TUK101

All that I can say about this is that it sounds as if Idaho basically copied Washingtons regulations.

Underclocked

Phil,

are the numbers posted on this website: http://www.muledeernet.org/statusidaho.htm incorrect? Am I missing the big picture so far as managing muzzleloader hunting opportunities? Look hard at those numbers, are they lies?

Pglasgow

U.C.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether Idaho Game and Fish is stating lies. I've not encouraged the discussion of knocking heads with Idaho Game and Fish, because I profoundly disagree with it. I think its unproductive and non-constructive. I believe Idaho Game and Fish should manage hunting and hunting opportunity as they see fit. I think Idaho residents need to support their management efforts. This is my opinion.

I personally have encouraged Sabotloader to accept the new regulation and enjoy the great hunting opportunities his State offers. I think if Idaho residents will embrace the regulation and participate, good things will happen and no one will be worse for wear. It just seems childish to me make such an issue out of late season hunts. Personally, I have no trouble buyingthe desire of IDGF to limit weapons to a typical effective range of 100 yards in these special late season hunts. After all, wildlife by then are tramping through snow and concentrated at lower elevations. I can understand why they don't want someone to be able to just put the crosshairs on a deer 170 yards away, squeeze, and harvest. I can understand how new technologies which were not foreseen when these seasons were originally established has changed the equation in harvest objectives. Frankly, I just believe that IDGF should be given the benefit of the doubt and supported.

We will simply have to disagree.

Underclocked

Okay, then shuddup.

cayugad

Quote:

I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether Idaho Game and Fish is stating lies. I've not encouraged the discussion of knocking heads with Idaho Game and Fish, because I profoundly disagree with it. I think its unproductive and non-constructive. I believe Idaho Game and Fish should manage hunting and hunting opportunity as they see fit. I think Idaho residents need to support their management efforts. This is my opinion.

While I agree a State should be allowed to manage their game herds, my complaint with this entire Idaho concept is, they took away a privilege that was once enjoyed by their residents and people who traveled tohunt their beautiful State's environment. There must have been a way to provide the same opportunity to all residents no matter what kind of muzzleloader they want to hunt with.

If I were a Idaho resident that had purchased an inline rifle and was enjoying the opportunity of muzzleloading. And not suddenly the State for some reasons they State necessary suddenly turn to a traditional hunt method only.. you can bet you beans I would be upset. So now, because of their changes, I have to adjust my methods, purchase new equipment, hunt with a projectile I might not feel lethal (not that I do), because for some reason they became Traditional. I would scream BS.

Quote:

I personally have encouraged Sabotloader to accept the new regulation and enjoy the great hunting opportunities his State offers. I think if Idaho residents will embrace the regulation and participate, good things will happen and no one will be worse for wear.

Does Sabotloader have a choice? Not in this case. Because the State decided to change their regulations to fit a certain aspect of muzzleloading, Sabotloaders collection of inlines are nothing more then target rifles, or of course he can hunt with them in the modern season. How fair is that? Sabotloader is lucky he's a gun collector. He had traditional rifles to use. But what of the hundred, maybe even thousands of Idaho resident that own.. an inline. One inline for their muzzleloader season. Its all they wanted and needed. Now they are forced to spend money to get outfitted again, or they can just not hunt that season. I disagree with that as well. Who is worse for wear, those that have to shell out a couple hundred to get a good sidelock rifle when they really did not need one.

Quote:

It just seems childish to me make such an issue out of late season hunts.

What might seem childish to you might be a very serious issue with some Idaho residents. But of course some people feel, just suck it up and play with the rest of the crowd. Don't make waves. This country was founded on people making waves. People standing up and calling the government on issues they felt wrong.

Quote:

Personally, I have no trouble buyingthe desire of IDGF to limit weapons to a typical effective range of 100 yards in these special late season hunts. After all, wildlife by then are tramping through snow and concentrated at lower elevations. I can understand why they don't want someone to be able to just put the crosshairs on a deer 170 yards away, squeeze, and harvest. I can understand how new technologies which were not foreseen when these seasons were originally established has changed the equation in harvest objectives. Frankly, I just believe that IDGF should be given the benefit of the doubt and supported.

While some people who have hunted Traditional might not have a problem with the new regulations, there were ways to insure that the new technology they claim so DEADLY, could have been curbed. You mention put the cross hairs on an animal at 170 yards and fire... Simple, no optics. Open sights level the field.

As for changing the harvest objectives, they will sure do that. Just think of hunters, never having shot traditional rifles with roundball, but having shot inline rifles. Now they are going to shoot a projectile they really have no idea of the lethal ballistics of. Think of people lobbing roundball into animals at long distances, perhaps even hitting them. Then the animal runs off andinstead of being harvested is lost to the wolves. That will sure change the harvest objectives all right. If you want to limit the range of an inline rifle, you limit the projectile. You limit the sighting system. Same as a traditional rifle. Put a scope on a traditional rifle that is a conical shooter and what do you have... a long range weapon.

This entire Idaho movement boils down to a couple issues with me. First off I am not a Idaho resident so maybe my opinion makes no different. That still does not mean I do not have an opinion.

#1 privileges were taken away from hunter. From reading some of the responses from these hunters on different forums, they had no idea this was even taking place.

#2 these new regulations are aimed at pleasing one small part of the muzzleloading experience while all the rest of it is told to just accept the changes, loos your privilege,and get on with your life.

#3 I personally feel this will lead to a lot more wounded and un-recovered animals in the long run. Again, this is my opinion. Maybe time will prove me wrong. But I do know human nature. A person who has not seen a deer all season and sudden sees on outside the range of his roundball rifle... believe me, a large percentage of those hunters (while we can argue all we want they should not) are going to shoot. Whether they hit, or wound, whether they recover the animal or feed the wolves.. only time will tell.

#4 Last and most important... anytime you allow a State to change regulations at the inconvenience of one group, for the advantage of the other.. future changes become much easier to make for other groups. If we took this privilege away from one group, hey! lets outlaw all muzzleloading and make the PETA type groups happy. Or outlaw them all together and increase the time for bow hunters.

Next, when one State starts, other States tend to follow suit using them as an example. It is a wildfire. The next group comes to your State and argues, it worked in Idaho, why not here. No one will complain. They just sit back and are told to take it and get on with life and adjust. Well any time someone starts to mess with privileges I have now, and want to take them away, you can bet I will be writing my representatives, going to meetings and make my point heard, and try an organize to make sure I am not left of out something I already have.

Quote:

We will simply have to disagree.

You are right on this point. I disagree. Again, I am not a Idaho resident, but I was hoping some day to hunt Idaho as it is a beautiful State. WhileI have no problem doing the Daniel Boone route, it could effect how I spend my sporting dollars.

Sorry for the rant.. and I do not mean to start a arguement. This is just my personal opinions and my venting.

lemoyne

cayugad, I have to disagree on one point those of us that ware quad focal lens glasses are out of luck with iron sights this is a problem of age with many of us [I won several state championships with irons in the 70's] I think that makes restriction to iron sights age discrimination. Lee

Pglasgow

I won't argue, no apologies are necessary, and I recognize your right to your opinions.

I think its possible to miss the forest (the big picture) for the tree (inline vs traditional) Sabotloader, i think, is fortunate to live in a state where he can buy a rifle tag for deer over the counter and participate in a rifle season, year after year, with a scoped inline using sabots. I can't do that in Colorado,the demand outstrips supply is why I can't. I must draw a tag and I failed to do thatthis year. If I fail to harvest in rifle season (when I draw), I will not be allowed to participate in a lateseasonML hunt with a traditional rifle.

Its not just about hunting. In the West, there is great demand for lands which constitute wintering habitat for wildlife. The winter carrying capacity out west is in decline and will continue to decline. This is a forgone conclusion. The loss of hunting opportunity is just beginning out West and we should simply brace for it. I suppose we could release pen-raised animals to supplementthe oncoming declining populations, but that isn't the job of IDGF. Theymust protect the integrity of wild populations and perpetuate to the best of their ability their wildlife in its wild state.

I would look for hunting opportunity in the primitive hunts to increase while rifle opportunities to become more limited. Not saying that I like that prospect, but it just seems that this is the reality we are being prepared for.

Roskoe

Phil - I am going to disagree with you about the comparison to Colorado. Of course you can hunt in any rifle season with an in-line scoped muzzleloader. There are plenty of rifle tags for regular and late season/leftovers. And there is a designated MZ deer season. Same deal with elk. In 2005, I killed five elk - all legally of course - by working through the List A, B, and C licenses. I could pick and choose, for the most part, on when I wanted to use the muzzle loader. On several hunts, I took the muzzleloader along in case a shot inside of 200 yards presented itself.

I think the main point here is that they have banned a type of rifle used by what I would bet is close to a majority of muzzleloader hunters. That was the big beef when they tried it in Colorado. Over 7,000 hunters were using in-line guns. 6,995 of them were not consulted in any way/shape/form when that regulation was rammed down our throats. I sold my Knight Disc Rifle that year and bought another Hawken. At the threat of a recall of the entire Wildlife Commission, a compromise was later reached. And the compromise was that they would limit us on no pellets, no smokeless, no sabots, and no scopes. This seemed to have been accepted by the various factions involved. Idaho should have looked at what happened heresix years ago.

cayugad

Lemoyne - I can see and understand your position, and sympathise with it.I just made an appointment today to have my eye tested and glasses updated. There areways around that for you as well. Many States allow people with "disabilities" special privileges. While poor eye sight does not sound like a disability to some, I am sure a State could set standards in those areas where scopes are not allowed, to enable people exactly with the conditions you describe to be permitted to use scopes. They could put a magnification restriction to cut down your range is all. In Wisconsin crossbows are illegal. Unless you have shoulder injurires (varfied by a doctor) that will not permit you to pull a bow string back. I am one of them but refuse to go after the crossbow permit.

Pglasgow - The whole point I was trying to make is there is a danger, any time you let one side compromise another side of any prior agreed benefits. I've done a lot of work with agreements and contracts over the years. The first thing you learn is never let the other side take away, or change your current status without compensation or at least considerations. The simple fact they took an already agreed item, inline muzzleloaders, and then removed them from a season where they were allowed in prior years, they have changed balance. The worst part is the next time IDFG wants to alter a season orrestriction they will do it knowing, they got away with it before and no onegot upset.

Yes, Sabotloader and all other people in Idaho with inline riflescan still use a muzzleloader in the modern gun season. A scoped one actually from my understanding. But they now placed them in the samesituation just as traditional hunters scream inline hunter are in relation to them. There is no way a modern muzzleloader will compete with a modern center fire. Granted they can kill just as well, but if I had to make the shot, I'd place my money on a modern high powered rifle.

All I am saying is IDFG could have kept inline rifles in the same season as traditional rifles. They could have restricted optics. That alone would even the playing field for most people. They could have restricted ignition systems (which they did), or projectiles (which they did)could have been ordered, all lead. There are still sabots, and conicals that would have fit that bill and made them no more a long range threat then a traditional shooter with a conical rifle. But when you simply erase something from the playing field to the benefit of another group obviously, that IMOis wrong. Anyway you want to look at it.

Then other States begin to follow suit. Minnesota for example has just now (as I understand it)decided smokeless powder is not allowed. No big deal right? Tell that to a Savage owner in Minnesota who for the past few years had the right to use it and purchased his equipment based on that right.

I understand your opinion and will consider this closed. For some reason this thing that happened in Idaho really got my goat and I have yet to figure out why something so far away from Wisconsin should even get my attention like this. This was the responce I got from my email I sent the IDFG about their decision.

"The Idaho Fish and Game Commission recognizes the effect of its decision to adopt restrictions on muzzleloader technology. This decision was not taken lightly.

The Commission and the Department of Fish and Game spent more than a year reviewing muzzleloader technology and soliciting comments from more than 1,200 dedicated Idaho muzzleloader hunters. Those hunters were equally split between maintaining existing equipment restrictions and adding further restrictions. Ultimately, the decision was based on a shared concern for declining muzzleloader hunting opportunity over the
past decade.

Muzzleloader hunting offers a unique and traditionally important
activity for many Idaho hunters. The decision to restrict muzzleloader equipment was made to ensure special muzzleloader-only hunting remains an opportunity for hunters into the future. The decision did not affect the use of current muzzleloader technology in any-weapon or short-range
weapon hunts.

idfginfo "

Yoter

I have a call scheduled with the gentleman that wrote the Fish and Game article to ask where the official number can be obtained. I'll post them, or a link to them when I get them. I also want to know when we should expect more opportunities to become available, and why the "survey" wasn't sent to all muzzleloader permit holders in the state, versus to a small, select population.

I am all for supporting game management efforts, but those efforts should be driven by real data from biologists, not from public opinion surveys that can be manipulated to whatever end thay are looking for.