Tech #2

BrowningRage said:
If we want more deer, we need more fawns to make it through their first year of life. Plain and simple. This is where I would start... address predation, because its easy to do. Forget the idea that a cougar or bear is a trophy that requires putting in and such... sell tags alongside all deer and elk permits. $5 to add it to your your deer or elk tag... make them a 'trophy of opportunity' then pay out a bounty to anyone who reports and verifies a kill like we do with coyotes. You raise money, kill a lot of predators, track the kills.. win-win-win. Suspend tags when predator numbers are low... why else do we have biologists.? ?
Click to expand...
Almost everything you suggested is being currently done.

There are hundreds if not thousands of collared big game animals and predators in Utah's mountains right now being studied and monitored 24/7 365.
 
GLEDEASY said:
The muzzleloader example is exactly my reasoning for my thoughts and post in the last thread. You can take the scopes off, but what does it accomplish? The mission statement of the committee is certainly not met. It may decrease the avg harvest distance, feel good story I guess.

We need to not pass regulations off of emotion and feel goods.

I don't understand why people are so worried about the method of take amongst others. As long as it's legal, and to another degree ethical, who cares if someone is harvesting animals at 100 yards with a bow; 600 yards with a muzzy; or 1000 with a rifle? It sure as heck don't affect my enjoyment in the outdoors.

When it come to tech, this committee should be focusing their efforts to the type of tech coming down the pipeline.

I have no problem with more people being in the field. Looking for ways to increase opportunity is exactly what we should be doing. I just don't think tech is the main driver of doing so, unless it's adding new hunts with added restrictions. Then let people decide what route to take.

I have some out of the box ideas for increasing opportunity. However, they don't deal with tech so I'll leave it out of this post.
Click to expand...
Another great post and input, thank you.

Trust me, future technology is being discussed heavily in this committee.
Both me and @hossblur posted about the upcoming nanotechnology glass already being developed for hunting....this glass allows you to see through fog and smoke.
Are we going to allow it to hit the shelves and kill game in adverse conditions at long ranges as well?
We are already killing effortlessly at 500+ yards with scoped weapons, soon we'll be able to do it through high mountain fog.
Gunwerks already has a turreted peep sight you can calibrate your muzzleloader to for states where scopes aren't allowed.

And you are correct in say technology isn't the driver of elevating things to a satisfactory level, but its one tool of many already in motion.
 
slamdunk said:
Muzzleloaders were obviously hit on very hard, as they are seeing the most advancements out of the three.
Surrounding states muzzleloader criteria were studied and considered.
The vast amount of components available, powders, bullets, primers, etc, etc were all looked at but determined it is the magnification on optics that are driving the abilities to go further out than what a muzzleloader was initially intended to do.
Therefore this committee voted a proposal to limit scopes back to 1x but leave components alone.
As for defining it as primitive or modern, the committee voted a proposal to have HAMS hunts "scope free" on muzzleloading rifles as to define it as "primitive".

Rifles and other technology will be discussed in our next meeting.

People wanting my personal stance on these?
The archery and the muzzleloaders went exactly how I felt about them, but I would have been happy with no scopes on muzzleloaders, but I also can choose open sights at will, obviously.
I personally feel it was a good compromise.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call a 1x scope on a muzzleloader much of a compromise. It's nothing more than a 40mm peep sight (tube).

I am watching this development with great interest. States have a tendency to mimic other states from time to time...
 
Good!

Been Waiting For Something Like This For A Long Damn Time!



slamdunk said:
Rifles haven't been discussed in the meetings yet.....

Over lapping hunts aren't part of the technology committee.

Nothing will be fixed "all of the sudden".

Everything every committee and every conservation group is doing collectively is to help bring back both quality and overall herd numbers.
Click to expand...
 
roadrunner said:
I wouldn't call a 1x scope on a muzzleloader much of a compromise. It's nothing more than a 40mm peep sight (tube).

I am watching this development with great interest. States have a tendency to mimic other states from time to time...
Click to expand...
That's exactly why I said it was a compromise.
A 1x is a feel good alternative to open sights.

I will not put my red dot 1x back on, I will go to a regular cross hair for the sake of bench shooting the tightest group i can get on paper.
 
slamdunk said:
That's exactly why I said it was a compromise.
A 1x is a feel good alternative to open sights.

I will not put my red dot 1x back on, I will go to a regular cross hair for the sake of bench shooting the tightest group i can get on paper.
Click to expand...

A compromise would have been a fixed 3x. Some magnification to aid in shot distance at 125 yds, but restricts beyond 175.

The 1x is a flat out "ban" of muzzleloader scopes. There is nothing feel-good about it for anyone who really knows what it is...
 
I can't believe they say success rates are the same with the scopes on these muzzleloaders are success is doubled since this law was changed
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Slam is correct.
This is a big year for Utah . There is a lot of thing being looked at.
We all need to quit bickering and put our heads together. I’m just as much to blame for this.

Ideas is what Slam needs.
Just remember one thing what do you actually NEED to go hunting.

So come on give the man some ideas right or wrong.

My ideas right or wrong are simple.

Limit bows to 60 yards this is very easy fix.

Rifle 3x9 scopes no turret no drop compensation.

Muzzleloader open sights or 1x scope’s

We already have a rule you can’t shoot from a vehicle or atv but lots of people still do it so I feel like to eliminate or fix this problem.
The law should be you have to be 30 ft off of any road before you can shoot period.

There you go Slam I did my part.
Click to expand...
All scopes have turrets...either exposed or capped. All can be used the same way for long range shooting...nice try.
 
notdonhunting said:
The DWR needs to come up with Tech regulations if we don't some day the projectile that comes from your weapon will be satellite guided, do we really want that to be part of the hunting arsenal.
I have heard hunters say these tech regulations can not be enforced or at least be severely limited at enforcing, I think it was grizz that pointed out on the other Tech thread that when lead shot was made illegal for hunting waterfall hunters said the same thing(not exactly how he said it I paraphrased). I know around where i waterfowl hunt it did not take long for a few tickets being handed out and hunters started respecting the law.
Click to expand...
Rest assured, there is still many lead rounds being fired at waterfowl every year. Particularly now with the availability and prices of steel shot. Do most use steel? Yes. All? Absolutely not.
 
SS! said:
You really think people are going to use their deer tag on a predator? Hahahahaha that’s hilarious! And that killing a few lions and black bears will make a difference? ?????

You want to save deer and elk? Pass out condoms to your fellow utards.

I’m sorry I got you all worked up leading you to overreact. I didn’t intend to hurt your feelings. I don’t care what you say to me, as I’m not a sissy like you are.
Click to expand...
Well SS, it appears my apology to you was a flop.
I am taking your reply as a kinda-sorta-maybe I was forgiven….
 
schoolhousegrizz said:
I was upset, I think he learned his lesson. I wonder how often this type of thing happens.
Click to expand...
Well, the Nomad laughed saying it never happens and two of us reading this thread alone proved him wrong, so it does happen and obviously more often than it should.
Utah should consider following suit with Wyoming and have a starting date.
But thats for a different thread than this one....
 
Last edited:
Deerlove said:
I can't believe they say success rates are the same with the scopes on these muzzleloaders are success is doubled since this law was changed
Click to expand...
I was a little baffled by that one myself, especially how two committee members gave examples of their own extremely long range experiences.

The data doesn't show what distances animals were harvested, just that they were.

People are without a doubt killing further, but perhaps they would have punched their tags regardless but just chose to make the long shot for specific reasons (because they can)?
 
Seems like a lot of assumptions are being made with no backup data. Stories don't represent real world actions.
I'm not even sure you could get good information even with mandatory reporting.

I don't envy anyone on the committee. Pretty hard moving target they have been handed.
 
slamdunk said:
Rifles haven't been discussed in the meetings yet.....

Over lapping hunts aren't part of the technology committee.

Nothing will be fixed "all of the sudden".

Everything every committee and every conservation group is doing collectively is to help bring back both quality and overall herd numbers.
Click to expand...
Just voicing my opinion here so it gets considered.

I would like the tech committee to aggressively go after the definition of primitive. Namely addressing variable power scopes, and Multi pin, laser and sliding archery sights.

I do not want the committee to change anything regarding rifle/long range shooting.

My personal feeling is we shouldn’t be looking for middle ground, push the proverbial pendulum as far as you dare in either direction and forget the middle. As LR/centerfire tech improves, we counter that with moving the needle back in time on the other weapons.

If guys want the tech experience they can wait and hunt the rifle seasons that allow it, alternatively I want to push those same minded people out of the primitive pool by making it less enticing for them to jump ship, I hope that makes some sense.
 
middlefork said:
Seems like a lot of assumptions are being made with no backup data. Stories don't represent real world actions.
I'm not even sure you could get good information even with mandatory reporting.

I don't envy anyone on the committee. Pretty hard moving target they have been handed.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100% - none of this effort really "increases the pie" in terms of addressing the real issues with our herd/fawn survival, which is where the majority of focus and effort should be placed in my opinion. I absolutely agree there is some technology that crosses a line and should be stopped before we go too far, but as I have said many times, there are MUCH bigger fish to fry.

If we can't address and implement real solutions to our mule deer numbers and lack of productivity in our elk herds, it won't matter what weapon or technology is used. Can't kill a deer or elk if there aren't any or enough to kill.
 
slamdunk said:
I was a little baffled by that one myself, especially how two committee members gave examples of their own extremely long range experiences.

The data doesn't show what distances animals were harvested, just that they were.

People are without a doubt killing further, but perhaps they would have punched their tags regardless but just chose to make the long shot for specific reasons (because they can)?
Click to expand...
The number of people who 1. invest and 2. are capable of using that investment capably is a remarkably small number. Your circles and experiences are not indicative of the experience on the whole and the divisions data is an accurate reflection of the real trends.
 
elkhunterUT said:
Agreed 100% - none of this effort really "increases the pie" in terms of addressing the real issues with our herd/fawn survival, which is where the majority of focus and effort should be placed in my opinion. I absolutely agree there is some technology that crosses a line and should be stopped before we go too far, but as I have said many times, there are MUCH bigger fish to fry.

If we can't address and implement real solutions to our mule deer numbers and lack of productivity in our elk herds, it won't matter what weapon or technology is used. Can't kill a deer or elk if there aren't any or enough to kill.
Click to expand...
There are so many other entities addressing the bigger issue, including independent biologist and multiple conservation groups along with deer and elk committes.
Tech is simply a small bolt and nut to the massive machine.
 
elkhunterUT said:
Can't kill a deer or elk if there aren't any or enough to kill.
Click to expand...
But we can kill (or wound) what deer and elk there are at much further distances. I think that's where the Committee is going with this. It's merely one piece of a complicated puzzle that we clearly don't understand yet.

PS. The "freeze tech where we are today," mentality really doesn't make much sense to me. Today is just an ambiguous point in time.

A few years ago we didn't have electronic range-adjusting scopes and a few years before that we didn't have magnifying scopes on muzzleloaders. I'm okay thinking about this through a clear eye, looking at other states, and combining all the info to come up with a fresh decision.
 
slamdunk said:
There are so many other entities addressing the bigger issue, including independent biologist and multiple conservation groups along with deer and elk committes.
Tech is simply a small bolt and nut to the massive machine.
Click to expand...
Good to hear - hope it moves the needle a bit!
 
berrysblaster said:
Just voicing my opinion here so it gets considered.

I would like the tech committee to aggressively go after the definition of primitive. Namely addressing variable power scopes, and Multi pin, laser and sliding archery sights.

I do not want the committee to change anything regarding rifle/long range shooting.

My personal feeling is we shouldn’t be looking for middle ground, push the proverbial pendulum as far as you dare in either direction and forget the middle. As LR/centerfire tech improves, we counter that with moving the needle back in time on the other weapons.

If guys want the tech experience they can wait and hunt the rifle seasons that allow it, alternatively I want to push those same minded people out of the primitive pool by making it less enticing for them to jump ship, I hope that makes some sense.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight you are saying ban multiple fixed pin sights, along with electronic, and slider sights on bows? On the flip side keep everything open on rifles???
 
berrysblaster said:
Just voicing my opinion here so it gets considered.

I would like the tech committee to aggressively go after the definition of primitive. Namely addressing variable power scopes, and Multi pin, laser and sliding archery sights.
Click to expand...
Why? Primitive weapon is not defined or mentioned one time in the regulations guidebook.
Here's a link if you would like to check

"Primitive weapon" is just a catch phrase people use by people trying to drive the narrative in their favor.

The term your looking for is "Muzzleloader" or "BOW"

berrysblaster said:
I do not want the committee to change anything regarding rifle/long range shooting.
Click to expand...

I bet not, LR is the bread and butter of the guiding industry. Much easier to get people who don't know how to hunt a shot at LR than try to get a couple hundred yards away.

berrysblaster said:
My personal feeling is we shouldn’t be looking for middle ground, push the proverbial pendulum as far as you dare in either direction and forget the middle. As LR/centerfire tech improves, we counter that with moving the needle back in time on the other weapons.
Click to expand...
The middle is where most folk reside. You best not forget that. Our Government sure has.
 
grizzly said:
But we can kill (or wound) what deer and elk there are at much further distances. I think that's where the Committee is going with this. It's merely one piece of a complicated puzzle that we clearly don't understand yet.

PS. The "freeze tech where we are today," mentality really doesn't make much sense to me. Today is just an ambiguous point in time.

A few years ago we didn't have electronic range-adjusting scopes and a few years before that we didn't have magnifying scopes on muzzleloaders. I'm okay thinking about this through a clear eye, looking at other states, and combining all the info to come up with a fresh decision.
Click to expand...
In the future we'll be posting "we didn't forecast nanotechnology glass and lazer guided projectiles"
 
GLEDEASY said:
I'm glad you and your family will be just fine, so will mine.

My question is why then are you so worried how others do things? I get if there was data to back things, but I've yet to see it.
Click to expand...
That is a fair question.
I’m worried for our children.

Everyone on here knows what technology has done?
It's no different than the trail camera issue.

If Technology hasn't truly help anyone out on harvesting a animal.
Well then a few restrictions shouldn’t be a problem.
 
berrysblaster said:
Just voicing my opinion here so it gets considered.

I would like the tech committee to aggressively go after the definition of primitive. Namely addressing variable power scopes, and Multi pin, laser and sliding archery sights.

I do not want the committee to change anything regarding rifle/long range shooting.

My personal feeling is we shouldn’t be looking for middle ground, push the proverbial pendulum as far as you dare in either direction and forget the middle. As LR/centerfire tech improves, we counter that with moving the needle back in time on the other weapons.

If guys want the tech experience they can wait and hunt the rifle seasons that allow it, alternatively I want to push those same minded people out of the primitive pool by making it less enticing for them to jump ship, I hope that makes some sense.
Click to expand...
I totally would say the same thing about not doing anything to rifle hunters.
Especially when the rifle hunt is your bread and butter.
 
Here are my setups for this year's hunts....dedicated hunter of course. Berry will be happy

Screenshot_20220711-110952_Chrome.jpg


Screenshot_20220711-110650_Chrome.jpg


Screenshot_20220711-111124_Chrome.jpg
 
slamdunk said:
Almost everything you suggested is being currently done.

There are hundreds if not thousands of collared big game animals and predators in Utah's mountains right now being studied and monitored 24/7 365.
Click to expand...
Cool.! I want to put our biologists to the best use possible, and I want deer numbers to increase. Can we look at the predator part..? I think thats the part I have a differing idea on how to manage them.

Also, this is a good thread because you've come back with responses to so many posts... well done
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
That is a fair question.
I’m worried for our children.

Everyone on here knows what technology has done?
It's no different than the trail camera issue.

If Technology hasn't truly help anyone out on harvesting a animal.
Well then a few restrictions shouldn’t be a problem.
Click to expand...

The application of tech in hunting is hardly a real concern for "our children"...
 
BrowningRage said:
Cool.! I want to put our biologists to the best use possible, and I want deer numbers to increase. Can we look at the predator part..? I think thats the part I have a differing idea on how to manage them.

Also, this is a good thread because you've come back with responses to so many posts... well done
Click to expand...
Thank you!?

Along those lines, there are extensive predator studies going on throughout the state as we speak.
A friend of mine is on the houndsman society and told me two weeks ago he had just collored his 27th lion on the Wasatch front.
They are studying movements and predation in our urban sprawl areas.
If you are on Instagram, follow wildlifeprof and see some if the things going on throughout our state with big game and predators.
 
slamdunk said:
Yep, that was definitely a playing factor
Click to expand...
Thanks guys. That was my main concern. Sucks getting old and your eyes not being able to focus on 3 different objects near and far at same time. Noticed my eye sight changing the last couple qualification's with open sight shotgun/pistol at and after the 50 yard mark while still LEO.

Hated to see them go to unlimited magnification when they did and yes it really increased the number of hunters and reduced draw success. Most (95%) of my elk hunting is in the pole pines at under 80 yards at best and closer to 50 yards and the red dot and 1x scopes all perfect. My longest kill on both elk and deer are with my old 25+ year old white muzzleloader with a red dot. I have hunted the past several years with a Remington Ultimate with 3x9 Leupold, but the longest shot's have been under 150 yards. The buck in my avatar was with my Remington at under 100 yards after putting him to bed in the morning and setting up on him that afternoon. Part of the hunt is still using your skills to get as close as possible and make a clean ethical kill.

The dedicated hunter program is another plus for "putting the hunt back in the hunt" in my opinion. Can hunt for 3 years, but know you can only take 2 bucks in that 3 year period. To myself it is being in the outdoors hunting and not just being successful every time out. Heck half the time never killed 2 bucks in the 3 year period, due to personal preference, not because there wasn't plenty of opportunities.
 
Last edited:
Elkslayer2015 said:
I think Wile E. Coyote must have caught up to you.
Click to expand...

The real threat faced by "our children" is the loss of hunting altogether from the loss of interest in it and the loss of opportunity relative to the loss of habitat, increased predation, and overall herd stability . Tech will not remove or decrease that threat. The tech bandwagon is a crusade bucket list item for many and a complete waste of time to be this concerned about.

It takes more than just having a tag in your pocket to keep the interest alive. A youth watching someone fill a tag and being able to walk up to the animal is what sparks that interest. Otherwise, it's just a camping/hiking/backpacking trip and you don't need a tag to do any of that.

Most people these days hunt to fill a tag. Not frolic in the mountains like a Fairy.

Beep. Beep.... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
@ roadrunner. We can disagree but if no one has a tag there is absolutely no chance that a young hunter is going to walk up to a kill.
I think most people from day one are out to fill a tag. But at some point it becomes more about the journey than destination.
 
middlefork said:
@ roadrunner. We can disagree but if no one has a tag there is absolutely no chance that a young hunter is going to walk up to a kill.
I think most people from day one are out to fill a tag. But at some point it becomes more about the journey than destination.
Click to expand...

You're correct, we will disagree. Tech is not taking opportunity away. Poor management policy does. What this endeavor is really about is seeing what will happen if groups of people get what they want by limiting tech under the guise of increased opportunity.

I really want to be proved wrong on this. I hope I am.

It is more about the "journey" than the "destination" only in magazines and reflection periods on a hunting show. If the journey was real, those people don't need a tag and simply having a close encounter is enough, freeing up tags for those where the destination matters more.
 
No hunting or transport of hunting weapons from any motorized vehicle, including e bikes, on any routes within public lands that are not expressly designated travel routes for full-sized cars and trucks that are open to the public.
 
slamdunk said:
You are correct, and as I stated earlier these stats to not reflect what animals are being harvested at ranges past 200 yards, and there are a lot.

I am primarily a muzzleloader hunter, so don't think I am being biased.
Today's muzzleloaders are single shot rifles.
Click to expand...
What data backs up a lot? I believe Vanilla brought data that indicates scopes on muzzleloaders did NOT increase harvest rates so........ logically it’s a non issue. However, because people’s panties are in a wad to solve a problem that doesn’t exist something will be done that will be to the detriment of hunters. Why we are so hell bent on restricting fellow outdoor enthusiasts method that data indicates is not a problem (other than peoples feelers are hurt, pushing of values on others) baffles me. If we do go backwards for the muzzleloaders then we should, re look Archery OIL (oh yeah another BS management move in the name of opportunity), 29 unit management and general season tag. If tech needs to be restricted it needs to be done for all methods; not just one group.
 
slamdunk said:
You're welcome Wiff, any time.

I like this question as well in regards to defining weapons.

Honestly, I was expecting a very long bloody battle over trying to define primitive versus modern.
Just as I pointed out a few times already, I believe (based off this committees response) Utah will stay relatively relaxed on archery and muzzleloaders in comparison to our surrounding states.

Several archers gave opinions on the available add ons and their effectiveness to extend ranges of an arrows ability to humanely kill a big game animal.
It was collectively agreed and voted upon that an arrow is still fired from a bow on a string and archery equipment is still a "short range" weapon.
Nothing will ever make an arrow effectively and accurately reach 200 yards simply due to natural elements.
Yes there will always be hale mary idiots out there, but unlike a muzzleloader bullet, an arrow is still a short range projectile.

Having said that, the committee voted a proposal to leave archery equipment alone other than anything electronic that aids in the killing of a big game animal such as a Garmin style sight for the sake of keeping it somewhat "primitive".
Lighted knocks were left alone because they aid in recovery.
Mechanical broadheads were discussed, but also dismissed.

Muzzleloaders were obviously hit on very hard, as they are seeing the most advancements out of the three.
Surrounding states muzzleloader criteria were studied and considered.
The vast amount of components available, powders, bullets, primers, etc, etc were all looked at but determined it is the magnification on optics that are driving the abilities to go further out than what a muzzleloader was initially intended to do.
Therefore this committee voted a proposal to limit scopes back to 1x but leave components alone.
As for defining it as primitive or modern, the committee voted a proposal to have HAMS hunts "scope free" on muzzleloading rifles as to define it as "primitive".

Rifles and other technology will be discussed in our next meeting.

People wanting my personal stance on these?
The archery and the muzzleloaders went exactly how I felt about them, but I would have been happy with no scopes on muzzleloaders, but I also can choose open sights at will, obviously.
I personally feel it was a good compromise.

As for rifles, until someone changes my mind, rifles were designed and intended as a long range weapon.
What I do not like is electronics on and inside scopes that automatically tell you your ballistics and where to hold.
It is quickly becoming a "aim and kill" game that completely removes our shooting skills and knowledge of both weapon and ballistics and turns an average or even below average skilled shooter into a long range military sniper.
Maybe I'm just old school, but I like to range it, do a quick equation and use my time on the range to make my shot.

Let's be realistic here.
We cannot legally limit ranges in which a specific weapon can attempt a kill shot.
People are always going to "lob" whatever they are shooting, but we can get back to using our natural abilities and our weapons abilities without completely tossing ethics and fair chase out the window of each weapon and season.
Click to expand...
So it has been decided........not intended as a slight and appreciate you bringing this to the forum and believe in vigorous debate, (attack the idea not the person) but how does that bring about opportunity? For the record I don’t hunt with muzzleloaders
 
My suggestion for muzzleloader season since that seems to be the weapon that is being attacked is: keep the regular season muzzy hunt in the late September timeline like it already is but during that season there will be no scopes allowed.

Some units have an early rifle season, I suggest eliminating the early rifle hunt and making it a second muzzleloader season allowing scoped muzzys during that time. Every unit that is meeting the buck to doe ratios will be eligible for the second muzzleloader season.
 
shootem said:
My suggestion for muzzleloader season since that seems to be the weapon that is being attacked is: keep the regular season muzzy hunt in the late September timeline like it already is but during that season there will be no scopes allowed.

Some units have an early rifle season, I suggest eliminating the early rifle hunt and making it a second muzzleloader season allowing scoped muzzys during that time. Every unit that is meeting the buck to doe ratios will be eligible for the second muzzleloader season.
Click to expand...
Good input, but beyond the scope (no pun intended) of this committee as seasons are a separate entity.
 
340Wby said:
What data backs up a lot? I believe Vanilla brought data that indicates scopes on muzzleloaders did NOT increase harvest rates so........ logically it’s a non issue. However, because people’s panties are in a wad to solve a problem that doesn’t exist something will be done that will be to the detriment of hunters. Why we are so hell bent on restricting fellow outdoor enthusiasts method that data indicates is not a problem (other than peoples feelers are hurt, pushing of values on others) baffles me. If we do go backwards for the muzzleloaders then we should, re look Archery OIL (oh yeah another BS management move in the name of opportunity), 29 unit management and general season tag. If tech needs to be restricted it needs to be done for all methods; not just one group.
Click to expand...
With respect, I don't think you're up to speed with this entire thread, it's not about muzzleloaders or as you stated "if tech needs to be restricted it needs to be done for all methods, not just one group".
 
257Tony said:
I'm fully on board with removing scopes from muzzleloaders, starting next year. I drew my LE muzzy tag this year, and won't be applying for any more in the future :D
Click to expand...
I’m in the same boat with a LE muzzy tag ?? but I’m all for the scopes being gone.
 
It may be true that magnifying scopes alone didn't increase harvest, but I think we can all agree that if the muzzleloader season required side ignition with exposed cap, no sabot, and open sights, that harvest success would fall. It's frankly hard to be very accurate over 100 yards with primitive muzzleloader equipment.

My point is that it may be hard to pick one small aspect of a muzzleloader, but taken in totality the lethality is much higher with today's technology.

The same can be said with modern bows with slider sights, expandable broadheads, high let-offs, etc...

And ditto with modern rifles and optics in comparison to the old WWII hand-me-down with a fixed Redfield that our grandparents used to hunt with.

The same can be said with trucks. It wasn't that long ago that only farmers had 4x4 trucks and everybody else was hunting in cars and station wagons. Now we all have trucks plus wheelers and side-by-sides that get us to a trail on every ridge where we glass with 50x scopes on tripods that cost more than a new rifle when our dads were in school.

It may not be one thing, but the totality of it all has drastically changed hunting. It's a wonder there are any animals left at all.
 
To me, this whole concept boils down to maintaining or increasing trophy quality on LE, but mostly GS units. People need to remember that general hunts are managed for opportunity, not quality. The problem is, you can draw 10 general tags in the time it takes to draw even 1 semi decent LE. Let’s be honest. Technology restrictions will NOT save any 1.5-2.5 Y/O animals from getting killed. They aren’t smart enough to know better, and are too dumb to really care. Any half decent hunter can get within 100 yards of that animal and kill it with a “primitive” muzzleloader. Restrictions will however, allow older age class bucks to live… another month longer than they normally would, when the rifle guys get a swing at them. And we all know that any restrictions put on a rifle, will still be leaps and bounds ahead of the archery and muzzy weapons… even with straight wall guns and 3-9x capped turret scopes. None of this will increase animal numbers. It’ll just set things up for a banner rifle deer hunt and bunch more smaller bucks will get killed during the other hunts because hunters can’t be as selective if they have more limitations.

The fact is, just like cam and bait bans, any result of this “committee”, won’t put more animals on the mountain. It’ll just frustrate and squeeze out many hunters and make it harder for them to find success, which more than half, statistically speaking, already have a hard time doing as it is.
 
D33RHNTR said:
To me, this whole concept boils down to maintaining or increasing trophy quality on LE, but mostly GS units. People need to remember that general hunts are managed for opportunity, not quality. The problem is, you can draw 10 general tags in the time it takes to draw even 1 semi decent LE. Let’s be honest. Technology restrictions will NOT save any 1.5-2.5 Y/O animals from getting killed. They aren’t smart enough to know better, and are too dumb to really care. Any half decent hunter can get within 100 yards of that animal and kill it with a “primitive” muzzleloader. Restrictions will however, allow older age class bucks to live… another month longer than they normally would, when the rifle guys get a swing at them. And we all know that any restrictions put on a rifle, will still be leaps and bounds ahead of the archery and muzzy weapons… even with straight wall guns and 3-9x capped turret scopes. None of this will increase animal numbers. It’ll just set things up for a banner rifle deer hunt and bunch more smaller bucks will get killed during the other hunts because hunters can’t be as selective if they have more limitations.

The fact is, just like cam and bait bans, any result of this “committee”, won’t put more animals on the mountain. It’ll just frustrate and squeeze out many hunters and make it harder for them to find success, which more than half, statistically speaking, already have a hard time doing as it is.
Click to expand...
This is probably the best post so far explaining the truth of the matter.
 
slamdunk said:
I was a little baffled by that one myself, especially how two committee members gave examples of their own extremely long range experiences.

The data doesn't show what distances animals were harvested, just that they were.

People are without a doubt killing further, but perhaps they would have punched their tags regardless but just chose to make the long shot for specific reasons (because they can)?
Click to expand...

wstrntines said:
I’m in the same boat with a LE muzzy tag ?? but I’m all for the scopes being gone.
Click to expand...
Would That Be Before Your LE Hunt?

Or After?:D
 
ridgetops said:
This is probably the best post so far explaining the truth of the matter.
Click to expand...
You're right, it is another great post with a lot of common sense but hypothetical scenarios.

What is not being mentioned once again is what is right in the Mission Statement "Fair Chase and Ethics".

You've chosen to hunt the archery or muzzleloader hunts.
Both were intended to be a more difficult hunt because of the "limited abilities" of the weapons.

We didn't have slider sights or electronics on archery equipment, nor did we have front loaders that could shoot much past 200 yards.

We have allowed technology to completely and significantly change the game in both of these weapons.
Can we honestly sit here and make excuses trying to say muzzleloaders haven't tipped the odds in the hunters favor when the muzzleloader in my very hands is capable of 400+ yards, and there are newer models out there capable of 600+?
Have you seen the Gunwerks model?
No, not everyone can afford Gunwerks 1000yd offering, but they sure are selling the Remington ML system that makes 500yds easily done.

Simple fact.....our muzzleloader hunts weren't ever intended to be "single shot rifle" hunts, they were intended to be a hunt that gave better odds in the animals favor because of range limitations on the hunter, which we have since removed with technology to gain the advantage over the animal for this particular weapon.
"Ethics, Fair Chase" have been extremely lowered no matter how we slice or dice it with data on success rates.
We ARE killing further, period.

If we weren't, then why has the market for long range muzzleloaders exploded, and why are so many opposed to removing their high magnification scopes?
Do we really need a 12 or 15x power scope on a weapon that is only killing at 100 or even 200 yards???‍♂️

Yes I have left rifles off this post because the committee hasn't discussed them yet.
 
elkassassin said:
Would That Be Before Your LE Hunt?

Or After?:D
Click to expand...
I personally know people who cashed in their MZ points this year knowing a ban on optics was coming.
That right there should speak volumes that people KNOW variable power scopes DO make a difference regardless of the success rate data.
 
Magnification scopes absolutely help, even if it’s just a psychological crutch. I would much rather shoot at a 100 yard target with my scope at 9x than at 3x. I certainly don’t “need” 9x to make that shot, but I’d use it if I had it.

Trail cams help. Bait helped. Binos help. Horses help. Being in better shape than this chubby dude writing this helps. Sleeping in a nice warm trailer in a comfortable bed instead of a cold tent on the ground helps. Having nice gear that protects you from the elements helps. And the list goes on and on and on. Like Grizzly said, when you add it all up, we’ve sure increased our chances over what they were 40 years ago.

Do you need all of those things to have a chance? Nope! But they all help. It’s just a matter of who gets to decide what stays and what goes, because everyone views these things differently.

The ethics and fair chase discussion isn’t helpful, IMO. Those terms are way to subjective. But I do think there are things we can do to make hunting and especially killing animals more difficult, if that’s the goal.
 
roadrunner said:
The real threat faced by "our children" is the loss of hunting altogether from the loss of interest in it and the loss of opportunity relative to the loss of habitat, increased predation, and overall herd stability .
Click to expand...
Yes that is correct.
roadrunner said:
The tech bandwagon is a crusade bucket list item for many and a complete waste of time to be this concerned about.
Click to expand...
This is not a waste of time. But what is a waste of time is not admitting how Technology has help everyone be more successful which we all know it has.
We have made it very easy to get youth tags in there pocket so they don't loose interest.
Point creep is going up and it is becoming harder and harder to get tags.
Why do you think I have been pushing so hard on GS anybull elk not only for us but for our kids.
This hunt is truly our last over the counter hunt, if we don't fight to save this we will be loosing more than just youth.

Technology is a piece of the pie period.
Problem here is Admitting what technology has done to make us successful.
just remember when you grab your Bow/Rifle/Muzzleloader/Spotting scopes/Radios/Side by side and head off to the mountains.
Do I really need all this technology or do I just want it.

Kids are the future of hunting and that is what where fighting for is Pieces of the pie.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Yes that is correct.

This is not a waste of time. But what is a waste of time is not admitting how Technology has help everyone be more successful which we all know it has.
We have made it very easy to get youth tags in there pocket so they don't loose interest.
Point creep is going up and it is becoming harder and harder to get tags.
Why do you think I have been pushing so hard on GS anybull elk not only for us but for our kids.
This hunt is truly our last over the counter hunt, if we don't fight to save this we will be loosing more than just youth.

Technology is a piece of the pie period.
Problem here is Admitting what technology has done to make us successful.
just remember when you grab your Bow/Rifle/Muzzleloader/Spotting scopes/Radios/Side by side and head off to the mountains.
Do I really need all this technology or do I just want it.

Kids are the future of hunting and that is what where fighting for is Pieces of the pie.
Click to expand...

Never said tech hasn't made things easier. It's a fool's errand, though, to think abolishing tech will fix things. It's a band-aid that isn't fixing the wound.

You want to decrease success rates, shorten seasons first such as 7 days from 14 as a start, and then make plans to limit them to 5.
 
slamdunk said:
I personally know people who cashed in their MZ points this year knowing a ban on optics was coming.
That right there should speak volumes that people KNOW variable power scopes DO make a difference regardless of the success rate data.
Click to expand...
I have 2 buddy's that cashed in there Muzzy point's for the Book cliffs of all places. They where trying for the Boulder.
I asked them why? they told me because they wanted yes that's right WANT to hunt with their 3x9 scopes.
But they both know they don't NEED them.
 
roadrunner said:
Never said tech hasn't made things easier. It's a fool's errand, though, to think abolishing tech will fix things. It's a band-aid that isn't fixing the wound.

You want to decrease success rates, shorten seasons first such as 7 days from 14 as a start, and then make plans to limit them to 5.
Click to expand...
Shorter season dates don't do anything. People have more success in harvest in the first 5 days or less.

What is another way to fix it?
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
I personally know people who cashed in their MZ points this year knowing a ban on optics was coming.
That right there should speak volumes that people KNOW variable power scopes DO make a difference regardless of the success rate data.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah...it's because you can see your target area easier at 125 yds...

Seems like the decision has been made, why keep fishing for info?
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Shorter season dates don't do anything. People have more success in harvest in the first 5 days or less.

What is another way to fix it?
Click to expand...

You're confused on what those first 5 days really mean.

It's more difficult to find "El Bruno" in a shorter season, meaning the sniper smokepole guy will be less successful.
 
roadrunner said:
You're confused on what those first 5 days really mean.

It's more difficult to find "El Bruno" in a shorter season, meaning the sniper smokepole guy will be less successful.
Click to expand...
I'm not confused at all. Do you honesty think That "El Bruno" hasn't been already found before the hunt come on Man.
 
roadrunner said:
Well, yeah...it's because you can see your target area easier at 125 yds...
Click to expand...
Right there is what where talking about. Yes you can see it better at 125 yards and 200 yards and further.
My buddies both have Gunwork's Muzzy's their groups are pretty dam tight at 400 yards.
That range is a chip shot for them you take that away then what do they have.
Walmart special that will shoot just as good at 200 or less.

This is exactly what we have been talking about from post one.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
I'm not confused at all. Do you honesty think That "El Bruno" hasn't been already found before the hunt come on Man.
Click to expand...

Post up success rates from 5 day hunts against 14 day hunts and then we'll talk.

Without your precious trail cam data weeks before the hunt, El Bruno may not be where you thought. We're not talking about whether or not he'll get shot, it's a matter of if you shoot him...
 
slamdunk said:
Have you seen the Gunwerks model?
No, not everyone can afford Gunwerks 1000yd offering, but they sure are selling the Remington ML system that makes 500yds
Click to expand...
So add a rule that a legal muzzleloader must have a one piece, full length, ramrod that is stored along the barrel.
That would get rid of 90% of the LR muzzleloaders.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
Right there is what where talking about. Yes you can see it better at 125 yards and 200 yards and further.
My buddies both have Gunwork's Muzzy's their groups are pretty dam tight at 400 yards.
That range is a chip shot for them you take that away then what do they have.
Walmart special that will shoot just as good at 200 or less.

This is exactly what we have been talking about from post one.
Click to expand...

So we can thank your buddies for taking away the ability to have a standard 3x9 scope?
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
I'm not confused at all. Do you honesty think That "El Bruno" hasn't been already found before the hunt come on Man.
Click to expand...
Most out of state hunters show a day or 2 early and YOU think they find a huge buck in that short of period. LOL
I guess it would be ok if no scopes on ML was for Resident only?
 
slamdunk said:
Great point, I'll take this to the committee for feedback.
Click to expand...
That would work for all of one season. Then the builders/manufacturers would add rods to their rifle designs just as “assault weapons” evolved to avoid the appearance of being “assault weapons.” Waste of time.
 
diablo said:
That would work for all of one season. Then the builders/manufacturers would add rods to their rifle designs just as “assault weapons” evolved to avoid the appearance of being “assault weapons.” Waste of time.
Click to expand...
Good point.
However, manufacturers aren't concerned about one states regulations.
Or at least I wouldn't think so....
 
slamdunk said:
You have missed a few key points that were made very clearly multiple times throughout these two threads.

"Quality" and "Fair Chase" both fall under the the criteria to make the recommendation of going back to 1x and complete removal of scopes on HAMS units.

If you don't feel a variable scope makes a difference on a muzzleloader, why are you so concerned about changing?

And I disagree on the stats because although the increase has been subtle, it doesn't show that people ARE killing better quality animals out past 200 yards......fact.

A muzzleloader wasn't originally intended or designed to shoot long range, they were a 200 yard weapon UNTIL we let technology extend them out to centerfire rifle ranges.

"Fair Chase" ethics are controversial yes, but are also individually specific to each weapon and should stay in line with their intended purposes.
Click to expand...
I was about to make this post but read on and you nailed my thoughts here. Well said. I was actually surprised to find the harvest percentage was virtually unchanged but the quality of the animals is what I think has suffered due to the extended ranges.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
That is a fair question.
I’m worried for our children.

Everyone on here knows what technology has done?
It's no different than the trail camera issue.

If Technology hasn't truly help anyone out on harvesting a animal.
Well then a few restrictions shouldn’t be a problem.
Click to expand...
Except restrictions are a problem if they aren't backed up with data to understand the "why" behind it. These tech proposals don't scare me concerning my ability to harvest an animal. They frustrate me because they started under the guise of putting the "hunt" back in hunting (aka trail cam ban), etc. To me it's been more about controlling how "some" think others should hunt to fit "their" ideals. These last few threads have brought about good points from each side of the argument.

If we compare tech now to the 1800's then certainly I can agree that tech has aided in harvesting animals tremendously. However, if we compare it now to 20 years ago; I'm not buying that it's made a statistical difference. We can set it up as a potential so called piece of the "pie", but nothing shows it's significant (I'll eat those words if data can show otherwise). We can change tech back to the 1800's, but the landscape will never be like it was back then.

My oldest will be able to apply in UT next year. I realize the trajectory is not necessarily going the right direction for opportunity.
 
What Really Amazes Me is This:

This State Has Been a FREE FOR ALL Forever!

No Matter The Gadgetry/Technology Go Ahead & Use It!

Then Go Ahead & Abuse It!

Then Abuse it For Many More Years!

Then All Of a F'N Sudden We're Gonna Go Backwards With PISSCUTTER Changes That Still Ain't Gonna Fix The Problem!
 
GLEDEASY said:
Except restrictions are a problem if they aren't backed up with data to understand the "why" behind it. These tech proposals don't scare me concerning my ability to harvest an animal. They frustrate me because they started under the guise of putting the "hunt" back in hunting (aka trail cam ban), etc. To me it's been more about controlling how "some" think others should hunt to fit "their" ideals. These last few threads have brought about good points from each side of the argument.

If we compare tech now to the 1800's then certainly I can agree that tech has aided in harvesting animals tremendously. However, if we compare it now to 20 years ago; I'm not buying that it's made a statistical difference. We can set it up as a potential so called piece of the "pie", but nothing shows it's significant (I'll eat those words if data can show otherwise). We can change tech back to the 1800's, but the landscape will never be like it was back then.

My oldest will be able to apply in UT next year. I realize the trajectory is not necessarily going the right direction for opportunity.
Click to expand...
I completely agree, however the committee has already made up their minds despite what comments are made. If there we’re actually real data/evidence that proves these changes would make a difference, then I would be on board with the change. Until then, I see it as another BS move on behalf of the few who will ultimately make the decision, just like the trail cam ban. ?
 
shootem said:
I completely agree, however the committee has already made up their minds despite what comments are made. If there we’re actually real data/evidence that proves these changes would make a difference, then I would be on board with the change. Until then, I see it as another BS move on behalf of the few who will ultimately make the decision, just like the trail cam ban. ?
Click to expand...
They can't gather data on something where information isn't surveyed.

Have you or anyone else been questioned how far your kill was and what power scope was on your muzzleloader?

Nope......no data available.
 
slamdunk said:
They can't gather data on something where information isn't surveyed.

Have you or anyone else been questioned how far your kill was and what power scope was on your muzzleloader?

Nope......no data available.
Click to expand...
Has the committee discussed an effort to start gathering that type of data? It is not hard - we live in the information age and that data would be a very worthwhile input to decisions being made now.

Start asking that type of information along with full harvest data and make it a requirement to complete the survey each year in order to apply for hunts the following year.

Again - good data drives good decisions. Let's get the data before throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.
 
elkhunterUT said:
Has the committee discussed an effort to start gathering that type of data? It is not hard - we live in the information age and that data would be a very worthwhile input to decisions being made now.

Start asking that type of information along with full harvest data and make it a requirement to complete the survey each year in order to apply for hunts the following year.

Again - good data drives good decisions. Let's get the data before throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 500% but then the committee and the board wouldn’t be able to make knee jerk decisions to satisfy their own agendas. Their true colors have already shown as they banned trail cams based off of emotional and social BS
 
diablo said:
That would work for all of one season. Then the builders/manufacturers would add rods to their rifle designs just as “assault weapons” evolved to avoid the appearance of being “assault weapons.” Waste of time.
Click to expand...
Let them do it then. For now, it will get rid of all the Paramoumts and Gunwerks.
 
elkhunterUT said:
Has the committee discussed an effort to start gathering that type of data? It is not hard - we live in the information age and that data would be a very worthwhile input to decisions being made now.

Start asking that type of information along with full harvest data and make it a requirement to complete the survey each year in order to apply for hunts the following year.

Again - good data drives good decisions. Let's get the data before throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Click to expand...
We discussed asking the hunter specific questions on a survey.
We all agreed and yes assumed a hunter of any weapon is not going to indulge true information on a long range kill.
 

Similar threads

C
Wasatch thoughts
2
Replies
193
Views
5k
elkassassin
elkassassin
luckyluciano2
Have you heard of Howl For Wildlife
Replies
2
Views
271
bullskin
bullskin
urge2hunt
Wyoming Guided Bull Elk Hunt - Only $995 !!!!
Replies
0
Views
1k
urge2hunt
urge2hunt

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Screenshot_20221206_104658.jpg
Utah Muzzleloader Muley
BB881687-6AEC-4C52-BAD9-97469D182487.jpeg
8ADB348F-B8A7-4800-B2C6-0F27D15A34D0.jpeg
682B58BF-D87E-40E8-B0CE-88D3AAA0036B.jpeg
IMG_2253.jpg
IMAG0255.jpg
OMG Non-Typical
A05C23A0-C9F1-4C73-A3AC-549650CC563C.jpeg
crest-01..jpg
C81CB109-A5C2-4C19-8A84-3D8696445977.jpeg
20221030_203254.jpg
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