment. For about 30 minutes everyone was an "expert" marksman and could kill deer at a mile. An old boy in the middle of the room raised his hand and said, "Ok you're all such perfect shots. Why don't we limit you to 3 rounds when hunting?" All of a sudden everybody NEEEDED a bunch of rounds because they've had to do tons of follow up shots or if they miss a few times. Think about that for a second. I'm NOT saying we should do that but the old boy proved his point that maybe a lot of people aren't as good as the think they are. If we were all as good as some people advertise you'd have no issue going afield with 1 round when you think about it.

How many hunting shows do you hear them flat out say, "Hey you guys I'm not sure where this is going to hit so watch where it hits and I can adjust." Then proceed to walk rounds until most of the time poorly hitting said critter... When they or ANYBODY else who isn't sure they are going to put one right in the lungs the first time should NOT SHOOT.

I think some changes are coming that people are not going to like. Caliber restrictions, optics, reticles, turrets, and much more are going to be on the table.

 

[44hunter45]

Since there is a picture of game camera on the HAT Working Group application page, I assume they may be in play also.

 

[winmag]

I’ve saved them some time and brainstormed some more useless ideas for their consideration:

Firearms:
1. Round nose projectiles only
2. Max ballistic coefficient of 0.300 G1
3. Iron sights only
4. Straight walled cartridges only
5. 4x max optic power limit
6. Plain crosshair reticles only (not even duplex)
7. Shotgun slug only
8. Max muzzle velocity of 2800fps
9. Ban wind measuring devices
10. Ban ballistic apps on phones in the field

Archery:
1. Single fixed pin bow sights only
2. No compound bows

General:
1. Ban all filming for social media platforms while hunting (ok this one would actually be good)

 

[rjthehunter]

I’ve saved them some time and brainstormed some more useless ideas for their consideration:

Firearms:
1. Round nose projectiles only
2. Max ballistic coefficient of 0.300 G1
3. Iron sights only
4. Straight walled cartridges only
5. 4x max optic power limit
6. Plain crosshair reticles only (not even duplex)
7. Shotgun slug only
8. Max muzzle velocity of 2800fps
9. Ban wind measuring devices
10. Ban ballistic apps on phones in the field

Archery:
1. Single fixed pin bow sights only
2. No compound bows

General:
1. Ban all filming for social media platforms while hunting (ok this one would actually be good)

Man, imagine getting a ticket for having the wrong reticle in your scope... Or for having an app on your phone while hunting lol

 

[huntnpack]

I’ve saved them some time and brainstormed some more useless ideas for their consideration:

Firearms:
1. Round nose projectiles only
2. Max ballistic coefficient of 0.300 G1
3. Iron sights only
4. Straight walled cartridges only
5. 4x max optic power limit
6. Plain crosshair reticles only (not even duplex)
7. Shotgun slug only
8. Max muzzle velocity of 2800fps
9. Ban wind measuring devices
10. Ban ballistic apps on phones in the field

Archery:
1. Single fixed pin bow sights only
2. No compound bows

General:
1. Ban all filming for social media platforms while hunting (ok this one would actually be good)

Not necessarily in favor of regulating it, but the first 8 kinda sound like a good time.