Utah Muzzy Scope Controversy

Easier to keep a tighter group past 150 yards? Absolutely! To extend my range? Not really. My max range with a peep or 1x was around 180 yards. With my current 4-12x, it's about 220 yards but I'm ae lot more confident that I won't loose one if I do shoot past 180 yards.
I know you are trying to play down the advantages scopes have but even with your stated claims that is still a 22% range advantage your scope gives you which is very significant. Let's go shoot your muzzleloader the last 2 minutes of light with a brown paper plate target on a brown hill side and see how many times you can hit that paper plate with your open sights at 180 yards compared to your 12X scope at 220 yards. I'm betting your scope is much more of a range advantage than you are trying to sell us in actual hunting conditions. You wouldn't wound a deer if you keep your open sight shots to 100 yards and less in those conditions so your wounding argument is still invalid.

Fact #1: Open sights cut down on effective range in a significant fashion

Fact #2: Open sight muzzleloaders don't wound anymore than any other weapon system when used within their effective range

That is all on today's episode of 'Common Sense' by Airborne
 
I know you are trying to play down the advantages scopes have but even with your stated claims that is still a 22% range advantage your scope gives you which is very significant. Let's go shoot your muzzleloader the last 2 minutes of light with a brown paper plate target on a brown hill side and see how many times you can hit that paper plate with your open sights at 180 yards compared to your 12X scope at 220 yards. I'm betting your scope is much more of a range advantage than you are trying to sell us in actual hunting conditions. You wouldn't wound a deer if you keep your open sight shots to 100 yards and less in those conditions so your wounding argument is still invalid.

Fact #1: Open sights cut down on effective range in a significant fashion

Fact #2: Open sight muzzleloaders don't wound anymore than any other weapon system when used within their effective range

That is all on today's episode of 'Common Sense' by Airborne
Fact: guns don’t wound. Shooters do.
 
Hey slammy-daddy,

Make sure you make it very clear that with these future restrictions that will happen, it’s expected by hunters that ALW tags will be cut in half and allocated to the more primitive weapon types. Fair is fair. If this truly is about the wildlife and trying to make things fair and move the needle, this is what is expected. We all gotta make sacrifices. So far the elimination of electronic sights on rifles isn’t going to cut it. Tag number reductions will be needed as well. Make sure you pass that along to your circle jerk group
 
All that time hunting and they still have lower success rates.

So your point is what exactly?

Instead of being upset about sitting at home while there still hunting you probably should switch to archery.
Never said I was upset…

My point is don’t complain about what is in your control.

If you have all that opportunity to archery hunt animals and are not successful, become a better archery hunter.
 
I know you are trying to play down the advantages scopes have but even with your stated claims that is still a 22% range advantage your scope gives you which is very significant. Let's go shoot your muzzleloader the last 2 minutes of light with a brown paper plate target on a brown hill side and see how many times you can hit that paper plate with your open sights at 180 yards compared to your 12X scope at 220 yards. I'm betting your scope is much more of a range advantage than you are trying to sell us in actual hunting conditions. You wouldn't wound a deer if you keep your open sight shots to 100 yards and less in those conditions so your wounding argument is still invalid.

Fact #1: Open sights cut down on effective range in a significant fashion

Fact #2: Open sight muzzleloaders don't wound anymore than any other weapon system when used within their effective range

That is all on today's episode of 'Common Sense' by Airborne
Why are you making a big deal over 40 yards?
And
Why are you so against your fellow hunter being successful when they go on the muzzleloader hunt?
And
What's wrong with having a 35-40% muzzleloader success rate?
 
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.
No, they are evolutionary, each one is a result of technology and progression and were top notch at a point in history. Each however was supplanted as better technology came along......each were made to be the most lethal at the time.....

Archery was long range compared to spear
Muzzy was long range compared to archery
Rifle is long range compared to muzzy

People will be people, some will shoot a bow 100 yards but most wont, some will shoot 500 yards with muzzy but most wont, some will shoot 1000 yards with rifle but most wont.

The biggest threat to hunting is hunters, definitely proven with these types of rules, overreach and proposals. If ya don’t want pins on your bow then don’t, if ya don’t want a scope on your muzzy then dont, if ya don’t want a 1,000 yard rifle then don’t. What’s the desire to tell someone else how they should hunt? The slippery slope started with Restrictions on hounds, extended to OIL archery only, cameras, landowner rights and now scopes on muzzleloaders. what’s next? Don’t tell me nothing; the state always has to fiddlefart with a minority opinion
 
Looks like thin skinned slammy-daddy blocked me.

Too bad. I’d have hoped someone like him could take criticism better than he does.
 
Why are you making a big deal over 40 yards?
And
Why are you so against your fellow hunter being successful when they go on the muzzleloader hunt?
And
What's wrong with having a 35-40% muzzleloader success rate?
We both know a 12X scope gives you more than a 40 yard advantage and I'm not a fan when folks are disingenuous. Be honest and I give respect, play dishonest games and I get b!tchy ;-)

According to the 'data', success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever they may be. Another strawman argument

I respect the good arguments on both sides. I happen to appreciate honest arguments that aren't wrapped up in utter bullsh!t like the 'wound more animals argument'. You want to use a scope because it makes killing animals much easier at longer ranges, stick to that and we're cool.
 
No D33, my skin is thicker than your skull. Your gay insults show your adolescent behavior and I refuse to read it.
Maybe you should try growing up and get off the 5th grade playground.
Oh come on. I wish you’d show your true colors in public as you do in your DMs.
 
We both know a 12X scope gives you more than a 40 yard advantage and I'm not a fan when folks are disingenuous. Be honest and I give respect, play dishonest games and I get b!tchy ;-)

According to the 'data', success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever they may be. Another strawman argument

I respect the good arguments on both sides. I happen to appreciate honest arguments that aren't wrapped up in utter bullsh!t like the 'wound more animals argument'. You want to use a scope because it makes killing animals much easier at longer ranges, stick to that and we're cool.
Of course it makes it easy.
That is why you will never see an attack on scopes for the Long Ranger Deer season.
 
We both know a 12X scope gives you more than a 40 yard advantage and I'm not a fan when folks are disingenuous. Be honest and I give respect, play dishonest games and I get b!tchy ;-)

According to the 'data', success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever they may be. Another strawman argument

I respect the good arguments on both sides. I happen to appreciate honest arguments that aren't wrapped up in utter bullsh!t like the 'wound more animals argument'. You want to use a scope because it makes killing animals much easier at longer ranges, stick to that and we're cool.
It seems Ridge was just stating the difference in having his 12X scope vs a peep or 1X for himself personally, that’s not disingenuous. Not everyone has a scope on there muzzy for long range shooting. In fact I would say far more people have a scope on there muzzy for other reasons than long range shooting.

“According to the ‘data’, success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever that may be”. That’s a great point! My question is what is this discussion really about? To me it appears this “Technology” committee has an agenda. They clearly don’t want scopes on muzzies but they don’t really have a sound or legitimate reason why. Other than they don’t like the fact that a very limited number of hunters can shoot at long ranges with them. To me you take the scopes off and those same limited number of hunters will just learn to shoot at long distances with peeps. These muzzies will shoot the same distance with or without a scope. If the gun will shoot 500 yards people will find a way to shoot it that far.

In my opinion if this committee was formed to address technology they should address ALL technology not just what is on there “agenda”! For example Slam said handheld range finders were brought up in there discussions. That was thrown out in less than a minute. Not a “Technology” up for discussion I guess. Pretty closed minded if you’re trying to address all concerns with technology. I’m by no means calling for a ban on range finders, spotting scopes that can see 3 miles, binoculars that can see for miles and in low light situations but these are all technology conveniences that help in the taking wildlife. Especially trophy animals! I would just like to see that everything is looked at and not just going after whatever they don’t like for whatever reason.
 
EASY There Tikka!

They Don't Like:

It's Not Gonna Be:

SOME GAVE ALL!

It's Gonna Be

ALL GAVE SOME!

Fair & F'N Square across The Board!



Change the narrative to fit the agenda… nobody knows if quality bucks only were killed…they have no survey’s to prove that.., It’s pretty convenient to say that when at the same time they were claiming huge increases in deer numbers, when they were actually tanking…
I don’t care if they take away scopes in fact please do, but they damn well better take things across the board archery and rifle…
#1 limited entry rifle elk out of the rut..,
 
We both know a 12X scope gives you more than a 40 yard advantage and I'm not a fan when folks are disingenuous. Be honest and I give respect, play dishonest games and I get b!tchy ;-)

According to the 'data', success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever they may be. Another strawman argument

I respect the good arguments on both sides. I happen to appreciate honest arguments that aren't wrapped up in utter bullsh!t like the 'wound more animals argument'. You want to use a scope because it makes killing animals much easier at longer ranges, stick to that and we're cool.
Claiming I'm being dishonest is not cool and really makes look you look like a fool. Pretty disappointing to have a moderator throw his support behind such garbage. How about answering my questions! Here's some more facts, I'm a dedicated hunter and don't even use my archery tag. I tried it but stopped after opening weekend because I felt I'd probably would a nice buck and end up loosing it. The guilt was too much. I know I'd have those same feeling if I went back to open sights. So I ask again, why are you guys so eager to lower the success rate of muzzleloader hunters?
 
There is.....
Tell me it is in magnifying power to stay relatively equal in downgrade with muzzy scopes?
Let’s assume the average muzzy guy has a 9x power scope and we get downgraded to max of 4 power.
That is roughly a 50% downgrade.
If Long Rangers get downgraded by 50% I will know the tech committee has OUR Deer herd’s health in their best interest.
If not, well……..
Trust me, I want you to win me over.
 
We both know a 12X scope gives you more than a 40 yard advantage and I'm not a fan when folks are disingenuous. Be honest and I give respect, play dishonest games and I get b!tchy ;-)

According to the 'data', success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever they may be. Another strawman argument


I respect the good arguments on both sides. I happen to appreciate honest arguments that aren't wrapped up in utter bullsh!t like the 'wound more animals argument'. You want to use a scope because it makes killing animals much easier at longer ranges, stick to that and we're cool.


According to the 'data', success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever they may be. Another strawman argument

Your right removing scopes shouldn't have any effect on success rates which has been the stated cause for the primary reason to remove them. So who's propping up the straw man?

I was all for removing scopes a couple months ago, even advocated for it on this site, but when the data comes out showing basically no increase in success then what's the point of p!ssing off a large number of people when it isn't even going to do anything at all to accomplish the stated goal?

So the real question is what's the real goal?
 
So we have 120 yard bows, 400 yard muzzleloaders and 1000 yard rifles and not a word about the dedicated Hunter program. In my opinion this is where we need to start with the changes. I would guess the majority of the best hunters in the state are in this program and we aren’t worried about this? I know this is a big revenue stream and a popular program but come on. We can’t have these conversations and leave the DH program out of them.
 
According to the 'data', success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever they may be. Another strawman argument

Your right removing scopes shouldn't have any effect on success rates which has been the stated cause for the primary reason to remove them. So who's propping up the straw man?

I was all for removing scopes a couple months ago, even advocated for it on this site, but when the data comes out showing basically no increase in success then what's the point of p!ssing off a large number of people when it isn't even going to do anything at all to accomplish the stated goal?

So the real question is what's the real goal?
Where is muzzleloading going to be in 5 or 10 years when even 50% of shooters are using the Remington system topped with a ballistic data scope?

Should we wait and let the success rate data surge before we do anything and then take action?

We are foolish to think it won't happen.
 
So we have 120 yard bows, 400 yard muzzleloaders and 1000 yard rifles and not a word about the dedicated Hunter program. In my opinion this is where we need to start with the changes. I would guess the majority of the best hunters in the state are in this program and we aren’t worried about this? I know this is a big revenue stream and a popular program but come on. We can’t have these conversations and leave the DH program out of them.
Wait a minute.... now the DH program is part of the problem?

I've just about heard it all.

Maybe we just stop hunting period. Problems solved!
 
Where is muzzleloading going to be in 5 or 10 years when even 50% of shooters are using the Remington system topped with a ballistic data scope?

Should we wait and let the success rate data surge before we do anything and then take action?

We are foolish to think it won't happen.
Dude, you can't keep bringing that up if your not willing to address any real changes to rifles in the same fashion.

I can use the same line you've been using on muzzleloaders on rifles, "rifles were never intended to be used to hunt game past 300 yards"

Look at how many of the older guys have said just that.

So unless your committee is willing to seriously address the same thing on rifles it's all BS.

You've said it several times that "rifles were intended for long range" well BS if the committee is truly going to look into ways to reduce success by addressing tech and the one thing you have really singled out is scopes then you sure as hell better be addressing it with the rifles too.

Feels way to much like a witch hunt if you dont.
 
It F'N Kills Me When Other Hunters Start HARPIN On Dedicated Hunters!

DH's = for The Most Part:

They Hunt For Better Quality Animals That Cost Them a NOMINAL Fee!

They Can Only Harvest 2 Bucks in 3 Years Which Most Don't Even Punch 2 Tags in the 3 Year Period!

Opportunists = for The Most Part:

I Filled My Tag Did You?

I Fill My Tag Every Year!

Did You See My PISSCUTTER on IG?

I'm Not Joining the DH Program,It's Too Much Work & I wanna Kill a DINK Every Year!

FIND SOMETHING-F'N-ELSE To HARP On!
 
VTE="Hunter21, post: 2092659, member: 10869"]
It seems Ridge was just stating the difference in having his 12X scope vs a peep or 1X for himself personally, that’s not disingenuous. Not everyone has a scope on there muzzy for long range shooting. In fact I would say far more people have a scope on there muzzy for other reasons than long range shooting.

“According to the ‘data’, success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever that may be”. That’s a great point! My question is what is this discussion really about? To me it appears this “Technology” committee has an agenda. They clearly don’t want scopes on muzzies but they don’t really have a sound or legitimate reason why. Other than they don’t like the fact that a very limited number of hunters can shoot at long ranges with them. To me you take the scopes off and those same limited number of hunters will just learn to shoot at long distances with peeps. These muzzies will shoot the same distance with or without a scope. If the gun will shoot 500 yards people will find a way to shoot it that far.

In my opinion if this committee was formed to address technology they should address ALL technology not just what is on there “agenda”! For example Slam said handheld range finders were brought up in there discussions. That was thrown out in less than a minute. Not a “Technology” up for discussion I guess. Pretty closed minded if you’re trying to address all concerns with technology. I’m by no means calling for a ban on range finders, spotting scopes that can see 3 miles, binoculars that can see for miles and in low light situations but these are all technology conveniences that help in the taking wildlife. Especially trophy animals! I would just like to see that everything is looked at and not just going after whatever they don’t like for whatever reason.
[/QUOTE]
It seems Ridge was just stating the difference in having his 12X scope vs a peep or 1X for himself personally, that’s not disingenuous. Not everyone has a scope on there muzzy for long range shooting. In fact I would say far more people have a scope on there muzzy for other reasons than long range shooting.

“According to the ‘data’, success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever that may be”. That’s a great point! My question is what is this discussion really about? To me it appears this “Technology” committee has an agenda. They clearly don’t want scopes on muzzies but they don’t really have a sound or legitimate reason why. Other than they don’t like the fact that a very limited number of hunters can shoot at long ranges with them. To me you take the scopes off and those same limited number of hunters will just learn to shoot at long distances with peeps. These muzzies will shoot the same distance with or without a scope. If the gun will shoot 500 yards people will find a way to shoot it that far.

In my opinion if this committee was formed to address technology they should address ALL technology not just what is on there “agenda”! For example Slam said handheld range finders were brought up in there discussions. That was thrown out in less than a minute. Not a “Technology” up for discussion I guess. Pretty closed minded if you’re trying to address all concerns with technology. I’m by no means calling for a ban on range finders, spotting scopes that can see 3 miles, binoculars that can see for miles and in low light situations but these are all technology conveniences that help in the taking wildlife. Especially trophy animals! I would just like to see that everything is looked at and not just going after whatever they don’t like for whatever reason.
Very well said. If the WB really wants to see success rates go down, then limit optics. 9x max on muzzleloader and rifle scopes and a max power of 7x on binos. No spotting scopes of any type can be used during the hunting season to aid in taking of big game. I guarantee that would make a huge difference across the board but we all know that would never happen.
 
It F'N Kills Me When Other Hunters Start HARPIN On Dedicated Hunters!

DH's = for The Most Part:

They Hunt For Better Quality Animals That Cost Them a NOMINAL Fee!

They Can Only Harvest 2 Bucks in 3 Years Which Most Don't Even Punch 2 Tags in the 3 Year Period!

Opportunists = for The Most Part:

I Filled My Tag Did You?

I Fill My Tag Every Year!

Did You See My PISSCUTTER on IG?

I'm Not Joining the DH Program,It's Too Much Work & I wanna Kill a DINK Every Year!

FIND SOMETHING-F'N-ELSE To HARP On!
The only negative thing in my opinion the DH program does is add more bodies on each season, but 2 deer in 3 years and the physical attributes they give back to conservation for the luxury of hunting all three seasons.
 
VTE="Hunter21, post: 2092659, member: 10869"]
It seems Ridge was just stating the difference in having his 12X scope vs a peep or 1X for himself personally, that’s not disingenuous. Not everyone has a scope on there muzzy for long range shooting. In fact I would say far more people have a scope on there muzzy for other reasons than long range shooting.

“According to the ‘data’, success rates were just as high without scopes so clearly this discussion has nothing to do with success rates whatever that may be”. That’s a great point! My question is what is this discussion really about? To me it appears this “Technology” committee has an agenda. They clearly don’t want scopes on muzzies but they don’t really have a sound or legitimate reason why. Other than they don’t like the fact that a very limited number of hunters can shoot at long ranges with them. To me you take the scopes off and those same limited number of hunters will just learn to shoot at long distances with peeps. These muzzies will shoot the same distance with or without a scope. If the gun will shoot 500 yards people will find a way to shoot it that far.

In my opinion if this committee was formed to address technology they should address ALL technology not just what is on there “agenda”! For example Slam said handheld range finders were brought up in there discussions. That was thrown out in less than a minute. Not a “Technology” up for discussion I guess. Pretty closed minded if you’re trying to address all concerns with technology. I’m by no means calling for a ban on range finders, spotting scopes that can see 3 miles, binoculars that can see for miles and in low light situations but these are all technology conveniences that help in the taking wildlife. Especially trophy animals! I would just like to see that everything is looked at and not just going after whatever they don’t like for whatever reason.
Very well said. If the WB really wants to see success rates go down, then limit optics. 9x max on muzzleloader and rifle scopes and a max power of 7x on binos. No spotting scopes of any type can be used during the hunting season to aid in taking of big game. I guarantee that would make a huge difference across the board but we all know that would never happen.
[/QUOTE]


Sooo, a set of Fisher Price “my first binos” and a Bone Collector scope from Walmart and I should be good to go eh?!
 
Dude, you can't keep bringing that up if your not willing to address any real changes to rifles in the same fashion.

I can use the same line you've been using on muzzleloaders on rifles, "rifles were never intended to be used to hunt game past 300 yards"

Look at how many of the older guys have said just that.

So unless your committee is willing to seriously address the same thing on rifles it's all BS.

You've said it several times that "rifles were intended for long range" well BS if the committee is truly going to look into ways to reduce success by addressing tech and the one thing you have really singled out is scopes then you sure as hell better be addressing it with the rifles too.

Feels way to much like a witch hunt if you dont.
I respect the heck out of you Jake, you're a good guy, I have zero doubt about that.

I'm going to ask you a question.
You stated that prior to me presenting the success rates, you were all for removing variable scopes.

Honestly, why?
 
Where is muzzleloading going to be in 5 or 10 years when even 50% of shooters are using the Remington system topped with a ballistic data scope?

Should we wait and let the success rate data surge before we do anything and then take action?

We are foolish to think it won't happen.
I could be wrong and maybe I am but I don’t see the success rates surging just because people use the Remington system with a scope. Any of the muzzleloaders and scopes these days are very efficient weapons. I would guess the vast majority of people could be successful with any of them if there soul purpose was just to kill a deer. Many people could kill a deer every year if they wanted. I just don’t think the muzzleloaders and scopes there using now are holding them back from being successful. For me the same people that are killing deer now will be the same people that are successful when the scopes come off.
 
I hear these are the only sights allowed on Muzzy’s starting next year…

B5977BB3-6415-4B92-B7F2-9C7B3782AF38.jpeg
 
I could be wrong and maybe I am but I don’t see the success rates surging just because people use the Remington system with a scope. Any of the muzzleloaders and scopes these days are very efficient weapons. I would guess the vast majority of people could be successful with any of them if there soul purpose was just to kill a deer. Many people could kill a deer every year if they wanted. I just don’t think the muzzleloaders and scopes there using now are holding them back from being successful. For me the same people that are killing deer now will be the same people that are successful when the scopes come off.
"These days" is the key phrase.

What is coming down the pipe if we allow it to continue?

We are still struggling to comprehend "Emerging Technology" in all these threads.
 
They've Added Way More People/Hunters/Pressure in The Field Since The DH Program came along!

I can't Wait To See What Kind of Other Types Of Hunts They Can Add?

Wrist Rocket?

TOMAHAWK?

BOOMARANG?

JUDAS!



The only negative thing in my opinion the DH program does is add more bodies on each season, but 2 deer in 3 years and the physical attributes they give back to conservation for the luxury of hunting all three seasons.
 
There's One Thing For Sure!

It Ain't Far Off & A PISSCUTTER 2 Point Will Be Considered a Trophy!

50 GAWD-DAMNED Years To Try & Do Something Right & It Still Hasn't Happened!

And This NO SCOPE on SmokePoles Won't Fix It Either!

This State Will Produce QUALITY/TROPHY Bucks & Bulls Just about Anywhere in The State When Managed Properly!

But Even When It's Been Accomplished It's Wiped Back Out Within Just a Few Years Due To GREED/$$$/Opportunists!

SAD!
 
I respect the heck out of you Jake, you're a good guy, I have zero doubt about that.

I'm going to ask you a question.
You stated that prior to me presenting the success rates, you were all for removing variable scopes.

Honestly, why?
I respect you too Doug, and feel the same.

To answer your question I thought there had been a substantial increase in success with the scopes. When you posted the actual data that didn't support what I believed I changed my mind, if it's not effecting harvest rates then it's not an issue.

I'm an equal opportunity hunter, meaning whichever weapon I have the opportunity to use I'm going to use it. I have used all of these weapons in the last few years.

I have been thinking about this, and Honestly this is something I have said multiple times especially in regards to general season elk, you have 10% of guys that are killers, it doesn't matter what you put in there hands they are going to get it done more oftenthen not. The other 90% of guys get lucky here and there but for the most part are just happy to be in the hills. This is the main reason the success % was not really effected after they started allowing scopes on muzzleloaders.
 
"These days" is the key phrase.

What is coming down the pipe if we allow it to continue?

We are still struggling to comprehend "Emerging Technology" in all these threads.
I understand completely and I think technology is getting out of control. I have no problem regulating “Emerging Technology”. I just don’t feel it’s necessary to go backward because we’re afraid of the future.

I know you’ve taken some crap on these technology threads. And we may not agree on this one but I would just like to Thank You for trying to make a difference and help out where you can. It’s Much Appreciated!!!
 
I understand completely and I think technology is getting out of control. I have no problem regulating “Emerging Technology”. I just don’t feel it’s necessary to go backward because we’re afraid of the future.

I know you’ve taken some crap on these technology threads. And we may not agree on this one but I would just like to Thank You for trying to make a difference and help out where you can. It’s Much Appreciated!!!
Thank you, and much respect to you in return.

I get very involved with different aspects of the hunting world because I feel a need to give something back, even if my part is so small it can't be measured.
 
I respect you too Doug, and feel the same.

To answer your question I thought there had been a substantial increase in success with the scopes. When you posted the actual data that didn't support what I believed I changed my mind, if it's not effecting harvest rates then it's not an issue.

I'm an equal opportunity hunter, meaning whichever weapon I have the opportunity to use I'm going to use it. I have used all of these weapons in the last few years.
Great comments and your points are valid.

On your first paragraph you said "I thought there had been a substantial increase in success with scopes".
What made you think that?
Just assumptions or talk around the hunting community?
The reason I ask this is because I get told stories about long range muzzleloader kills all the time and personally have close acquaintances who push the technology to it's current limits and brag about it and even agree it's not right.
Even then, these guys I know will definitely fall into your 10% category regardless.
Their success isn't changing the data, but they are killing at 500+ yards and laughing about it's legalities.
If we do not draw a line, it most certainly WILL start changing success data as technology gets more affordable and into more hands taking advantage of hunting summertime non weary bucks.

"I'm an equal opportunity hunter, meaning whichever weapon I have the opportunity to use I'm going to use it."
yes, and whatever is allowed to use will get used, especially as quality and quantity continues to decline.
 
The only negative thing in my opinion the DH program does is add more bodies on each season, but 2 deer in 3 years and the physical attributes they give back to conservation for the luxury of hunting all three seasons.

But aren’t the DH targeting the older, larger antlered animals. Or does this argument only apply to the long range rifle and muzzy hunters?

My guess is that many of these DH are the same ones with all the technology mentioned above.

It’s disingenuous to not look at every aspect of management to see what is causing problems with our herds.

There is not near enough “conservation” being done with the DH program. Walking around strawberry and asking if fisherman know the regulations is doing absolutely nothing for our herds. Absolutely nothing…
 
Last edited:
But aren’t the DH targeting the older, larger antlered animals. Or does this argument only apply to the long range rifle and muzzy hunters?

My guess is that many of these DH are the same ones with all the technology mentioned above.

It’s disingenuous to not look at every aspect of management to see what is causing problems with our herds.
I would certainly hope the majority use it as a tool for mature bucks.
But we'll never know because as with the scopes on muzzleloaders argument, there's no data showing quality versus quantity.
 
Claiming I'm being dishonest is not cool and really makes look you look like a fool. Pretty disappointing to have a moderator throw his support behind such garbage. How about answering my questions! Here's some more facts, I'm a dedicated hunter and don't even use my archery tag. I tried it but stopped after opening weekend because I felt I'd probably would a nice buck and end up loosing it. The guilt was too much. I know I'd have those same feeling if I went back to open sights. So I ask again, why are you guys so eager to lower the success rate of muzzleloader hunters?
I think it is dishonest to say a scope only gives you a 40 yard advantage--I think it give much more, like 100 yard+ guess that makes me a fool? I may be wrong in this but I doubt it, only one way to find out-->

How bout this, you and I go shooting together (I live in Utah County). I set a brown colored deer vital sized gong up at 180 yards first or last light and you take three shots open sight and see how many times ya hit it. Then we do the same with your 12X scope at 280 yards and see how many hits you get. I got $50 says you don't hit all three at 180 open sight but do at 280 scoped. I would be trusting you to shoot your best. We get to go shoot together, make friends and maybe I eat crow and you get $50! Hell, I'll even drive with gas prices, meet ya off the Benjamin exit--you say when!

I have a natural tendency to like to make things difficult on myself and others so I understand that my tendencies for wanting the muzzy hunt to be harder are skewed by this. I respect that you want higher success rates--I really do, wanting others to have it easier is a valid argument. I very much disagree with the wounding arguments you have previously made--that's my rub--come shoot with me--it would be fun
 
Great comments and your points are valid.

On your first paragraph you said "I thought there had been a substantial increase in success with scopes".
What made you think that?
Just assumptions or talk around the hunting community?
The reason I ask this is because I get told stories about long range muzzleloader kills all the time and personally have close acquaintances who push the technology to it's current limits and brag about it and even agree it's not right.
Even then, these guys I know will definitely fall into your 10% category regardless.
Their success isn't changing the data, but they are killing at 500+ yards and laughing about it's legalities.
If we do not draw a line, it most certainly WILL start changing success data as technology gets more affordable and into more hands taking advantage of hunting summertime non weary bucks.

"I'm an equal opportunity hunter, meaning whichever weapon I have the opportunity to use I'm going to use it."
yes, and whatever is allowed to use will get used, especially as quality and quantity continues to decline.
Bit of assumptions, bit of knowledge of a few people with some of the super high priced specialty guns. For regular muzzloader I've not known anyone to shoot over 400 and probably not much more then 300.

As far as the quality / quantity declining, as I've stated previously I feel that is mostly out of our control and is more a result of the drought that has been in place for the last several years, things are looking up in that department for the past year or so. But still a long way to go. If we could get several good moisture years in a row I feel we wouldn't be having these conversations at all, at least not to this extent.
 
Bit of assumptions, bit of knowledge of a few people with some of the super high priced specialty guns. For regular muzzloader I've not known anyone to shoot over 400 and probably not much more then 300.

As far as the quality / quantity declining, as I've stated previously I feel that is mostly out of our control and is more a result of the drought that has been in place for the last several years, things are looking up in that department for the past year or so. But still a long way to go. If we could get several good moisture years in a row I feel we wouldn't be having these conversations at all, at least not to this extent.
I agree completely Sir.
We've got a long ways to go and a lot of work to do that we could all be a part of.

I love seeing all the conservation projects going on throughout the state, high fences and crossings, predator studies and implementations to help address issues there.
I just wish we could do more with the exploded coyote populations and fawn mortalities.
And as you stated.....rain and snow.....?
 
I think it is dishonest to say a scope only gives you a 40 yard advantage--I think it give much more, like 100 yard+ guess that makes me a fool? I may be wrong in this but I doubt it, only one way to find out-->

How bout this, you and I go shooting together (I live in Utah County). I set a brown colored deer vital sized gong up at 180 yards first or last light and you take three shots open sight and see how many times ya hit it. Then we do the same with your 12X scope at 280 yards and see how many hits you get. I got $50 says you don't hit all three at 180 open sight but do at 280 scoped. I would be trusting you to shoot your best. We get to go shoot together, make friends and maybe I eat crow and you get $50! Hell, I'll even drive with gas prices, meet ya off the Benjamin exit--you say when!

I have a natural tendency to like to make things difficult on myself and others so I understand that my tendencies for wanting the muzzy hunt to be harder are skewed by this. I respect that you want higher success rates--I really do, wanting others to have it easier is a valid argument. I very much disagree with the wounding arguments you have previously made--that's my rub--come shoot with me--it would be fun
It seems like we're both agreeing that it would be hard to hit the bullseye or have a tight group at 180 yards with open sights but someone with a scope could do it at 220+. Doesn't that mean there's a bigger chance of a bad shot at 180 yards with open sights, resulting in a wounded animal? I'm not sure how a shooting test would prove that. Once again, 220 is my stopping point for distance, even if I had a 24x night force scope.
 
It seems like we're both agreeing that it would be hard to hit the bullseye or have a tight group at 180 yards with open sights but someone with a scope could do it at 220+. Doesn't that mean there's a bigger chance of a bad shot at 180 yards with open sights, resulting in a wounded animal? I'm not sure how a shooting test would prove that. Once again, 220 is my stopping point for distance, even if I had a 24x night force scope.
I love that you just said that-
"220 is my stopping point even if i had a Nightforce".

We should all have limits for ourselves, but unfortunately we have a mindset that we can buy success in a box and attach it to our weapons.

I love shooting 1000 yards with my rifles, but I wouldn't even attempt it on a big game animal.
Coyote yes ?
 
I love that you just said that-
"220 is my stopping point even if i had a Nightforce".

We should all have limits for ourselves, but unfortunately we have a mindset that we can buy success in a box and attach it to our weapons.

I love shooting 1000 yards with my rifles, but I wouldn't even attempt it on a big game animal.
Coyote yes ?
But if you’re going to spend that much on “success in a box,” culturally, you gotta “do it for the gram.” Or there is no way to justify the new-aged flat brim approach to shooting at animals.

Let’s take tech a step further and say you cannot hunt or guide to get gain, referring to cash or trades. Take tech in the form of social media out of the picture. If you hunt, you cannot paste your kill all over the internet for cash/trades. Now, how would you enforce that?? Gonna need more armchair warden’s…

No one wins in this topic…I’m all for giving up what makes sense. In the end, what exactly will that be? Where will it stop? Ebikes are on the rise, taking hunters further into the back country than ever, then single manned drones will be up next…

This is an exhausting topic for all who care about the future of wildlife and hunting. The ride is about as rocky as our economy. Carry on??
 
Where is muzzleloading going to be in 5 or 10 years when even 50% of shooters are using the Remington system topped with a ballistic data scope?

Should we wait and let the success rate data surge before we do anything and then take action?

We are foolish to think it won't happen.
Slammy-daddy, The fact that you are thinking it’s the RUML that is the problem shows your ignorance. Most of the RUML that will be in the hands of hunters will be 300 yard (MAX) guns. The RUML isn’t the problem. Guys were shooting 300 yards with open sights and 1x scopes long before it’s invention, and will continue to do so after your technology ban. Also factor into it that most dudes won’t drop 1k on a muzzleloader, your success rates won’t hit your predicted 50% ever. They would have done so by now if it was going to happen. (Another strike against your argument with muzzleloaders and scopes are too effective) LOOK AT THE DATA.

How about we just make a ban on custom rifles/muzzleloaders? If you can’t buy it at scheels/sportsmans/cabelas/etc… you can’t hunt with it. That eliminates your fancy 1500 yard rifles and 800 yard muzzleloaders right there. We could also ban all hand loads. That would help too.

How much personal experience do you even have with muzzleloaders? The more you talk, the more it’s coming across that you don’t really know what it is that you’re talking about. It’s almost as if you crawled under someone’s desk to feel important and got on the committee that way…
 
BAN THEM ALL!!! I am all for banning scopes on muzzleloaders, including the 4-12 power Leupold mounted on my muzzleloader. While you are at it, feel free to impose similar technology limitations on other weapon types. You can ban the BDX scope on my 300 win mag and the CBE slider sight on my bow. Ban them all! The quantity and quality of our herds are in the tank and the applications for tags are going through the roof. If we want to have the opportunity to hunt with any regularity in the future and want to maintain any type of quality, then we are going to have to make some sacrifices that will result in lower success rates. Technology is out of control. We cannot keep going down this road.

I wish that we could just grow our deer herds but the DWR (and all other western states for that matter) have shown that is impossible to do that on a long-term basis. There are too many factors negatively impacting and our deer herds, some of which are completely beyond our control (weather, disease, auto deaths, predators, chest grass, loss of winter range, etc.). We are going to have to make changes if we want to continue to have the opportunity to hunt. Lower success rates equals more opportunity and quality. I know some disagree with this approach and that is okay with me. It makes for good debate.

Hawkeye
 
Last edited:
But if you’re going to spend that much on “success in a box,” culturally, you gotta “do it for the gram.” Or there is no way to justify the new-aged flat brim approach to shooting at animals.

Let’s take tech a step further and say you cannot hunt or guide to get gain, referring to cash or trades. Take tech in the form of social media out of the picture. If you hunt, you cannot paste your kill all over the internet for cash/trades. Now, how would you enforce that?? Gonna need more armchair warden’s…

No one wins in this topic…I’m all for giving up what makes sense. In the end, what exactly will that be? Where will it stop? Ebikes are on the rise, taking hunters further into the back country than ever, then single manned drones will be up next…

This is an exhausting topic for all who care about the future of wildlife and hunting. The ride is about as rocky as our economy. Carry on??
Ebikes will get hammered in time, it's inevitable.

Even professional bass fishing is taking a technology hit as "livescope" technology has just been banned from tournament use.
 
Ebikes will get hammered in time, it's inevitable.

Even professional bass fishing is taking a technology hit as "livescope" technology has just been banned from tournament use.
Go back and read the so called sarcastic comments regarding fishing technology studies during the trail camera conversations at this campfire a couple years ago. They weren’t kidding then and they aren’t kidding now.
 
BAN THEM ALL!!! I am all for banning scopes on muzzleloaders, including the 4-12 power Leupold mounted on my muzzleloader. While you are at it, feel free to impose similar technology limitations on other weapon types. You can ban the BDX scope on my 300 win mag and the CBE slider sight on my bow. Ban them all! The quantity and quality of our herds are in the tank and the applications for tags are going through the roof. If we want to have the opportunity to hunt with any regularity in the future and want to maintain any type of quality, then we are going to have to make some sacrifices that will result in lower success rates. Technology is out of control. We cannot keep going down this road.

I wish that we could just grow our deer herds but the DWR (and all other western states for that matter) have shown that is impossible to do that on a long-term basis. There are too many factors negatively impacting and our deer herds, some of which are completely beyond our control (weather, disease, auto deaths, predators, chest grass, loss of winter range, etc.). We are going to have to make changes if we want to continue to have the opportunity to hunt. Lower success rates equals more opportunity and quality. I know some disagree with this approach and that is okay with me. It makes for good debate.

Hawkeye
I'm not sure if your first paragraph was facetious or not, but your second paragraph was absolutely spot on!
 
I’m just proud slamdunk has finally had a discussion where he didn’t cry and take his ball to start a new thread ? ? ?
 
BAN THEM ALL!!! I am all for banning scopes on muzzleloaders, including the 4-12 power Leupold mounted on my muzzleloader. While you are at it, feel free to impose similar technology limitations on other weapon types. You can ban the BDX scope on my 300 win mag and the CBE slider sight on my bow. Ban them all! The quantity and quality of our herds are in the tank and the applications for tags are going through the roof. If we want to have the opportunity to hunt with any regularity in the future and want to maintain any type of quality, then we are going to have to make some sacrifices that will result in lower success rates. Technology is out of control. We cannot keep going down this road.

I wish that we could just grow our deer herds but the DWR (and all other western states for that matter) have shown that is impossible to do that on a long-term basis. There are too many factors negatively impacting and our deer herds, some of which are completely beyond our control (weather, disease, auto deaths, predators, chest grass, loss of winter range, etc.). We are going to have to make changes if we want to continue to have the opportunity to hunt. Lower success rates equals more opportunity and quality. I know some disagree with this approach and that is okay with me. It makes for good debate.

Hawkeye
Guess we do archery only then because that is the only way you are going to lower success rates with any significance.


But all that lower success will actually do nothing considering it does not address the fact that's not what's causing the down turn. We do not kill does in this state, at least very few of them. If you're not killing doe's then hunting is not the problem.
 
Guess we do archery only then because that is the only way you are going to lower success rates with any significance.


But all that lower success will actually do nothing considering it does not address the fact that's not what's causing the down turn. We do not kill does in this state, at least very few of them. If you're not killing doe's then hunting is not the problem.
I went to sportsman's warehouse today looking at archery equipment.
Seriously...
 
I’m just proud slamdunk has finally had a discussion where he didn’t cry and take his ball to start a new thread ? ? ?
I have PMs from him where he’s throwing an absolute bitcch fit. Tears all the way to his toes. He never stopped crying. He just went and hid in a closet to do it!

(see what I did there slammy-daddy?? ????)
 
BAN THEM ALL!!! I am all for banning scopes on muzzleloaders, including the 4-12 power Leupold mounted on my muzzleloader. While you are at it, feel free to impose similar technology limitations on other weapon types. You can ban the BDX scope on my 300 win mag and the CBE slider sight on my bow. Ban them all! The quantity and quality of our herds are in the tank and the applications for tags are going through the roof. If we want to have the opportunity to hunt with any regularity in the future and want to maintain any type of quality, then we are going to have to make some sacrifices that will result in lower success rates. Technology is out of control. We cannot keep going down this road.

I wish that we could just grow our deer herds but the DWR (and all other western states for that matter) have shown that is impossible to do that on a long-term basis. There are too many factors negatively impacting and our deer herds, some of which are completely beyond our control (weather, disease, auto deaths, predators, chest grass, loss of winter range, etc.). We are going to have to make changes if we want to continue to have the opportunity to hunt. Lower success rates equals more opportunity and quality. I know some disagree with this approach and that is okay with me. It makes for good debate.

Hawkeye
Don't you think this type of mind set is selfish? Hoping your fellow sportsman comes home empty handed. I can picture your conversation with your neighbor Joe now as he's about to leave hunting. Probably something like this........" Hey Joe, I hope you have a great time up on the mountain but please don't bring anything home. No seriously, I hope you miss!"
 
See hawkeye You're one of the Big Offenders of Why We are Where We are Today With Our PISS POOR Deer Herds!:D

And I Don't Know What 'chest' Grass Is?:D

HINT:

It's Only Went Down Hill For 50 Years Now!

It's Finally Got So Ridiculous That All Of a Sudden Everybody Wants It All Fixed Pronto!

Good Luck To All with That!
 
I was being somewhat facetious in my initial post, but only a little. I believe that we need to take significant steps to limit the technology that we are using are sportsmen to hunt and harvest big game. As mentioned above, our deer herds are in the tank it won't be long at the current pace until it will take 10 years to draw a "general season" deer tag and LE's tags will effectively become OIL tags. Utah has pumped tens of millions of dollars into conservation projects and has been unable to stop or even slow the decline of our deer herds. Other western states are experiencing similar trends. Colorado, once the gold standard for mule deer, is not far behind Utah. If we want to continue hunting with any regularity than we need to take steps to limit technology which will result in lower "harvest rates." I hate to say lower "success rates" because I don't judge a hunt solely on whether or not I harvest an animal. I have had some amazing hunts chasing big mule deer bucks on the steep slopes of the Wasatch extended archery unit and I have never taken a buck on that unit.

Now, let me address some the comments from my fellow friends and sportsmen. Jake suggests that the only way we can lower success rates with any significance is by going archery only. :unsure: I don't agree with that statement . I've seen guys post statistics to argue that allowing scopes on muzzleloaders has not resulted in increased success rates. There are several problems with this argument. First, remember the old saying that "There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.” You cannot look at historical sucess rates for a specific weapon type in isolation. We have to remember that our deer herds are decreasing at the same time that technology is improving. Therefore, even a flat level of success over time would suggest that the weapons are more lethal and successful. More importantly, it does not take rocket science to realize that open sights or a 1x scope on an in-line muzzleloader was a limiting factor. When variable scopes were allowed, that limit was removed. Before the change, I was comfortable shooting my muzzleloader to 125-150 yards. Now, with a 4-12 Leupold scope on my rifle, I have been able to extend that range significantly. As a final note, the fact that muzzeloader hunters are throwing a fit tells me that they know scopes make them more lethal and they do not want to lose that advantage. I believe the muzzleloader hunt was intended to be a primitive weapon hunt and we should move back in that direction.

Next, Ridge accuses me of being selfish and hoping that my friends and neigbors will be unsuccessful. Thanks Ridge! ;) How am I being selfish? I am advocating for changes that will directly affect me and the way I hunt. I am a DH and hunt will all three weapon types. As stated above, however, I believe that technology is out of control and is having an negative impact on both the quantity and qualifty of our herds. Frankly, I think it is selfish to turn a blind eye to the impact that ever-increasing technology is having on our herds and the sport of hunting. It is time that we as sportsmen make some scarifices and impose some reasonable limits on ourselves. And finally, I don't judge the success of a hunt solely by whether or not I harvest an animal. There is so much more that goes into the equation. More importantly for me, I want to have the opportunity to get out in the field and hunt as often as possible even if that means lower success rates.

Lastly, my buddy Elkster accuses me of being "one of the Big Offenders of Why We are Where We are Today With Our PISS POOR Deer Herds!" :oops: According to him, people like me have watched things go downhill for 50 years and now we want everything fixed pronto! Once again Elkster is off target. First of all, I am offended that you think I am over 50! More importantly, I am not advocating for these changes because I think they will solve all of our problems overnight. Rather, I am advocating for these change because I do not think there is any way to turn the corner and significantly grow our deer herds on a consistent longterm basis. Therefore, I would prefer to take some reasonable steps to limit technology and lower harvest rates so that all of us can hunt more often.

On a serious note, my son is 11 years old and will be hunting big game for the first time next year. I have had lots of opportunities to hunt over the years but I am more concerned about what opportunities my son and others will have moving forward. That is the primary driver for my position on these issues. Thanks for the discussion and debate. I recognize that others feel differently and may disagree. Feel free to fire away at my opinions.

Hawkeye

P.S. - Elkster, as far as off road vehicles, I own an old 2013 F-150 truck and a 2016 Kwasaki Teryx. Nothing as big and bad-ass as your 100K smoke belcher!
 
I was being somewhat facetious in my initial post, but only a little. I believe that we need to take significant steps to limit the technology that we are using are sportsmen to hunt and harvest big game. As mentioned above, our deer herds are in the tank it won't be long at the current pace until it will take 10 years to draw a "general season" deer tag and LE's tags will effectively become OIL tags. Utah has pumped tens of millions of dollars into conservation projects and has been unable to stop or even slow the decline of our deer herds. Other western states are experiencing similar trends. Colorado, once the gold standard for mule deer, is not far behind Utah. If we want to continue hunting with any regularity than we need to take steps to limit technology which will result in lower "harvest rates." I hate to say lower "success rates" because I don't judge a hunt solely on whether or not I harvest an animal. I have had some amazing hunts chasing big mule deer bucks on the steep slopes of the Wasatch extended archery unit and I have never taken a buck on that unit.

Now, let me address some the comments from my fellow friends and sportsmen. Jake suggests that the only way we can lower success rates with any significance is by going archery only. :unsure: I don't agree with that statement . I've seen guys post statistics to argue that allowing scopes on muzzleloaders has not resulted in increased success rates. There are several problems with this argument. First, remember the old saying that "There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.” You cannot look at historical sucess rates for a specific weapon type in isolation. We have to remember that our deer herds are decreasing at the same time that technology is improving. Therefore, even a flat level of success over time would suggest that the weapons are more lethal and successful. More importantly, it does not take rocket science to realize that open sights or a 1x scope on an in-line muzzleloader was a limiting factor. When variable scopes were allowed, that limit was removed. Before the change, I was comfortable shooting my muzzleloader to 125-150 yards. Now, with a 4-12 Leupold scope on my rifle, I have been able to extend that range significantly. As a final note, the fact that muzzeloader hunters are throwing a fit tells me that they know scopes make them more lethal and they do not want to lose that advantage. I believe the muzzleloader hunt was intended to be a primitive weapon hunt and we should move back in that direction.

Next, Ridge accuses me of being selfish and hoping that my friends and neigbors will be unsuccessful. Thanks Ridge! ;) How am I being selfish? I am advocating for changes that will directly affect me and the way I hunt. I am a DH and hunt will all three weapon types. As stated above, however, I believe that technology is out of control and is having an negative impact on both the quantity and qualifty of our herds. Frankly, I think it is selfish to turn a blind eye to the impact that ever-increasing technology is having on our herds and the sport of hunting. It is time that we as sportsmen make some scarifices and impose some reasonable limits on ourselves. And finally, I don't judge the success of a hunt solely by whether or not I harvest an animal. There is so much more that goes into the equation. More importantly for me, I want to have the opportunity to get out in the field and hunt as often as possible even if that means lower success rates.

Lastly, my buddy Elkster accuses me of being "one of the Big Offenders of Why We are Where We are Today With Our PISS POOR Deer Herds!" :oops: According to him, people like me have watched things go downhill for 50 years and now we want everything fixed pronto! Once again Elkster is off target. First of all, I am offended that you think I am over 50! More importantly, I am not advocating for these changes because I think they will solve all of our problems overnight. Rather, I am advocating for these change because I do not think there is any way to turn the corner and significantly grow our deer herds on a consistent longterm basis. Therefore, I would prefer to take some reasonable steps to limit technology and lower harvest rates so that all of us can hunt more often.

On a serious note, my son is 11 years old and will be hunting big game for the first time next year. I have had lots of opportunities to hunt over the years but I am more concerned about what opportunities my son and others will have moving forward. That is the primary driver for my position on these issues. Thanks for the discussion and debate. I recognize that others feel differently and may disagree. Feel free to fire away at my opinions.

Hawkeye

P.S. - Elkster, as far as off road vehicles, I own an old 2013 F-150 truck and a 2016 Kwasaki Teryx. Nothing as big and bad-ass as your 100K smoke belcher!
Your example of steady success rates during declining numbers is spot on, but no matrix to support that very "fact" so no one wants to even try understanding it.
I do, and you do.
 
This is crazy.
I just can’t believe the pushback on all this.

I really never hunted GS muzzleloader Elk till the multi season came around.
But my very first year this is what I noticed there where 4 hunter’s that hunt a certain area.
When I ran into them walking out of an area they all had 2 muzzleloader and every one of them had 3x9 scopes on there guns.

That same season all 4 of them filled there tags which is good, We actually helped them load one of them.
But the next year me and my son was hunting just above them.
we had a group of 30 elk coming down and there was 3 rag horns in that herd.
The only way we could tell what they where they where walking on the skyline.
We had 20 minutes before shooting light the Elk made it past us and got down to those 4 hunter’s they started shooting we still had 15 minutes before legal shooting.

They shot 6 shots in less than 20 seconds. all 4 hunter’s filled there tags there was a couple of spikes in that herd. That me and my son didn’t see

Last year the same thing happened and there was other hunters doing the same sh!((.
My point to all this if they didn’t have scopes on there guns they would of never got a chance at them this is why I hope they take them off.
This happens every year and there is a lot of hunters that shoot early.

Push all you want boys but there coming off.
 
This is crazy.
I just can’t believe the pushback on all this.

I really never hunted GS muzzleloader Elk till the multi season came around.
But my very first year this is what I noticed there where 4 hunter’s that hunt a certain area.
When I ran into them walking out of an area they all had 2 muzzleloader and every one of them had 3x9 scopes on there guns.

That same season all 4 of them filled there tags which is good, We actually helped them load one of them.
But the next year me and my son was hunting just above them.
we had a group of 30 elk coming down and there was 3 rag horns in that herd.
The only way we could tell what they where they where walking on the skyline.
We had 20 minutes before shooting light the Elk made it past us and got down to those 4 hunter’s they started shooting we still had 15 minutes before legal shooting.

They shot 6 shots in less than 20 seconds. all 4 hunter’s filled there tags there was a couple of spikes in that herd. That me and my son didn’t see

Last year the same thing happened and there was other hunters doing the same sh!((.
My point to all this if they didn’t have scopes on there guns they would of never got a chance at them this is why I hope they take them off.
This happens every year and there is a lot of hunters that shoot early.

Push all you want boys but there coming off.
And the accusations of them coming off for the purpose of making rifle hunters more successful is missing the point entirely, not to mention ludicrous.

Rifle hunters have always had highest success rates, always will, even with restrictions coming.

If muzzleloader hunters want an even playing field, switch hunts.....this includes myself.
 
Last edited:
This is crazy.
I just can’t believe the pushback on all this.

I really never hunted GS muzzleloader Elk till the multi season came around.
But my very first year this is what I noticed there where 4 hunter’s that hunt a certain area.
When I ran into them walking out of an area they all had 2 muzzleloader and every one of them had 3x9 scopes on there guns.

That same season all 4 of them filled there tags which is good, We actually helped them load one of them.
But the next year me and my son was hunting just above them.
we had a group of 30 elk coming down and there was 3 rag horns in that herd.
The only way we could tell what they where they where walking on the skyline.
We had 20 minutes before shooting light the Elk made it past us and got down to those 4 hunter’s they started shooting we still had 15 minutes before legal shooting.

They shot 6 shots in less than 20 seconds. all 4 hunter’s filled there tags there was a couple of spikes in that herd. That me and my son didn’t see

Last year the same thing happened and there was other hunters doing the same sh!((.
My point to all this if they didn’t have scopes on there guns they would of never got a chance at them this is why I hope they take them off.
This happens every year and there is a lot of hunters that shoot early.

Push all you want boys but there coming off.
What’s “Crazy” is chasing spike elk around for four straight months ?
 
Banning scopes on muzzleloaders seems like an obvious place to start if we are looking to limit technology. The reaility is that magnified scopes never should have been allowed. If folks like Elkster think that sportsmen are just picking on muzzleloader hunters, then go ahead and propose some reasonable limitations on all weapon types. I have already stated that I hunt all three weapon types as a DH, and I would welcome some reasonable limitations for each of those seasons. What is that phrase he uses, "All give some, not some give all!" :p

Hawkeye
 
Banning scopes on muzzleloaders seems like an obvious place to start if we are looking to limit technology. The reaility is that magnified scopes never should have been allowed. If folks like Elkster think that sportsmen are just picking on muzzleloader hunters, then go ahead and propose some reasonable limitations on all weapon types. I have already stated that I hunt all three weapon types as a DH, and I would welcome some reasonable limitations for each of those seasons. What is that phrase he uses, "All give some, not some give all!" :p

Hawkeye
All three are getting restrictions.

Some think it's too much, some not enough.

The doors will also be left cracked for Emerging Technology as it comes along.
 
And the accusations of them coming off for the purpose of making rifle hunters more successful is missing the point entirely, not to mention ludicrous.

Rifle hunters have always had highest success rates, always will, even with restrictions coming.

If muzzleloader hunters want an even playing field, switch hunts.....this includes myself.
Switch hunts?
Screw that type of thinking!
I hope the ‘Muzzy only Tech Committee’ opens their eyes and hits the Long Rangers with similar restrictions to protect our herd.
If they don’t also scale back rifle tech at same time, it is proof it was not about the Deer.
It IS proof that some LR’s want everything for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Banning scopes on muzzleloaders seems like an obvious place to start if we are looking to limit technology. The reaility is that magnified scopes never should have been allowed. If folks like Elkster think that sportsmen are just picking on muzzleloader hunters, then go ahead and propose some reasonable limitations on all weapon types. I have already stated that I hunt all three weapon types as a DH, and I would welcome some reasonable limitations for each of those seasons. What is that phrase he uses, "All give some, not some give all!" :p

Hawkeye
I did propose equally fair scope restrictions for LR’s in an earlier comment yesterday or so.
I believe the average muzzy guy packs around a 3x9 now. Let’s cut it back to 4 power max, that is roughly a 50% cut.
The average LR is probably 12-16 power, let’s max LR’s at 9 power. That is appx. a 40% cut.
Who could say that is not fair, especially with the muzzy guys taking a bigger hit?
Slam did not even answer it.
 
This is crazy.
I just can’t believe the pushback on all this.

I really never hunted GS muzzleloader Elk till the multi season came around.
But my very first year this is what I noticed there where 4 hunter’s that hunt a certain area.
When I ran into them walking out of an area they all had 2 muzzleloader and every one of them had 3x9 scopes on there guns.

That same season all 4 of them filled there tags which is good, We actually helped them load one of them.
But the next year me and my son was hunting just above them.
we had a group of 30 elk coming down and there was 3 rag horns in that herd.
The only way we could tell what they where they where walking on the skyline.
We had 20 minutes before shooting light the Elk made it past us and got down to those 4 hunter’s they started shooting we still had 15 minutes before legal shooting.

They shot 6 shots in less than 20 seconds. all 4 hunter’s filled there tags there was a couple of spikes in that herd. That me and my son didn’t see

Last year the same thing happened and there was other hunters doing the same sh!((.
My point to all this if they didn’t have scopes on there guns they would of never got a chance at them this is why I hope they take them off.
This happens every year and there is a lot of hunters that shoot early.

Push all you want boys but there coming off.
Most likely you or the other 4 gentlemen wouldn’t have even been hunting elk with a muzzleloader if it weren’t for the multi season. So is the scope the real culprit here?
Seems you have a pretty good idea who these guys are so I’m glad that you turned them in so they won’t be shooting 15 minutes early and ruining your hunts in the future. ?
 
Last edited:
Switch hunts?
Screw that type of thinking!
I hope the ‘Muzzy only Tech Committee’ opens there eyes and hits the Long Rangers with similar restrictions to protect our herd.
If they don’t also scale back rifle tech at same time, it is proof it was not about the Deer.
It IS proof that some LR’s want everything for themselves.
Your "type of thinking" isn't correct at all, it's not even remotely close to being in line with the structuring.

It not about giving more to rifle hunters, that's just a crazy reactional statement.
 
Your "type of thinking" isn't correct at all, it's not even remotely close to being in line with the structuring.

It not about giving more to rifle hunters, that's just a crazy reactional statement.
Then why in the world Slam would you recommend to ‘switch hunts’?
 
Most likely you or the other 4 gentlemen would have even been hunting elk with a muzzleloader if it weren’t for the multi season. So is the scope the real culprit here?
Seems you have a pretty good idea who these guys are so I’m glad that you turned them in so they won’t be shooting 15 minutes early and ruining your hunts in the future. ?
I did turn them in but clearly I didn’t see them shoot it was cloud cover and still dark. The DWR officer ask if I seen them do it I told them it was to dark but we did see the flash come out of the barrel. But you have to see them do it.
Scopes where the culprit and you know it or they wouldn’t of shot they couldn’t of seen those elk with open sights.?
 
It's quite simple.
If you want a high success, long range hunt, go rifle or as legally described "any weapon" and get it done ?‍♂️
Gotcha, and that will help ‘save’ our diminishing Deer herds.
Thank you for at least agreeing this whole process is to handicap the muzzy guys to save the top shelf Deer for the LR’s.
 
Slam honest question, If a scope on your Muzzy is so easy and not fair to the game why would you put one on your muzzy and use it?? You seem so against them and think there so bad for the herd but yet you choose to hunt with it. I myself am against the multi season elk hunt, so I don’t do it. No one says you have to hunt with a scope on your muzzy if you’re against hunting with it, just don’t use one. If one wants primitive feel free to do it.
 
There is more than one way to skin a cat but here are my suggestions for limiting technology: (1) no scopes on muzzleloaders; (2) no laser rangefinding sights on bows; and (3) no electronic scopes (e.g., Sig Sauer BDX, Burris Eliminator, etc.) or scopes with greater than X amount of magnification on rifles. Also, keep a close eye on new and developing technology moving forward.

I look forward to the proposals from the committee and the resulting whining and emotion leading up to the RAC and WB meetings. I fully expect the proposed changes to affect me and the way I currently hunt but I am hopeful that the changes will help our herds (quantity and quality) and increase the opportunity to hunt in the future.

Hawkeye
 
Last edited:
Slam honest question, If a scope on your Muzzy is so easy and not fair to the game why would you put one on your muzzy and use it?? You seem so against them and think there so bad for the herd but yet you choose to hunt with it. I myself am against the multi season elk hunt, so I don’t do it. No one says you have to hunt with a scope on your muzzy if you’re against hunting with it, just don’t use one. If one wants primitive feel free to do it.
Ever heard the phrase " Never bring a knife to a gun fight". hahaha. We all know you can carry a bow during an Any Weapon season, but we also know that nobody does that. Its not a matter of principle. Its a matter of legality and giving yourself the best opportunity to be successful. Success is not always measured in a kill mind you.
 
Slam honest question, If a scope on your Muzzy is so easy and not fair to the game why would you put one on your muzzy and use it?? You seem so against them and think there so bad for the herd but yet you choose to hunt with it. I myself am against the multi season elk hunt, so I don’t do it. No one says you have to hunt with a scope on your muzzy if you’re against hunting with it, just don’t use one. If one wants primitive feel free to do it.
Because the law allows me to do so and I, like others, wanted the advantage.

As will be the case in 5 or so years when it will be common making 300-400 yard kills with whatever gadgets are currently being developed now to give us even more advantages as numbers and quality continues to decline.
 
There is more than one way to skin a cat but here are my suggestions for limiting technology: (1) no scopes on muzzleloaders; (2) no laser rangefinding sights on bows; and (3) no electronic scopes (e.g., Sig Sauer BDX, Burris Eliminator, etc.) or scopes with greater than X amount of magnification on rifles. Also, keep a close eye on new and developing technology moving forward.

I look forward to the proposals from the committee and the resulting whining and emotion leading up to the RAC and WB meetings. I fully expect the proposed changes to affect me and the way I currently hunt but I am hopeful that the changes will help our herds (quantity and quality) and increase the opportunity to hunt in the future.

Hawkeye
Everything you stated has been voted on and passed on all 3 weapons, except for a maximum power on the rifle scope, but the RAC and or WB can look at that.
 
Ever heard the phrase " Never bring a knife to a gun fight". hahaha. We all know you can carry a bow during an Any Weapon season, but we also know that nobody does that. Its not a matter of principle. Its a matter of legality and giving yourself the best opportunity to be successful. Success is not always measured in a kill mind you.
For me it is principle, if I don’t believe something is right I am not going to do it. Regardless if it’s the cool thing to do or if it’s legal or not. If I’m about helping the “herd” and fair chase, I just don’t think it’s right to do something that goes against your beliefs because it’s legal. I hardly think shooting a muzzy without a scope is like bringing a knife to gun fight. I’m willing to bet Slam could kill just as many deer with or without scope
 
For me it is principle, if I don’t believe something is right I am not going to do it. Regardless if it’s the cool thing to do or if it’s legal or not. If I’m about helping the “herd” and fair chase, I just don’t think it’s right to do something that goes against your beliefs because it’s legal. I hardly think shooting a muzzy without a scope is like bringing a knife to gun fight. I’m willing to bet Slam could kill just as many deer with or without scope
I hear you. I also agree with the "helping the herd" part. Just because I carry a top end muzzy topped with a 16x power scope into the field, doesnt mean I am killing a deer every year. I haven't taken a deer in years. I prefer to help all the upcoming kids get theirs. Can the same be said for the meat hunter with a hawkin shooting yearlings every year? However, this year on the Henry's, I plan to take every advantage they allow me. That said, I would still like a 100 yard shot when the time comes.
 
With the way some guys are talking, I think they would like to have smokeless powder and a brass cases to hold the bullets, powder and primer together to use during "muzzleloader" hunts.

Scopes on muzzleloaders is a social issue. Scopes being legal vs illegal for muzzleloader hunts are not going to make a big difference on the deer herds. Yes, long range muzzleloaders do allow a few hunters to be more successful but the overall herd health (does numbers, buck/doe ratios, etc) are not going to be significantly affected by muzzleloaders with scopes vs no scopes.

Allowing more then 1X scopes on muzzleloaders was a mistake. A scoped muzzleloader that is capable of shooting 400+ yards isn't what muzzleloader seasons were designed for in my opinion.
 
Everything you stated has been voted on and passed on all 3 weapons, except for a maximum power on the rifle scope, but the RAC and or WB can look at that.

You think there are some hunters mad about the possibility of loosing scopes on their muzzleloaders. They will get really mad when you tell them they can't have a 32X scope on their 338 Lapua.
 
This is where we are headed ladies and gentlemen.

Are we seriously going to allow it?
View attachment 82605
No, we're not since they're night vision and they're already illegal.

Lets get real! The technology that you're talking about, which is about to be "emerging", won't be bought for a paltry $2K. ....and I agree, cap the new emerging electronics in a rifle scope!

You also states 50% are hunting with the ultimate muzzleloader and I'll call BS on you my friend.

Zeke
 
For me it is principle, if I don’t believe something is right I am not going to do it. Regardless if it’s the cool thing to do or if it’s legal or not. If I’m about helping the “herd” and fair chase, I just don’t think it’s right to do something that goes against your beliefs because it’s legal. I hardly think shooting a muzzy without a scope is like bringing a knife to gun fight. I’m willing to bet Slam could kill just as many deer with or without scope
I'm actually excited to get back to "bow hunting with a rifle" and either sit on water or spot and stalk with my muzzy.

Yes I could have been doing that all along, but a long scope changed my style of muzzleloader hunting.
Nature of the beast i guess.
 
I hear you. I also agree with the "helping the herd" part. Just because I carry a top end muzzy topped with a 16x power scope into the field, doesnt mean I am killing a deer every year. I haven't taken a deer in years. I prefer to help all the upcoming kids get theirs. Can the same be said for the meat hunter with a hawkin shooting yearlings every year? However, this year on the Henry's, I plan to take every advantage they allow me. That said, I would still like a 100 yard shot when the time comes.
Very well put! Good Luck on your hunt, hope you have a great experience and get a great buck.
 
None of this will effect me so I’m out of this mess.
It’s pretty obvious how technology has taken over.
I’m glade I’m not the only one that has noticed this. Can’t wait to see your smiling faces on YouTube at every one of those RAC meeting’s.
I assume you guys will be attending the board meeting as well. But it is going to take a lot more than you guys on here to get them to change there mind.
 
So?

We're Gonna Pull Off a Miracle With Limitations On Technology & GADGETRY Huh?

I'm Willing To WAGER Some Money That Says Down The Road in a Few Years There's No Significant Increase In QUANTITY & QUALITY of Our Deer Herd!

And hawkeye I Wasn't Calling You Old When I Mentioned the 50 Years of PISS POOR Management of the Deer Herd!

I've Seen it First Hand!

We Can't Even Manage an LE Unit such as the Henries Without Destroying It in a Short Time!

But HELL!

A Year Or Two After the Scopes are PLUCKED From SmokePoles The Henry Deer Herd Should Be Flourishing again,Right?
 
Everything you stated has been voted on and passed on all 3 weapons, except for a maximum power on the rifle scope, but the RAC and or WB can look at that.
There is more than one way to skin a cat but here are my suggestions for limiting technology: (1) no scopes on muzzleloaders; (2) no laser rangefinding sights on bows; and (3) no electronic scopes (e.g., Sig Sauer BDX, Burris Eliminator, etc.) or scopes with greater than X amount of magnification on rifles. Also, keep a close eye on new and developing technology moving forward.

I look forward to the proposals from the committee and the resulting whining and emotion leading up to the RAC and WB meetings. I fully expect the proposed changes to affect me and the way I currently hunt but I am hopeful that the changes will help our herds (quantity and quality) and increase the opportunity to hunt in the future.

Hawkeye
These remarks are why I'm fighting this subject so hard.
1st of all, these proposed changed for all three weapons are apples and oranges. the proposes for archery and rifle only effect about 10 percent of those hunters right now, it's mainly setting things up for the future, while the proposed changes for the muzzy will effect about 90 percent of the hunters right now.
Also, you guys got to stop claiming this will help the herds because it won't.
It won't even save very many bucks.
We already have a way of keeping enough bucks in the herd for breading each fall with a set number of bucks per does post season on each unit.
The quality will not change that much if the buck/doe ratios are kept the same and if you raise the buck ratio, then you will have tag cuts. It's almost impossible to have both quality and quantity at the same time without without fixing the fawn and winter range losses first.
 
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