This “who and what” came first is a nonsense discussion, when it comes to the beginning of Utah’s muzzleloader season.
In the last 1970’s, when the State wide muzzleloader hunt was asked for and granted by the WB 99.99% of the Utah muzzleloaders owned and hunted with Thompson Center Hawkin cap lock rifles or the odd Great River, CVA, or Lyman Hawkin replica. The other .01% were carrying God only knows Zuoves, Kentucky Flint Locks etc etc.
The in-line technologies from the 1800’s or before had absolutely involvement nor input into the discussions, nor did the Whites and Knights in lines that came to make 5 or 6 years after the fact, not in spirit nor in reality.
The muzzleloading sportsmen asked and fought for what was considered by everyone at the time to be modern day equivalent to “the primative weapon of 1820 - 1840 mountian man’s rifle. That’s what we hunted with and that’s what we ask the WB to create a “primative weapon hunt” based on, nothing more nothing less.
We wanted to hunt in handmade leather clothes, wear Native American necklaces, hang elk ivory’s off our leather shirts, bead up some geometric decorate possibles bags, and sleep in lodge pole lodges/teepees. That’s what we asked for and that’s what we got.
Everything since then has been added to the definition after that…… what some guy developed 150 years prior to that or reinvented 5 years after that had absolutely influence whatever to do with why there is a muzzleloader season in Utah.
What stimulated it or how it came about in other States, I can’t speak to…….. but let’s stop this nonsense about what and why it came to Utah. It DAMN SURE WAS NOT WANTED BY THE WILDLIFE RESOURCE BUREAUCRACY IN 1970’s……. but it is what the WB gave the muzzleloader community at that time……… a muzzleloader hunt, for the modern Hawkin style muzzleloader ( meaning modern in 1977) which 99.99% of us were using at that time.
Lumpy
Thanks for your info which I believe to be mostly correct.
The hard part about the history and timelines are finding the when changes occurred ?
When did the regs allow the use of a 1x scope for example ? I honestly can’t remember when that was allowed -can you?
Powder substitutes is another
Ignitions yet another.
We know the dates of when variable power was allowed -2016.
The argument that dates on tech do not matter is incorrect in my opinion. Why ?
The tech committee has been tasked by the WB to curb tech. The tech committee has stated that muzzy tech has surpassed archery and rifle tech - and that’s incorrect.
The whitworth muzzy of the 1850,s and todays best that money can buy muzzies - that tech is actually pretty close.
Is todays muzzy better than the 1977 hawken - absolutely. But the tech was there in 1977 and I guarantee there were a select few that used it. It’s human nature to get better - have an edge. There’s a reason the November rut hunt ended for muzzies -correct ?
What year did folks try to improve ? Each and every year or maybe I’m wrong.
Can you explain the timeline from 1977 - 2023 (46 years) and why after all these years did addressing tech matter much more for the muzzy?
Much More than rifles and archery ?
That’s the hard pill to swallow on the subject of going back. To what date ?
1977/1985/2014-16/2023…
1808 -1st inline ? Whitworth 1854 ?
1977 hawken -open sights ?
The tech committee's claims of 1100 yard chip shots/ 700 yard muzzy kills/ and single shot rifles is simply not what the average hunter can do with todays muzzy. But it’s the sell that matters right ?
The tech committee did not specify a date of when they were trying to go back to other than possibly pre 2016 or maybe a 4X scope recommendation.
So is the timeline of technology and when it was “allowed” important on this issue -removing scopes based off the tech of a muzzy? Was there a restriction in 1977 that said you couldn’t use a whit-worth rifle in place?
Lastly - Will todays hunter in 2023 be happy about the removal of scopes -to find out this was coming from a timeline from 1977 ? Heck that’s 2 generations ago.
You could also argue that if the dates from tech don’t matter on technology then the dates of what it was “originally intended for” shouldn’t be allowed either. Why - it’s been 46 years. I think it all matters. Bring the whole history to the table.
Not an easy subject Lumpy and it’s doing one thing really well right now -dividing us.
And thanks for your posts !
