Idaho Seeks to Limit Scope Turrets and Rangefinders

[idelkslayer]

Interesting to see some WY general deer seasons limited to 5 days, + an antler point restriction. It’s not so much age class management, but rather a measure to ensure every public land buck is not exterminated.

WY biologists have also admitted that the APRs are mostly a feel good thing they did because of public opinion and not anything biological. The wyoming range deer herd has rebounded before without those restrictions but hunters believed that it was necessary and complained until WYGF gave them what they wanted.

I think hunters need to understand an unlimited technology approach will result in limited hunting opportunity. If Idaho hunters think it is crowded with a 2 week OTC rifle deer season, just wait until it is a 5 day season with the same number of hunters all crammed into the same 5 days. Or, I wonder how they'll feel when we won't bend on tech. or complain our way into all hunting being controlled hunts. Whereas now hunters complain that there aren't any "big" bucks I wonder what they'll think when they finally draw a tag for their unit but it is right after a bad winter and they see no bucks. Idaho hunters are the worst for not realizing how good they have it.

If it were up to me I'm not sure that any scope or rangefinder restrictions would be useful or enforceable. It is interesting that somehow those items became the title of the thread despite neither being mentioned in the cited article. I would take a look at restricting or banning the use of cellular trail cameras, a full ban on the use of Infrared, and additional restrictions on the use of drones during hunting seasons (as in you can't even be in possession of a drone while holding a tag or accompanying a tagholder, during an open season, sorry "filmmakers"). I just don't trust that the average guy making a video for his 12 subscribers isn't taking a spin around the area to look for game.

 

[44hunter45]

8 days until the advisory group selections. I've applied and I know one other HTer who has applied. He and I have discussed this. We are not perfectly aligned on gear limits, but have 95% in common.

I've made it plain I'm sitting on two VX-6HD scopes which I cannot use for hunting in Idaho. The irony is that I was stupid and didn't even realize they had an illegal feature. I was an idiot with a sudden wad of cash to spend. It's on me for not doing the research. (One is still for sale BTW, NIB unopened. ) That is not why I want to be on this advisory group. I think there is more under the surface here.

I commented in detail against the proposed the muzzle loading ammo changes in 2023. They did it anyway. I learned that bitching on HT and sending public comment is not enough. This is politics. If you don't play, the other guy wins.

If I am selected, first I want to understand the origins of this. I have concerns that this is from, or can be used by, anti-hunting groups pushing a hidden agenda. Second, I want to learn what IDFG is seeking to understand. Finally, to understand who is represented by the other members of the group.

At its simplest, drawing a line in the sand against range finders with wind detection and bluetooth optics connections is worth exploring. Automated marksmanship, except for ADA enablement, should be out.

I like marksmanship skills tests for license holders. Crucify me later. The tests should be with fixed power, non-turreted scopes. Deer silhouettes or gongs at unknown distances. The ballistic dope would be on the buttstock. Passing on a shot as being beyond your confidence range counts as a hit. The thing is that I do not believe this is actually about skills at all.
Its about satisfying a social tolerance. That makes it much more dangerous to Idaho hunters.

I cannot see any game management reason for this. We allow a shocking amount of wound loss in the numbers now. So what is really driving the agenda? IDFG definitely keeps their finger to the wind of social tolerance. Idaho hunters need to stop being complacent that out of state interests could not control a conversation about hunting tech here.

Do you want the same folks who redefined "trophy hunting" to define what tech is allowed in Idaho? While content here can be important to understand (some) hunter's perspectives, IDFG is not out there saying, "Let's see what HuntTalk has to say on this." And we are probably far less gear oriented that the other forums.

We regularly complain about all the "New Idahoans". They have actually swung Idaho father right, IMHO. But that does not mean they specifically side with us in terms of hunting etiquette. These are things that require constant attention.

I re-joined LRH and joined Rokslide to see what the discussion looks like over there. Honestly much the same as here. Being more gear oriented, both those sites are way more in front of this than we are. Not sure I could ever go back to 24hourdumpsterfire.

 

[Firedude]

8 days until the advisory group selections. I've applied and I know one other HTer who has applied. He and I have discussed this. We are not perfectly aligned on gear limits, but have 95% in common.

I've made it plain I'm sitting on two VX-6HD scopes which I cannot use for hunting in Idaho. The irony is that I was stupid and didn't even realize they had an illegal feature. I was an idiot with a sudden wad of cash to spend. It's on me for not doing the research. (One is still for sale BTW, NIB unopened. ) That is not why I want to be on this advisory group. I think there is more under the surface here.

I commented in detail against the proposed the muzzle loading ammo changes in 2023. They did it anyway. I learned that bitching on HT and sending public comment is not enough. This is politics. If you don't play, the other guy wins.

If I am selected, first I want to understand the origins of this. I have concerns that this is from, or can be used by, anti-hunting groups pushing a hidden agenda. Second, I want to learn what IDFG is seeking to understand. Finally, to understand who is represented by the other members of the group.

At its simplest, drawing a line in the sand against range finders with wind detection and bluetooth optics connections is worth exploring. Automated marksmanship, except for ADA enablement, should be out.

I like marksmanship skills tests for license holders. Crucify me later. The tests should be with fixed power, non-turreted scopes. Deer silhouettes or gongs at unknown distances. The ballistic dope would be on the buttstock. Passing on a shot as being beyond your confidence range counts as a hit. The thing is that I do not believe this is actually about skills at all.
Its about satisfying a social tolerance. That makes it much more dangerous to Idaho hunters.

I cannot see any game management reason for this. We allow a shocking amount of wound loss in the numbers now. So what is really driving the agenda? IDFG definitely keeps their finger to the wind of social tolerance. Idaho hunters need to stop being complacent that out of state interests could not control a conversation about hunting tech here.

Do you want the same folks who redefined "trophy hunting" to define what tech is allowed in Idaho? While content here can be important to understand (some) hunter's perspectives, IDFG is not out there saying, "Let's see what HuntTalk has to say on this." And we are probably far less gear oriented that the other forums.

We regularly complain about all the "New Idahoans". They have actually swung Idaho father right, IMHO. But that does not mean they specifically side with us in terms of hunting etiquette. These are things that require constant attention.

I re-joined LRH and joined Rokslide to see what the discussion looks like over there. Honestly much the same as here. Being more gear oriented, both those sites are way more in front of this than we are. Not sure I could ever go back to 24hourdumpsterfire.

You know 2 huntalkers that have applied. I'm in.

My ideas are simultaneously to limit some equipment while opening others. I've hunted, fished, and trapped most of the state. What you need to be successful and ethical is a convenience for me and vice versa. For example I NEED conibears to trap beaver on land. I've been to north Idaho. You can get by very well with footholds on a drowner. I may need 2 blinds while antelope hunting. While as this weekend confirms, I'm tired of somebody throwing 3 up for weeks without being in it and complaining when someone else uses it. You might not understand that. At the same time I understand you might need to put a tree stand up for a few weeks while I am tired of seeing unoccupied stands on the river with, "DONT SIT IN MY STAND! I'LL BEAT YOU IF I WANT TO HUNT HERE!" signs on the river.

My goal would be to not make standardized rules across the state. That's stupid because Idaho covers such a diverse hunting area. Maybe fine tuning for areas is the way to go.

I guess my goal would be to limit AREAS not the state as a whole. Short range only with a little opening of Muzzleloader and handgun rules, Limiting some general hunts to "short range weapon only.", limiting left equipment such and blinds or stands, open up conibear rules, close off some trail cam rules, open up some archery hunts and close them in others, etc. I could go on forever... Given the area Idaho covers maybe its time to separate the states individual hunting needs or wants.

 

[brymoore]

I imagine a ton of people applied for the positions. I know several people who applied. It may take longer than the big game draws for the task force members decision to be made.

 

[44hunter45]

You know 2 huntalkers that have applied. I'm in.

My ideas are simultaneously to limit some equipment while opening others. I've hunted, fished, and trapped most of the state. What you need to be successful and ethical is a convenience for me and vice versa. For example I NEED conibears to trap beaver on land. I've been to north Idaho. You can get by very well with footholds on a drowner. I may need 2 blinds while antelope hunting. While as this weekend confirms, I'm tired of somebody throwing 3 up for weeks without being in it and complaining when someone else uses it. You might not understand that. At the same time I understand you might need to put a tree stand up for a few weeks while I am tired of seeing unoccupied stands on the river with, "DONT SIT IN MY STAND! I'LL BEAT YOU IF I WANT TO HUNT HERE!" signs on the river.

My goal would be to not make standardized rules across the state. That's stupid because Idaho covers such a diverse hunting area. Maybe fine tuning for areas is the way to go.

I guess my goal would be to limit AREAS not the state as a whole. Short range only with a little opening of Muzzleloader and handgun rules, Limiting some general hunts to "short range weapon only.", limiting left equipment such and blinds or stands, open up conibear rules, close off some trail cam rules, open up some archery hunts and close them in others, etc. I could go on forever... Given the area Idaho covers maybe its time to separate the states individual hunting needs or wants.

I imagine a ton of people applied for the positions. I know several people who applied. It may take longer than the big game draws for the task force members decision to be made.

I do hope a lot of us apply. Everyone I've had tell me they applied (With the two of you that makes four) is an adult whom I think will work well in a group.

 

[Firedude]

I do hope a lot of us apply. Everyone I've had tell me they applied (With the two of you that makes four) is an adult whom I think will work well in a group.

I'm hopeful to reduce wounding, increase 1 shot harvest, and help the herds increase simultaneously. That can only be done with diverse thinking.

I cannot tell you how many guys from North Idaho I've met that laugh and say, "An open sighted 30-30 is all you need!" Then take them out into the open sagebrush and after a few days they realize why we learned to shoot 200 yards standing accurately. Same thing goes for me learning why you guys never have a 20 power scope and could actually really use some opening up of short range weapon rules.

I guess my goal would be to listen to the diversity of needs to be ethical 1 shot hunters, limit the wants for those that want a free for all, and give game a chance to replenish in the various areas Idaho has to offer. Big ask... But it's possible.

 

[44hunter45]

I've been beating this drum on so many forums that I've lost sight of who said what and where. One thing that has come up a couple of times is that the leveler on the Leupold VX-6HD is only used for scope installation. I just got off the phone with Eric at Leupold. They very much intended for the feature to be used in the field.

 

[Firedude]

I've been beating this drum on so many forums that I've lost sight of who said what and where. One thing that has come up a couple of times is that the leveler on the Leupold VX-6HD is only used for scope installation. I just got off the phone with Eric at Leupold. They very much intended for the feature to be used in the field.

I have a leveler on my Sendero 300 ultra mag. I absolutely made sure to check it before I shot a deer at 850 yards on a DEPREDATION tag. In that area of 6 inch sagebrush you're not going to sneak up on those critters eating crops. You need the elevation and range to make an ethical shot. Sounds counter intuitive I know, I've hunted your area, but sometimes it's the best 1 shot option.

95% of the time I hunt with a 308 Kimber Montana, in trees, 100 yard shots... That 5% of depredation and predator needs I absolutely need high magnification and 1 very accurate shot to help the landowner while being ethical and not wounding. 1 shot and dead. NO need for follow up.

 

[44hunter45]

I have a leveler on my Sendero 300 ultra mag. I absolutely made sure to check it before I shot a deer at 850 yards on a DEPREDATION tag. In that area of 6 inch sagebrush you're not going to sneak up on those critters eating crops. You need the elevation and range to make an ethical shot. Sounds counter intuitive I know, I've hunted your area, but sometimes it's the best 1 shot option.

95% of the time I hunt with a 308 Kimber Montana, in trees, 100 yard shots... That 5% of depredation and predator needs I absolutely need high magnification and 1 very accurate shot to help the landowner while being ethical and not wounding. 1 shot and dead. NO need for follow up.

I cut my teeth varmint shooting in that state we do not name. No range finders in those days. We lobbed bullets until range estimation and hold-over became muscle memory. Purple shoulders when we got home. Young and happy. Sadly I don't get that kind of trigger time any more. I used to use my 30-06. I wish I could say it made a better distance shooter. I missed some chip shot whitetails down in the Selway drainage after we moved here. Total buck fever. I would see a big'un and all that training went out the window. I think I missed two or three before I got calmed down enough to connect the dots.

A tactical shooter buddy gave me a simulator that really helped me with elevation and windage. It was called Ballistix and you could spend all night running models for wind, up or down angles, range, etc.

 

[Doublegunner]

8 days until the advisory group selections. I've applied and I know one other HTer who has applied. He and I have discussed this. We are not perfectly aligned on gear limits, but have 95% in common.

I've made it plain I'm sitting on two VX-6HD scopes which I cannot use for hunting in Idaho. The irony is that I was stupid and didn't even realize they had an illegal feature. I was an idiot with a sudden wad of cash to spend. It's on me for not doing the research. (One is still for sale BTW, NIB unopened. ) That is not why I want to be on this advisory group. I think there is more under the surface here.

I commented in detail against the proposed the muzzle loading ammo changes in 2023. They did it anyway. I learned that bitching on HT and sending public comment is not enough. This is politics. If you don't play, the other guy wins.

If I am selected, first I want to understand the origins of this. I have concerns that this is from, or can be used by, anti-hunting groups pushing a hidden agenda. Second, I want to learn what IDFG is seeking to understand. Finally, to understand who is represented by the other members of the group.

At its simplest, drawing a line in the sand against range finders with wind detection and bluetooth optics connections is worth exploring. Automated marksmanship, except for ADA enablement, should be out.

I like marksmanship skills tests for license holders. Crucify me later. The tests should be with fixed power, non-turreted scopes. Deer silhouettes or gongs at unknown distances. The ballistic dope would be on the buttstock. Passing on a shot as being beyond your confidence range counts as a hit. The thing is that I do not believe this is actually about skills at all.
Its about satisfying a social tolerance. That makes it much more dangerous to Idaho hunters.

I cannot see any game management reason for this. We allow a shocking amount of wound loss in the numbers now. So what is really driving the agenda? IDFG definitely keeps their finger to the wind of social tolerance. Idaho hunters need to stop being complacent that out of state interests could not control a conversation about hunting tech here.

Do you want the same folks who redefined "trophy hunting" to define what tech is allowed in Idaho? While content here can be important to understand (some) hunter's perspectives, IDFG is not out there saying, "Let's see what HuntTalk has to say on this." And we are probably far less gear oriented that the other forums.

We regularly complain about all the "New Idahoans". They have actually swung Idaho father right, IMHO. But that does not mean they specifically side with us in terms of hunting etiquette. These are things that require constant attention.

I re-joined LRH and joined Rokslide to see what the discussion looks like over there. Honestly much the same as here. Being more gear oriented, both those sites are way more in front of this than we are. Not sure I could ever go back to 24hourdumpsterfire.

I saw your post and noticed you are selling your VX 6 because you think that they are illegal in Idaho. I was wondering what was illegal about them? I'm guessing the illumination of the reticle but I could be wrong. I don't want to get in your business but Idaho doesn't prohibit illuminated reticles. Here's the excerpt from the game regs from page 98. that limits electronics.

• With any electronic device attached to, or incorporated in, the firearm or scope; except scopes containing battery powered or tritium lighted reticles are allowed.

Again, I don't want to get in your business but I don't want you to think you have to sell the scope because of the Idaho regs.

 

[44hunter45]

I saw your post and noticed you are selling your VX 6 because you think that they are illegal in Idaho. I was wondering what was illegal about them? I'm guessing the illumination of the reticle but I could be wrong. I don't want to get in your business but Idaho doesn't prohibit illuminated reticles. Here's the excerpt from the game regs from page 98. that limits electronics.

• With any electronic device attached to, or incorporated in, the firearm or scope; except scopes containing battery powered or tritium lighted reticles are allowed.

Again, I don't want to get in your business but I don't want you to think you have to sell the scope because of the Idaho regs.

You're in my business.

I guess you didn't read the part about my long phone conversation with IDFG where they told me the auto leveling feature of the VX-6HD makes it illegal. Or that I was tired of having to tell this story again and again.

The VX-6HD is illegal for hunting in Idaho. You are welcome to call IDFG yourself and ask since you think I'm wrong.

 

[Doublegunner]

You're in my business.

I guess you didn't read the part about my long phone conversation with IDFG where they told me the auto leveling feature of the VX-6HD makes it illegal. Or that I was tired of having to tell this story again and again.

The VX-6HD is illegal for hunting in Idaho. You are welcome to call IDFG yourself and ask since you think I'm wrong.

I didn't see the section where you had a conversation with IDFG and I didn't say I thought you were wrong. I was really just trying to be courteous to you so you wouldn't have to unnecessarily sell your scope. I will say that I think that whomever you talked to at fish and game doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[44hunter45]

I didn't see the section where you had a conversation with IDFG and I didn't say I thought you were wrong. I was really just trying to be courteous to you so you wouldn't have to unnecessarily sell your scope. I will say that I think that whomever you talked to at fish and game doesn't know what they are talking about.

You would be wrong. Just go away.

 

[Doublegunner]

You are being rude and crabby.

 

[CPAjeff]

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. A few of the mapping apps (i.e. BaseMap and Onx) have a distance feature, will those be outlawed too? Pretty darn easy to get an "about" distance with a couple clicks.

 

[winmag]

Should someone tell Idaho you can dial your elevation correction with any scope that has clicks or graduations? I can use an old school Leupold Vari-X I 3-9x40 with friction (not even click) adjustments to dial out to 1000 yards if I want.

But then again, if you need a custom cut scope turret to shoot long range then you probably don’t understand the process enough to be qualified to shoot at living things that far away.

 

[cgasner1]

Should someone tell Idaho you can dial your elevation correction with any scope that has clicks or graduations? I can use an old school Leupold Vari-X I 3-9x40 with friction (not even click) adjustments to dial out to 1000 yards if I want.

But then again, if you need a custom cut scope turret to shoot long range then you probably don’t understand the process enough to be qualified to shoot at living things that far away.

I have a Idaho legal muzzy in the case with a globe and a slider that I have hit milk jugs at 300 with