The expandable thing is not necessarily about the effectiveness of the heads, but rather the perception of them and the political effect. If I understand correctly (and I'm sure someone will clarify if I'm mis-stating this), Idaho bohunting laws are based to a degree on archery tackle being "primitive"- and as long as the tackle remains "primitive" in some respects, those in power to make game laws can give archery-only gear liberal seasons.
The fear is that if certain lines are crossed (for example- allowing expandable heads, electricity on arrows, etc.) the perception of "primitiveness" will be reduced, and our liberal seasons will then have to be shared with less-primitive weaponry hunts.
I know that one can argue all day that other advances in archery tackle that are already allowed are considerably more modernizing than expandables or lighted nocks would be, but that is where the line in the sand is. Most of us are willing to shoot non-glowing arrows with non-mech heads if it means retaining our long seasons.
Seems strange in some regards I know, but there are several on here who have had conversations with Fish and Game Department people that confirm that archery-only seasons will be reduced if we cross these particular equipment designations.
Welcome to the state, by the way. There's some pretty good hunting in these parts.
How do you spell political blackmail??
DDD
I've read proponents of both types of heads claim their favorite is better than the other, but I'm not aware of anything besides anecdotal intuition fueling those statements. I'm talking recovery of an edible animal with all the factors that play into it (marginal hits, size of wound channel, number of wound channels, ease of blood trailing, length of blood trail, etc.). I'm guessing this would need to be species specific.
I haven't had trouble getting my newer bows to shoot fixed heads in the same place as target tips, so accuracy is not a factor to me. I'll hit or miss as well with either type of head. I do know that not everyone with a bow necessarily knows they need to take care of that detail though- which opens up another ethical consideration if legislation ever considers permitting mechs for big game in Idaho.
It's blackmail, but unfortunately we can't fight it cuz they have all the weapons.
If you're talking about a "line in the sand" meeting that happened just before some kook from Lewiston was going to propose a bunch of stuff at a commission meeting - I think I can shed some lite on that.
DDD
There could also be an argument for the perception of thinking like new ears causing someone to take a longer or marginal shot because of the supposed easier recovery.
A lot to consider when you really look at the whole debate. I know from personal successes that all but 2 of the 30 plus elk in my lifetime didn't travel over 100 yards to recovery with my fixed blade broad heads. Would a mechanical broad head have helped on the 2 that traveled farther? Not nearly as much as being a better shot would have. Both were paddle bone shots and I doubt penetration would have been any deeper.
As interesting as it sounds I am not sure non-biased statistics exist concerning expandables Don't get me wrong here, I do not have an issue with legalizing them. I would not have them in my arsenal either way, but I'm not to judge what others should/could use. My concern is loss of opportunity.
Sure!! When?? Unaccustomed as I am to public drinking.
DDD
And you're basing that statement on what?? If you have some sort of evidence - as opposed to an opinion - I for one would like to see it.
DDD
geneinidaho's Link
new ears, good luck with what ever it is you're trying to accomplish. The link will give you any contact info you need for IDF+G. Ask for yourself and let us know what they say.
Actually the compound bow was the catalyst for the beginnings of the current restrictions.
I remember conversations with CO's back in the day when we (the public) were allowed to help in manning check stations, where original thinking was to split seasons between traditional and modern equipment. The concern from the archery community then was that the voice would be split as well and both seasons would loose time afield as seasons kept shrinking. Back then the muzzleloaders were being given more considerations.
Restrictions were implemented as an effort to keep the archery community united and as one "stronger" voice. This was a good plan and has worked well for archers for many years. Abandoning the agreement is simply going to resurrect the original problem that F & G would again be forced to deal with.
New ears, hunting Idaho is very different from hunting back east. You are hunting numerous species by mostly spot and stalk tactics. Maybe you should get some first hand experience before you start passing judgment.
You ask a question and we try to answer as complete as possible along with suggestions and questions to you, and suddenly you get butt hurt. I fail to see any attack to cause that. Take the suggestions for what they are and if you cannot supply the information to answer the questions then I "again suggest" you quit offering undocumented facts. Opinions are always welcome and HOPEFULLY responding opinions accepted in the same fashion.
People would still have to hunt, which is very hard for some, especially with a bow. People would still have to shoot good, which is hard for some. People would still have to get off the ATV or out of the truck, which is hard for some...
If IDF&G is stating the loss of opportunity is possible for the allowance of a certain style of broadhead they obviously have their head in the sand. That is about as ridiculous of a reason as any...
With a little work, practice and tuning, most can get fixed blade heads to fly pretty dang well out to extreme ranges as well. I've shot animals further with fixed blades than I have ever shot with an expandable. I have also never lost an animal when shot with an expandable, can't say that about fixed blade heads.
At the end of the day, it's still a broadhead, it's not some secret weapon that will make every person a super hunter... They already have that, it's called Sitka Gear... LMAO Maybe they could outlaw that?
On e other hand, I've also hunted with one of the equipment editors of one of the largest bowhunting magazines, and I definitely value his opinions about gear. He prefers mechs, because they cut huge holes. Even if they only make one hole due to the transfer of kinetic energy to the opening of the blades and to cutting the large wound channel, his reasoning is that they stand a better chance of cutting important arteries even on marginal shot placements.
I was hoping you had some research to site that commented on which scenario contributes to actually recovering more game.
Same as always Dale, a well placed arrow, no matter what is on the end of it.
That's a question. You got a couple of answers, no arguments.
"I have shot three deer in Ohio with the expandable's and they didn't travel 30 yards. Bummer"
I think that's an opinion, not really a strong one, but an opinion. You got counter-opinions.
"I think the trade off would be the recovery of game, expendables are awesome in the blood trail the animal leaves. Allowing compounds was a step they took without a problem."
That's definitely an opinion X2 The second one is about something that was never a problem here. You got more counter-opinions.
"What did you have to give up to get compound bows approved ?"
That's a question, you got an answer. No argument, just an answer.
"Boy fellas, you sure jump to conclusions. Don't sound very open to another guys opinion. Sorry I brought it up,"
You got your feelings hurt --- see the difference?
I think that you will find that a lot of the people on this site take their bowhunting pretty seriously. I've been on here a long time and - believe it or not - sometimes they even jump on ME for an opinion that I have. (even tho' I'm always right)
8^)
DDD
