Posted: 7/15/2014 10:39:42 AM EDT
|
Question about barrel length, 1911 and a barrel bushing compensator. Would a compensator count towards barrel length? Else, the 1911 is short.
Never actually got one with a pistol.................. TIA, Tony 
|
|
Quoted:
Question about barrel length, 1911 and a barrel bushing compensator. Would a compensator count towards barrel length? Else, the 1911 is short. Never actually got one with a pistol.................. TIA, Tony I do not think the bushing counts. I want to say a member here called the DNR about it some time ago and was told no. |
|
I guess that was too good to be true. It was hard to tell from the 2011 thread. My PC was acting up.
I played 20 questions with the DNR about night vision and flashlights for coyote hunting. Decided it wasn't worth the expense or trouble. FYI, cheap night vision has an IR light. Use of the IR is considered "shining". Some kinds can shut it off, but.................................... 
Thanks, Tony |
|
Technically speaking, not all infrared frequencies are light. It would depend on if it was detectable by the HUMAN eye. Some creatures can detect EM Radiation from ULF all the way up to 1GHZ also, that doesn't mean they're being "shined", otherwise everyone who talks on a mobile phone is shining critters.
I'm not saying it's worthwhile going to war with the DNR on it, because you could just spend that cash on one of the other methods of NV and be done with it, but it's just another case of them making blanket statements without any basis on reality. |
|
Quoted:
Technically speaking, not all infrared frequencies are light. It would depend on if it was detectable by the HUMAN eye. Some creatures can detect EM Radiation from ULF all the way up to 1GHZ also, that doesn't mean they're being "shined", otherwise everyone who talks on a mobile phone is shining critters. I'm not saying it's worthwhile going to war with the DNR on it, because you could just spend that cash on one of the other methods of NV and be done with it, but it's just another case of them making blanket statements without any basis on reality. The two people I talked to said that if you are using some light, even one undetectable to the animal or human eye, to enhance the NV that it was a violation of shining and was not permitted. |
|
Quoted:
The two people I talked to said that if you are using some light, even one undetectable to the animal or human eye, to enhance the NV that it was a violation of shining and was not permitted. Then they're just making things up. Visible Light is a specific band of the electromagnetic spectrum. They can't arbitrarily decide what it is. Conversely if they just want to say "light", then they're opening it up to the whole EM spectrum, in which case basically every transmitter, including their walkies are shining deer. |
|
Quoted:
If you're really wanting to hunt at night go with thermal over night vision. They work better and use no light so the DNR can't say it uses light.  This... if you've got the money. Thermal isn't cheap, that's a lot of money just to shoot varmints at night.
You are allowed to use "light" to illuminate your target at point of kill, whether that light is IR or just a plain flashlight. A flashlight is defined as a battery powered light designed to be handheld. You CAN mount one on a firearm to use at point of kill. What's not allowed is vehicle mounted lights or floodlights plugged into buildings or mounted on them. |
|
Quoted:
Question about barrel length, 1911 and a barrel bushing compensator. Would a compensator count towards barrel length? Else, the 1911 is short. Never actually got one with a pistol.................. TIA, Tony Instead of a compensator, get a threaded barrel. The OAL should push you past the 5.5" mark. If you want, get a silencer too. Another stupid WIDNR rule / property rights infringement. |
| LOL I've been bitching about that arbitrary (and scientifically inaccurate) DNR bullshit with IR radiation for a long time. No where in the statutes or administrative code did they bother to define the wavelengths that count towards their silly rule, so I say do whatever you want and then fight it in court if you need to . |
|
Quoted:
Then they're just making things up. Visible Light is a specific band of the electromagnetic spectrum. They can't arbitrarily decide what it is. Conversely if they just want to say "light", then they're opening it up to the whole EM spectrum, in which case basically every transmitter, including their walkies are shining deer. Quoted:
Quoted:
The two people I talked to said that if you are using some light, even one undetectable to the animal or human eye, to enhance the NV that it was a violation of shining and was not permitted. Then they're just making things up. Visible Light is a specific band of the electromagnetic spectrum. They can't arbitrarily decide what it is. Conversely if they just want to say "light", then they're opening it up to the whole EM spectrum, in which case basically every transmitter, including their walkies are shining deer. They do on everything else. 
|
|
Quoted:
LOL I've been bitching about that arbitrary (and scientifically inaccurate) DNR bullshit with IR radiation for a long time. No where in the statutes or administrative code did they bother to define the wavelengths that count towards their silly rule, so I say do whatever you want and then fight it in court if you need to . Quoted:
LOL I've been bitching about that arbitrary (and scientifically inaccurate) DNR bullshit with IR radiation for a long time. No where in the statutes or administrative code did they bother to define the wavelengths that count towards their silly rule, so I say do whatever you want and then fight it in court if you need to . DNR interpretation/justification... Infrared light is visible light when used with technology such as night vision gear and therefore its use would be considered shining. Last year, at the Spring Conservation Congress meeting, a proposal was passed (68 counties to 4) by those in attendance to : 74 Expand definition of artificial lights allowed for predator hunting (from resolution 160312) "Thank you for writing to request clarification on the use of night vision and other technologies for hunting at night. It is an interesting subject that involves a number of different laws and rules. I have consulted with my counterpart in the bureau of law enforcement and with the attorney who advises them in order to make sure that you will get consistent answers to this question in the future. In general, night vision gear which does not cast any form of light is legal to use. Night vision gear which utilizes only natural light would be legal to use within the hunting hour restrictions for the species being hunted. Night vision gear itself is currently not regulated and may be used when otherwise legally hunting. Its use does not fall under the definition of shining as long as this gear is not used with any form of artificial light. The use of an “infrared illuminator” in conjunction with night vision gear for hunting any species is generally not legal and would be prohibited under the state’s shining prohibitions. Infrared light is visible light when used with technology such as night vision gear and therefore its use would be considered shining. However, an “infrared illuminator” would be legal to use “at the point of kill” if the illuminator is designed to be held by hand (although it does not have to be held by hand), operates on batteries and so could be considered a flashlight. Of course, it could only be used while hunting species for which there are no hunting hour restrictions. Please be aware that there is some potential for changes to regulations in the future. The Wisconsin Conservation Congress, a group which is advisory to our Natural Resources Board and influential in establishing policy, will be considering what is considered if lights other than flashlights should also be allowed to be used at the point of kill for hunting species that can be legally hunted at night, at its 2013 spring meetings. You can learn more about the Conservation Congress by clicking on “Conservation Congress” at the department’s website, http://dnr.wi.gov/ For reference, I have attached Wisconsin’s statutory prohibition of shining. Thank you for writing to request this information. Feel free to contact me for additional information or to check on the status of potential law updates. Sincerely, Scott Loomans Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist Bureau of Wildlife Management Copy to: Tom Van Haren LE/8, Mike Kowalkowski LS/8 |
|
LMAO they lost the argument with this gem of an oxymoron:
"IR Light is Visible Light" No fucking "when" in the world can make that statement true. Fucking. Clownshoes. 
IK your knowledge and research ability in these arenas never fails to astound me - thanks again for the insight.
|
|
Quoted:
LMAO they lost the argument with this gem of an oxymoron: "IR Light is Visible Light" No fucking "when" in the world can make that statement true. Fucking. Clownshoes.
IK your knowledge and research ability in these arenas never fails to astound me - thanks again for the insight. Yeah, that "Infrared light is visible light when used with technology such as night vision gear and therefore its use would be considered shining." blew me away also. That would be like saying that VHF and UHF waves are "visible" or "audible" because you can see and hear the signals transmitted over them on a television or radio. A physicst or even a kid with a good understanding of science would be able to run circles around the morons who said/wrote that. |
|
Quoted:
LMAO they lost the argument with this gem of an oxymoron: "IR Light is Visible Light" No fucking "when" in the world can make that statement true. Fucking. Clownshoes.
IK your knowledge and research ability in these arenas never fails to astound me - thanks again for the insight. 
|
|
Quoted:
Last year, at the Spring Conservation Congress meeting, a proposal was passed (68 counties to 4) by those in attendance to : It was "advanced" to the DNR for "consideration". I do not know how seriously they considered this change. Quoted:
Last year, at the Spring Conservation Congress meeting, a proposal was passed (68 counties to 4) by those in attendance to : 74 Expand definition of artificial lights allowed for predator hunting (from resolution 160312) I just found out from the DNR that this is dead for now. The proposed amendment to State Statute was in a bill which died in the State Assembly. This bill would not have made all of the changes requested. His opinion is that the change is inevitable as there is no controversy regarding the change. Since it is a Statute, the DNR can not do anything directly themselves to change it. The State Senate and Assembly are the only people who can do so. I misunderstood what the proposal was. They want to a amend the definition of allowable lights to include those intended to be head/hat mounted and weapon mounted in addition to "flashlight" which is "designed" to be hand held. 2013 Assembly Bill 397 was introduced in October 2013 and referred to Committee on Natural Resources and Sporting Heritage. This bill falls somewhat short of what the Congress resolution was seeking, as it would only allow lights to be mounted to scopes, and not the use of lights not carried by hand, but instead attached to hats, etc. Assembly Bill 397 History |
|
I agree with the DNR on their standing. I don't like it, but I agree.
You are allowed to use a light at point of kill, meaning you can't sweep your light back and forth across a field until you spot something, then shoot it. If you know where the animal is, illuminate it and kill it, then you are ok. Like a coon up a tree. If you use your IR Illuminator at point of kill, rather than scanning for game, and can prove it, I don't think the DNR would have a leg to stand on. But who has the balls to stand up to the DNR in Wisconsin and test that theory? Our state is fucked up with their hunting regulations. Like my bro in law says. Take the top ten best ways to hunt an animal, strike them off the list and that is what the DNR gives you for regulations. |