Jump to content


Photo

Did the big game regulations change?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Fjold

Fjold

    Traveling hitman

  • Gold Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bakersfield, CA
  • Interests:Shooting, hunting and fishing.

Posted 05 September 2006 - 09:46 AM

I was reading the CA Fish and Game site- General Hunting Regulations and under "General Big Game Regulations", Section 353 - "Methods authorized for taking big game" It says: "(a) Except for provisions of subsections 353(b.) through (g), title 114, CCR, big game (as defined by section 350, title 114, CCR) may only be taken by rifles using centerfire cartridges firing softnose or expanding bullets: bow and arrow....................)Years ago, I remember that the regulations used to say "centerfire cartridges of at least .24 caliber", did this change? And if so, when?
Frank
One rifle, one planet. Holland's 375
Posted Image

#2 Jason

Jason

    Big Kahuna

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Shooting, camping, scuba diving, American Revolution living history, fishing, ham radio.

Posted 05 September 2006 - 10:09 AM

It must have changed a while back. I know other states require a minimum caliber size. Under California law though it appears that a Remingtion 17 would be legal for taking large game. I am not promoting this and would recommend against doing this but it appears that it would be legal. I remember this wording about 15 years ago so it must have changed before then.Jason

#3 Bozsik

Bozsik

    Big Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orangevale, CA
  • Interests:Having fun with my Wife and Kids, Hunting, Camping, Wildlife Photography, Woodworking, and Illustration.

Posted 05 September 2006 - 03:01 PM

I believe I remember it as far back as the "70's".db
TALK STRAIGHT, SHOOT STRAIGHT, AND KEEP THE MAGAZINE LOADED.ORANGEVALE,CA

#4 Rimrock

Rimrock

    Big Kahuna

  • Gold Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manteca, CA

Posted 05 September 2006 - 05:23 PM

And I remember it in the 50's. :lol:

#5 Fjold

Fjold

    Traveling hitman

  • Gold Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bakersfield, CA
  • Interests:Shooting, hunting and fishing.

Posted 05 September 2006 - 07:47 PM

Dang! I wonder what state I grew up in then? I could have sworn that there was a .24 caliber minimum for big game when I grew up.It might be Alzheimers though, as I'm over 40.
Frank
One rifle, one planet. Holland's 375
Posted Image

#6 Stiff Neck

Stiff Neck

    Big Shooter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,070 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2006 - 08:06 PM

Funny, I was reading the reg book yesterday and I was looking for the minimum caliber rule as well. Couldn't find anything.

#7 Rimrock

Rimrock

    Big Kahuna

  • Gold Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manteca, CA

Posted 11 September 2006 - 10:49 AM

OK. Here is the straight stuff from the FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, ORDERS, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR 1954."Title 14, section 600. (h) Prohibition Against Use Of Certain Firearms And Bullets. For the taking of big game (including but not limited to deer, bears, antelope, elk, and wild pigs) rifles using rim-fire cartridges or bullets with full metal jackets are prohibited. Pistols and shotguns are prohibited, except that shotguns firing rifled slugs may be used for the taking of deer and bears."Why do I still have this book? I don't know. I guess at my age I just forget to throw things away. B) Rod

#8 LASC

LASC

    Squirrel Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 11 September 2006 - 11:20 AM

Good to know! I was at Turner's a couple of weeks ago, and the manager told me that you cant hunt deers with a .223 caliber.

#9 Rimrock

Rimrock

    Big Kahuna

  • Gold Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manteca, CA

Posted 11 September 2006 - 07:05 PM

LASC, The above quote was from the 1954 regulations. Things have changed somewhat now.Rod

#10 LASC

LASC

    Squirrel Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 11 September 2006 - 08:03 PM

LASC, The above quote was from the 1954 regulations. Things have changed somewhat now.Rod

Oh... B) Thanks.

#11 Cranky Farmer

Cranky Farmer

    smallblockfuelie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxnard, CA

Posted 12 September 2006 - 10:29 AM

I've seen so many heated discussions in past where folks have argued about shooting deer with a 223. I went to high school with a guy who shot them with his 22-250. He was always coming to school and telling us his tracking stories ... I always chimed in and told him I like my .30-06 because I never have to track my deer very far.

#12 Bozsik

Bozsik

    Big Shooter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orangevale, CA
  • Interests:Having fun with my Wife and Kids, Hunting, Camping, Wildlife Photography, Woodworking, and Illustration.

Posted 12 September 2006 - 12:59 PM

I've seen so many heated discussions in past where folks have argued about shooting deer with a 223. I went to high school with a guy who shot them with his 22-250. He was always coming to school and telling us his tracking stories ... I always chimed in and told him I like my .30-06 because I never have to track my deer very far.

When I was in High School (Yes, I did make it that far), I had a friend of mine I hunted with for deer. His Dad would take us to Mono County near Fales Hot Springs, (near Bridgeport). His father was from Alabama and swore by his 22-250. He was also the first one in camp every year with a buck hanging. Neck shot every time. No chase, no tracking, just bang flop.db
TALK STRAIGHT, SHOOT STRAIGHT, AND KEEP THE MAGAZINE LOADED.ORANGEVALE,CA




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users