Idaho Investigating Technology Limitations for Rifles

Muddyboots said:

Good reminder, please keep ethics etc out of this so we can have reasonable discussion on an agency considering limitations on technology relative to fair chase.

Click to expand...

The topic of what is considered "fair chase" IS an ethics discussion.

I'm not sure what else they'd limit. It's pretty strict here already.

Burris Eliminator is already illegal to hunt with here.

Guns can't weight over 16 LBS.

You can't use a scope during muzzleloaders season (open sites only)
Muzzle/Front load only too.


See page 98 for some more highlights:

Colorado is hard on muzzleloaders, no scopes, no sabots, no electronic ignition, rifle primers, etc. However, for them and any states that consider them and bows traditional weapons, I have no issue with them not allowing scopes, illumination, dictating bullets, etc. I got this lil guy at 77yds last yr with a 50cal, 50 cal belted slug, open sights - no problem. For elk, in CO you get to hunt them during the rut so you have that advantage over rifles.

While we rarely like more legislation, it comes with advances in technology. We'd like to think the various laws are in conservation's best interests, but generally appear to be motivated by special interest groups and finances.

This is one of the great things about this forum. Alot of people have great ideas about these topics and are willing to share them without the confusion of ethics clouding advancement of the sport while maintaining a focus on genuine conservation.

I have my own ethical beliefs, as do many here, and we agree to keep them to ourselves (publicly).

memtb said:

I think that Idaho "considered" stopping the use of the 50 BMG for hunting back in the late '80's. Actually, I thought that they had done it.

I remember watching a news show (one of the alphabet networks I think), showing hunters(?) with tripod mounted 50 BMG and a support member (hunter) with a tripod military type (probably the best at that time) shooting elk across a wide canyon! The truck was shown in the background with had hauled the gear and team to the shooters position.

That's all I have to say on this topic. memtb

Click to expand...

They made it a rule that rifles have to weigh less than 16# because one group of guys shot elk with a 50 BMG that they had no reasonable way of recovering before the meat spoiled.

LRNut said:

The whole discussion is on ethics and what constitutes fair chase, and you are the one who posted it!

I think some folks on this site would think a laser capable of killing an animal as far as you can see it would be a great thing.

Click to expand...

Except it isn't solely based on ethics, it's about the government discussing limiting hunters based on some arbitrary metric that they will come up. It has little to do with ethics and more to do with hunter success increasing due to a multitude of factors many of which cannot be banned. Stuff like OnX, the multitude of forums discussing game movements and all the other things that increase information that results in more hunters being within hunting range of game in the first place. It doesn't matter how far you can shoot if you never end up in the same general area as what you are hunting.

All of that increases hunter success but they have zero way to regulate or prevent their use. Since they can't regulate things like that you end up with stupid stuff such as the ban on rifles above 16#.

All I can say about how far you shoot at an animal is ,are you going to be able to find that animal if it does not drop in it's tracks!
Where I hunt in Montana,if there is no snow on the ground and you shoot at something across the canyon will you find it!

Hunt with Anything you are able to. About the only thing I have qualms with right or wrong in hunting is: Hunting for "Food" or IF YOU ARE SALEING FOR PROFIT! Feed your family, not your Pocket!

Here comes lead bullet bans lol. What is considered "fair" is different depending on the individual. Get one peta leaning individual and things will change. I can see what is "fair" become an "environmental" issue with a Sierra Club minded member.

Travis Mowery said:

without electronics my personal limitation would be greatly reduced, without a rangefinder I couldn't consistently tell you the difference between 3 and 4 hundred yards, for me, that 100 yd difference could be the difference in kill or miss or worse end up with a wounded animal,
when the door gets opened and politicians are involved, unfortunately there is not telling where it will end,
prime example: Iowa, changed from shotgun/Muzzle loader to allow straight walls and other cartridges, whet the lawmakers rewrote allows anyone to use a 375 RUM now instead of a shotgun, but cant use a 270 or 30-06, not sure that is what their initial intension was when they did it but here we are. I won't say what I used or will be using there lol

Click to expand...

The 375 Rum is still a bottle neck cartridge,[not allowed]. They also have a length restriction on the case, if I remember correctly. Around .850-1.8".

SemperFi said:

The 375 Rum is still a bottle neck cartridge,[not allowed]. They also have a length restriction on the case, if I remember correctly. Around .850-1.8".

Click to expand...

Not true...

They changed the law again, Bottleneck cartridges of ANY length are allowed...as long as they are between .350 and .500" caliber

Muddyboots said:

It's a fine line on fair chase but we need to focus on why is an agency considering this? Has there been any documented issues?

Click to expand...

Financial gains disguised as being ETHICAL

Interesting thing here though is that by limitation on devices you have higher wounding rates. To think someone will always say let's get closer is just foolish. Yes some will do just that but many won't, They will try a shot. Yes I know, I know it still happens but your foolishness if you don't think it won't happen a lot more.
More wounding and much less recovery of an animal WILL result.
I can see what they want or thinking of trying to do but I feel/ know there will be a lot more dead critters never found.
Lot more suffering animals will result unfortunately, and hope they take that into consideration.

I struggle understanding the purpose of some regulations in certain areas. I thought I understood the concept of fair chase, but obviously my definition is vastly different than some other people's definition. Conservation of game animals is something most can support. However, once again there are vastly different views of how to best implement conservation practices. Harvest limits to maintain a healthy balance should be the primary consideration. Limiting the effectiveness of equipment and tools you can use is a slippery slope in the direction of banning hunting IMO.

It is difficult to discuss equipment limitations without involving ethics. Advancements in technology, such as rangefinders, are what make the difference between clean kills or a wounded animal. The problem, as I see it, the government wants to pick a time in history and freeze it. Thirty years ago, I would not have considered a AR15 for prairie dogs, but I do today. Should they restrict hunting to rounds that were invented before 1960? I don't use much tech in my hunting, but that's my choice. However, I don't like government intrusion in my daily life.