If I Lived in Utah

cannonball

Very Active Member
Messages
1,116
Want to hunt Utah during the muzzleloader hunt? Never know, but the wind is starting to blow to restrict modern muzzleloaders. If that happens, in-lines could be a plunking gun. I am the one that hopes we follow Oregon or Montana's lead and require the loose powder, no 209, no sabots, no magnification, lead no-jacketed bullets, etc. Want to shoot your long range gun. Do it on the rifle hunt. I hope the Wildlife Board moves in the right direction.
 

elkhunterUT

Very Active Member
Messages
1,660
I am ok with restrictions on weapons to reduce harvest, but only if we can use it as a reliable lever for increasing opportunity. That can only be accomplished with accurate and reliable data on herd numbers, harvest success by weapon type, wounding rates, etc.

If the data above is accurate and reliable, and we know how many animals can and should be removed from the landscape it doesn't really matter how they are killed.

We need to get these numbers right first and then flex weapon type based on success to maximize opportunity. I wish more energy was put into getting reliable data (start with mandatory harvest reports and increasing accuracy of herd counts).
 

fishnut

Active Member
Messages
212
It bothers me when hunters go after a form of hunting they don't do. Be careful attacking any form of leagal weapon as being "unfair". Yours will be next. Every method of hunting has had its range increased over the last few years. Archery is not even close to what it was when archery seasons were implamented. Rifles have increased there range by so much because of technology its not even funny. It amaizes me that hunters would bicker over any of this. It's exactly what the anti hunting world wants and we are just handing it to them on a platter.
Go back to open sites on rifle, muzzleloader and instinktive shooting with a long bow. I will just fish more when all that happens I guess.
I have shot muzzleloaders since the mid 80's and havn't killed a deer with a rifle since then because the experience is much better for me during the muzzleloader hunt. My eyes aint what they used to be so open sites are done for me at this point. Shooting my bow is pretty much a thing of the past because I can't see the sites well and I've had both sholders surgicaly repaired. I have a custom rifle built for long range playing and shooting a deer with it has 0 apeal to me but if my buddies want to do it that way thats totally up to them.
 

El Gringo

Active Member
Messages
433
I am ok with restrictions on weapons to reduce harvest, but only if we can use it as a reliable lever for increasing opportunity. That can only be accomplished with accurate and reliable data on herd numbers, harvest success by weapon type, wounding rates, etc.

If the data above is accurate and reliable, and we know how many animals can and should be removed from the landscape it doesn't really matter how they are killed.

We need to get these numbers right first and then flex weapon type based on success to maximize opportunity. I wish more energy was put into getting reliable data (start with mandatory harvest reports and increasing accuracy of herd counts).
Most well thought out and intelligent post of ‘22 so far
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,512
I doubt they will outlaw inlines. They are not more inherently accurate than a sidelock.

I am ok with doing away with sabots and scopes. Make it like Colorado.

I would want one caveat: If your doctor gives you a note for poor eyesight, you can use a NON magnifying scope.

The biggest thing they can do is remove the scope. Lowers effective range by 100-200 yards for 95% of hunters.

I have personally never used a scope and limit my shots to 150 yards.
 

257Tony

Long Time Member
Messages
3,901
I doubt they will outlaw inlines. They are not more inherently accurate than a sidelock.

I am ok with doing away with sabots and scopes. Make it like Colorado.

I would want one caveat: If your doctor gives you a note for poor eyesight, you can use a NON magnifying scope.

The biggest thing they can do is remove the scope. Lowers effective range by 100-200 yards for 95% of hunters.

I have personally never used a scope and limit my shots to 150 yards.
Utah success rates stayed the same after they allowed magnifying scopes. It surprised me, but the data doesn't lie. Removing scopes won't make a but of difference in the number of bucks killed.
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,512
Utah success rates stayed the same after they allowed magnifying scopes. It surprised me, but the data doesn't lie. Removing scopes won't make a but of difference in the number of bucks killed.
Most people have trouble shooting beyond 100-150 yards with an open sight muzzleloader. Many shooting a scope (mag and no mag) say they are accurate at 300 yards and beyond. I just have to believe lowering ranges to aprox 150 would reduce harvest.

I could prob extend my range by at least 100 yards simply by using a no magnification red dot scope vs open sights, especially at twilight.

I can tell you this: when I get picked for Utah, if scopes are still allowed, I will def put one on my rifle and shoot a sabot!

I can shoot as well with my renegade sidelock as I can with my inlines, so making that change does nothing to lower harvest that I can see
 
Last edited:

Gator

Long Time Member
Messages
17,410
I believe they will still shoot at that buck at 300 yds, BUT will it be a clean shot that kills the buck or a bad one the wounds and then that buck die's from that bad shot. One feeds your family and the other feed the coyote's.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,733
When I drew my limited Utah muzzy elk tag it was only legal to use a 1x scope. That's no magnification for those that don't know. Sabots were still legal. At first I could barely shoot 100 yards but I practiced a lot and got to the point I could shoot an apple every time at 200 yards. That was as far as I was capable of seeing with a 1x scope. Even with a tiny spot on my scope the spot covered a chunk of animal at 200 yards. The same spot would cover an entire elk at 300 yards!

I've been out of touch with the Utah regs until lately and was amazed that high power scopes were allowed during muzzy season. Even though I muzzy hunt I think having high power scopes during muzzy season is a joke when muzzy hunters can shoot just as far as rifle hunters?

I would be in favor of going back to the old regs where a 1x scope plus sabots are legal. It's somewhat of a compromise between high powered scopes and Colo's muzzy regs. Maybe I'm mistaken but I'm not sure how anyone could possibly shoot an elk at 300 yards with a 1x scope?
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,512
I believe they will still shoot at that buck at 300 yds, BUT will it be a clean shot that kills the buck or a bad one the wounds and then that buck die's from that bad shot. One feeds your family and the other feed the coyote's.
I disagree. By far most muzzleloading people I know wouldn’t attempt 300 yards with open sights. And I know quite a few. But I don’t know anyone that uses a scope that wouldn’t. Marley, who posts here, would be an exception! That guy can flat out shoot with open sights
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,512
I pasted and copied this from a 2013 thread but it still applies
68E3166A-3A53-48F7-9F6E-236E847E083B.png
 

Tackdriver

Active Member
Messages
132
It will just greatly increase the number of mortally wounded deer. Guys that shouldn't be shooting at 100yds will be taking 200yd shots, have no clue if they made a good shot or not. Won't make the effort to track. And keep on shooting at deer until one drops that they see. You'll have guys wounding 3 or 4 bucks until they get one.
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,512
You can say the same thing about any setup, even those with magnifying scopes…..

“Guys that shouldn't be shooting at 300 will be taking 450 yd shots, have no clue if they made a good shot or not. Won't make the effort to track. And keep on shooting at deer until one drops that they see. You'll have guys wounding 3 or 4 bucks until they get one”.

With that attitude, May as well stay home.
 

Deerlove

Long Time Member
Messages
5,449
Utah success rates stayed the same after they allowed magnifying scopes. It surprised me, but the data doesn't lie. Removing scopes won't make a but of difference in the number of bucks killed.
How come the odds got worse for muzzy elk hunts after adding the scope???
 

notdonhunting

Very Active Member
Messages
1,243
Utah success rates stayed the same after they allowed magnifying scopes. It surprised me, but the data doesn't lie. Removing scopes won't make a but of difference in the number of bucks killed.
Utah success rate stayed the same because muzzy season in September is like hunting during the bow hunt I would bet a good steak dinner at anyone's choice of restraunt that the average distance of shot on bucks is less than 150 yards, most muzzy hunters can make that shot without Magnified scopes.
I do agree with going back to open sites or 1 power Scopes, I believe less hunters would participate in muzzy hunting. We should go back to lose powder, loose powder just makes it a little more Primitive, but I think sabots should be allowed. With sabots less wounding.
If the DWR would make us just chose one season to hunt for 10 year allotments I would diffintly chose the smell of rotten sulfur and put my long rofles away.
Just my opinion
 
Last edited:

travishunter3006

Very Active Member
Messages
1,966
Instead of restricting hunters and opportunity, how about we hold fish and game accountable and make them do their job. Muzzleloaders aren’t the problem. Killing bucks doesn’t kill does.
 

Idahoron

Very Active Member
Messages
1,971
Idaho had regulations pre 2006 that were PRB and side lock rifles. I sat out those years. I just didn't want to hunt with a PRB. Then the F&G changed the rules to what we have today. Back then we had a rotating hunt. There were three areas we could hunt. It was open in one area then the next year it was open in another area and the third year it was in another one. The thought was to rest those areas. What ended up happening was the muzzleloader hunts had a higher success rate than the regular rifle hunts. the hunters were not shooting just does. A majority were shooting bucks. It didn't take long and the number of permits were reduced. Then the hunts were changed. Finally that hunt went away all together.
The F&G were scratching their heads. Why were the ML hunters too successful? Some of the hunts were October some stretched into November.
Instead of more restrictions on the guns and bullets they just took away the hunt.
Now the hunts we have are a fraction of what we used to have. And the quality and quantity of game is still tumbling. The rifle tags I think were reduced in some areas but overall I think Idaho will keep reducing tags for muzzleloaders. and not because of technology but because the rifle hunters and archery hunters want their tags.
 

AZGuy

Active Member
Messages
424
A scope on a muzzle loader with the dates those seasons are is the stupidest thing ever. Just be a rifle hunter if that’s what you want
Most people are opportunistic, if that’s what UT is deeming legal than that’s what they get. It’s just another opportunity. Hell guys are shooting bows further than the old non-sabboted traditional muzzleloaders.
 

JPickett

Very Active Member
Messages
1,099
Most people are opportunistic, if that’s what UT is deeming legal than that’s what they get. It’s just another opportunity.
Absolutely. And if I drew one of those tags I’d go drop a couple grand on a long range set up, get mine, and sell the thing.

Matter fact there was a guy in here this year did just that. Iron head I think. I get that it’s legal. It just shouldn’t be, want to rifle hunt then rifle hunt. Primitive weapon season. Those are the key words. Nothing primitive about an 800 yard shot and a 20x scope
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,512
It would not bother me one bit if they went retro primitive. I like shooting those guns. Prob reduce the number of people who put in for it slightly.
 

tracker12

Very Active Member
Messages
1,285
I'd also like to know the stats of how many elk and deer were wounded and lost from guys using open sights. Then they go and shoot at a couple more. Using loose powder and non sabot bullet has no effect on the accuracy of a quality inline. This sounds like the debate over Xbows.
 

Idahoron

Very Active Member
Messages
1,971
Most people are opportunistic, if that’s what UT is deeming legal than that’s what they get. It’s just another opportunity. Hell guys are shooting bows further than the old non-sabboted traditional muzzleloaders.

That's really not an accurate statement, but I get what your saying.
 

257Tony

Long Time Member
Messages
3,901
I’m not trying to argue here, but I’ve NEVER been contacted by the DWR for a survey on my muzzleloader deer hunts unless it was a limited entry tag… So therefore how can those numbers be accurate?
It would be the same level of accurate as they were before scopes were allowed. Even if it's not 100% accurate, we'd see a change in the rate of success.
 

Blank

Long Time Member
Messages
4,417
I doubt the level of success would decrease much, but you would certainly see an increase in the number of days spent in the field to achieve it.
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
414
Muzzle loader data FWIW

2010 hunters afield 13189 bucks killed 2990 success 22.6%
2011 10846 2129 19.6%
2012 12916 4079 31.5%
2013 13578 4159 30.6%
2014 13502 4093 30.3%
2015 13873 4734 34.1%
2016 14561 5629 38.6%
2017 14218 4648 32.6%
2018 14134 5199 36.7%
2019 13840 3617 26.1%
 

tracker12

Very Active Member
Messages
1,285
When did they allow magnified scopes?
I think this was I think the second year so obviously success did not to go up. If I was in my youth I may not care but at 69 my eyes are not what they used to be. I have to use a clarifier to see clear pins on my bow and just hard to get a clear front sight on my muzzy. I make do in CO where I have to but I still think its stupid to require open sites. Especially when I can use an inline with modern propellents, great bullets and guns capable on MOA groups at over 200 yards. Go back to a sidekick gun if you really want😀 it to be primitive.
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,512
I think this was I think the second year so obviously success did not to go up. If I was in my youth I may not care but at 69 my eyes are not what they used to be. I have to use a clarifier to see clear pins on my bow and just hard to get a clear front sight on my muzzy. I make do in CO where I have to but I still think its stupid to require open sites. Especially when I can use an inline with modern propellents, great bullets and guns capable on MOA groups at over 200 yards. Go back to a sidekick gun if you really want😀 it to be primitive.
I have the same vision problems you do with open sights, but I found something that works for me. It’s not ideal, but I use 1.0 power reading glasses. Front sight is clear, target is slightly fuzzy, but I can shoot accurately that way.

I order them on Amazon. They are actually progressives. 1.0x at the top, 1.5x in the middle, and 2.0x in the bottom
 

Fire_Hawk

Active Member
Messages
337
I have the same vision problems you do with open sights, but I found something that works for me. It’s not ideal, but I use 1.0 power reading glasses. Front sight is clear, target is slightly fuzzy, but I can shoot accurately that way.

I order them on Amazon. They are actually progressives. 1.0x at the top, 1.5x in the middle, and 2.0x in the bottom
I also struggle to focus a rear sight, front sight and a target. My eyesight just doesn't allow it any longer. Started in my late 30's, but has gotten progressively worse.

What I have found that works, is to use a fine bead front sight (optics are fine, but my eyesight much prefers green to red), and good adjustable peep sight as far back as possible. My Hawken, it is on the tang, my Knight Wolverine is the last scope mount holes. I just ordered a peep sight to put on my new CVA Accura too.

I was far more accurate using a 6 o'clock hold with a peep sight, then I was with a cross hair on my 1x scope. The crosshairs covered up way too much of the target at 100 yards to get good. It was fine for hunting, but it didn't lend itself to precision work at the range.

Might try a peep sight if that is an option for you.

FH
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,512
I agree about the peep and 6 o’clock hold. That is what I have/do on all my guns. But I still see 2 front sights without the reading glasses
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,512
Nope, unless he is VERY close! Distant vision is clear!

It used to be hard to find low power reading glasses. Can’t find them at the normal OTC places. But can get them easily from places like Amazon. I don’t need distance distance correction. But do need reading glasses for work (veterinarian) so I found these no line progressives 1/1.5/2 on Amazon for $15-25 dollars a pair. The $15 didn’t last long but the $25 ones seem to.
 
Last edited:

257Tony

Long Time Member
Messages
3,901
How would they even have a clue if it was the same or not, they have no data to quantify it either way.
Aren't LE tag holders required to submit a post hunt survey? Are you suggesting the data they have is completely made up?
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
414
How would they even have a clue if it was the same or not, they have no data to quantify it either way.
Good or bad data? At least they use the same model to be consistent.

 

deadibob

Very Active Member
Messages
2,522
Ok, same question. I know they use the post hunt phone surveys to get that info correct? Is that data invalid? If so, why?
They do such little surveying via the phone that anything gathered is too small of a sample to give any accurate data. Post hunt game counts are a joke as well. The sad truth is that Utah does very little to know what is actually going on in the field whether it's population or harvest data. They could very easily get accurate harvest numbers if they wanted it.

The DWR just released an article saying that 1,153 animals were illegally killed in 2021. So do they expect the public to believe they know of every single animal that was poached in the state? :LOL: I'm sure the real numbers are at least double that and probably much higher.
 

Tikka

Long Time Member
Messages
3,399
Ok, same question. I know they use the post hunt phone surveys to get that info correct? Is that data invalid? If so, why?
I guess they do post survey’s… I’ve had a general season tag every year since 1989, I’ve had exactly zero post deer hunt survey’s… General elk on the other hand, I get called just about every year…
So I, just like DeadI don’t know how they can have accurate data…
Just my thoughts…
 
Last edited:

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
414
So both you and deadI don't understand how they can have accurate data.

Exactly how do you propose that the data becomes more accurate It really doesn't matter unless you can institute a more accurate matrix.

The same model is being used to date. Good or bad it is the same data by the same model.

You and others have a steep burden to propose a better model.
You have even a steeper challenge as to proving the date available is not correct.

I'll wait.
 

Tikka

Long Time Member
Messages
3,399
So both you and deadI don't understand how they can have accurate data.

Exactly how do you propose that the data becomes more accurate It really doesn't matter unless you can institute a more accurate matrix.

The same model is being used to date. Good or bad it is the same data by the same model.

You and others have a steep burden to propose a better model.
You have even a steeper challenge as to proving the date available is not correct.

I'll wait.
Make every tag holder report harvest regardless limited entry or general season… is it that hard?
 

257Tony

Long Time Member
Messages
3,901
Make every tag holder report harvest regardless limited entry or general season… is it that hard?
I think that is a good idea, not sure why they haven't implemented that. It can't end up costing them anything, in fact they'd probably make money on it with all the people that forgot having to pony up the extra $50 to apply the following year.
 

2lumpy

Long Time Member
Messages
4,279
Make every tag holder report harvest regardless limited entry or general season… is it that hard?
Pointless to even discuss Tikka. They believe a statistical valid sample is just as accurate as 100% reporting........ and it will require a Wildlife Board policy decision or a Legislative law, to change the current procedure. This has been requested by sportsmen for 30 years to no avail. Someday a pissed off Legislature or a couple of hostile Board Members will fix it but not one second before then.
 

Tikka

Long Time Member
Messages
3,399
Pointless to even discuss Tikka. They believe a statistical valid sample is just as accurate as 100% reporting........ and it will require a Wildlife Board policy decision or a Legislative law, to change the current procedure. This has been requested by sportsmen for 30 years to no avail. Someday a pissed off Legislature or a couple of hostile Board Members will fix it but not one second before then.
It’s so unfortunate, such a simple process…
 

2lumpy

Long Time Member
Messages
4,279
Yep, same with deer counts. They claim aerial counts, like they do for elk, can’t be done on mule deer...... so deer populations have to be estimated, yet the same company that we used to fly for the Utah elk winter counts, do winter helicopter counts for Nevada’s mule deer counts. Another sportmen’s 30 year frustration that will never be fixed until the Board or the Legislature forces it.

What a way to run a railroad, huh. 🤪
 

deadibob

Very Active Member
Messages
2,522
So both you and deadI don't understand how they can have accurate data.

Exactly how do you propose that the data becomes more accurate It really doesn't matter unless you can institute a more accurate matrix.

The same model is being used to date. Good or bad it is the same data by the same model.

You and others have a steep burden to propose a better model.
You have even a steeper challenge as to proving the date available is not correct.

I'll wait.
Wait no longer.
You cannot have accurate data unless you survey each and every tag holder, everything else is just a swag. HERE IS MY PROPOSAL THAT YOU ASKED FOR: get an account of every tag issued because nothing else will be accurate. If man hours and costs are a concern to survey everyone then let the dedicated hunters have at it.

There is nothing to prove that the current data is correct because it isn't? It's pretty obvious to most people who spend time in the field that the DWR is the last to figure out when there are population declines or other problems. There is very little data available for the general season hunts and they have absolutely no idea what the success rates are. Are you going to tell me that checking a few hundred hunters at check stations is complete and accurate data or that a very minute sample size gives accurate results?

If the DWR has such accurate data then why does it take several years for them to react and cut tags on struggling units like the Beaver and others?
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
6,361
Seems real simple.

Utah needs to go to e tags.

Set up the tag so that when it's "punched" a handful of questions are answered to finalize.


It's not 1978 anymore.
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
414
If it is so simple, it seems that it would already be in place.

It shouldn't be any more difficult to convince a legislator to run a bill for harvest reporting than it was for baiting or trail cams. In fact it should be easier.

So if anybody thinks this is the best way to get accurate data then put together a proposal that makes sense and get it submitted.

I'm surprised if this makes the most sense that SFW, MDF don't have it at the top of their list.
 

2lumpy

Long Time Member
Messages
4,279
If it is so simple, it seems that it would already be in place.

It shouldn't be any more difficult to convince a legislator to run a bill for harvest reporting than it was for baiting or trail cams. In fact it should be easier.

So if anybody thinks this is the best way to get accurate data then put together a proposal that makes sense and get it submitted.

I'm surprised if this makes the most sense that SFW, MDF don't have it at the top of their list.
It’s just one of the fifty (figuratively speaking) that needs to be done, without the other 49, it’s a waste of time and energy. Besides, until there is an entirely different attitude throughout the bureaucracy, forcing another procedure down their throats won’t change anything other than reinforce their contempt for the public they serve.

After 45 years of interaction and observing, I’d say the public would be better served to let the bureaucracy hurry up and finish the mess they’ve made. At least that way someone might figure out a new way and start over. It happen with the whitetail States 50 years ago, and look what happened in those States. It can’t get much worse for mule deer than it already is, so letting fit collapse completely may be the best thing that could happen.
 

elkassassin

Long Time Member
Messages
27,997
Well!

The Very F'N First New Rule Change Would Be:

WE WILL NO LONGER MANAGE GAME HERDS FOR F'N MONEY!

The First of 49+ Other Changes that Need To Be Made Of Course!



If it is so simple, it seems that it would already be in place.

It shouldn't be any more difficult to convince a legislator to run a bill for harvest reporting than it was for baiting or trail cams. In fact it should be easier.

So if anybody thinks this is the best way to get accurate data then put together a proposal that makes sense and get it submitted.

I'm surprised if this makes the most sense that SFW, MDF don't have it at the top of their list.
 

middlefork

Active Member
Messages
414
The conspiracy theory's run deep on MM LOL.

2 Lumpy hit the nail on the head. Nobody gives $0.02 about the data.

The legislature puts up a ton of stupid bills every year. If you can't find one bought politician to draft a bill you guys are a bunch of losers.

Good hell the napkin meetings were more effective.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Top Bottom