DWR moving in the right direction,thanks!

[GLEDEASY]

At first glance, the numbers you use seem to support that powered scopes don't increase harvest rates. However, there are other factors that contribute to harvest rates. The greatest being- how many bucks are running around to be killed?

In 2015, the DWR estimated the deer population to be 14,900 on Nebo. With their estimated buck to doe ratio of 16 to 100, there were roughly 2055 bucks on the unit. 175 were killed, which is 8.5% of the total bucks.

In 2020, the DWR estimated the deer population to be 12,500 on Nebo. With their estimated buck to doe ratio of 12 to 100, there were roughly 1339 bucks on the unit. 170 were killed, which is 12.7% of the total bucks.

Basically, the number of bucks went down 35%, but the harvest ratio did not go down with that number... meaning hunters became more lethal. In fact, comparing 8.5% to 12.7%- they became almost 50% more lethal in killing bucks. If lethality of the hunter was even between 1x or no scope and powered scopes, we would statistically expect to see the harvest numbers go down at a commensurate rate (35%). If that were true, only 114 bucks would have been harvested in 2020.

Hmmmm...? So you're saying since deer numbers went down, but the harvest rate (harvest/tags) remained the same hunters were too lethal?

My question is, where should harvest rates be? The rate quoted above was 25%. What would the harvest rate be if we went back to the 1x scopes?

 

[Bux n Dux]

At first glance, the numbers you use seem to support that powered scopes don't increase harvest rates. However, there are other factors that contribute to harvest rates. The greatest being- how many bucks are running around to be killed?

In 2015, the DWR estimated the deer population to be 14,900 on Nebo. With their estimated buck to doe ratio of 16 to 100, there were roughly 2055 bucks on the unit. 175 were killed, which is 8.5% of the total bucks.

In 2020, the DWR estimated the deer population to be 12,500 on Nebo. With their estimated buck to doe ratio of 12 to 100, there were roughly 1339 bucks on the unit. 170 were killed, which is 12.7% of the total bucks.

Basically, the number of bucks went down 35%, but the harvest ratio did not go down with that number... meaning hunters became more lethal. In fact, comparing 8.5% to 12.7%- they became almost 50% more lethal in killing bucks. If lethality of the hunter was even between 1x or no scope and powered scopes, we would statistically expect to see the harvest numbers go down at a commensurate rate (35%). If that were true, only 114 bucks would have been harvested in 2020.

I wouldn’t look too hard into the DWR population counts and herd numbers. Don’t forget in 2019, they tried to sell utah hunters that we were at an all time high for deer numbers, according to their post hunt counts. After being quickly called on their bullshiz by the public, they changed their findings to reflect were at an all time low.

 

[hornkiller]

There's not 114 bucks on that unit, is there??

On the whole unit probably lmfao

Spent 7 days on the late muzz deer hunt this last fall and was not impressed!
Nothing like it was when I was in high school.

 

[Heritagehunting]

I have read several people on here talk about restrictions on "long range rifles". Honest question what is a long range rifle? If you ask me I guess my answer would be if you not using a 30-30 with iron sights? Yes, I am one of those "longe range guys" I have a 28 Nosler set up for a 1000 yards and I routinely practice that far. If you are want to limit the effective range of a hunter it's not the caliber of the rifle or power of the scope......it's a rangefinder. I will be the first to admit, with out my rangefinder my "long range rifle" is no more effective than a 270 with a 4 power scope.

Take the rangefinder away and all you do is make people go back to guessing and you have a lot more wounded animals. I too am a long range hunter if there is such a thing. I practice year round at ranges out to 1000 yards. If you take away the range finder all you would do is make people guess and that is not a safe or practical thing to do. If you don't want people shooting long range you would have to take away the scope altogether. That is how my father hunted with an open sight 30/30 lever action gun. They wounded far more animals back then than we ever do today. I have never wounded a deer and left it on the mountain. If you hunt long enough your going to miss on some of your shots. If you take away quality optics and high powered rifles, you don't effectively reduce the number of kills you just increase the number of wounded animals left on the mountain. If you want to manage the herds for better quality then reduce the tags. It seems like a math issue to me. If you want to reduce the harvest then reduce the number of tags. I realize that infringes on the traditional family deer hunt. That has happened to our family and we complained about not being able to go hunting because nobody had tags. We adapted and hunt other species or we take a year off and just go camping. I don't think there is one simple solution but trying to limit the "long range hunter" by limiting his equipment means taking away high caliber guns with any kind of scope magnification on them. I just don't think that is practical at all.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

Take the rangefinder away and all you do is make people go back to guessing and you have a lot more wounded animals. I too am a long range hunter if there is such a thing. I practice year round at ranges out to 1000 yards. If you take away the range finder all you would do is make people guess and that is not a safe or practical thing to do. If you don't want people shooting long range you would have to take away the scope altogether. That is how my father hunted with an open sight 30/30 lever action gun. They wounded far more animals back then than we ever do today. I have never wounded a deer and left it on the mountain. If you hunt long enough your going to miss on some of your shots. If you take away quality optics and high powered rifles, you don't effectively reduce the number of kills you just increase the number of wounded animals left on the mountain. If you want to manage the herds for better quality then reduce the tags. It seems like a math issue to me. If you want to reduce the harvest then reduce the number of tags. I realize that infringes on the traditional family deer hunt. That has happened to our family and we complained about not being able to go hunting because nobody had tags. We adapted and hunt other species or we take a year off and just go camping. I don't think there is one simple solution but trying to limit the "long range hunter" by limiting his equipment means taking away high caliber guns with any kind of scope magnification on them. I just don't think that is practical at all.

Do your research how many more tags do you want to cut.
We have already cut well over 140,000 permits 20+ years.
Cutting tags doesn’t work.

 

[Airborne]

This is a couple year old thread and not sure why it's resurrected (should probably stay dead) but the 'we need all the tech so we don't wound deer' is the dumbest argument out there.

Look at states with weapon restrictions, are they wounding more animals than states with no restrictions? No, they are not. That's really all the proof you need.

If you enjoy hunting with all the tech then just say that. It makes it easier to kill animals. Own it, there is no shame in it. I love rifles and range finders and long shots, but I'm not hiding behind bad arguments to substantiate them.

 

[Bux n Dux]

This is a couple year old thread and not sure why it's resurrected (should probably stay dead) but the 'we need all the tech so we don't wound deer' is the dumbest argument out there.

Look at states with weapon restrictions, are they wounding more animals than states with no restrictions? No, they are not. That's really all the proof you need.

If you enjoy hunting with all the tech then just say that. It makes it easier to kill animals. Own it, there is no shame in it. I love rifles and range finders and long shots, but I'm not hiding behind bad arguments to substantiate them.

Ok but with that same thought, look at current success rates. Are scoped muzzleloaders really having that much of an impact of success to where it makes a noticeable difference? In quantity, no they are not.

Quality? That’s a completely different story. And I really feel the underlying reason for all of this has to do with that topic. I’ll be the first to admit, quality has definitely slipped since the introduction of scopes on muzzleloaders where I hunt. I still hear the same amount of shots every opening day and days following. I still see the same number of deer killed. I did see bigger bucks taken more frequently at first. I was fortunate enough to participate in that the first couple years. But after those first few years, bigger bucks were much harder to locate, little bucks were still being killed at the same rate and it never materialized into a long range slaughter like many want to believe took place.

I’m not disagreeing with you at all. You’re 100% correct in your assessment. However IMO, this isn’t about improving deer numbers. this isn’t about accuracy, ethics or moral integrity. It’s really not even about hunter success. There’s more to it that I feel no one is wanting to talk about.

I support restrictions. I killed a buck this year with a muzzleloader at a range much farther than what I could shoot with a 1x. BUT. I would have killed that deer either way at 75 yards with open sights had I felt the need to do so. But I do not support restrictions when we aren’t being honest about the reason for it and I don’t support them where they don’t make sense. Your success rates will always remain the same. Your same guys will always fill a tag. Your guys that say there aren’t any deer left and don’t leave the roads will eat their tags.

Let’s make a 4x max, loose powder and call it a day and see what happens. JMHO.

 

[Airborne]

@Bux n Dux
I figure Archery is the toughest weapon and the ALW is the easiest weapon so we should have a medium weapon and my view is open sight muzzleloader fits perfectly in that divide.

I don't think going to 4X makes it that different. The Service rifle competitions at Camp Perry are shot with 4.5X Scopes and they provide a marked advantage over open sights, plus shooting in low light is much easier with a scope. Policing scope power is another hard thing as 4X and 9X look similar.

Muzzleloaders should be very different than rifles and scopes put them too close. My reasoning for open sights has nothing to do with better bucks or herd health or success percentages or tradition or whatever else. It's simply an opinion that our weapons should be classified as difficult, medium, easy and there should be a marked difference between the three categories.

But I appreciate your opinion and others that have the same as you.

 

[Bux n Dux]

@Bux n Dux
I figure Archery is the toughest weapon and the ALW is the easiest weapon so we should have a medium weapon and my view is open sight muzzleloader fits perfectly in that divide.

I don't think going to 4X makes it that different. The Service rifle competitions at Camp Perry are shot with 4.5X Scopes and they provide a marked advantage over open sights, plus shooting in low light is much easier with a scope. Policing scope power is another hard thing as 4X and 9X look similar.

I would argue that a lot of archery hunts can be the easiest to find success. Unpressured and uneducated animals? Sign me up.

Dudes were smoking guys on purpose at ungodly distances with open sight muzzleloaders during the civil war. It’s not the bow, it’s the Indian.

As far as policing the scope’s because the look alike goes, that is a very weak argument. How do we know the muzzleloader isn’t actually a centerfire rifle? How do we know waterfowl hunters aren’t using lead instead of steel? How do we know that turkey hunter isn’t using electronic calls? We don’t. It’s up to honesty and the DWR to do their job and field check. I feel that argument is weaker than the ethics argument of a magnified scope for more precise shots reducing wound/loss scenarios.

 

[Airborne]

You're correct that difficulty in policing is a weak argument--I won't use it again.

Open sights are effective and can be lethal at long distances in the right hands, but we are speaking to the averages. The standard issue US infantry sight is a 4X ACOG and the one that will be replacing that one is variable up to 6X. Uncle Sam knows that scopes help soldiers put rounds on target because it's easier for the average human. You need to think in terms of averages in regards to policies that will apply to everyone. There will always be the guy with irons who kills a buck at last light at 500 yards with his muzzy, that's the exception, not the rule.

Picture a standard ruler with archery on the left (1" mark) being the hardest weapon with the lowest success % and the ALW hunt being on the right as the easiest hunt (12" mark). Current muzzy rules I would place at about the 9" to 10" spot. Take scopes off and it slides back to the middle at 6" where I think it belongs.

If the WB goes to 4X scopes you can bet your a$$ I will be running one. I hope they don't.

 

[Vanilla]

If the WB goes to 4X scopes you can bet your a$$ I will be running one. I hope they don't.

So I got bored one day on the rifle hunt during the lull of a day in a canyon void of any animals, so I found two rocks I wanted to see if I could kill. One was at 698 yards and the other at 868 yards. I was shooting my 7mm and drilled both. No big deal, really.

I don’t have a super fancy scope, just a 4x16 low level Vortex but I know the MOA for the turret, and it made fairly easy work. It wasn’t until I got back to the truck and I was doing my standard safety checklist that I realized the scope was on 5x the entire time. I never zoomed in from that point. I shot about a 15 inch rock at nearly 900 yards with my scope on 5x without struggling much at all.

Why do I share this? I do not believe muzzleloaders are effective out to that range (yet). Yes, I know people have made those kinds of shots but they just don’t have the energy required (yet) to make consistent, accurate kills those distances for most of the hunting public. But a 4x scope will not be the limiting factor in that equation. If anyone has paid attention to my position on this muzzy tech discussion I have kind of fallen in the middle and said I favored 4x as a limit as a compromise between camps. I would now say I’m down to 2x as a limit after my own experiment a week ago if we are looking for a compromise. But I’m also leaning harder towards being in favor of open sights only as well. Testing out today’s tech on muzzleloaders really has taught me things I didn’t realize even just 2 months ago. Muzzleloaders that are available today are nothing like the .54 cal open sight muzzy I hunted with for a decade. That’s for sure! I’d heard people say that, but after shooting one myself at the range and in the field, it became apparent very quickly that “we are not in Kansas anymore” when it comes to muzzleloaders. I didn’t realize just how capable of weapons they’d become over the last almost 15 years since I’ve been out of the muzzy game.

Maybe that advancement is good or maybe it is bad, but we can’t deny the facts of the situation.

 

[Airborne]

There are affordable muzzle-loading barrels out there that can be thrown on a TC lower action that can handle smokeless powder pressures and shoot well with BH209. Smokeless powder like H4895 will shoot a 250 grain .45 Cal high BC bullet at 2800 FPS fairly easily. You throw a 4X scope on that and you can shoot to 700 yards pretty easy with enough power to kill any critter out there. Carry BH209 in your pack but have that first shot be smokeless (law breaking) and it's pretty much unenforceable. No warden is gonna have folks take apart their gun and pull their breach plug for a spot check.

If there is a state where the system will be gamed it will be this one.

Pull scopes and it solves these issues. Or not--I have my opinion but I'm gonna hunt either way

 

[hossblur]

I would argue that a lot of archery hunts can be the easiest to find success. Unpressured and uneducated animals? Sign me up.

Dudes were smoking guys on purpose at ungodly distances with open sight muzzleloaders during the civil war. It’s not the bow, it’s the Indian.

As far as policing the scope’s because the look alike goes, that is a very weak argument. How do we know the muzzleloader isn’t actually a centerfire rifle? How do we know waterfowl hunters aren’t using lead instead of steel? How do we know that turkey hunter isn’t using electronic calls? We don’t. It’s up to honesty and the DWR to do their job and field check. I feel that argument is weaker than the ethics argument of a magnified scope for more precise shots reducing wound/loss scenarios.

Hell of a lot easier for DWR to check muzzies without even having to bother the hunter, if there are no scopes allowed.

 

[Bux n Dux]

Hell of a lot easier for DWR to check muzzies without even having to bother the hunter, if there are no scopes allowed.

Pretty dang hard to tell that “muzzleloader” isn’t a centerfire rifle without checking it personally. What about smokeless powder? That’s illegal and we all know there’s guys out there using it. Gonna have everyone rip their guns apart to prove their innocence?

 

[hossblur]

Pretty dang hard to tell that “muzzleloader” isn’t a centerfire rifle without checking it personally. What about smokeless powder? That’s illegal and we all know there’s guys out there using it. Gonna have everyone rip their guns apart to prove their innocence?

Not sure about your muzzy, but mine has a ramrod attatched

 

[Bux n Dux]

Not sure about your muzzy, but mine has a ramrod attatched

Many of the custom bolt action type muzzleloaders don’t have a ram rod attached to the barrel. The CVA paramount doesn’t have one. That rod attached to the barrel can really impact accuracy on your gun, so the fancier guns went away from that on their design

 

[hossblur]

Many of the custom bolt action type muzzleloaders don’t have a ram rod attached to the barrel. The CVA paramount doesn’t have one. That rod attached to the barrel can really impact accuracy on your gun, so the fancier guns went away from that on their design

The vast majority, I'd bet 90% aren't using them.

Either way, looking for a scope is a simple easy enforcement.

 

[Bux n Dux]

The vast majority, I'd bet 90% aren't using them.

Either way, looking for a scope is a simple easy enforcement.

Vast majority aren’t shooting beyond 200 yards regardless of what muzzleloader they are packing… which circles us back to why even do this to begin with.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

Okay I’m going to give you an update on scopes.
Yesterday morning me and my buddy and his son was sitting on a ridge a half hour before shooting light.
We could hear the calves and cows chirping down in the drainage right below us.
The bull started in screaming, mind you it was still dark they made their way up to the top of the hill.
As soon as the bulls hit the top of the ridge there was still 10 minutes before shooting light.
Two shots rang out and we hit the deck and then a 3rd shot was fired. They were shooting skyline at 300 plus yards. They got the one bull and wounded the other as of last night they still haven’t recovered the other bull.
Both hunters had two muzzleloader each which it’s not against the law to have two hell you can carry as many as you want.

But I am done with this crap, scopes need to come off period if they had open sights like we did I know we couldn’t see threw our open sights too make out what we were going to shoot at. I know if they had open sight's, they sure the hell couldn’t they were down on the edge of tree line where it was even darker.

We turned them in but unfortunately we did not see them shoot so there was nothing they could do about it.

Pull them off if you want to use scopes then use them during the any weapon hunt.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

Vast majority aren’t shooting beyond 200 yards regardless of what muzzleloader they are packing… which circles us back to why even do this to begin with.

I call bull crap on this last night a guy harvested a bull at 286 yards.
the last 4 years they have been shooting over 200 yards in my area.
People aren’t being truthful you can say what you want but that is not accurate at all.

 

[Vanilla]

I know of a bull that was killed at over 450 yards with a muzzy this year.

 

[hossblur]

Vast majority aren’t shooting beyond 200 yards regardless of what muzzleloader they are packing… which circles us back to why even do this to begin with.

I go back to an old truth. If it's not a big deal, why fight so hard?

 

[Bux n Dux]

I call bull crap on this last night a guy harvested a bull at 286 yards.
the last 4 years they have been shooting over 200 yards in my area.
People aren’t being truthful you can say what you want but that is not accurate at all.

Everyone? Or is it just one gun being used? I hunt wide open country that’s pounded by hunters and the only one I’ve ever witnessed taking longer shots was shooting my rifle.

 

[Bux n Dux]

I go back to an old truth. If it's not a big deal, why fight so hard?

I’m not fighting it so hard. I’m anti government over reach when statistically speaking it’s not warranted. I honestly don’t care either way. If it makes sense. Managing feelings doesn’t make sense. Managing wildlife does.

 

[Bux n Dux]

I know of a bull that was killed at over 450 yards with a muzzy this year.

I know of a 4x4 buck killed at 419. By me. But like I said in a previous comment. I could have shot him at 75 yards. The buck was dead either way.

Pull the scopes. I don’t care. It won’t make a difference. With anything that matters at least. That’s where my issue lies.

 

[Ticks N Tines]

The dedicated hunter program needs some huge improvements. Hunters in the program are not effectively contributing to helping the deer populations. The projects are terrible. There's a big need for proper management of that program.

"Mowing the Lawn at Hardware ranch" is not an activity a Dedicated hunter should be doing. There are several pointless projects that do not benefit deer at all.

We need to get these guys out doing actual habitat restoration, feeding deer in the winter (when necessary), and doing projects that benefit the deer in Utah. That would be a "Step in the right direction" for Utah's deer pops.

Too many people in that program are just buying hours, or coming up with schemes to get hours done easily. That's the DWR's problem and it needs to be fixed. If you want to be a "Dedicated Hunter", you should be dedicated in your efforts of helping the deer.

In a nutshell, DWR needs to come up with better ways to utilize members of the program in helping to benefit deer in Utah.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

The dedicated hunter program needs some huge improvements. Hunters in the program are not effectively contributing to helping the deer populations. The projects are terrible. There's a big need for proper management of that program.

"Mowing the Lawn at Hardware ranch" is not an activity a Dedicated hunter should be doing. There are several pointless projects that do not benefit deer at all.

We need to get these guys out doing actual habitat restoration, feeding deer in the winter (when necessary), and doing projects that benefit the deer in Utah. That would be a "Step in the right direction" for Utah's deer pops.

Too many people in that program are just buying hours, or coming up with schemes to get hours done easily. That's the DWR's problem and it needs to be fixed. If you want to be a "Dedicated Hunter", you should be dedicated in your efforts of helping the deer.

In a nutshell, DWR needs to come up with better ways to utilize members of the program in helping to benefit deer in Utah.

I agree 100%.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

Everyone? Or is it just one gun being used? I hunt wide open country that’s pounded by hunters and the only one I’ve ever witnessed taking longer shots was shooting my rifle.

There is more hunter’s shooting at further ranges than people are thinking. Especially with muzzle loaders.
I found a 3 point buck for a kid and instead of them closing the distance his dad set him up at 350 yards and he hit the deer right in the guts and then he did a follow up shot and missed so they finally closed the distance within 200 yards and dropped him.
It’s definitely happening more than you or anyone else is claiming.

 

[Simpleton]

The dedicated hunter program needs some huge improvements. Hunters in the program are not effectively contributing to helping the deer populations. The projects are terrible. There's a big need for proper management of that program.

"Mowing the Lawn at Hardware ranch" is not an activity a Dedicated hunter should be doing. There are several pointless projects that do not benefit deer at all.

We need to get these guys out doing actual habitat restoration, feeding deer in the winter (when necessary), and doing projects that benefit the deer in Utah. That would be a "Step in the right direction" for Utah's deer pops.

Too many people in that program are just buying hours, or coming up with schemes to get hours done easily. That's the DWR's problem and it needs to be fixed. If you want to be a "Dedicated Hunter", you should be dedicated in your efforts of helping the deer.

In a nutshell, DWR needs to come up with better ways to utilize members of the program in helping to benefit deer in Utah.

I agree. Dedicated hunters should show "dedication" to what deer. My stance on the program is either one of the options below:

1. Do away with it completely. Benefit: reduced pressure.
2. Eliminate buying hours and make "dedicated" hunters complete their hours by doing projects that benefit deer within the unit their tag is valid for. Benefit: projects would be done on every general unit, statewide, every year.

 

[hossblur]

I agree. Dedicated hunters should show "dedication" to what deer. My stance on the program is either one of the options below:

1. Do away with it completely. Benefit: reduced pressure.
2. Eliminate buying hours and make "dedicated" hunters complete their hours by doing projects that benefit deer within the unit their tag is valid for. Benefit: projects would be done on every general unit, statewide, every year.

I buy hours.

I've bought chain saws, winches, cameras. Stuff that otherwise comes out of DWR budget. It's not like I'm handing the Leo a wad of cash.

Those items were much more beneficial than taking tickets at the expo or a banquet,

 

[hossblur]

I’m not fighting it so hard. I’m anti government over reach when statistically speaking it’s not warranted. I honestly don’t care either way. If it makes sense. Managing feelings doesn’t make sense. Managing wildlife does.

I'm not specifically saying YOU, a general "you"

The same noise was made over bait, cams, etc.

Guys spending thousands for things that "don't make a difference" defies logic and human nature

 

[Bux n Dux]

There is more hunter’s shooting at further ranges than people are thinking. Especially with muzzle loaders.
I found a 3 point buck for a kid and instead of them closing the distance his dad set him up at 350 yards and he hit the deer right in the guts and then he did a follow up shot and missed so they finally closed the distance within 200 yards and dropped him.
It’s definitely happening more than you or anyone else is claiming.

Well, I’m speaking from a lot of general muzzleloader experience, elk and deer, haven’t missed a season since 2006, and I’m not seeing anything close to what people claim (or assume) is happening. Many hunters I see today have an 9x max on their gun. Many still rocking the 1x or open sight set ups. Combine that with pellet propellants, cheap readily available bullets/sabots and any 209 primer they can get their hands on, the majority of the guns out there are not capable of accurate long range intentional shots. Not to mention the skill factor and ballistic data that needs to be correctly calculated which most hunters have neither of…. Agree to disagree I suppose.

 

[Bux n Dux]

I'm not specifically saying YOU, a general "you"

The same noise was made over bait, cams, etc.

Guys spending thousands for things that "don't make a difference" defies logic and human nature

They make a difference in impacting quality. They don’t make a difference in over all success. But no one wants to acknowledge that publicly.

Like I said, I’m all for it. If it was done for the right reasons. Cams and bait I believe was done for some of those reasons, and for that, I applaud the effort and in the end was happy to see it happen. I don’t agree with how it happened or what the stated reasons were, but it was a benefit to wildlife in the long run. Same with some of the other recent changes that have been made.

Wish we could focus this kind of energy on eliminating guiding on public lands for LE and GS bucks, bulls and antlerless hunts. we’d really be getting somewhere!

 

[hossblur]

Well, I’m speaking from a lot of general muzzleloader experience, elk and deer, haven’t missed a season since 2006, and I’m not seeing anything close to what people claim (or assume) is happening. Many hunters I see today have an 9x max on their gun. Many still rocking the 1x or open sight set ups. Combine that with pellet propellants, cheap readily available bullets/sabots and any 209 primer they can get their hands on, the majority of the guns out there are not capable of accurate long range intentional shots. Not to mention the skill factor and ballistic data that needs to be correctly calculated which most hunters have neither of…. Agree to disagree I suppose.

Well, I'll pull rank. I haven't missed one since 93', starting with side hammer pistol powder shooting #11 capped guns, through the first Knight Discs, and now an accura 2.

Of course there is a major difference.

But I wholeheartedly agree, I prefer Idaho rules, the ignition system is the biggest tech.

And yeah, this is Utardia, bet your azz guys will break the law on power, bullet, cap. Guys do it waterfowling with lead. But the vast majority don't.

 

[Simpleton]

I buy hours.

I've bought chain saws, winches, cameras. Stuff that otherwise comes out of DWR budget. It's not like I'm handing the Leo a wad of cash.

Those items were much more beneficial than taking tickets at the expo or a banquet,

I don't think you are wrong or fault you for buying them. It is allowed and perfectly fine under the current rule. Those things are already (or at least should be) in their budget. It is just my opinion that when the program was created, the spirit of it was to directly help mule deer, in return for increased opportunities to hunt mule deer.

For what it is worth, I also agree that is far better than tickets at the expo.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

Well, I’m speaking from a lot of general muzzleloader experience, elk and deer, haven’t missed a season since 2006, and I’m not seeing anything close to what people claim (or assume) is happening. Many hunters I see today have an 9x max on their gun. Many still rocking the 1x or open sight set ups. Combine that with pellet propellants, cheap readily available bullets/sabots and any 209 primer they can get their hands on, the majority of the guns out there are not capable of accurate long range intentional shots. Not to mention the skill factor and ballistic data that needs to be correctly calculated which most hunters have neither of…. Agree to disagree I suppose.

Now this all makes sense you are an avid muzzleloader.
You don’t have to have skill to take a long shot with a muzzleloader but you have to have skill to hit your target at longer distances.
Of course you’re not seeing any of that, it’s pretty nice having the ability to shoot out there at 419 yards. Just like you claimed you did. You even told us you could have closed the distance to what 75 yards. So why didn’t you? Because you were afraid of spooking the deer or was another hunter heading towards that deer. The list goes on of reason why you took that shot.

Don’t sit here and tell me it’s not a problem you just told us you do it. You are just one of 13,000 muzzy hunters that do it. No I’m not saying all do it but I think you will be surprised on how many really do it.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

.

 

[Bux n Dux]

Now this all makes sense you are an avid muzzleloader.
You don’t have to have skill to take a long shot with a muzzleloader but you have to have skill to hit your target at longer distances.
Of course you’re not seeing any of that, it’s pretty nice having the ability to shoot out there at 419 yards. Just like you claimed you did. You even told us you could have closed the distance to what 75 yards. So why didn’t you? Because you were afraid of spooking the deer or was another hunter heading towards that deer. The list goes on of reason why you took that shot.

Don’t sit here and tell me it’s not a problem you just told us you do it. You are just one of 13,000 muzzy hunters that do it. No I’m not saying all do it but I think you will be surprised on how many really do it.

I wouldn’t even come close to saying im an avid muzzleloader hunter. I enjoy the season. By means of youth tag multi season opportunity, dedicated hunters permits and general tags to fill in the holes, I have hunted with that weapon type a lot. But I’ve hunted with the other weapon types just as much, and have found equal amounts of success with all of them. I have the skill to hit long shots with any weapon type. I also possess the skills to get within 50 yards in many situations if I need to. The buck you’re referring to that I shot this year was on a part of the mountain that I had entirely to myself that morning. Steady Wind in my face. He was all alone, feeding comfortably, completely unaware of my presence in the shade beneath what my family has deemed the “death cliffs” for over 100 years now. I don’t know how many deer my family has taken from said cliffs, but it’s a lot. Don’t have to look very hard to find old brass with some great stories to tell, if they could. These deer were shot With weapons ranging from very crude 80s archery equipment, open sight lever action .30-30s, modern centerfires of various calibers, open sight, 1x and magnified scope muzzleloaders. All at ranges from 100 yards to 8 yards. When I tell you the deer was dead either way, the deer was dead either way. I shot him at that range because I could. I didn’t need to circle down and come over on him, but I could have, like I’ve done many times before.

Considering the average success rate of 13k muzzleloader hunters is… 30%ish? No, not everyone is doing it. Definitely not even half. Probably not even 25%. Mostly like less than 10%. 1300 hunters shooting beyond 200 yards with actual weapons capable of it? Doesn’t cause me to lose any sleep at night in the slightest.

 

[elkassassin]

Pay Close Attention Hossy:

Revic EXO Extreme O-Ring Sight By Gunwerks | Introducing the new Revic EXO Extreme O-Ring Sight by Gunwerks! This adjustable sight features a raising peep and precision turret for accurate ballistic... | By Gunwerks | Facebook

Introducing the new Revic EXO Extreme O-Ring Sight by Gunwerks! This adjustable sight features a raising peep and precision turret for accurate ballistic...

www.facebook.com

 

[cammoman33]

I know some will disagree with me here, but I do believe that they are trying to do the best thing. They got rid of baiting, putting restrictions on trail cams, listened to public feedback about making the general elk tags draw only, and actually reversed the decision! Now they are talking about making the muzzle hunt go back to one power scopes. I think they were too slow to move on it but I am thankful they are moving on it now. Better late than never. I know it's a long ways off of Elks hell yeah but they are doing several things on that list. I want to say thank you to the Utah DWR. Let's thank them and let them know they're moving in the right direction. That is going to be much more powerful than just continuing to complain. Positive reinforcement and gratitude from the public will help them to keep moving that direction, and faster.

Yeah, because muzzleloaders with variable power scopes are the reason we don’t have deer herds??

 

[schoolhousegrizz]

Yeah, because muzzleloaders with variable power scopes are the reason we don’t have deer herds??

Never said that, it's a primitive weapon hunt and I don't care what anyone says it'll make it harder to harvest mature bucks. If not why do you care so much?

 

[Bux n Dux]

Never said that, it's a primitive weapon hunt and I don't care what anyone says it'll make it harder to harvest mature bucks. If not why do you care so much?

And more mature bucks on the landscape helps improve over all deer numbers…. How?

 

[schoolhousegrizz]

And more mature bucks on the landscape helps improve over all deer numbers…. How?

It doesn't! However, while the number 1 problem is fawn recruitment and deer populations, the DWR surveys clearly show hunters want more mature bucks on the landscape. They are trying things to accomplish this.

 

[elkantlers]

It doesn't! However, while the number 1 problem is fawn recruitment and deer populations, the DWR surveys clearly show hunters want more mature bucks on the landscape. They are trying things to accomplish this.

They don't want more mature bucks on the landscape, they want them dead in the back of their truck, but not your truck.

 

[schoolhousegrizz]

They don't want more mature bucks on the landscape, they want them dead in the back of their truck, but not your truck.

Partly agree, I definitely think hunters want more mature bucks on the landscape.

 

[Downrange]

But it won’t put more mature bucks on the landscape because those 400 extra bucks will be dead on the early and late rifle hunts anyways. We are just saving bucks for the rifle hunters that’s all it will do.

 

[Silentstalker]

If they wanted more bucks on the landscape they would further restrict the ALW hunt. They kill more bucks and bulls than archery/muzzy combined. The percentages might look similar but by sheer numbers the kill rate is not even close.

This is clearly one hunter group attacking another hunter group. There is no reason for it other than they want it to change.

 

[mevertsen]

It doesn't! However, while the number 1 problem is fawn recruitment and deer populations, the DWR surveys clearly show hunters want more mature bucks on the landscape. They are trying things to accomplish this.

Define mature.

Sexually mature does not necessarily mean 180 inches.

Mature could simply mean 3 years old or better.

 

[elkassassin]

If It Does Help?

The Rifle/Long Rangers Will Slick It Up!

 

[schoolhousegrizz]

To me it means 4 years or older, that's just me though.