Utah Muzzy Scope Controversy

hossblur said:
Idaho, Colorado, and soon to be New Mexico
Click to expand...
Arizona, Wyoming, and New Mexico (cant claim it if its not that way yet) , currently allow scopes, I think Nevada is a now scope state, How bout we broaden the scope a little I bet there are a lot more states that allow them then there are that dont. You guys like to cherry pick, how bout we add all the states and compare regulations.
 
JakeH said:
Arizona, Wyoming, and New Mexico (cant claim it if its not that way yet) , currently allow scopes, I think Nevada is a now scope state, How bout we broaden the scope a little I bet there are a lot more states that allow them then there are that dont. You guys like to cherry pick, how bout we add all the states and compare regulations.
Click to expand...


Why did we go to scopes?

I see your pics. You'd be killing it either way.

What is your real reason?

Nevada deer tags are super hard to draw.

Is that what we want!
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Nothing really at all.
But I can tell you what good a 3x9 scope does on muzzleloader. It Opens up a lot bigger door for success doesn’t it.
Click to expand...
Apparently not as the data points out the success was not effected.

Even in your post earlier there was one year with a slight increase the first year and then it dropped off significantly.

The 3 years you posted above before scopes averaged 32.1% for the 3 years, the average for the following 5 years was 33.48% That is not a significant increase.
 
Screenshot_20220725-182837_Chrome.jpg
 
hossblur said:
Why did we go to scopes?

I see your pics. You'd be killing it either way.

What is your real reason?

Nevada deer tags are super hard to draw.

Is that what we want!
Click to expand...
I dont know why they decided to go to scopes, I remember staying fairly neutral during that as I am not really a muzzy hunter.

I have changed my position on this matter and the reason is because the data does not back up the claims that the scopes are having the effect you guys are claiming. Why throw something away just because some people dont like it. It the data backed up the claims of significant increase in harvest then I would be all for taking it back to how it used to be.

If we cant look at the data and come up with logical conclusions then why even have a committee at all just let the WB do what they want to do.
 
Hey Hossy?

You Givin Your Scope Up On You 06 as Well?



hossblur said:
Kinda sad.

Up to me


Wood stocks, side hammer, #11caps, no sabots, no pellets, open sights.

Otherwise we are using single shot rifles.

And YES, I own a lot better "muzzy" than that.


Again. If you want to hunt rifle season, do it.

Biggest mistake DWR made was going away from "primitive"
Click to expand...
 
JakeH said:
I dont know why they decided to go to scopes, I remember staying fairly neutral during that as I am not really a muzzy hunter.

I have changed my position on this matter and the reason is because the data does not back up the claims that the scopes are having the effect you guys are claiming. Why throw something away just because some people dont like it. It the data backed up the claims of significant increase in harvest then I would be all for taking it back to how it used to be.

If we cant look at the data and come up with logical conclusions then why even have a committee at all just let the WB do what they want to do.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on the archery and rifle proposals, Jake?
 
@JakeH
How do you feel about this scope sitting on top of a muzzleloader, and others like it that fall under "Emerging Technology" as outlined in the Mission Statement of the technology committee?
Are you concerned about how the muzzleloader hunt will look in say 5 years if we don't stop it now?
Screenshot_20220725-193518_Chrome.jpg
 
JakeH said:
Apparently not as the data points out the success was not effected.

Even in your post earlier there was one year with a slight increase the first year and then it dropped off significantly.

The 3 years you posted above before scopes averaged 32.1% for the 3 years, the average for the following 5 years was 33.48% That is not a significant increase.
Click to expand...
Jake it’s GS
That data is not accurate at all.
 
I'd Say:

And On a Rifle as Well!

But They've Been In Use On Most Long Rangers For a While Now!

Just Don't Use That Kinda Shhitt On a SmokePole!
 
elkassassin said:
I'd Say:

And On a Rifle as Well!

But They've Been In Use On Most Long Rangers For a While Now!

Just Don't Use That Kinda Shhitt On a SmokePole!
Click to expand...
We have already voted to ban electronics on rifle scopes, which will mean ALL SCOPES used for taking big game.

We are working on the wording that will allow illuminated reticles so that a muzzleloader can still use the popular 1x red dot style of scope.

Absolutely no automatic ranging or ballistic capabilities on or inside the scope.
 
JakeH said:
I dont know why they decided to go to scopes, I remember staying fairly neutral during that as I am not really a muzzy hunter.

I have changed my position on this matter and the reason is because the data does not back up the claims that the scopes are having the effect you guys are claiming. Why throw something away just because some people dont like it. It the data backed up the claims of significant increase in harvest then I would be all for taking it back to how it used to be.

If we cant look at the data and come up with logical conclusions then why even have a committee at all just let the WB do what they want to do.
Click to expand...


Problem with the %is it is on smaller herds.

30% of 400,000, is way different than 30% of 250,000.

What was the data to go to scopes?


I won't lie, it slipped past me as well
 
elkassassin said:
You Don't Have A GUARANTEE To Hunt Every Year Now!
Click to expand...


True.

Is only gonna get worse though.

I picked up a bow at 44 years old. I'm a hunter. If I'm sitting at home, I'm a knitter, or golfer, or hen pecked.


Issue with us old guys is we hunted prior to muzzy scopes, in lines, scopes on rifles, etc.

Somehow we managed.

The question is, are you a hunter, or a shooter?

I want to hunt.
 
You've Heard Me Say This Right?

All Are Gonna Give Some!

Not:

Some Gave All!

Be Real Careful of What You Wish For!



Elkslayer2015 said:
I say next year 2022.

archery - long bows

Muzzleloader-flintlock patch round ball

Rifles- open sights only.

Will get some accurate data then go back and see which one was more successful and how many quality animals get harvested.

I’m game who else is in.
Click to expand...
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
I say next year 2022.

archery - long bows

Muzzleloader-flintlock patch round ball

Rifles- open sights only.

Will get some accurate data then go back and see which one was more successful and how many quality animals get harvested.

I’m game who else is in.
Click to expand...


In.

I'm good with spears or rocks.

Golf sucks
 
elkassassin said:
We Are All Guilty of The Modern Day BULLSSHITT/GADGETRY!

Make It a Fair & F'N Square Take Across The Board on All 3 Weapon Types!
Click to expand...
#89

Yes we are all guilty i agree.

I have a Vortex 4x12 tactical on my inline.
Even though I've not utilized it's ability, I could if i were to work up a load to match it.

Nothing fancy on my rifle scopes other than turrets.

Guess I'm old school, I still look at a dope chart for ranges over 500 ?
 
Hardly a Peep Out of Any Of The STRICTLY StickFlipper Crowd!

I Thought I Could Rile A Few Of Them With The Fred Bear!:D
 
Slam
Just change all muzzleloader hunts to a HAMS hunt.
Problem solved.

Elk
I would do Fred bear style hunting

But only if we move the rifle hunt out of the rut.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Slam
Just change all muzzleloader hunts to a HAMS hunt.
Problem solved.

Elk
I would do Fred bear style hunting

But only if we move the rifle hunt out of the rut.
Click to expand...
It was talked about to go scopeless on all muzzies, but we differentiated "modern" verses "traditional" with just a 1x scope on modern.
We obviously can go without a scope if we so desire.

We all know the September rifle hunt should move, but that's an ugly argument for the elk committee to deal with.
 
slamdunk said:
@JakeH
How do you feel about this scope sitting on top of a muzzleloader, and others like it that fall under "Emerging Technology" as outlined in the Mission Statement of the technology committee?
Are you concerned about how the muzzleloader hunt will look in say 5 years if we don't stop it now?
View attachment 82122
Click to expand...
I agree and disagree with this scopes technology. As a former long range competitor I would disagree that this technology will give you first round hits at long range. Even the best of the PRS shooters can’t guarantee a first round hit at long range and you won’t find any of them using a Burris eliminator - that are in the top of their game. The hype of X works rifles and the G7 rangefinders are in the same category. The same goes for the sig/sierra scope to rangefinder setups. If you look at the ballistic software that everyone is using - none of it applies the ballistic solutions the same and it’s worse when it comes to angles.
I can write books on this subject.

However - some individuals that are using these systems goes out on an afternoon and makes some hits at long range and proclaims to the world that they are now a sniper. Some actually shoot a lot and take really good notes and can make the systems work but that’s generally a very low percentage. How many of the average shooters actually shoot these systems in hot/cold dry/humid fog/low light / bright conditions angled shots / wind in canyons.
And then take good notes of how different the above situations change the impact of a round.

Those systems don’t and can’t compensate for all the variables YET……

Lazer technology in rangefinders is finding the direction the wind is blowing (the newest Burris eliminator has this tech in it ) and plotting wind holds and keeps evolving.
What I’ve seen is 90% of the current top tech gadgets giving shooters false confidence and misses or wounds on animals in the field. There are the few that can do it really well and also some that get lucky.
Go to the expo and you will find dozens of rifle builders with videos of long range hunts and kills. And the crowds gather and watch in awe. It’s marketing and theirs big money in it.
But the technology is adapting and it is getting better. So something has to happen and address it. Spot and stalk or spot and shoot or sit at home and hunt from a drone.
If left alone I believe trophy class animals will be a thing of the past.
I can see future PRS shooters going to the newest tech (and it will be required to be at the top) and hunters will follow. I also don’t like to have someone tell me that I can’t take a long shot as that’s my business not theirs. But wounding animals in the long shot isn’t ethical either and that affects everyone
So where we draw the line definitely needs some clarification and it won’t sit well for many of us. I don’t want to see scopes removed on muzzleloaders with my old eyes. Open sights and peeps for me and I’ll have to stay home. Emerging tech has to be addressed before it’s too late.
 
Ballistic said:
I agree and disagree with this scopes technology. As a former long range competitor I would disagree that this technology will give you first round hits at long range. Even the best of the PRS shooters can’t guarantee a first round hit at long range and you won’t find any of them using a Burris eliminator - that are in the top of their game. The hype of X works rifles and the G7 rangefinders are in the same category. The same goes for the sig/sierra scope to rangefinder setups. If you look at the ballistic software that everyone is using - none of it applies the ballistic solutions the same and it’s worse when it comes to angles.
I can write books on this subject.

However - some individuals that are using these systems goes out on an afternoon and makes some hits at long range and proclaims to the world that they are now a sniper. Some actually shoot a lot and take really good notes and can make the systems work but that’s generally a very low percentage. How many of the average shooters actually shoot these systems in hot/cold dry/humid fog/low light / bright conditions angled shots / wind in canyons.
And then take good notes of how different the above situations change the impact of a round.

Those systems don’t and can’t compensate for all the variables YET……

Lazer technology in rangefinders is finding the direction the wind is blowing (the newest Burris eliminator has this tech in it ) and plotting wind holds and keeps evolving.
What I’ve seen is 90% of the current top tech gadgets giving shooters false confidence and misses or wounds on animals in the field. There are the few that can do it really well and also some that get lucky.
Go to the expo and you will find dozens of rifle builders with videos of long range hunts and kills. And the crowds gather and watch in awe. It’s marketing and theirs big money in it.
But the technology is adapting and it is getting better. So something has to happen and address it. Spot and stalk or spot and shoot or sit at home and hunt from a drone.
If left alone I believe trophy class animals will be a thing of the past.
I can see future PRS shooters going to the newest tech (and it will be required to be at the top) and hunters will follow. I also don’t like to have someone tell me that I can’t take a long shot as that’s my business not theirs. But wounding animals in the long shot isn’t ethical either and that affects everyone
So where we draw the line definitely needs some clarification and it won’t sit well for many of us. I don’t want to see scopes removed on muzzleloaders with my old eyes. Open sights and peeps for me and I’ll have to stay home. Emerging tech has to be addressed before it’s too late.
Click to expand...
Great post, you are thinking inline with the reason this whole committee was formed.

People are having a tough time comprehending the word "Emerging" and are focused on the "now."
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
What are your thoughts on the archery and rifle proposals, Jake?
Click to expand...
Totally fine with those proposals, neither of those are nearly as restrictive as what the muzzleloader proposal does.

slamdunk said:
@JakeH
How do you feel about this scope sitting on top of a muzzleloader, and others like it that fall under "Emerging Technology" as outlined in the Mission Statement of the technology committee?
Are you concerned about how the muzzleloader hunt will look in say 5 years if we don't stop it now?
View attachment 82122
Click to expand...
Keep that scope off of everything for all I care, that is a perfect example of what you guys should be focused on.

I fully agree it is a good thing to step up and get ahead of the emerging tech that is just starting to come out, and some that have been out for a bit. But something just doesn't feel right about removing scopes completely from muzzleloaders and then really not doing much to address rifles at the same time. I feel like the current rifle proposal is not restricting rifles at all for the most part other then getting out ahead of emerging tech.
 
Ballistic said:
So where we draw the line definitely needs some clarification and it won’t sit well for many of us. I don’t want to see scopes removed on muzzleloaders with my old eyes. Open sights and peeps for me and I’ll have to stay home. Emerging tech has to be addressed before it’s too late.
Click to expand...
I totally understand what your saying.

My old eyes don’t allow me to use fiber optics period everything is a blur.
so I can’t use fiber optics sights on my muzzleloader.
So my muzzleloader to this day still has a 1x scope on it. Could I put a 3x9 on it of course I could of, but I was doing just fine with my 1x when they allowed scopes so I never changed.
I don’t agree on having them on muzzleloader.

Now let’s talk about bowhunting.
It totally sucks not having a 5 pin sight or a 3 pin or a 2 pin fiber optics sight but I have excepted the fact I’m getting old.
So I did a little research and found a EZv sight.
which is fine by me I don’t even need a range finder for hunting.

So I feel your pain.
But I have made it work.
 
JakeH said:
Totally fine with those proposals, neither of those are nearly as restrictive as what the muzzleloader proposal does.


Keep that scope off of everything for all I care, that is a perfect example of what you guys should be focused on.

I fully agree it is a good thing to step up and get ahead of the emerging tech that is just starting to come out, and some that have been out for a bit. But something just doesn't feel right about removing scopes completely from muzzleloaders and then really not doing much to address rifles at the same time. I feel like the current rifle proposal is not restricting rifles at all for the most part other then getting out ahead of emerging tech.
Click to expand...
Rifles were made to be long range weapons, the other two were not.

We have allowed technology to stretch them all, even archery is a hundred yard game when 70 was considered extreme.

Muzzleloaders were never intended to kill at 500 yards, but scopes allow it to happen and
500 yards is still a good poke for a turreted rifle.

All this talk about 1000 yard rifle kills these days, well let's stomp 1500 into the ground before we get there in two years.
 
slamdunk said:
@MrShane
I have posted several times throughout these threads about all 3 weapon proposals, but it keeps getting drowned out.
The fact that the muzzleloader scope proposal continues to overshadow everything else says a lot about their purpose and value to being successful.
If data didn't show much of an Increase in success, why is the argument so strong to keep them?
I haven't had a single archer complain about losing his Garmin sight yet.

Archery Proposal-
No electronics on the bow
(no automatic ranging capabilities)

Muzzleloader Proposal-
1x scope w/reticle or red dot

Rifle Proposal-
No electronics on or inside the scope except for illuminated reticles. This is is still pending as we address the wording on the reticles as in needs to coincide with a 1x muzzleloader red dot.
(no automatic ranging capabilities)

None of these are drastic changes.
They are focused on the future of emerging technologies being developed resulting in more affordable and more widely used in the field.

If any of these proposals inhibit success as a hunter, golfing might be a better past time.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation.
Since you are asking for feedback I would feel better about:
Archery-What you said.
Muzzy-Allowing up to a max of 4 power, but requiring loose powder.
Rifle-No scopes over 9 power.
Obviously no auto ranging/ballistic calculating scopes.
I hunt all three weapons and have a COR for a crossbow.
My crossbow is a 25 year old Barnett that shoots a bolt at 280 fps and is an absolute pain in the butt to carry and to operate.
But, at least I am Deer hunting ( unfortunately only every 2-3 years…..).
 
Last edited:
MrShane said:
Thank you for the explanation.
Since you are asking for feedback I would feel better about:
Archery-What you said.
Muzzy-Allowing up to a max of 4 power, but requiring loose powder.
Rifle-No scopes over 9 power.
Obviously no auto ranging/ballistic calculating scopes.
I hunt all three weapons and have a COR for a crossbow.
My crossbow is a 25 year old Barnett that shoots a bolt at 280 fps.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, why loose powder only?

The loose powder "Blackhorn" is what guys are using in the hottest rifles and is the latest powder technology to date.
 
slamdunk said:
Rifles were made to be long range weapons, the other two were not.

We have allowed technology to stretch them all, even archery is a hundred yard game when 70 was considered extreme.

Muzzleloaders were never intended to kill at 500 yards, but scopes allow it to happen and
500 yards is still a good poke for a turreted rifle.

All this talk about 1000 yard rifle kills these days, well let's stomp 1500 into the ground before we get there in two years.
Click to expand...
Muzzleloaders were always intended to kill period, and they was always meant to kill at what ever range someone could accurately do it. You cant use that excuse, reminds me of the anti gunners pointing out that the 2nd amendment should only be for muzzleloaders because that is what the current tech was at the time.

I 100% agree that 500 yards is a hell of a poke with any weapon, but you are at an even bigger disadvantage with a muzzleloader, you get one shot most likely. And any adverse conditions are going to effect your impact a lot more with a big ol' muzzy bullet compared to a rifle round.

Advocate for a 4x max and you would pull a hell of a lot more people to your side. And most of the ones that still disagree with it wouldn't have near as much heartburn over it. You go back to 1x and people will be up in arms. Show some compromise and you will have a lot easier time selling it all.

And there are not many people that can consistently and accurately kill with a bow at 100 yards. same as muzzy guys killing at 500, and rifle guys killing at 1000. Can it happen? hell yeah, It happens every year, but its still not the norm.
 
slamdunk said:
View attachment 82108
Click to expand...
Whats with the * on new Mexico??? I am assuming it is because they have stated they are going to revamp there rules for muzzleloaders, but why put them into every category, just put them in the legal side and put the * on it and state they are currently looking into changing the rules.

More states don't allow scopes then I figured there would be, but that still isn't including all 50 states, what happens when you include all the states. Right now its about 50/50 split with just the western states.

Just did a quick look with the google, N. Dakota and S. Dakota do not allow magnification but do allow 1x scopes, and Nebraska and Kansas do allow magnification scopes.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Jake it’s GS
That data is not accurate at all.
Click to expand...
Well that's the only data we got, Its more accurate then guys just guessing and making stuff up.

I am all for getting better data, and if the better data changes the numbers then we can go from there.
 
JakeH said:
Muzzleloaders were always intended to kill period, and they was always meant to kill at what ever range someone could accurately do it. You cant use that excuse, reminds me of the anti gunners pointing out that the 2nd amendment should only be for muzzleloaders because that is what the current tech was at the time.

I 100% agree that 500 yards is a hell of a poke with any weapon, but you are at an even bigger disadvantage with a muzzleloader, you get one shot most likely. And any adverse conditions are going to effect your impact a lot more with a big ol' muzzy bullet compared to a rifle round.

Advocate for a 4x max and you would pull a hell of a lot more people to your side. And most of the ones that still disagree with it wouldn't have near as much heartburn over it. You go back to 1x and people will be up in arms. Show some compromise and you will have a lot easier time selling it all.

And there are not many people that can consistently and accurately kill with a bow at 100 yards. same as muzzy guys killing at 500, and rifle guys killing at 1000. Can it happen? hell yeah, It happens every year, but its still not the norm.
Click to expand...
I will definitely run the 4x past the committee and see if it can be revamped since a motion was already made.

Keep in mind the community it just a proposal and with enough pressure on the board through RAC's and changes can most definitely be made.
 
JakeH said:
Whats with the * on new Mexico??? I am assuming it is because they have stated they are going to revamp there rules for muzzleloaders, but why put them into every category, just put them in the legal side and put the * on it and state they are currently looking into changing the rules.

More states don't allow scopes then I figured there would be, but that still isn't including all 50 states, what happens when you include all the states. Right now its about 50/50 split with just the western states.

Just did a quick look with the google, N. Dakota and S. Dakota do not allow magnification but do allow 1x scopes, and Nebraska and Kansas do allow magnification scopes.
Click to expand...
NM is in the midst of making their own changes, muzzy scopes for one.
 
Bigwiffy said:
We are used to getting bent over in this state. WTF is a dope chart btw?
Click to expand...
It's a written or generated chart with your ballistics to reference holdover.
A lot of people have them on their rifle stock.

These new scopes like the Burris I posted take all that away and do it for you simply by looking through your scope and pushing a button.
 
Bigwiffy said:
We aren't a bunch of skirt wearing whiners. You can take the Garmin if we get the month of September to hunt bulls, archery only moose hunts, Nov 15-30th LE/GS archery only buck tags.
Click to expand...
I can't argue that.
I am actually thinking very seriously about taking archery elk hunting back up.
 
slamdunk said:
Out of curiosity, why loose powder only?

The loose powder "Blackhorn" is what guys are using in the hottest rifles and is the latest powder technology to date.
Click to expand...
Just a nostalgic feeling I guess.
Got my first muzzy in kit form from my parents on 14th birthday.
Browned my own barrel, finished stock and assembled it on my own.
Loved measuring and pouring powder.
I equate a patch to a sabot and a 209 primer to the big musket primer, so I guess those don’t bother me.
But shaking with adrenaline and trying not to spill powder in case a follow up shot was needed on your game animal, that was what muzzleloading was to me.
This whole thing bothers me anyway:
It is not about saving top end animals, or any animals for that matter, to ‘save’ to help propagate our herds.
It is about ‘saving’ the animal from the muzzy guys so it can be killed 3 weeks later by a Deer ‘shooter’ at 1000 yrds.
If it was all about herd quality, the rifle guys would also be held to 1x.
 
MrShane said:
Just a nostalgic feeling I guess.
Got my first muzzy in kit form from my parents on 14th birthday.
Browned my own barrel, finished stock and assembled it on my own.
Loved measuring and pouring powder.
I equate a patch to a sabot and a 209 primer to the big musket primer, so I guess those don’t bother me.
But shaking with adrenaline and trying not to spill powder in case a follow up shot was needed on your game animal, that was what muzzleloading was to me.
This whole thing bothers me anyway:
It is not about saving top end animals, or any animals for that matter, to ‘save’ to help propagate our herds.
It is about ‘saving’ the animal from the muzzy guys so it can be killed 3 weeks later by a Deer ‘shooter’ at 1000 yrds.
If it was all about herd quality, the rifle guys would also be held to 1x.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily accurate.

It's also about keeping each individual weapon within "fair chase" and ethics.

A muzzleloader was never intended to shoot 500 yards, a rifle was.
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
Not necessarily accurate.

It's also about keeping each individual weapon within "fair chase" and ethics.

A muzzleloader was never intended to shoot 500 yards, a rifle was.
Click to expand...
So if the rifle tech stays as is, logically the tag #'s for that weapon should be cut WAY back and tag #'s for archery and muzzleloader should be increased dramatically.

Will that happen in Utah? Doubt it - too many rifle hunters that aren't committed or willing to put in the time to hunt with a less successful weapon and we cater to the lazy and those with the most money.
 
elkhunterUT said:
So if the rifle tech stays as is, logically the tag #'s for that weapon should be cut WAY back and tag #'s for archery and muzzleloader should be increased dramatically.

Will that happen in Utah? Doubt it - too many rifle hunters that aren't committed or willing to put in the time to hunt with a less successful weapon and we cater to the lazy and those with the most money.
Click to expand...
No, absolutely not an immediate and automatic increase by no means, it could be years down the road.
 
slamdunk said:
No, absolutely not an immediate and automatic increase by no means, it could be years down the road.
Click to expand...
Which is sad and speaks to the bassackwards approach that has us thinking we have to change everything under the sun. Just a few simple tweaks to season dates and tag allocations would go a LONG ways in helping increase opportunity and lessening impact on our herds.
 
I didn’t much care for the scoped muzzleloader idea right from the get go.
I still shoot open sights and limit myself to 200 yards which I believe takes a good amount of skill but I’m at the age now where my eyes are changing so maybe I’ll sing a different tune one day. I could get on board with 4x scopes allowed but that’s it.

I won’t try and shame anyone who uses the rules to their advantage and takes a poke at 500 with their LR muzz and 4x12 scope but I personally think it takes away from the challenge and purpose of the muzz season.
 
slamdunk said:
It's a written or generated chart with your ballistics to reference holdover.
A lot of people have them on their rifle stock.

These new scopes like the Burris I posted take all that away and do it for you simply by looking through your scope and pushing a button.
Click to expand...
A dope (data on previous engagement) chart “should” be something that is generated and proven in the same conditions that you are shooting in. You should have several of them for all the changing conditions/variables for target or hunting situations. Air density has huge affects on the resistance/drag of a bullet. Temperature and elevation are separate but equally huge factors in the drag increases/ decreases.
A quick example is shooting out to 500 yards at 4000 elevation and 60 degrees. Increase that elevation to 10000 feet and your average round will hit 6-8” higher at 500 yards and much higher at 1000 yards. This changes the dope chart you had from hitting well to wounding…..
The Burris eliminator adjusts for the altitude and temperature mostly with a sensor that’s internal. That sensor currently has some flaws-leave the scope (black) out in the sun and it will heat up the sensor which will change the trajectory for hot thin air. The longer the shot is -it will be off. But new lazer tech (lazers are used to measure temps now) will adjust for those issues with the push of a button.
At $2000 it has some amazing appeal. It’s not for me but I can’t deny what it can do for the average shooter or hunter that slaps it on the weekend before the hunt. Does it adjust for the internal ballistics ( the cold bore shot to the next -the speed of the round at different barrel temps- the zero that changes with light -and many more environmental conditions that exist) the answer is no !!!!!
It has its own ballistic software for adjusting for the wind and angles that won’t work well enough for me. I have years of notes and DOPE data that this and other tech that’s similar - are complete misses if I use one of those systems. But fast forward with emerging tech and you might be buying a proven gun that has the cold bore and temp variables programmed into proven software in a system that puts it all together…….
For today (2022) you could take the electronic scopes from sig/sierra , eliminator. G7 and others away- and it wouldn’t affect me as a long distance shooter with proven DOPE. Give me a 4X scope and I will still make some impressive shots at targets at long distances. But I’m one of the few that spends the time shooting in all temps and conditions and angles and take detailed notes and can shoot through the conditions. Put a big buck on the hillside and I forget most of it -still get that fever-LOL…..
My old eyes need some type of magnification to shoot accurately as open/peeps take me out of hunting- but I don’t need an eliminator.
If left unchecked the emerging technology won’t give us the chance to see those big bucks that give us the thrill of the “chase” that we still have today. Keep scopes on muzzleloaders and take the electronic combos off everything. Leave rangefinders where they are. You could Limit scope magnification although it will only have a very small affect and should be the very last thing to go after- my opinion. The high magnification helps you put horns on the doe you are about to shoot for example.
 
I am no longer a Utah resident and will obviously follow whatever restrictions Utah puts in place. The obvious issue for me with these proposals is the perceived fairness.

How many archery use the Garmin sight. That thing is too big an clunky for me and O would bet less than 5% of archers use a range finding sight.

I would be willing to bet that 75% plus muzzleloaders use a scope. I love open sight muzzleloader hunts but my eyes are not the same as they use to be. The scopes help but I still limit myself to shorter shorts. Most muzzleloader hunts I have run into are close…less than 100 yards. Taking away the scopes will definitely hunt my hunting.

That said, I hunt Colorado. They are very restrictive for their muzzleloader hunts. With one significant difference! They allow their muzzleloaders to hunt elk during the rut and BEFORE RIFLE HUNTS. Remember these changes are for both deer and elk.

I am fine with limiting the variable power to something like a 2-8 or 3-9. But limiting it to 1X is not a equitable take away.

And limiting a Burris scope…IMO that is a joke. How many rifle hunters actually use those? The new Sig scope are cool but how are you going to enforce that ban.

I see this as a huge take away from the muzzleloaders with no actual data to support the take away. There are minuscule take always from archery and rifle hunters but the muzzleloaders are losing a lot.

These rules are incredibly hard to enforce and in the end are not going to actually do anything to help the struggling herds. Move the rifle hunts, change the season structures, and stop trying to attach so much value to tech. There is no question that it helps up be more successful but the real question should be how much. The data shown in this thread certainly does not justify taking scopes. If we are arguing about an average 2% increase then we are lost. JMO

Also side note…The NM article on Muzzleloader scopes is funny. They are worried that their muzzleloader hunts are getting close to some of their rifle hunt success rates (40%). How much better would the herds be in Utah if their rifle hunt success rates were 40%.

I think it would be very interesting to see what the overall objective is for this process and then work on ways to address the real issues. Utah has taken a weird turn…placing blame on trail cameras, Garmin bow sights, muzzleloader scopes and Burris Eliminator (junk IMO) scopes as a means to address struggling herd numbers.
 
JakeH said:
Well that's the only data we got, Its more accurate then guys just guessing and making stuff up.

I am all for getting better data, and if the better data changes the numbers then we can go from there.
Click to expand...
Jake.
your right it is all we have.
How many people you know that has harvested and got surveyed and lied and said they didn't harvested?

Well I know quit a few this is there reasoning for doing it.

#1They will issue more tags next year.
#2They don't need to know where I hunt.
#3 It's none of there dam business.

There just plain not being truthful but I truly wonder how many do it.

I look at the offset in number of permits.Versus hunters afield and where talking almost 2,000 permits. 2,000 hunters stayed home yeah right.
 
slamdunk said:
Not necessarily accurate.

It's also about keeping each individual weapon within "fair chase" and ethics.

A muzzleloader was never intended to shoot 500 yards, a rifle was.
Click to expand...
Then what you are saying is that modern powder rifles are made to kill at any distance?
Then why even take away the Burris compensating scopes and such from the ALW season?
I am standing firm that muzzy guys are going to take it in the rear to make sure long range Deer shooters are getting the cream of the crop.
 
slamdunk said:
@MrShane
I have posted several times throughout these threads about all 3 weapon proposals, but it keeps getting drowned out.
The fact that the muzzleloader scope proposal continues to overshadow everything else says a lot about their purpose and value to being successful.
If data didn't show much of an Increase in success, why is the argument so strong to keep them?
I haven't had a single archer complain about losing his Garmin sight yet.

Archery Proposal-
No electronics on the bow
(no automatic ranging capabilities)

Muzzleloader Proposal-
1x scope w/reticle or red dot

Rifle Proposal-
No electronics on or inside the scope except for illuminated reticles. This is is still pending as we address the wording on the reticles as in needs to coincide with a 1x muzzleloader red dot.
(no automatic ranging capabilities)

None of these are drastic changes.
They are focused on the future of emerging technologies being developed resulting in more affordable and more widely used in the field.

If any of these proposals inhibit success as a hunter, golfing might be a better past time.
Click to expand...
The problem I have with this is that the archery and rifle proposals are trying to stop the upcoming technology and only effects a small percentage of hunters right now. While the muzzy proposal effects a very high percentage of hunters right now and it shouldn't be that way.
Also, this whole crazy talk about muzzys not meant to shoot 500 yards is just your opinion. Sure, the basic hawkin muzzleloader of the 1970s and 80s was not meant to shoot that far but that was all we had to work with at the time.
A muzzleloader of any type still fires one shot before being reloaded from the muzzle.
 
slamdunk said:
@JakeH
How do you feel about this scope sitting on top of a muzzleloader, and others like it that fall under "Emerging Technology" as outlined in the Mission Statement of the technology committee?
Are you concerned about how the muzzleloader hunt will look in say 5 years if we don't stop it now?
View attachment 82122
Click to expand...

Nobody on here has been defending range finding scopes. Or any other type of electronics. In fact, the majority would be fine with a 4x scope. we just don't want a paper towel tube with cross hairs or open sights.
 
shootem said:
Slam, I’m with Jake on this, propose up to a 4x for muzzleloader hunts. This gives someone with old eyes the ability to still see their target and make a clean ethical kill but still restricts hunters to less than 200 yards. Best of both worlds.
Click to expand...
I'll definitely bring it up.
Like I mentioned before, pressure on the RAC and WB gets the final vote, we are just a starting point.

I am perfectly ok with a 4x limit but wish we had a 3x or 2x choice.
 
MrShane said:
Then what you are saying is that modern powder rifles are made to kill at any distance?
Then why even take away the Burris compensating scopes and such from the ALW season?
I am standing firm that muzzy guys are going to take it in the rear to make sure long range Deer shooters are getting the cream of the crop.
Click to expand...
Hasn't that always been the scenario regardless of restrictions?

Your comment now states that you have faith in restrictions saving bucks.
 
slamdunk said:
Rifles were made to be long range weapons, the other two were not.

We have allowed technology to stretch them all, even archery is a hundred yard game when 70 was considered extreme.

Muzzleloaders were never intended to kill at 500 yards, but scopes allow it to happen and
500 yards is still a good poke for a turreted rifle.

All this talk about 1000 yard rifle kills these days, well let's stomp 1500 into the ground before we get there in two years.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree on your statement that the rifles were made to be "long range". Rifles were made to be used for hunting at EXTENDED RANGE", not the long range of the past several years. No one can keep a straight face and say that tech on a lot of todays hunting rifles are ethical to the true meaning of hunting. It is just SHOOTING with no hunting skills required, just shooting skills with some practice. (Yes I have been there and I have to say that I never really felt the accomplishment/proud of that success. It was more shooting skills/Not hunting skills).

There is so many rifles used on the deer hunt that are set up with more tech and much more expensive then a lot of current police department sniper rifles. Heck, google confirmed longest sniper kill - It seem like this is what some rifle hunters are aiming for (Internet longest kill trophy, not the animal they should be hunting).

Just saying. All tech needs to be knocked back a bit. Lets thick about using hunting skills and hunting ethics to put the excitement back into the hunt and help the bucks out.

Archery and muzzleloader hunter would not complain as much and feel a lot better about giving some if the rifle hunters were giving also.

Like stated before - the tag allocation needs to be adjusted so the most successful weapon does not have the most tags issued. Give the deer a chance during the rifle hunt and if the shooter still wish to apply for the "LONG RANGE SHOOTING SEASON" They will have a longer waiting period for that option. (hate to see this for the sake of more pressure on the other hunts, but if rifle tech is not adjusted, something has to give.
 
ridgetops said:
The problem I have with this is that the archery and rifle proposals are trying to stop the upcoming technology and only effects a small percentage of hunters right now. While the muzzy proposal effects a very high percentage of hunters right now and it shouldn't be that way.
Click to expand...
Well how do you figure muzzy hunter’s are loosing more.

There was 15,550 archery tags issued in 2020 for deer. 18.8 % success

There was 14,712 muzzy tags issued for deer in 2020. 30.1% success.

Before scopes where allowed

There was 17,026 archery tags issued for deer in 2015. With 23.9% success

There was 16,149 muzzy tags issued for deer in 2015. With 34.5% success


So tell me how muzzleloader are loosing more than archery hunters.
 
slamdunk said:
Hasn't that always been the scenario regardless of restrictions?

Your comment now states that you have faith in restrictions saving bucks.
Click to expand...
I do believe restrictions save bucks, I have been saying that the entire time!
But, I don’t want to save them just for the modern powder rifle Deer shooters.
I want an equal amount of restrictions for both type of rifles to help save an equal amount of bucks.
Anyone can kill a buck at 500 yards, very few can kill one at 30 yards.
I want the ‘hunt’ back in ‘hunting’.
 
slamdunk said:
I'll definitely bring it up.
Like I mentioned before, pressure on the RAC and WB gets the final vote, we are just a starting point.

I am perfectly ok with a 4x limit but wish we had a 3x or 2x choice.
Click to expand...
A 4 power scope on a Remington ultimate, a Paramount pro or any of the other custom muzzleloaders will definitely not limit shots to under 200 yards.
The reason you’re finding a lot of dead Bulls after the Muzzy hunt is because average hunters are shooting too far with the magnified scopes.
Their guns and loads aren’t effective enough at killing at those longer ranges.
With open sites 200 yards for a deer and 250 yards for an elk would be about maximum distance a person can accurately shoot even with good eyes.
Put a 4x scope on a muzzleloader and there will be a lot of guys still shooting at much further than 200 yards whether their gun can effectively kill at that range or not.
 
So, 10 years from now, when we are issuing even less tags than we are now and herds are all but depleted, what are we going after then? You have to hike from where the pavement ends? No optics at all? No camo? No waterproof boots?

This chit doesn’t fix anything. 10 years ago we were told the new deer management plan would be great option for all hunters. Deer numbers would increase and everyone would be happy. What a big lie that was. It didn’t fix a thing. Coincidentally, deer numbers have been on a steady decline since then (as they were from years prior to that, but we should have seen them level out based on what we were told about option 2) and hunters lost more options and opportunity.

Now here we are 10 years down the road, archers and muzzy hunters are in the crosshairs, while rifle hunters are catered to once again. Glad they will have a great hunt and will undo any progress made on buck recruitment from the 2 priors seasons restrictions.

I saw where slammy-daddy said the committee was defining fair chase and ethics. Last I checked, ethics were determined by each individual hunter, and it stopped at that. It’s not a committees place to determine what ethics a hunter should follow. Ethics are not law. This is so far out of control it’s not even funny anymore
 
Ballistic said:
A dope (data on previous engagement) chart “should” be something that is generated and proven in the same conditions that you are shooting in. You should have several of them for all the changing conditions/variables for target or hunting situations. Air density has huge affects on the resistance/drag of a bullet. Temperature and elevation are separate but equally huge factors in the drag increases/ decreases.
A quick example is shooting out to 500 yards at 4000 elevation and 60 degrees. Increase that elevation to 10000 feet and your average round will hit 6-8” higher at 500 yards and much higher at 1000 yards. This changes the dope chart you had from hitting well to wounding…..
The Burris eliminator adjusts for the altitude and temperature mostly with a sensor that’s internal. That sensor currently has some flaws-leave the scope (black) out in the sun and it will heat up the sensor which will change the trajectory for hot thin air. The longer the shot is -it will be off. But new lazer tech (lazers are used to measure temps now) will adjust for those issues with the push of a button.
At $2000 it has some amazing appeal. It’s not for me but I can’t deny what it can do for the average shooter or hunter that slaps it on the weekend before the hunt. Does it adjust for the internal ballistics ( the cold bore shot to the next -the speed of the round at different barrel temps- the zero that changes with light -and many more environmental conditions that exist) the answer is no !!!!!
It has its own ballistic software for adjusting for the wind and angles that won’t work well enough for me. I have years of notes and DOPE data that this and other tech that’s similar - are complete misses if I use one of those systems. But fast forward with emerging tech and you might be buying a proven gun that has the cold bore and temp variables programmed into proven software in a system that puts it all together…….
For today (2022) you could take the electronic scopes from sig/sierra , eliminator. G7 and others away- and it wouldn’t affect me as a long distance shooter with proven DOPE. Give me a 4X scope and I will still make some impressive shots at targets at long distances. But I’m one of the few that spends the time shooting in all temps and conditions and angles and take detailed notes and can shoot through the conditions. Put a big buck on the hillside and I forget most of it -still get that fever-LOL…..
My old eyes need some type of magnification to shoot accurately as open/peeps take me out of hunting- but I don’t need an eliminator.
If left unchecked the emerging technology won’t give us the chance to see those big bucks that give us the thrill of the “chase” that we still have today. Keep scopes on muzzleloaders and take the electronic combos off everything. Leave rangefinders where they are. You could Limit scope magnification although it will only have a very small affect and should be the very last thing to go after- my opinion. The high magnification helps you put horns on the doe you are about to shoot for example.
Click to expand...
Wow sooooo wouldn't it be easier to just get closer, and throw your calculator and paper binder away?
 
Bigwiffy said:
Wow sooooo wouldn't it be easier to just get closer, and throw your calculator and paper binder away?
Click to expand...
Yes exactly!
Especially on a Muzzleloader only hunt.
Dial in your peep site to a couple inches high at 100 yards and you’re good to go.
No scope needed!
In Nevada I recently killed a Muzzy buck at 168 yards and a Muzzy bull elk at 211 yards.
That’s with a Peepsight on the rear and a globe with crosshair insert on the front.
No scopes allowed on Muzzy hunts in Nevada.
I’ll be heading to Colorado in September for a Muzzy hunt. No scopes allowed there either.
As it should be!
 
buckhorn said:
A 4 power scope on a Remington ultimate, a Paramount pro or any of the other custom muzzleloaders will definitely not limit shots to under 200 yards.
The reason you’re finding a lot of dead Bulls after the Muzzy hunt is because average hunters are shooting too far with the magnified scopes.
Their guns and loads aren’t effective enough at killing at those longer ranges.
With open sites 200 yards for a deer and 250 yards for an elk would be about maximum distance a person can accurately shoot even with good eyes.
Put a 4x scope on a muzzleloader and there will be a lot of guys still shooting at much further than 200 yards whether their gun can effectively kill at that range or not.
Click to expand...
So educate muzzy hunters. Have them take an ethics course like the extended archery. Help them understand and get familiar with the effective range of their weapons.
 
D33RHNTR said:
So, 10 years from now, when we are issuing even less tags than we are now and herds are all but depleted, what are we going after then? You have to hike from where the pavement ends? No optics at all? No camo? No waterproof boots?

This chit doesn’t fix anything. 10 years ago we were told the new deer management plan would be great option for all hunters. Deer numbers would increase and everyone would be happy. What a big lie that was. It didn’t fix a thing. Coincidentally, deer numbers have been on a steady decline since then (as they were from years prior to that, but we should have seen them level out based on what we were told about option 2) and hunters lost more options and opportunity.

Now here we are 10 years down the road, archers and muzzy hunters are in the crosshairs, while rifle hunters are catered to once again. Glad they will have a great hunt and will undo any progress made on buck recruitment from the 2 priors seasons restrictions.

I saw where slammy-daddy said the committee was defining fair chase and ethics. Last I checked, ethics were determined by each individual hunter, and it stopped at that. It’s not a committees place to
Click to expand...
buckhorn said:
A 4 power scope on a Remington ultimate, a Paramount pro or any of the other custom muzzleloaders will definitely not limit shots to under 200 yards.
The reason you’re finding a lot of dead Bulls after the Muzzy hunt is because average hunters are shooting too far with the magnified scopes.
Their guns and loads aren’t effective enough at killing at those longer ranges.
With open sites 200 yards for a deer and 250 yards for an elk would be about maximum distance a person can accurately shoot even with good eyes.
Put a 4x scope on a muzzleloader and there will be a lot of guys still shooting at much further than 200 yards whether their gun can effectively kill at that range or not.
Click to expand...
Whether you take scopes completely away or not, hunters will still lob shots with a muzzleloader using open sights at unethical ranges. You simply can’t restrict someone’s inability to understand what is or isn’t ethical.

You wanna talk ethics? The ability to see the target through a magnifying scope and make an accurate shot is far more ethical than removing scopes all together. I assure you the wounding rate is far greater without an accurate set up than it is with.

You can’t change ethics in someone, when scopes get taken away by the board, the non ethical hunter will still lob shots at distances that should not be taken.

Like has been said so many times, you issue X amount of tags, plan on X amount of deer to be killed whether recovered or not. In no way should we be making it more difficult to be accurate with the muzzleloader that averages a 30% success rate. We really should be trying to figure out how to reduce the success rate to the Any Legal Weapon season which boast a much higher success rate. That is just common sense, but heaven forbid we make rifle hunters less successful.
 
slamdunk....
So after reading through all these replies I'm trying to understand the purpose of doing away with the high powered scopes on muzzleloaders. Are we working on quality or quantity? Or is there more to the story?
Cutting the tags this year was definitely the correct move..

Pine Valley Unit Deer..

Resident/ Non-Resident

2020. 2021. 2022
Archery 664/72 576/64. 216/24

1st Rifle. 956/60. 476/54. 181/21

2nd Rifle 956/107. 824/92. 233/27

Muzzle. 519/60. 460/52. 170/20

Total. 2671/299 2336/262. 800/92

Dedicated 167/12. 30/4. 1/1
Hunters

Cutting the tags by 2/3rds, going to see some improvements on deer quality and deer quantity, for sure...

Haven't killed a deer with my muzzleloader for, well I can't even recall the last time I've killed one. And by the way I've got a longe range scope on it too.
 
Sorry, people who aren't killing deer are irrelevant to the discussion. The only people who count are the one who kill.

What's the name of this site?
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Well how do you figure muzzy hunter’s are loosing more.

There was 15,550 archery tags issued in 2020 for deer. 18.8 % success

There was 14,712 muzzy tags issued for deer in 2020. 30.1% success.

Before scopes where allowed

There was 17,026 archery tags issued for deer in 2015. With 23.9% success

There was 16,149 muzzy tags issued for deer in 2015. With 34.5% success


So tell me how muzzleloader are loosing more than archery hunters.
Click to expand...
I don't see the committee trying to take away the one pin slider sight that you can dial it to the exact yard out to 80+ yards with a bow. Take that away and force archers to use 3 fixed pins and see how that goes. It would be more equal to taking off the scopes.
 
buckhorn said:
A 4 power scope on a Remington ultimate, a Paramount pro or any of the other custom muzzleloaders will definitely not limit shots to under 200 yards.
The reason you’re finding a lot of dead Bulls after the Muzzy hunt is because average hunters are shooting too far with the magnified scopes.
Their guns and loads aren’t effective enough at killing at those longer ranges.
With open sites 200 yards for a deer and 250 yards for an elk would be about maximum distance a person can accurately shoot even with good eyes.
Put a 4x scope on a muzzleloader and there will be a lot of guys still shooting at much further than 200 yards whether their gun can effectively kill at that range or not.
Click to expand...
Just trying find a balance at the committee level so it can be out of our hands going forward.

And I agree, 200 yards will not be a limited range no matter what happens, even with a peep sight.
 
inthrut said:
I could kill deer every year, I choose not too.

Just because I have a tag does not mean I need to fill the tag...

I'm guessing you're part of the problem
Click to expand...
Me too. I'm not part of the problem.
Apparently the only people who are a part of the problem are people who are killing deer.
Go figure.
Again, what is the name of this site?
 
middlefork said:
Me too. I'm not part of the problem.
Apparently the only people who are a part of the problem are people who are killing deer.
Go figure.
Again, what is the name of this site?
Click to expand...
maybe go back and reread the 1st paragraph

No, I'll just resend it to you

So after reading through all these replies I'm trying to understand the purpose of doing away with the high powered scopes on muzzleloaders. Are we working on quality or quantity? Or is there more to the story?
 
ridgetops said:
I don't see the committee trying to take away the one pin slider sight that you can dial it to the exact yard out to 80+ yards with a bow. Take that away and force archers to use 3 fixed pins and see how that goes. It would be more equal to taking off the scopes.
Click to expand...
Holy hell really?
I’m looking at success rates it pretty dam clear which one is lower. If it was higher then I would stand behind you.

Because you did say not everyone is shooting out past 200 yard with a muzzleloader.
so what makes you think everyone that is bow hunting is shooting out past 80.

So by going 3 pin will do what? Other than make them even less successful.

So again how is muzzy hunter’s loosing more.
 
Last edited:
inthrut said:
maybe go back and reread the 1st paragraph

No, I'll just resend it to you

So after reading through all these replies I'm trying to understand the purpose of doing away with the high powered scopes on muzzleloaders. Are we working on quality or quantity? Or is there more to the story?
Click to expand...
I tell you what we did find out about technology.
It’s pretty dam obvious that technology has gotten way out of hand.

look at all the pushback on it.
 
elkassassin said:
But It's OK To Put a DE-F'N-MAGNIFYING Scope On a SmokePole & Lob LEAD?
Click to expand...
Look I have a 1x on my muzzleloader and I have bad eyes as well.
I can’t run fiber optics sights on my bow or my muzzleloader because it’s blurry.
Yes the 1x limits me to closer shots I’m not complaining about it because I grew up with no scopes on muzzleloader for years and then some freaking jack wade decided they wanted scopes on them.
Well guess what I never switched because I know they don’t need to be on there.
 
Your some freaking jack wade was the WB!

Elkslayer2015 said:
Look I have a 1x on my muzzleloader and I have bad eyes as well.
I can’t run fiber optics sights on my bow or my muzzleloader because it’s blurry.
Yes the 1x limits me to closer shots I’m not complaining about it because I grew up with no scopes on muzzleloader for years and then some freaking jack wade decided they wanted scopes on them.
Well guess what I never switched because I know they don’t need to be on there.
Click to expand...
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Well how do you figure muzzy hunter’s are loosing more.

There was 15,550 archery tags issued in 2020 for deer. 18.8 % success

There was 14,712 muzzy tags issued for deer in 2020. 30.1% success.

Before scopes where allowed

There was 17,026 archery tags issued for deer in 2015. With 23.9% success

There was 16,149 muzzy tags issued for deer in 2015. With 34.5% success


So tell me how muzzleloader are loosing more than archery hunters.
Click to expand...
Because very few people use a electronic site on there bows, but the majority have scopes on there muzzleloaders.

So more people are losing a tool they are actively using right now.
 
elkassassin said:
Your some freaking jack wade was the WB!
Click to expand...
I know.
We where fine before. So what the hell is the problem taking them back off? Honestly what is the problem 400 post later we still are bickering about something that happened only six years ago.
I’ve hunt muzzy for a hell of a lot longer than that.
 

Similar threads

C
Wasatch thoughts
2
Replies
193
Views
5k
elkassassin
elkassassin
baerman
Recommended Sheep Hunting Guides in the Frank
Replies
8
Views
647
backcountryID
B
Bux n Dux
ISO: LE pronghorn points holder
Replies
7
Views
723
JakeH
JakeH

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Looking Pretty Good!
027AFA2F-6839-4830-B703-F24DE6642C0A.png
Screenshot_20210904-094841_Instagram.jpg
2010CO-2.jpg
0BB2EF7C-AA58-4D63-8EEB-FDC2701C854D.jpeg
_DSD4448.jpg
AC4AE273-4203-4B3D-9DEC-FF3604A18B0C.jpeg
09918026-21AF-4B64-BEA0-E147F9E46D87.jpeg
D5DA2302-215F-40FD-9491-6F7EA15B1C23.jpeg
472CEDD1-840E-453F-80B7-48AC346D5570.jpeg
09B65123-B555-4E6B-81B5-1154DB51FF70.jpeg
tempImageheNob6.png
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom