The web's most comprehensive user-interactive handloading database! Find the loading data created by handloaders, for handloaders, post your pet loads, or access and develop your own online loading database with our LoadNotes personal handloading database software. This feature, unique in its concept and intuitive in it's data presentation is fast to access, superbly organized and comprehensive in scope.Our online forums for questions and answers on many shooting and outdoor related topics. A dynamic, active, and well-informed resource for your enjoyment and interaction. Our most used resource on this website! Come share the experience with us!
» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Hunting > Pacific Northwest Hunting
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-11-2007, 09:03 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,229
New Idaho Hunting proposals - including 50 cal centerfire ban


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


Idaho hunters might want check this out and comment should you feel it necessary.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/abo...n/jan_07/7.pdf
__________________
Wild Sheep Federation - Life Member
OVIS/Grand Slam Club - Life Member
Safari Club International - Life Member
National Rifle Association - Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-11-2007, 10:26 PM
faucettb's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Peck, Idaho
Posts: 12,620
This has been a long time in coming. All the changes talked about make pretty good sense. Idaho has had a weight restriction on big game rifles for a long time limiting hunting rifle weight to I think around 18 or 19 pounds. This has elimanated most of the big 50 cal centerfires.

Lots of folks I know think the muzzle loading rules should have been changed a while ago. I know folks that bought inline muzzle loaders just to take advantage of the extended elk hunts offered before the last change in muzzle loader regulations. I know thats the reason I bought a Remington 700 ML, though I ended up not hunting with it. It was not the right thing to do.

I can't comment on the bow hunting part because I don't do that disipline.

As for the illuminated scopes and red dot scopes the State made use on Turkey shotguns legal this year. I'm pretty sure that part is going to pass with no problems.

For Idahoans the big controversy will probably be the muzzle loader thing. Idaho is not alone with this problem. Lots of folks want to use the "new" rifles on the block and feel slighted when they can't in the special muzzle loading seasons, but the advantage they give in both range and killing power really puts them in the same class as lots of cartridge arms. My personal view is use them in the regular rifle seasons, there's no restrictions against doing so.

The bow hunting thing is another place where there is some controversy here in Idaho. Bow seasons are both long and begin early. Lots of rifle hunters feel that bow hunters have an unfair advantage with these liberal early seasons. Weather thats true or not I'll leave to the folks whom have an interest. I've got friends whom bow hunt and it's darn hard work to get close enough to shoot an animal with one of those stringed wonders....

Well we'll see how some of the other folks here in Idaho feel about what the Fish and Game is looking at doing.
__________________
Bob from Idaho
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-12-2007, 03:40 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,229
I can see what Idaho is aiming at, concerning eliminating the 50 BMG rifles and I'll leave that issue for the Idahoans to discuss. However, if that is indeed the target (pardon the pun), the go after it. As is written, it would get rid of several others as well, including the 50-90 Sharps, 50-100, 50-110, 500 Jeffery, 500 Nitro, etc... all centerfire cartridges.

The muzzleloader thing is an one, as well, and one that will probably be addressed sooner or later in many states.

I hope Idaho hunters take the new proposals seriously because the effects can be serious. I know I take these things serious here.
__________________
Wild Sheep Federation - Life Member
OVIS/Grand Slam Club - Life Member
Safari Club International - Life Member
National Rifle Association - Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-12-2007, 04:26 PM
faucettb's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Peck, Idaho
Posts: 12,620
Interesting point on the big 50 guns other than the 50 caliber machine gun cartridges. I really hadn't thought about those. I'm going back and re-read the proposal.

I don't know any hunters that use those cartridges so don't know what effect that would have on our hunting, but your right it's something that should be considered. I wouldn't want to have the cartridges you mention eliminated from the hunting scene. In fact I'd much rather see a bottom limit for big game cartridges in effect, say nothing smaller than the 243 for deer and up.

I thought it silly that our regulations that now allow folks to hunt big game such as elk with cartridges such as the 223, 220 swift and other what I'd consider varmit cartridges, but I do know a fella that shoots at elk with a 458 Win mag.

I've never seen any of the big 50's in use in the woods and except for the big black powder cartridges wouldn't expect to see cartridges like the 500 Jeffery or 500 Nitro out hunting here in Idaho.
__________________
Bob from Idaho
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-12-2007, 05:12 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,229
I know several fellas that plug various sized animals here in AK with all sorts of .22 centerfire rounds, very effectively I might add. I seem to remember, the 223 and 22-250 are popular in Idaho, aren't they among deer hunters?

I don't see any harm in anyone utilizing whatever cartridge/rifle combo they want to hunt with, as long as they are ethical with it (can and do make kills as efficiently as possible, I guess). I see no issues with the big Sharps or the 50-100 lever guns. Whether the 50 BMG is a hunting rifle cartridge or not, is for someone besides me to debate because I have no idea.
__________________
Wild Sheep Federation - Life Member
OVIS/Grand Slam Club - Life Member
Safari Club International - Life Member
National Rifle Association - Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2007, 04:22 PM
MikeG's Avatar
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,520
Regardless of the ethics of using a .50 BMG for hunting.... I think a ban is a solution to a non-existent problem.

There are darn few people in this world who would tote a 20+ pound rifle up the mountains for elk.

Personally I think it's more fear-mongering over .50 BMG rifles, and part of the effort to demonify them as sniper rifles, etc., as has been done in California.
__________________
MikeG

Quote:
Originally Posted by faucettb
Welcome to the forum. Rules are simple, be nice and join in.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2007, 04:35 PM
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,715
I wish I would have paid attention to this earlier (NRA sent out some similar notices, although I thought it was only about use of 50 BMG) since the F&G already met Jan 10-12 to discuss these issues.

I can sure see alyeska's point about those other 50 caliber centerfires. I doubt many will be stomping around the woods with those, but their use sure shouldn't be excluded IMO.

This issue brings to mind how California legislated out the 50 BMG, and then Barrett simply came out with the 416 Barrett cartridge!
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
SCI Member
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-13-2007, 07:15 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,229
Guys I just think we have to be very careful when it comes to allowing anyone dictate what we can and cannot hunt with. I agree there are sensible minimums, such as not allowing 22 LR for big game. However, there was a move a few years ago for banning the sale over 50 cal firearms as "destructive devices" in the name of National Security. In the same bill, there was enough weasel wording that any firearm capable of damaging infrastructure or transportation necessary to the safety or function of the countries energy or transportations' system would also be included. Or at least increasing the regulation the sale of those firearms to, if I remember right, the nature of Class III. There wasn't too much ire raised about it because not a lot of hunters were toting 50 BMG's around in the woods. However, some drunken idiot shot a hole in the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline with a 338 Win Mag.

The bill would have effected the sale and ownership of nearly every firearm on the market today.

Unintended consequences can be just as bad as the intended ones and we need to be very careful of what we approve. I currently have two firearms that shoot bullets .510", both are hunting firearms. An wondeful takedown Mauser action 500 Jeffery and a very nice 500 Linebaugh. For what reason should anyone not be able to use either of these firearms to hunt bear, moose, elk, or deer?

I see as precedent setting and that is a dangerous, slippery slope to where hunters and gun owners could be dictated to what firearms they can own and use.
__________________
Wild Sheep Federation - Life Member
OVIS/Grand Slam Club - Life Member
Safari Club International - Life Member
National Rifle Association - Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-13-2007, 08:23 PM
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 19,351
We as hunters, certainly don't want to do anything that could hinder our hunting activities. Trying to dictate minimums and maximums, no matter how well intended, could be the chink in the armor that leads to the death of the wearer.

I go by the reasoning that a person can hunt with whatever assures a humane kill of the hunted species. By the same token, if someone shows up with a LAW over his shoulder, I'm leaving the woods.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
NRA Certified Police Firearms Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NAHC Life Member

"Firearms only have two enemies - rust and politicans" author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-13-2007, 08:43 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdub
By the same token, if someone shows up with a LAW over his shoulder, I'm leaving the woods.

I'll be right behind you.
__________________
Wild Sheep Federation - Life Member
OVIS/Grand Slam Club - Life Member
Safari Club International - Life Member
National Rifle Association - Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:23 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by alyeska338

I'll be right behind you.
I'll be in front of both of you!
__________________
Lee L.

America= Land of the Free, Because of the Brave. == May God Bless Them All.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-14-2007, 03:54 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,229
Even though kdub is a few years my senior, I'm sure he's moving a bit faster than I am these days, even with his bum knee! I don't mind being behind, but you fellas better be moving right along...
__________________
Wild Sheep Federation - Life Member
OVIS/Grand Slam Club - Life Member
Safari Club International - Life Member
National Rifle Association - Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-02-2007, 03:28 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Central "W" Valley, Oregon
Posts: 17
I agree that there shouldn't be an upper limit on what ammo can be used. If someone wants to haul a .50 Cal around the mountains, let'em. But as was mentioned on another post, I'm sure this isn't a huge problem.

And if I'm hunting with any of you guys and a LAW appears, I'll shoot one of you in the foot and start running!
__________________
Not as lean, not as mean, but by the grace of God, still a US Marine!

Long guns:
DPMS AR-15A2
Ruger M77 300 Win. Mag
Mossburg Silver Reserve 12 Ga.
Henry Standard .22

Pistolas:
Ruger .45 Vaquero
Springfield 1911A1
Taurus .38 Special
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-02-2007, 04:04 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Azle Texas
Posts: 36
Just some different ways of looking at this, but having just read bits and pieces of the issues in Idaho, there are somethings that some people may not be looking.

Banning all 50cal. firearms for hunting is overkill.

Guns chambered for the 50-90, or even the 577 or 600 Nitro express are not the problem or perceived problem.

The 50 BMG, is a whole different story. Some people do try to hunt with them, but not in the sense of carrying them around on foot, hiking up and down the hills and mountains.

What about people, whether thru the use of 4 wheel drive vehicles or ATV's, can get into areas on Public Land, and set up a bench for a 50 BMG chambered rifle.

Does anyone know right offhand, what the effective killing range on an elk or mule deer is with a 50 BMG round?

I agree on the statement that a lot of this legislation, as it concerns the 50 BMG round, has been generated by a perceived threat, on the part of a segement of our population.

The part about the muzzle loaders, does need to be worked on. I recently saw a thread on a different forum, about a guy killing a cow elk at 300 yards or so with a new custom built in-line. I feel that such firearms are not what was in the mindf of the folks that set up those special seasons. Just my opinion.
__________________
www.shoestringsafaris.com
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-16-2007, 08:35 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 574
The link wouldn't work for me so I am kinda shooting in the dark here from what you guys have said. I thought Idaho had a 16 pound limit on a hunting gun, but I 'd have to go read my regs. Something along those lines sounds good to me, rather than banning a caliber which can set bad precedents. A light 50BMG I doubt would be much fun to shoot, I do think hunting guns should be a shoulder held firearm.
On the muzzle loader thing, my thoughts would be stick to traditional guns( side lock open sights) as Idaho is on most hunts now. If we begin to allow every new fancy dancy improvement coming along soon the whole idea of Black powder would be lost. Besides it doesn't necessarily need to be all that special to kill a animal. I got my elk last year with a $58 and change CVA .50 cal. Bobcat from wally's.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-23-2007, 06:16 PM
markw76's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orygun
Posts: 24
I think effective range for game with a .50BMG round would be limited more by the rifle's accuracy than any limitations of the bullet. If you can see it, and if you can hit the vitals, anything up to Elk should pretty much be history. I wouldn't think it'd be a good idea in woodlands to be so far off that your pursuit is delayed. If you are within normal hunting range (50 to 250 yards) tissue destruction would be excessive even with ball rounds. Even if a few characters went that route, I don't see it as a big problem. Self-limiting. Now if I could only afford a Bofors....
__________________
[SIZE=2][/SIZE][COLOR=darkolivegreen][SIZE=2]Hunt hard, shoot straight, kill clean, apologize to no one.

[/SIZE][/COLOR]
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-26-2007, 01:40 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 2,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdub
By the same token, if someone shows up with a LAW over his shoulder, I'm leaving the woods.
SOrry for a dumb question...what's an LAW?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-26-2007, 04:10 PM
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 19,351
Light Antitank Weapon (replacement for the old "Bazooka".
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
NRA Certified Police Firearms Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NAHC Life Member

"Firearms only have two enemies - rust and politicans" author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-26-2007, 08:36 PM
markw76's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orygun
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdub
Light Antitank Weapon (replacement for the old "Bazooka".
Anti gunners always seem to bring up bazookas when trying to ban something that has been legal for years, like:

"Well, I suppose you think anyone should have a bazooka!"

I usually reply "and how many bazooka attacks do you know about???"
__________________
[SIZE=2][/SIZE][COLOR=darkolivegreen][SIZE=2]Hunt hard, shoot straight, kill clean, apologize to no one.

[/SIZE][/COLOR]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California bill to ban hunting with dogs. MikeG General Discussion 8 05-21-2008 08:09 AM
hUNTING THE SOUTHWEST J.P. Southwest Hunting 19 05-13-2008 08:56 AM
The sad truth about hunting now Greenhorn Dave General Discussion 25 08-10-2007 05:32 PM
Another way to hunt elk in Idaho faucettb My Neck-Of-The-Woods 28 04-18-2007 07:42 PM
Need 1967 Whinchester rifle information lpguy Leverguns and Their Cartridges (General) 2 07-15-2005 05:00 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:49 PM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
View Privacy Policy | Contact Webmaster | Legal Information
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2