Muzzle Loader Scope Voting Poll

Would you like to see muzzy scopes do which of the following:

  • Go to 4x or lower

    Votes: 40 14.0%
  • Revert Back to 2016 and earlier regs ( 1x/open sights)

    Votes: 139 48.6%
  • Stay as is with no further advancements in tech.

    Votes: 107 37.4%

  • Total voters
    286

scopenstalk

Active Member
Messages
499
Like the title says here's your chance to see at least what your fellow MM members would vote. Some points that have been clarified by the tech committee.

1. This is not about saving deer and elk (success rates have not increased according to the DWR data).
2. It won't increase opportunity.
3. It is intended to make the muzzle loader hunt different than the rifle hunt.
 
Hey hawky!

You'd Best EDIT Your Post!

You Didn't Include My Name In It!

And Remember hawky!

It's easy To Say What You Said!

But What You'll Lose Off Your Favorite StickFlipper Is Gonna Be A Real BITTCH!

It was not an option but I would vote to ban all scopes on muzzleloaders.

Hawkeye
 
Hey scopenstalk!

You Forgot a Couple Other Options!

O If They TAKE From SmokePolers The Other 2 Weapon Types Get Immediate TAKES As Well!

O If We're TAKING,We're TAKING FAIRLY & EQUAL Across The Board!

O Pick Your POISON But Remember:

The StickFlipper Blaming The SmokePoler Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The SmokePoler Blaming The Long Rangers Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The Long Ranger Blaming The SmokePoler Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The StickFlipper Blaming The Long Ranger Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The SmokePoler Blaming The StickFlipper Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The Long Ranger Blaming StickFlipper Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

Until All Hunters Are Willing To GIVE You Are Fixing ABSO-F'N-LUTELY Nothing!

We Are ALL Guilty Of GADGETRY That We Didn't Have 20-50 Years Ago!

If They TAKE The Scopes From SmokePolers They'll Wanna Study it For 5-10 Years!

I Don't Know That Our Deer Herd Has Another 10 Years If More Serious Changes Aren't Made!

It's Gonna Be:

ALL GAVE SOME!

NOT:

SOME GAVE ALL!

And If It Isn't That Way I'm Checking:

X Stay as is with no further advancements in tech.
 
Hey scopenstalk!

You Forgot a Couple Other Options!

O If They TAKE From SmokePolers The Other 2 Weapon Types Get Immediate TAKES As Well!

O If We're TAKING,We're TAKING FAIRLY & EQUAL Across The Board!

O Pick Your POISON But Remember:

The StickFlipper Blaming The SmokePoler Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The SmokePoler Blaming The Long Rangers Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The Long Ranger Blaming The SmokePoler Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The StickFlipper Blaming The Long Ranger Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The SmokePoler Blaming The StickFlipper Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

The Long Ranger Blaming StickFlipper Ain't Gonna Fix It Alone!

Until All Hunters Are Willing To GIVE You Are Fixing ABSO-F'N-LUTELY Nothing!

We Are ALL Guilty Of GADGETRY That We Didn't Have 20-50 Years Ago!

If They TAKE The Scopes From SmokePolers They'll Wanna Study it For 5-10 Years!

I Don't Know That Our Deer Herd Has Another 10 Years If More Serious Changes Aren't Made!

It's Gonna Be:

ALL GAVE SOME!

NOT:

SOME GAVE ALL!

And If It Isn't That Way I'm Checking:

X Stay as is with no further advancements in tech.
I don't disagree Bess.

I was just creating a way to visually see what the smoke pole crowd actually wants. As there is conjecture on all sides of what the "majority" would like.

You should create a poll about weapon types and see what the general field thinks if they need to be neutered or not....... I am guessing 50-70% of hunters don't want to dick with their setups
 
Whoopi has been calling all his pals telling them to vote early and vote often on this poll, I can see.

The “leave it as currently is” crowd was taking a serious major beating for a while there. Now it’s just a beating.
 
The Other Thread Can Rack Up Damn Near 500 Posts with Bittching & Moaning!

Then A Vote Comes Around And you Can Count The Votes On One Hand!

This Sshitt Must Be Political I Take It?
 
This hasn't aged well.

The people voting to keep it as is currently are still losing 57-43 percent of this writing. If this was an election they would not call this a close race. Not close at all.

They are still taking a beating to those that think at least some regulation should happen to muzzy scopes.

Honestly, I’m surprised by this. Most comments are in favor of leaving regulations alone. But that clearly isn’t the feeling of the majority of the people reading this forum. The silent majority strikes again!
 
The Other Thread Can Rack Up Damn Near 500 Posts with Bittching & Moaning!

Then A Vote Comes Around And you Can Count The Votes On One Hand!

This Sshitt Must Be Political I Take It?

500 posts by 13 people. (Maybe even less?)

You just figuring out that there are only a handful of us losers left posting on this site? Founder ought to send us Christmas cards Bess!
 
Like the title says here's your chance to see at least what your fellow MM members would vote. Some points that have been clarified by the tech committee.

1. This is not about saving deer and elk (success rates have not increased according to the DWR data).
2. It won't increase opportunity.
3. It is intended to make the muzzle loader hunt different than the rifle hunt.
3. It is intended to make the muzzle loader hunt different than the rifle hunt.………….

Love your poll - BUTT -BIG BIG BUTT -yep spelled correctly.

Please explain how the muzzleloader hunt currently is the same as the rifle hunt ?
 
I Don't See The Silent Majority Doing SQUAT Though?

Kind Of Like Other Voting:

Let's Sit Back,Do Nothing,And See What Happens!

The people voting to keep it as is currently are still losing 57-43 percent of this writing. If this was an election they would not call this a close race. Not close at all.

They are still taking a beating to those that think at least some regulation should happen to muzzy scopes.

Honestly, I’m surprised by this. Most comments are in favor of leaving regulations alone. But that clearly isn’t the feeling of the majority of the people reading this forum. The silent majority strikes again!
 
Last edited:
Bessy’s campaign (and his 13 alter ego accounts) are making an overnight comeback!

He found lots of votes in the middle of the night while the rest of us slept. Go figure…
 
3. It is intended to make the muzzle loader hunt different than the rifle hunt.………….

Love your poll - BUTT -BIG BIG BUTT -yep spelled correctly.

Please explain how the muzzleloader hunt currently is the same as the rifle hunt ?
Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of the committee member on the other thread. Or Atleast what he was alluding to.

This poll isn’t about me in any way shape or form. So if I got the committees stated objectives wrong and opinions wrong then I’m happy to correct them.
 
If they take scopes away from muzzleloaders, they should take releases from archers.
And it's stuff like this that makes me really uneasy about removing stuff that is already being used by many.

Where does it end? Like I said in the other post might as well just go back to rocks and pointy sticks.

For the record elkantlers, it's not the archers that are pushing this ban.
 
Where does it end? Like I said in the other post might as well just go back to rocks and pointy sticks.

Honestly, it could end at just the muzzy scope discussion. Regardless of how it shakes out, there is nothing saying they have to go to other weapons other than Whoopi’s cry for the world to be “fair.”

For the record elkantlers, it's not the archers that are pushing this ban.

Jake, I’m learning that there are a good number of muzzy hunters actually pushing this change. As you well know, the change to allow magnifying scopes was VERY controversial at the time even among muzzy hunters. And those people never stopped opposing the change.
 
And it's stuff like this that makes me really uneasy about removing stuff that is already being used by many.

Where does it end? Like I said in the other post might as well just go back to rocks and pointy sticks.

For the record elkantlers, it's not the archers that are pushing this ban.
Lol. No one is proposing to take everything away. Your quote: “Where does it end?”, should be the question being asked towards our advancement of technology used in the field. If we keep allowing equipment advancements to be used to make killing animals easier, Where does that end? Pretty soon hunters will be in the field with a tripod mounted rifle that can shoot 2 miles and can be controlled by an iPhone. Just like Bruce Willis in The Jackal. ?
 
Lol. No one is proposing to take everything away. Your quote: “Where does it end?”, should be the question being asked towards our advancement of technology used in the field. If we keep allowing equipment advancements to be used to make killing animals easier, Where does that end? Pretty soon hunters will be in the field with a tripod mounted rifle that can shoot 2 miles and can be controlled by an iPhone. Just like Bruce Willis in The Jackal. ?
They have already addressed that with the tech rules they made last year. The stuff they are doing now is starting to remove items people have used for years. Which then starts pitting one group against another just as you seen elkantlers do above with his comments to stop allowing releases for archers.

That is a pretty sweet movie reference though lol. One of Jack Black's earlier roles.
 
They have already addressed that with the tech rules they made last year. The stuff they are doing now is starting to remove items people have used for years. Which then starts pitting one group against another just as you seen elkantlers do above with his comments to stop allowing releases for archers.

That is a pretty sweet movie reference though lol. One of Jack Black's earlier roles.
I see your side as well. But comparing a release to a scope on a muzzy is a ridiculous statement. I wish we didn’t have to deal with such ridiculous arguments in a logic discussion.
 
I see your side as well. But comparing a release to a scope on a muzzy is a ridiculous statement. I wish we didn’t have to deal with such ridiculous arguments in a logic discussion.
BS. We are discussing technology. If you want to discuss technology and ways to limit their effectiveness, how about we include archery equipment.
Tell me this DB would be able to shoot 170yds with fingers.

And, this same guy is one of the reasons we have trail camera bans.

Screenshot_20230718_121321_Instagram.jpg
 
Last edited:
BS. We are discussing technology. If you want to discuss technology and ways to limit their effectiveness, how about we include archery equipment.
Tell me this DB would be able to shoot 170yds with fingers.

And, this same guy is one of the reasons we have trail camera bans.

View attachment 116231
I don’t disagree that some archery equipment is getting crazy as well. What I’m saying is the two subjects are two separate conversations. I don’t play those games of: “if you take my toy you better take jimmys toy too!!” The thread was about muzzle loader scopes. Not archery releases
 
I don’t disagree that some archery equipment is getting crazy as well. What I’m saying is the two subjects are two separate conversations. I don’t play those games of: “if you take my toy you better take jimmys toy too!!” The thread was about muzzle loader scopes. Not archery releases
Understood. I just think that taking from one group and ignoring another that arguably has had far greater advancements over the last few decades is stupid. Why are we doing this anyway?
 
Honestly, does a scope on a muzzleloader really do anything more for it than a scope on a rifle?

You can classify Muzzleloaders as a "primitive" weapon, but lets not hide the fact that modern rifles are no where near their primitive roots either (Sharp's or Winchester 94's as examples).

We must not have enough problems in this world.
 
Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of the committee member on the other thread. Or Atleast what he was alluding to.

This poll isn’t about me in any way shape or form. So if I got the committees stated objectives wrong and opinions wrong then I’m happy to correct them.
You are correct - those aren’t your words.
Please accept my apology towards you. Number 3 on the poll is upsetting.
 
Lol. No one is proposing to take everything away. Your quote: “Where does it end?”, should be the question being asked towards our advancement of technology used in the field. If we keep allowing equipment advancements to be used to make killing animals easier, Where does that end? Pretty soon hunters will be in the field with a tripod mounted rifle that can shoot 2 miles and can be controlled by an iPhone. Just like Bruce Willis in The Jackal. ?
Just wanted to add:
This won’t be happening with a muzzleloader.
Lol !
 
My 2 cents. I do not know anything about Paramount or Arrowheads. But the dudes that I hunt with prefer them over rifles during rifle season and 1200 yards is a chip shot and they are generally successful at killing what they aim at.
Those load by the muzzle.
Takes a 45 casing or 209 primer
Muzzleloader by definition.

Not a primitive hunt though.
 
My 2 cents. I do not know anything about Paramount or Arrowheads. But the dudes that I hunt with prefer them over rifles during rifle season and 1200 yards is a chip shot and they are generally successful at killing what they aim at.
Those load by the muzzle.
Takes a 45 casing or 209 primer
Muzzleloader by definition.

Not a primitive hunt though.
Surely you’re joking! 1200 yards is no “chip shot” with any muzzleloader!
 
My 2 cents. I do not know anything about Paramount or Arrowheads. But the dudes that I hunt with prefer them over rifles during rifle season and 1200 yards is a chip shot and they are generally successful at killing what they aim at.
Those load by the muzzle.
Takes a 45 casing or 209 primer
Muzzleloader by definition.

Not a primitive hunt though.
I’m really not trying to be rude but are you being 100% serious here?

I almost think your friends were trolling you.
 
I don't disagree Bess.

I was just creating a way to visually see what the smoke pole crowd actually wants. As there is conjecture on all sides of what the "majority" would like.

You should create a poll about weapon types and see what the general field thinks if they need to be neutered or not....... I am guessing 50-70% of hunters don't want to dick with their setups
But then it need to be voted by smoke poll shooters not stick flippers
 
So Niller?

In Your Line Of Work Or General Life Itself?

Are You Being UN-FAIR?

You Teaching Your Kids To Be UN-FAIR?

I Kinda Doubt It!

But Then Again?

WTH Do I Know?



Honestly, it could end at just the muzzy scope discussion. Regardless of how it shakes out, there is nothing saying they have to go to other weapons other than Whoopi’s cry for the world to be “fair.”



Jake, I’m learning that there are a good number of muzzy hunters actually pushing this change. As you well know, the change to allow magnifying scopes was VERY controversial at the time even among muzzy hunters. And those people never stopped opposing the change.
 
They Boast This Kinda BS & The Next Thing You Know We've Got a Committee!

Chip Shot At 1200 Huh?




My 2 cents. I do not know anything about Paramount or Arrowheads. But the dudes that I hunt with prefer them over rifles during rifle season and 1200 yards is a chip shot and they are generally successful at killing what they aim at.
Those load by the muzzle.
Takes a 45 casing or 209 primer
Muzzleloader by definition.

Not a primitive hunt though.
 
Hey guys, I have no dog in the fight. I hunt with all weapons in several Western states. Got to call it for what it is. Having a muzzleloader/scope combo capable of taking game at 300+ yds. sounds to me like the "poor man's rifle hunt". I own 3 muzzleloaders and yeah I do hunt with and prefer a high mag scope. But if the regs in Utah were to be changed to no scopes it wouldn't bother me too much. I would just adapt and keep hunting with the smokepole. Just a little more challenging. Maybe the odds of drawing a good muzzy LE elk tag may improve, who knows?
 
62% in favor of at least some regulation
38% not

I hope for those wanting to keep things as they are that the WB isn’t watching this thread. That isn’t even close on public sentiment. 117 votes is a decent sample size as well.

Honestly, I don’t have a position on this one. I used to favor restriction, then realized the numbers didn’t play some of my assumptions out in reality, so I’ve gone full fence sitter on this one. I don’t care either way. If I choose to muzzy hunt, I’ll follow whatever rules are out there and be fine.

But I’m guessing restrictions are coming.
 
Hey guys, I have no dog in the fight. I hunt with all weapons in several Western states. Got to call it for what it is. Having a muzzleloader/scope combo capable of taking game at 300+ yds. sounds to me like the "poor man's rifle hunt". I own 3 muzzleloaders and yeah I do hunt with and prefer a high mag scope. But if the regs in Utah were to be changed to no scopes it wouldn't bother me too much. I would just adapt and keep hunting with the smokepole. Just a little more challenging. Maybe the odds of drawing a good muzzy LE elk tag may improve, who knows?

No. An increase in opportunity is not supposed to happen, or is even what any of this is about.

At least that's what some are saying. I don't think they even know what it's about...
 
Just wanted to add:
This won’t be happening with a muzzleloader.
Lol !
And it certainly won't be happening with a bow either!

We can't even use a tripod or any other rest or anchor point, including our own bodies. EVERY shot is totally freehand! Do that with a muzzleloader or rifle and let's see what that does to success rates!
 
Last edited:
I’m with elkassassin…….. just because this thread and this technology committee say’s it’s about muzzleloaders and scopes only…… doesn’t mean it should be.

If they are going down this road…… which they are, the reduction of technological advances should be discussed and implemented, across the board, on all weapons.

If they aren’t going to reduce the tag numbers or close units entirely….. while simultaneously working on predators, highway mortality, private land access, and habitat enhancements…. to grow larger surplus generating herds, which they aren’t………. my personal focus would be on all range finders, electrical and otherwise. Once the effect of outlawing range finders is determined…….. then start considering the next most advantage technology to outlaw.
 
@2lumpy

"If they aren’t going to reduce the tag numbers or close units entirely….. while simultaneously working on predators, highway mortality, private land access, and habitat enhancements…. to grow larger surplus generating herds, which they aren’t………. my personal focus would be on all range finders, electrical and otherwise. Once the effect of outlawing range finders is determined…….. then start considering the next most advantage technology to outlaw."
[/QUOTE]

You must not give much attention to all the things going on that you just described.
Funny thing is, it's so easy to find and see with about the same amount of effort you just put into this blind man comment.
Seriously.....
 
@2lumpy

"If they aren’t going to reduce the tag numbers or close units entirely….. while simultaneously working on predators, highway mortality, private land access, and habitat enhancements…. to grow larger surplus generating herds, which they aren’t………. my personal focus would be on all range finders, electrical and otherwise. Once the effect of outlawing range finders is determined…….. then start considering the next most advantage technology to outlaw."

You must not give much attention to all the things going on that you just described.
Funny thing is, it's so easy to find and see with about the same amount of effort you just put into this blind man comment.
Seriously.....
[/QUOTE]


Actually Slammy, you are right on point, I don’t make any effort to looking to the things I described, fact is, I haven’t paid the less bit of attention to them since 2014 or 2015. Swore it off. Prior to that I was checking on those projects and activities pretty much constantly.

Here’s what I do still look into……… the populations numbers and the trend directions. Based on those, over the last 35 - 40 years, the population have, on average continue to decline. That’s all I care about. I’m no longer paying and giving any attention to efforts and projects, only in the population trends. Based on the trends, I stand by my statement and opinions.
 
You must not give much attention to all the things going on that you just described.
Funny thing is, it's so easy to find and see with about the same amount of effort you just put into this blind man comment.
Seriously.....


Actually Slammy, you are right on point, I don’t make any effort to looking to the things I described, fact is, I haven’t paid the less bit of attention to them since 2014 or 2015. Swore it off. Prior to that I was checking on those projects and activities pretty much constantly.

Here’s what I do still look into……… the populations numbers and the trend directions. Based on those, over the last 35 - 40 years, the population have, on average continue to decline. That’s all I care about. I’m no longer paying and giving any attention to efforts and projects, only in the population trends. Based on the trends, I stand by my statement and opinions.
[/QUOTE]


I get it, I used to be in the same boat.......and that's when I got involved, so I could see and physically put my hands on an auger and plant a bitter brush myself.
I have scars on my hands and legs from winding up and dragging old rusty barbedwire lying on the ground.
I volunteer countless hours raising money and physically putting it back in the ground.


My post in the general forum on the 35th Anniversary Video and seeing the negative comments leaves me shaking my head.
What is @SS doing for conservation?
He sends in $35 to RMEF but has absolutely zero facts he can post about where his precious coin is going......but I can!

That video shows where millions dollars went and it's still not good enough for 99.9% of hunters complaining we aren't doing enough.

Bash on conservation all you want, but ask yourself while our herds and opportunities are dwindling, where would we be without it?

I don't mean to pick on you lumpy, I do respect you, but I just ask or expect people to think outside the box.
 
Actually Slammy, you are right on point, I don’t make any effort to looking to the things I described, fact is, I haven’t paid the less bit of attention to them since 2014 or 2015. Swore it off. Prior to that I was checking on those projects and activities pretty much constantly.

Here’s what I do still look into……… the populations numbers and the trend directions. Based on those, over the last 35 - 40 years, the population have, on average continue to decline. That’s all I care about. I’m no longer paying and giving any attention to efforts and projects, only in the population trends. Based on the trends, I stand by my statement and opinions.


I get it, I used to be in the same boat.......and that's when I got involved, so I could see and physically put my hands on an auger and plant a bitter brush myself.
I have scars on my hands and legs from winding up and dragging old rusty barbedwire lying on the ground.
I volunteer countless hours raising money and physically putting it back in the ground.


My post in the general forum on the 35th Anniversary Video and seeing the negative comments leaves me shaking my head.
What is @SS doing for conservation?
He sends in $35 to RMEF but has absolutely zero facts he can post about where his precious coin is going......but I can!

I Supported The RMEF For Many Years!

But When BC Became Nothing More Than a 'YES MAN" at The WB Meetings Boasting The Same:We/THE RMEF Agrees with all Recommendations For Years & Years & Not Disagreeing With Any Recommendation One DAMN Time!

A PUPPET/YES MAN!

Every F'N Time!




That video shows where millions dollars went and it's still not good enough for 99.9% of hunters complaining we aren't doing enough.

Bash on conservation all you want, but ask yourself while our herds and opportunities are dwindling, where would we be without it?

I don't mean to pick on you lumpy, I do respect you, but I just ask or expect people to think outside the box.
[/QUOTE]
 
Actually Slammy, you are right on point, I don’t make any effort to looking to the things I described, fact is, I haven’t paid the less bit of attention to them since 2014 or 2015. Swore it off. Prior to that I was checking on those projects and activities pretty much constantly.

Here’s what I do still look into……… the populations numbers and the trend directions. Based on those, over the last 35 - 40 years, the population have, on average continue to decline. That’s all I care about. I’m no longer paying and giving any attention to efforts and projects, only in the population trends. Based on the trends, I stand by my statement and opinions.


I get it, I used to be in the same boat.......and that's when I got involved, so I could see and physically put my hands on an auger and plant a bitter brush myself.
I have scars on my hands and legs from winding up and dragging old rusty barbedwire lying on the ground.
I volunteer countless hours raising money and physically putting it back in the ground.


My post in the general forum on the 35th Anniversary Video and seeing the negative comments leaves me shaking my head.
What is @SS doing for conservation?
He sends in $35 to RMEF but has absolutely zero facts he can post about where his precious coin is going......but I can!

That video shows where millions dollars went and it's still not good enough for 99.9% of hunters complaining we aren't doing enough.

Bash on conservation all you want, but ask yourself while our herds and opportunities are dwindling, where would we be without it?

I don't mean to pick on you lumpy, I do respect you, but I just ask or expect people to think outside the box.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks Slammy, I’m not faulting you or any of the volunteers. I’m not even that upset with any of the conservation groups that have or a currently trying to help, my major grip is with the bureaucrats that are in charge of it all.
 
Deer numbers declining for 30-40 years. The only constant in all that is tag numbers have been cut that entire time.

Yet, by golly, we better cut more since it’s worked so well the last 30-40 years!

What is it they say about doing the same thing but expecting different results?
 
So Niller?

Maybe We Shoulda Stayed With Issuing 200K-300K Tags!

Ya!

That Woulda Fixed Everything By Now!

When You Make Your Way In To Being a WB MVP!

Maybe You Can Do Something To Start Producing More Deer Numbers In This State!

And I Don't Wanna See WH SPANKIN Ya!



Deer numbers declining for 30-40 years. The only constant in all that is tag numbers have been cut that entire time.

Yet, by golly, we better cut more since it’s worked so well the last 30-40 years!

What is it they say about doing the same thing but expecting different results?
 
What about those of us that do all the hunts in multiple states? Can we vote too?
If you ever plan on participating in UT smoke pole season I don’t see why not. This doesn’t just affect the residents. And it’s not like founder gifted me moderator power to try and sift through the votes ??
 
So far 62.5% of 144 votes are in favor of going backwards, whether it be 4x or 1x.
I would put the 4x people more in line with the current regs, but I can see both sides of this issue. If changes are coming I guarantee all the people that voted to keep it the same would switch to 4x over old rules.

So in my mind the majority are in favor of keeping scopes, even if it is in a limited capacity.

My whole point of fighting the ban has been the premise that it's somehow made the muzzy hunt much more successful. The data did not prove that to be the case, so why do it? It is completely a social issue.

I'm a data driven person at the beginning of all of this I was leaning more towards taking it back to the old rules, because i believed it had made people more successful, as the data came out that success was minimally affected and I listened to more of the arguments I have flipped on this issue.

to me the optics of this "taking away from one group" is going to lead to a lot more belly aching from people to take from the others. And I see the logic in that as well. This has been my main concern with this, the moment you start taking things from a large portion of the community you are going to foster that same mindset for the rest.

I'm personally not a big muzzleloader hunter, only killed 2 deer with one, first one was an old hawkens shooting a round ball when I was 17, the other was last year 21 years later on a late LE deer tag. I do the dedicated hunter, and allocate minimal time for the muzzy hunt as it's just not my priority.

If it goes to 1x/red dot/open sight it's not going to matter all that much to me, I'm sure I could be just as successful if I put the time into it either way.

I just hate the precedent it sets of actually taking something from a group, the things passed so far have been on emerging and newer tech that not many people have, just about every muzzy hunter has a scope.
 
Last edited:
Scopes beyond 1x never should have been approved by the WB. It was a bad idea and was driven primarily by the Chairman of the WB lobbying other WB members. We are also moving backwards with other weapon types. I am in the process of pulling the Sig BDX off my 300 Win Mag, and I have friends who are replacing their range finding sights on their bows.

The reality is that our deer herds are in the tank and we need to take some serious steps to limit our hunting technology and hopefully reduce our success rates. I personally hunt all three weapon types (DH) and I am supportive of limiting technology for all three weapon types. But let's start with the easy and obvious change, limit all scopes of muzzleloaders with the possible exception of 1x scope.

Hawkeye
 
My whole point of fighting the ban has been the premise that it's somehow made the muzzy hunt much more successful. The data did not prove that to be the case, so why do it? It is completely a social issue.

I'm a data driven person at the beginning of all of this I was leaning more towards taking it back to the old rules, because i believed it had made people more successful, as the data came out that success was minimally affected and I listened to more of the arguments I have flipped on this issue.


Is the data really valid? The data is based on hunter honesty without a goal in mind to determine the efficacy of scopes vs open sights. An experiment really wasn't conducted.

Conclusions are being drawn as a means to make sense of the numbers to try and justify whether or not scopes made a difference.

To say scopes didn't matter isn't necessarily a correct assumption to make.
 
Hey hawky!

Now The truth Comes Out!

Your SIG Is Getting PLUCKED!

Wait Till You See What's Getting PLUCKED From Your StickFlipper!

You Ain't Gonna Like It!

Kinda Been Thinking About Yourself Being Guilty In All Weaponry GADGETRY Recently Haven't You?

I've Told You For Years!

We Are All Guilty Of It!

Sounds Like It Mighta Finally SUNK In!

I Can Just About Envision it Now!

SIG Is coming Off of The 300!

And This Is Going On!:D





Scopes beyond 1x never should have been approved by the WB. It was a bad idea and was driven primarily by the Chairman of the WB lobbying other WB members. We are also moving backwards with other weapon types. I am in the process of pulling the Sig BDX off my 300 Win Mag, and I have friends who are replacing their range finding sights on their bows.

The reality is that our deer herds are in the tank and we need to take some serious steps to limit our hunting technology and hopefully reduce our success rates. I personally hunt all three weapon types (DH) and I am supportive of limiting technology for all three weapon types. But let's start with the easy and obvious change, limit all scopes of muzzleloaders with the possible exception of 1x scope.

Hawkeye
 
I would put the 4x people more in line with the current regs...

I can see why you say this, but I promise this is not how the decision makers will see it. They will frame this that XX% if people favor some regulation on muzzleloader scopes, and therefore we should act and put some regulations on muzzleloader scopes.

This poll has been very bad for those wanting to avoid regulations. The results are not particularly close. The powers that be will be aware of it and I'm sure will use it to justify their actions. Prepare yourselves for the next step, as it is coming.

PS- How many times is bessy going to post the video of that scope accessory and be ignored before he stops posting it?
 
Is the data really valid? The data is based on hunter honesty without a goal in mind to determine the efficacy of scopes vs open sights. An experiment really wasn't conducted.

Conclusions are being drawn as a means to make sense of the numbers to try and justify whether or not scopes made a difference.

To say scopes didn't matter isn't necessarily a correct assumption to make.
Lol, what reason would they have to lie? Yes the data is valid. Is it perfect no it's not perfect but it's way better than Joe blows opinion.

The data was not gathered to form a conclusion on scopes on muzzleloaders, it was just gathered, so there is no reason for it to not be semi accurate. It's not skewed one way or the other it's just raw data.
 
I'm Perty Sure Both You & hawky Have A Couple Of Them Ordered!

What'Ya Gonna Do With Them SIG'S?



I can see why you say this, but I promise this is not how the decision makers will see it. They will frame this that XX% if people favor some regulation on muzzleloader scopes, and therefore we should act and put some regulations on muzzleloader scopes.

This poll has been very bad for those wanting to avoid regulations. The results are not particularly close. The powers that be will be aware of it and I'm sure will use it to justify their actions. Prepare yourselves for the next step, as it is coming.

PS- How many times is bessy going to post the video of that scope accessory and be ignored before he stops posting it?
 
Lol, what reason would they have to lie? Yes the data is valid. Is it perfect no it's not perfect but it's way better than Joe blows opinion.

The data was not gathered to form a conclusion on scopes on muzzleloaders, it was just gathered, so there is no reason for it to not be semi accurate. It's not skewed one way or the other it's just raw data.

That's why it's not valid and is inconclusive to determine efficacy of optics vs open. It's not even evidence.

It's foolish to state optics didn't make a difference when that wasn't data that was even being collected.

Not every hunter submits a harvest report.

LOL...
 
If you want to get even a semi-clear picture of what the success rates mean, you have to compare them to archery and rifle success rates during the same period. Let me illustrate what I mean:

Let's say that muzzeloader success rates remained almost static. Some units were up and some were down, but none significant, and were on par with before and after the regulation change. (This is actually the case.) But let's also say that archery success rates declined and rifle success rates declined during the same periods. (This I don't know, and is a hypothetical.)

If that is the case, can we actually say magnification scopes haven't made a difference? I submit to you that no, we cannot.

And even if we pulled those numbers, we still have an incomplete picture. Overall herd numbers, buck to doe ratios, age classifications, weather during the hunts, and a myriad of other factors play into this analysis, and none of those are accounted for. All of those can change fairly drastically on a year to year basis.

It's why I'm fine with people mentioning the data, but I'm not okay with it being cited with authority as the deciding factor here.
 
The one argument you shouldn’t use in this situation is that “ the high powered scopes don’t affect harvest.” If that is the case then why are people using them to begin with? Why do most states say no scopes and a couple make it legal? If they are not helping the Hunter have success, then why use them? Telling a semi intelligent hunter that a modern muzzy with a high powered scope is not an advantage over a primitive muzzy with open sights is an ignorant argument at best.
 
If there was not an advantage to it, then you wouldn't have bessy BAWLING the way he does every time someone mentions getting rid of them.

Has it caused massive increase in harvest? No. Does it provide an advantage over iron sights or 1x scope? Absolutely. Nobody can honestly make the claim otherwise.

Even with the advantage, I'm okay if they do nothing. But we have to be honest in the discussion.
 
I was hoping to see the data on here that would show such a huge increase in success since the variable scopes have been allowed. But nah. A bunch of feel good comments instead. I’d post the data if I could figure out how to post pictures.

But the data doesn’t show much of a change. At least not enough to warrant a rule change or ban on magnified scopes.
I understand the idea to eliminate long range muzzleloaders. But it’s pure laziness to simply eliminate the variable scope instead of identifying the difference between a inline that can and can’t shoot long range.
There already offer primitive hunts. You want one? knock your socks off.
My 200 yard muzzleloader set up has a variable scope to help me kill ethically.
 
Hey Niller?

If This!

If That!

If The Globe Stops Spinning Tomorrow!

GEEZUS!

I Ain't BAWLING!

I'll Give The SmokePole Scope Up!

hawky Is YANKING His SIG off Of His 300!

And To Keep It All On a Level Playing Field Your Archery Equipment Needs a PLUCKING As Well!

But Everytime I Mention An Even PLUCKING Across The Board You Scream:

Bessy Wants It Fair!

I Don't See Why It Shouldn't Be a Fair F'N GIVE Across All 3 Weapon Types!

Now Go Ahead & Reply & Tell Other MM'ERS WTF I Just Said In Your Words!





If there was not an advantage to it, then you wouldn't have bessy BAWLING the way he does every time someone mentions getting rid of them.

Has it caused massive increase in harvest? No. Does it provide an advantage over iron sights or 1x scope? Absolutely. Nobody can honestly make the claim otherwise.

Even with the advantage, I'm okay if they do nothing. But we have to be honest in the discussion.
 
If there was not an advantage to it, then you wouldn't have bessy BAWLING the way he does every time someone mentions getting rid of them.

Has it caused massive increase in harvest? No. Does it provide an advantage over iron sights or 1x scope? Absolutely. Nobody can honestly make the claim otherwise.

I Mentioned It Being Fair & You Jumped Me On It!

But Today You Mention We Must Be Honest!

WTF?
Even with the advantage, I'm okay if they do nothing. But we have to be honest in the discussion.
 
THE KING Need's To Quit F'N Around & Vote!

(((I'm Not Startin Anything Political Here,Just Using It As An Example!)))

Remember When People Didn't Vote For Trump & It Became a Vote For Biden?

How's That Workin For You Just About F'N Now?

So I Take It THE KING Isn't Voting,Again?
 
That's why it's not valid and is inconclusive to determine efficacy of optics vs open. It's not even evidence.

It's foolish to state optics didn't make a difference when that wasn't data that was even being collected.

Not every hunter submits a harvest report.

LOL...
No they don't, people are randomly selected by the draw and called to get the harvest data. While it's not conclusive evidence it's still enough evidence of the mass public to get an idea if scopes improved the success rate of the hunt. Especially after 7 years of data when it's safe to say the majority of people have a scope on their set up.

If we had seen a massive jump in success that matched it to the rifle hunts or got it close that would be enough evidence to me to overturn the scope rule.

You are saying that because they didn't do a significant scientific study on it that we can't draw any conclusions from the data. I say your wrong, is it as good as it could be? No, but it's still better than nothing.
 
No they don't, people are randomly selected by the draw and called to get the harvest data. While it's not conclusive evidence it's still enough evidence of the mass public to get an idea if scopes improved the success rate of the hunt. Especially after 7 years of data when it's safe to say the majority of people have a scope on their set up.

If we had seen a massive jump in success that matched it to the rifle hunts or got it close that would be enough evidence to me to overturn the scope rule.

You are saying that because they didn't do a significant scientific study on it that we can't draw any conclusions from the data. I say your wrong, is it as good as it could be? No, but it's still better than nothing.

One metric that carries some real weight are days hunted. If the days hunted decreased, keeping weather conditions and animal count constant, would you say scopes were the primary cause with fewer misses and blown stalks? If so, than success increased with ability to make a more precise shot. Did people keep using the same load as 2015 when they were allowed to use scopes in 2016 and 2017, but later changed that load up to make more accurate shots at 250 yds reducing hunting days?

Of those randomly selected, how many used a scope and how many didn't? As far as days hunted, did they consider a couple hours after work a day, or did that hunter only consider full days to be sun up to sun down? Were hunters really lucky one year and killed quickly with shot distances of 50 yds to 100 yds?

The answer is nobody knows because that information wasn't saught because it wasn't an issue. Now, that raw data is being used to explain that scopes played no part in success.

The data isn't complete and is inconclusive. A kid in the 7th grade submitting data like this drawing the same conclusions there is no impact would get a D on a science fair project...
 
Now Go Ahead & Reply & Tell Other MM'ERS WTF I Just Said In Your Words!

“I’m a whiny anti-hunter.”

How’d I do?

JUST RAZZIN YA WHOOPI!

I’m not concerned so much about fairness, because the world ain’t fair and any suggestion otherwise is a farce for the weak-minded. Of course we’d all love for things to be “fair” when it benefits us. But when “fair” means a detriment to us…heck no I don’t want fair!

But I do expect honesty. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for someone to be honest. I know many struggle, and those people suck. I’ve got no time in my life for dishonest folks.
 
Hey Niller!

I Know You Don't Have Time For Them!

But You Deal With Them Quite A Bit I Take It?

“I’m a whiny anti-hunter.”

How’d I do?

JUST RAZZIN YA WHOOPI!

I’m not concerned so much about fairness, because the world ain’t fair and any suggestion otherwise is a farce for the weak-minded. Of course we’d all love for things to be “fair” when it benefits us. But when “fair” means a detriment to us…heck no I don’t want fair!

But I do expect honesty. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for someone to be honest. I know many struggle, and those people suck. I’ve got no time in my life for dishonest folks.
 
If you want to get even a semi-clear picture of what the success rates mean, you have to compare them to archery and rifle success rates during the same period. Let me illustrate what I mean:

Let's say that muzzeloader success rates remained almost static. Some units were up and some were down, but none significant, and were on par with before and after the regulation change. (This is actually the case.) But let's also say that archery success rates declined and rifle success rates declined during the same periods. (This I don't know, and is a hypothetical.)

If that is the case, can we actually say magnification scopes haven't made a difference? I submit to you that no, we cannot.

And even if we pulled those numbers, we still have an incomplete picture. Overall herd numbers, buck to doe ratios, age classifications, weather during the hunts, and a myriad of other factors play into this analysis, and none of those are accounted for. All of those can change fairly drastically on a year to year basis.

It's why I'm fine with people mentioning the data, but I'm not okay with it being cited with authority as the deciding factor here.
OK, let's pull those numbers during the same period.

Using actual yearly harvest numbers divided by actual yearly hunters-in-field numbers (instead of averaging yearly success rates like I've been doing. Sorry for the misdirection that method produced.), and by dividing the years 2007 to 2022 in half (8 years each group), for muzzys, I get an average success rate of 28.3% each year in the first half and 33.2% each year in the second half. That's an increase of 4.9%.

For any weapon, I get an average success rate of 32.1% each year in the first half and 38.3% each year in the second half. That's an increase of 6.2%.

And for archery, I get an average success rate of 19.3.% each year in the first half and 19.7% each year in the second half. That's an increase of .4% (Very minimal)

I guess it's possible to blame (Or credit, depending on which side you are on) the muzzleloader increase on magnifying scopes, but the any weapon increase is anybody's guess. The small rise in archery is understandable because nothing you put on the bow will compensate for or eliminate the many challenges bowhunters already face that can't be changed.

Admittedly, I was really surprised at the increases, but it just makes me more opposed to limiting or banning technologies for the sake of making it harder to be successful just to make one kind of hunt more different than another kind of hunt. When it comes down to it, muzzleloaders are nothing more than an earlier version of rifles. The only basic differences are; what kind of powder is used for the explosion and where and how the powder is loaded. Making them truely different is in the eye of the beholder, an opinion. And one is as good as another and acceptable as long as it isn't forced on others of a different opinion. There's too much of that going around as it is. Reasonably ban technologies on muzzleloader hunts and rifle hunts as it suits you, but leave archery alone, it isn't needed for either of your stated or unstated reasons. It's already vastly different and already remains a low success hunt!
 
Last edited:
In 2013
Permits issued was 15,694
Hunter afield was. 13,578
With 30.7% success

In 2014
Permits issued was 15,825
Hunter afield was. 13,502
With 31.1% success

In 2015
Permits issued was 16,149
Hunter afield was. 13,873
With 34.5% success

In 2016
Permits issued was 16,941
Hunter afield was. 14,561
With 39.3 % success

In 2017
Permits issued was 16,279
Hunter afield was. 14,218
With 33.5% success

In 2018
Permits issued was. 16,734
Hunter afield was. 14,134
With 37.5% success

Looks like an increase to me.
 
In 2013
Permits issued was 15,694
Hunter afield was. 13,578
With 30.7% success

In 2014
Permits issued was 15,825
Hunter afield was. 13,502
With 31.1% success

In 2015
Permits issued was 16,149
Hunter afield was. 13,873
With 34.5% success

In 2016
Permits issued was 16,941
Hunter afield was. 14,561
With 39.3 % success

In 2017
Permits issued was 16,279
Hunter afield was. 14,218
With 33.5% success

In 2018
Permits issued was. 16,734
Hunter afield was. 14,134
With 37.5% success

Looks like an increase to me.
Let's look at success rates in 10 years from now if we don't put on the Technology brakes.
By then the bulk of hunters will be using Gunwerks "style" technology in their CVA's and cheaper manufacturers after they start cloning the higher end stuff.
 
In 2013
Permits issued was 15,694
Hunter afield was. 13,578
With 30.7% success

In 2014
Permits issued was 15,825
Hunter afield was. 13,502
With 31.1% success

In 2015
Permits issued was 16,149
Hunter afield was. 13,873
With 34.5% success

In 2016
Permits issued was 16,941
Hunter afield was. 14,561
With 39.3 % success

In 2017
Permits issued was 16,279
Hunter afield was. 14,218
With 33.5% success

In 2018
Permits issued was. 16,734
Hunter afield was. 14,134
With 37.5% success

Looks like an increase to me.
In 2019
Permits issued was 16,342
Hunter afield was 13,840
With 27.0% success

In 2020
Permits issued was 14,712
Hunter afield was 12,801
With 30.1% success

In 2021
Permits issued was 13,352
Hunter afield was 11,098
With 33.9% success

In 2022
Permits issued was 13,049
Hunter afield was 11,002
With 34.5% success

There may not have been increases each year, but the overall averages show an increase of 4.9% since 2007.
 
Let's look at success rates in 10 years from now if we don't put on the Technology brakes.
By then the bulk of hunters will be using Gunwerks "style" technology in their CVA's and cheaper manufacturers after they start cloning the higher end stuff.
No one is saying don’t put the brakes on emerging technologies! I imagine they will be relatively the same. Just like you said the hunters that want to kill will still kill, they will just do it at closer ranges.
 
In 2019
Permits issued was 16,342
Hunter afield was 13,840
With 27.0% success

In 2020
Permits issued was 14,712
Hunter afield was 12,801
With 30.1% success

In 2021
Permits issued was 13,352
Hunter afield was 11,098
With 33.9% success

In 2022
Permits issued was 13,049
Hunter afield was 11,002
With 34.5% success

There may not have been increases each year, but the overall averages show an increase of 4.9% since 2007.
Why go back to 2007?
 
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