One day left to comment on the 2023 Idaho Big Three proposals.

[44hunter45]

Sorry not to get this posted sooner.

Public can comment on moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goat season through Dec. 29

Idaho Fish and Game will be setting new seasons for upcoming moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goat hunts in early 2023 and gathering public input on proposals from Dec. 13-29. Hunters can easily review the proposals at the moose, sheep, goat proposals webpage here. The comment period will run...

idfg.idaho.gov

 

[BackofBeyond]

Hate to see the goat tags in 10-1 and 10-2 drop, especially since the herd is staying above 100 with good recruitment, but tag holders need to be better about not shooting nannies.

One thing I was wondering though, since the unit 7/9 hunt is ran out of the Panhandle district, and 10-1&2 out of the Clearwater region, are they still managed as the same herd? The info given on herd health for 7/9 was different than the goats encountered in the other side of the ridge.

 

[westbranch]

Hate to see the goat tags in 10-1 and 10-2 drop, especially since the herd is staying above 100 with good recruitment, but tag holders need to be better about not shooting nannies.

One thing I was wondering though, since the unit 7/9 hunt is ran out of the Panhandle district, and 10-1&2 out of the Clearwater region, are they still managed as the same herd? The info given on herd health for 7/9 was different than the goats encountered in the other side of the ridge.

My understanding is they are managed as one population unit but they do track different areas through the population unit.

A few years ago they were going to close goat hunting in 7 and only have 9 due to most goats being shot in an easy access area of 7. Might have done it for one year, but then switched back. Has to be some very old goats in some of those areas.

 

[TheTone]

From talking to some people that have hunted the 10 goats it seems to either be an easy hunt or a total disaster. Just depends on if the goats are where you want them or if they’re timbered up. Only people I’ve known recently to have the tag either ate it or shot a nanny

 

[44hunter45]

I'm still obsessed with getting my moose tag. Chose to eat my Unit 8 cow moose tag in 2016. Regretting that choice now.
Even if climate change is to blame, setting harvest quotas to ride down the decline of the herds is not management. I made the decision to limit my salmon fishing to Alaska.
I'm starting to think I will have to do the same for Idaho moose.


Trigger Alert---


I don't want to be reading stories about "hunters" who wounded and lost moose, and then shot another on the same tag. In some zones, a wounded and lost moose is a 100% over-harvest.
My comments to the proposals were all regarding the need to adopt Alaskan harvest and tagging rules on a species which, if the trend continues, could be proposed as listed. I've written emails about this multiple times. The commission and politcos are more interested making sure their ranching constituency is placated on the wolf issue. If the Ag interests could get moose land-owner tags, IDFG would be breeding moose in a barn somewhere. The NAM is dead here. I've actually had a (now former) State Representative respond to one of my emails that since the Legislature takes their lead from a Rep who is a former IDFG Commissioner, the science is being followed. WTF? At least my vote counted to boot her ass out.

Not to sound like MntPrst, but I'm getting a little sore at the NR brag board stories for the big three. If tag numbers are to be reduced, you start with the NR opportunity.

Call me Karen

 

[BackofBeyond]

I don't want to be reading stories about "hunters" who wounded and lost moose, and then shot another on the same tag. In some zones, a wounded and lost moose is a 100% over-harvest.
My comments to the proposals were all regarding the need to adopt Alaskan harvest and tagging rules.

Not to sound like MntPrst, but I'm getting a little sore at the NR brag board stories for the big three. If tag numbers are to be reduced, you start with the NR opportunity.

Call me Karen

Totally agree, Karen.

 

[Firedude]

I was chatting with a Fish and Game guy the other day and he mentioned the same idea of tag notching. I suggested we start doing some caliber and bullet weight restrictions so stuff stops getting lost in the first place. I am tired of finding dead animals too. I've noticed more of it now that I run into more .223s and .243s in the field. My wife's antelope had a .22 caliber slug calcified under the hide. It passed through the chest and didn't kill it. The shot was good but didn't do the job. We shouldn't have to have cannons to go hunting but shooting an elk with a .22 hornet is asking for problems right? The last shot I took on my moose was at 5 ft with a .357 mag. It didn't even get into the ribcage. It was just under the hide on the side I shot. Perfect placement. Not enough gun.

Along with that some people I've met hunting with smaller calibers think a shoulder shot is correct. Who hasn't seen those posts lately about using the front leg as a reference for vitals or how a high shoulder shot "Drops em' right in their tracks!" Not saying it can't but we're compounding the odds of little bullets not getting through.

Yes you can kill and elk with a well place .22 long rifle shot. I get it. But If you're off by an inch you just wounded it. Which one is more likely in real world conditions? Using enough gun gives you a larger margin for error. Is a big gun an excuse to take terrible shots. Nope. But it's hard to argue with a larger wound channel not causing more trauma and therefore a higher chance of a quick harvest. Can a single person on here say they've hit the heart on every animal they've ever killed?

 

[Elktrack]

Trigger Alert---


I don't want to be reading stories about "hunters" who wounded and lost moose, and then shot another on the same tag. In some zones, a wounded and lost moose is a 100% over-harvest.
My comments to the proposals were all regarding the need to adopt Alaskan harvest and tagging rules on a species which, if the trend continues, could be proposed as listed. I've written emails about this multiple times. The commission and politcos are more interested making sure their ranching constituency is placated on the wolf issue. If the Ag interests could get moose land-owner tags, IDFG would be breeding moose in a barn somewhere. The NAM is dead here. I've actually had a (now former) State Representative respond to one of my emails that since the Legislature takes their lead from a Rep who is a former IDFG Commissioner, the science is being followed. WTF? At least my vote counted to boot her ass out.

Not to sound like MntPrst, but I'm getting a little sore at the NR brag board stories for the big three. If tag numbers are to be reduced, you start with the NR opportunity.

Call me Karen

I was chatting with a Fish and Game guy the other day and he mentioned the same idea. I suggested we start doing some caliber and bullet weight restrictions so stuff stops getting lost in the first place. I am tired of finding dead animals too. I've noticed more of it now that I run into more .223s and .243s in the field. My wife's antelope had a .22 caliber slug calcified under the hide. It passed through the chest and didn't kill it. The shot was good but didn't do the job. We shouldn't have to have cannons to go hunting but shooting an elk with a .22 hornet is asking for problems right?

Yes you can kill and elk with a well place .22 long rifle shot. I get it. But If you're off by an inch you just wounded it. Which one is more likely in real world conditions? Using enough gun gives you a larger margin for error. Is a big gun an excuse to take terrible shots. Nope. But it's hard to argue with a larger wound channel not causing more trauma and therefore a higher chance of a quick harvest. Can a single person on here say they've hit the heart on every animal they've ever killed?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not advocating for .22 caliber weapons for big game but the minimum caliber requirement has been this way forever. This recent issue of wounded and lost animals seems to be more prevalent since long range craze infected the hunting community. Just my opinion.
I probably just derailed the thread and started a storm. Sorry
The caliber requirement is a non issue

 

[Firedude]

I was chatting with a Fish and Game guy the other day and he mentioned the same idea. I suggested we start doing some caliber and bullet weight restrictions so stuff stops getting lost in the first place. I am tired of finding dead animals too. I've noticed more of it now that I run into more .223s and .243s in the field. My wife's antelope had a .22 caliber slug calcified under the hide. It passed through the chest and didn't kill it. The shot was good but didn't do the job. We shouldn't have to have cannons to go hunting but shooting an elk with a .22 hornet is asking for problems right?

Yes you can kill and elk with a well place .22 long rifle shot. I get it. But If you're off by an inch you just wounded it. Which one is more likely in real world conditions? Using enough gun gives you a larger margin for error. Is a big gun an excuse to take terrible shots. Nope. But it's hard to argue with a larger wound channel not causing more trauma and therefore a higher chance of a quick harvest. Can a single person on here say they've hit the heart on every animal they've ever killed?

I’m not advocating for .22 caliber weapons for big game but the minimum caliber requirement has been this way forever. This recent issue of wounded and lost animals seems to be more prevalent since long range craze infected the hunting community. Just my opinion.
I probably just derailed the thread and started a storm. Sorry
The caliber requirement is a non issue
[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with the long range craze. That's definitely a contributing factor. But what is Idaho's minimum caliber restriction?

 

[Elktrack]

I’m not advocating for .22 caliber weapons for big game but the minimum caliber requirement has been this way forever. This recent issue of wounded and lost animals seems to be more prevalent since long range craze infected the hunting community. Just my opinion.
I probably just derailed the thread and started a storm. Sorry
The caliber requirement is a non issue

I don't disagree with the long range craze. That's definitely a contributing factor. But what is Idaho's minimum caliber restriction?
[/QUOTE]
There isn’t a minimum. Other than it can’t be rimfire, muzzleloading handgun. There’s other restrictions but not pertaining to caliber

 

[Elktrack]

Caliber restrictions aren’t going to help with the problem IMO. The same species of dipshit that hunts big game with a 22 Hornet will just switch to the bare minimum and thinks that they can now shoot 1000 yds

 

[Huntin' Fool]

The 22 bullet is too small for big game. Outlaw it.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Who hasn't seen those posts lately about using the front leg as a reference for vitals

Can you please elaborate?

 

[Firedude]

Can you please elaborate?

Absolutely. So first of all I like your post on shot placement it's pretty close to how I do it. What I'm referencing is the "Follow the front leg up halfway up the chest and shoot it." Placement method. I don't particularly like that one. I know it exists because that was mentioned in my daughter's hunter safety class and I've seen people mention it on here over the years.

The green dot is not mine. It was on the image when I found it. But the red dot is the idea. Can it double lung? Sure. But (And I think you would agree). There's a better placement.



On a moose you can see how it can become an issue due to the hump. Go halfway up and shoot method just tops the lungs and there is a lot of meat there to get through.



The other method of using the front leg is the high shoulder shot. I'm sure you've seen it. I personally know 3 guys that take that shot on everything and you can't convince them not to. Why? Because they've seen it work. When it does work the critter drops right there. The only bull elk I've seen shot that way did drop, but it was still alive when we got to it. Again on a moose you can see how that can be an issue.

Either method gets worse as the animal turns as I'm sure you can imagine. Both of which are preached as "Perfect placement." By those that use them. Now, imagine somebody whose killed 20 deer with a .243 doing that going after moose with the same gun and the same, "Works everytime!" Idea.

 

[brymoore]

First world problems worrying about someone else’s rifle caliber.

From my personal experience of pulling 338 slug from a bull elk’s hip that had been shot a few years before I killed it, it’s a caliber with too strong a kick for most people to shoot accurately. It should be banned.


(Please note sarcasm)

 

[Firedude]

First world problems worrying about someone else’s rifle caliber.

From my personal experience of pulling 338 slug from a bull elk’s hip that had been shot a few years before I killed it, it’s a caliber with too strong a kick for most people to shoot accurately. It should be banned.


(Please note sarcasm)

I guess we could open it up to hunting with a .17 rimfire if that's what you guys want. As long as you have a tag and notch it who cares. Wound away.

Or... we could fix the issue of losing them in the first place. It's almost like using enough gun, placing it correctly, and knowing how to track wounded stuff down would be better options.

Crazy.

 

[brymoore]

I guess we could open it up to hunting with a .17 rimfire if that's what you guys want. As long as you have a tag and notch it who cares. Wound away.

Or... we could fix the issue of losing them in the first place. It's almost like using enough gun, placing it correctly, and knowing how to track wounded stuff down would be better options.

Crazy.

I don’t support your idea of opening up big game hunting to rim fires.

The issue of “losing them” has less to do with caliber and a lot more to do with poor shooting skills.