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?
Jerry Mason from Brigham City, I believe, was the Wildlife Board member that proposed a 1 power scope and was the major push for the added technology. This article says he was on the Board in 1995. But that doesn’t mean that was the year he got it approved, but without way more rooting through archives it’s the best I can/will do. ?) This article was written 10 years after Knight brought the MK-85 to market, and the article has nothing to do with the 1power scope, it just gives a date Mason was on the Board. Jerry was a hunter/ killer extraordinaire. He was not part of the Utah Muzzleloader Association but he love to hunt and the online muzzleloader caught his fancy. I know he wanted to kill record book animals and I believe at one time he held the record for the largest Yukon/Alaskan moose killed with muzzleloader. At the time he was aUtah Wildlife Board he was well up in years and he said he couldn’t focus three objects at one time anymore, ie: back sight, front sight and the target. He said the 1 power scope would allow him to focus on the cross hair and the target. In as much as 1 power reduces the size of the target, Jerry said it was no more advantage than an open sight. He explained the issue to the other members of the Board and they approved the his motion. (In as much as inlines were already every where, I don’t recall anyone objecting to the motion
.
Well, it's official. Utah is now a one-board wildlife state. Instead of two groups deciding the future of Utah's wildlife, and sometimes crossing property lines to do it, now one group will. Deer, ducks and denizen of the deep - all are now under the umbrella of one board.
www.deseret.com
Powder substitutes is another
Ignitions yet another.
We know the dates of when variable power was allowed -2016.
I don’t but it was quite early when pyradex showed up. You could research Pyradex’s, history I suppose.
According to Google it came out in 1975
Hodgdon's Pyrodex was the first widely available substitute for black powder on the market. Pyrodex is less sensitive to ignition than black powder and uses the same shipping and storage guidelines as smokeless powder. Pyrodex is more energetic per unit of massthan black powder, but it is less denseand can be substituted at a 1:1 ratio by volume for black powder in many applications.[1] Pyrodex is similar in composition to black powder but incorporates several other compounds. His composition, according to the US Patent 4,128,443 filed by the inventor Dan Pawlak in 1975 is as follows (in % by weight)[2][3]
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.
Personality I think that is an entirely subjective opinion, it could be argued endlessly. Let’s just agree that all three categories have added many technologies to their instrument of weaponry in the last 50 years. Truthfully since humans started using tools to kill……. but excellerated in the last 100 years, more so in the last 50. The natural order of things are the more advanced they get the faster they add new and better science to the knowledge base, hence a deep, broader base of knowledge allows the new inventor to move faster than the pervious inventor. Having said the I believe the WB was asking this Committee to curb technology that was “commonly be used by Utah muzzleloaders when the Utah muzzleloader season was first authorized” not to consider the evolution of the entire muzzleloading concept. If that makes sense.
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 ?
Again, the whitworth could well have been there by 1850, that isn’t the point. Whitworth technology was not commonly used, but there could have been a few in Utah who were using that technology but it certainly wasn’t common here nor commonly used by the modern 1970’s mountain man enthusiasts in Utah in 1977. That was the point I was attempting to make in my previous post. Just because a technology excisted doesn’t has relevance in this discussion, because it was part of the 1977 original argument made to the WB for a season.
Again, the majority of the people that pushed for an Utah muzzleloader season knew little or nothing of the whitworth or other types of muzzleloading rifles. Now Eastern States were into muzzleloading decades before we were in Utah. For decades befor the 1970’s Revolutionary and Civil War re-enactments and muzzleloader enthusiasts in the eastern States were buying and building muzzleloaders of all shapes and sizes from places like Dixie Gun Works and other mail order companies…….. that’s not what was going on in Utah. And Utah’s original season was not based on the eastern muzzleloader history.
What year did folks try to improve ? Each and every year or maybe I’m wrong.
Every year, IMO. Humans always want better……. It’s a healthy part of our DNA, as long as it doesn’t destroy what we want to hold on to. Thankfully as human we have some ability to use insight and attempt to avoid letting technology advancement destroy things we value more than the advancement. Rare but it happens. Not everyone owns an airplane.
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 ?
I can’t, I think we’ve exceeded the capacity to ensure abundant/surplus wildlife and improved killing tools is part of the problem.
We need to either control harvest capability or allow an only a limited number hunters to kill with any anything they want from a spear to a F-15 but…… do not both
.
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 ?
It isn’t a hard pill for me, but it apparently is for some folks, but as much as I’d like to see the muzzleloader regulations go back to our original 1977 intent, I would also like to see archery and rifle go back to the 1970’s as well. Hell, if it were up me, I’d start closing units on a rotation bases, and keep doing as far into the future as I can see. So, I think our management is so completely screwed up I honestly don’t really care one way or the other anymore. I tried for 40 years to keep our herds viable, to no avail, so what you folks do from here on is just fine with me, it’s your turn at the helm, I’m just trying to keep the history as accurate as I’ve lived it.
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 ?
I agree, at least not the folks that I know.
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?
No, because you typically don’t regulate what you aren’t knowledgeable about. We weren’t aware of those kinds of muzzleloaders. You can argue we should have but we didn’t and that just the truth if it.
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.
Probably not. I understand why.
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.
I think it’s an argument to support your wants………(we all look for reasons support our position, I get it, I understand why you’re making the argument, I just don’t believe it’s relevant, based on the reasons we wanted a muzzleloader season originally …… in Utah, that is.
Not an easy subject Lumpy and it’s doing one thing really well right now -dividing us.
We’ve been divide on wildlife issues since I came here in 1975. Constant conflict between hunters in Utah.
And thanks for your posts !
Your welcome, I understand where your coming from and respect your opinions.
