Motivation for ML hunting restrictions

[chav0_12]

"If scopes are not needed to increase our effective range, then what do we use them for?"

A scope places the target and the reticle or dot at the same plane of focus.

I am one of those older guys with distance lens placed in my eyes after cataract surgery. Irons sights are out of focus. I strongly feel that a 1X power would not extend the shooting range, IMO defeating the argument against the use of scopes. Some of us who are were forced from New Mexico's muzzleloader elk hunts could continue to hunt NM if this were allowed.

Then even the 1x scope increases your effective range from 0 to whatever it would be. I think it's unfortunate for guys like you that have a need for enhanced optics, but I don't think they were trying to exclude you.

I've shot plenty of iron sighted rifles. I've shot the same or similar rifles with optics. An M4 with something like an EOTECH compared to an M4 with irons is much easier to plate targets and more range because of the reticle.

Compare it to a 22 LR vs a .223 for varmint hunting, you can have identical rifles with identical long range scopes but the .223 will drastically out range the .22 LR by several hundred yards due to the advantages in accuracy, retained velocity and drop. Put that .223 in an iron sighted rifle and it can still be shot farther more accurately than the scoped .22 LR just like the smokeless compared with a caplock.

I totally agree with that, I said that yes bullets and trajectories play roles in a weapon systems range. The optics play a role in the shooters effective range. They probably did this because they probably figured enough people have muzzleloaders with longer range capabilities. Instead of saying "you can't use that" they simply said; "you can use that rifle, but take the scope off". I get the argument, I do. it's seems odd to me that people, especially in western states where tags can be difficult to get don't see why they did it. They either had to reduce the opportunity or reduce the effectiveness of hunters. I assume that, since there is a lot of complaining about how hard it is to get tags they didn't want to reduce opportunity. Perhaps they didn't feel they needed to reduce the effectiveness so much that they went full traditional muzzleloader, but just enough that they felt taking optics away was the best choice.

Game agencies have a hard job to keep people happy, they will never be able to keep everyone happy. If they would've just reduced the number of tags by half, there would be just as much complaining but about that.

 

[jensenj71]

The regulations get set and then it is just human behavior to seek and leverage every possible advantage. The regulations set the playing field. It is also human nature to be disappointed when advantages are removed to rebalance the playing field.

I think ML regulations need to keep the hunt distinctly different from rifle and should keep the hunt accessible for the average hunter. I fully support the balance within the Idaho regulations. Sure it could be more traditional or more progressive, however I think Idaho has about the right balance. I don't have an issue with the exceptions for non magnified scopes for those with a documented vision impairment. I have a none Idaho legal ML for short range whitetail seasons and I definitely hunt differently.

A 150yd shot with my CVA Paramount Pro scoped launching 330gr jacketed bullet at 2100fps using BH209 and LRP across a field is no problem.

A 150yd shot with my Knight Mountaineer ooen sights with 495gr cast lead No Excuses over loose RS Select with a musket cap is my limit under ideal conditions. I have taken a mule deer at 60yds and a pronghorn at 75yds.

One of my most memorable hunts was a late bull elk ML hunt in high mountain desert terrain in November. The bulls were everywhere, but they had been through archery and rifle seasons. We spotted and stocked more than a dozen mature 6pt bulls only to get busted again and again between 200 and 300 yds. Our max range was 150yds with standard open sights assuming we had some time to setup. We were limited to 100yds for an offhand shot. We didn't harvest a bull, but we had a great time trying to figure out how to get inside of 150yds in the open sagebrush terrain with critters that had seen it all.

The hunt would have been over before noon on Day 1 with a rifle or my scoped Paramount Pro with a 6pt bull broadside for nearly an hour at 250yds. That hunt only existed because of the specific regulations that created that hunt. It was hunting rather than shooting or harvesting meat. It all just came down to who made a mistake first. Very similar to archery season where you are interacting with animals nearly 50% of the time.