Muzzle Loader Scope Voting Poll

[Elkslayer2015]

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.

I'm so tired of people on here trying to justify keeping scopes on Muzzys. No different then Trail cameras issue.
I only posted that to show there was an increase in success the very next year they allowed scopes. So they really can't use that as an excuse now.

Your absolutely right Slam.

I have been saying this for years, technology is not a good thing when it comes to hunting at all.

 

[elkfromabove]

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.

So?

 

[scopenstalk]

This poll has been interesting to say the least. I started it based off several comments saying something to the effect of "there's only a few guys who want to hunt with old tech that are pushing this!!!!" on the other thread. That appears to be false based on results. Granted, this is a small poll to a very niche group of hunters.

While we don't have good controls on it for knowing who voted or if someone tried to game it ( I doubt anyone put that much effort into that but who knows) it shows 64.5% of muzzle loader hunters polled aren't happy with the direction the hunt is going in. That is statistically significant. I wish the DWR would do this on a larger scale with actual polling software to hunters. That "technology" is available and not emerging .

 

[elkfromabove]

I assume because that is equal amount of time before the change as there has been after the change?

Gives a larger and equal sample size.

That too! But it was mostly because the DWR has links to annual reports back that far which are easier to read because they include total yearly numbers while harvest reports are unit by unit numbers that you have to add up, AND because we can calculate the success rates of other weapons that had no major change in 2016. Those technologies will be coming up in the future and we'll need that data as well. We ain't done yet, folks!

 

[elkfromabove]

I'm so tired of people on here trying to justify keeping scopes on Muzzys. No different then Trail cameras issue.
I only posted that to show there was an increase in success the very next year they allowed scopes. So they really can't use that as an excuse now.

Your absolutely right Slam.

I have been saying this for years, technology is not a good thing when it comes to hunting at all.

Thanks for your opinions, but I don't share them, especially your last one.

 

[slamdunk]

There is one reason and one reason only anyone would want a high power scope on a muzzleloader..... because it makes it easier to kill, period.

Exactly why I put a 4x12 tactical on my Knight.

I haven't ever needed it, but it's there if I ever do.

 

[scopenstalk]

There is one reason and one reason only anyone would want a high power scope on a muzzleloader..... because it makes it easier to kill, period.

Exactly why I put a 4x12 tactical on my Knight.

I haven't ever needed it, but it's there if I ever do.

It has made my close shots very easy to make. 150 yards is no longer a challenge like it used to be. It was makeable before but lower odds shot with 1x or my open sights..... Just my thoughts.

 

[slamdunk]

It has made my close shots very easy to make. 150 yards is no longer a challenge like it used to be. It was makeable before but lower odds shot with 1x or my open sights..... Just my thoughts.

Yes, I understand that too and can agree.

I actually used mine on 6x for a 125 yard kill on a nice 5x5 on pahvant.

One thing we seem to keep leaving out is that it is BECAUSE of the high power scopes, the components development are advancing so quickly.

 

[Vanilla]

It has made my close shots very easy to make. 150 yards is no longer a challenge like it used to be. It was makeable before but lower odds shot with 1x or my open sights..... Just my thoughts.

This is where folks are completely missing the boat, in my opinion. Everyone thinks this is only about “long range” hunting.

But even a 100 yard shot with a 3x9 scope is much easier than the same shot with open sights for the VAST majority of people.

Now, it may also be reasonably argued that this is a good thing. We want clean kills, not wounded game. Just pointing out there is a difference, and people should not claim otherwise.

If I hunted with a scoped muzzy, I really don’t think I’d want to go out much beyond 200-250 regardless. I’m not all the sudden making 600 yard muzzy shots. But 200 with open sights would be a very difficult shot for me to make. My eyes don’t work well enough. Throw a magnified scope on there and I’d be very confident, however.

 

[scopenstalk]

This is where folks are completely missing the boat, in my opinion. Everyone thinks this is only about “long range” hunting.

But even a 100 yard shot with a 3x9 scope is much easier than the same shot with open sights for the VAST majority of people.

Now, it may also be reasonably argued that this is a good thing. We want clean kills, not wounded game. Just pointing out there is a difference, and people should not claim otherwise.

If I hunted with a scoped muzzy, I really don’t think I’d want to go out much beyond 200-250 regardless. I’m not all the sudden making 600 yard muzzy shots. But 200 with open sights would be a very difficult shot for me to make. My eyes don’t work well enough. Throw a magnified scope on there and I’d be very confident, however.

Agree. It is easier. and whether or not it’s a good or a bad thing is up to the public at large to decide. Both deer I have shot post scope rule were text book shots which was really nice. Also very likely due to a nice magnified scope. 20 yard recoveries are great.

 

[roadrunner]

Agree. It is easier. and whether or not it’s a good or a bad thing is up to the public at large to decide. Both deer I have shot post scope rule were text book shots which was really nice. Also very likely due to a nice magnified scope. 20 yard recoveries are great.

Since "anecdotal reasoning" is being used, the only way I can make a 225 yd shot open sight using a Williams Western globe and peep is by wearing corrective vision. Yes, my eyes have aged and I no longer possess the 20/20 I had at the age of 22.

Wearing corrective vision, I can "easily" make out a gallon jug of water to make the shot (it's still small). Consistency floats a little by a few inches up or down because a gallon jug at 200 yds looks like a sheet of paper (8-1/2" x 11") at 200 yds.

A 3x fixed scope would make a world of difference, but I still wouldn't shoot past 225. Main reason is the bullet drop is getting pretty exponential at those distances to where a few more yards begin to equal feet of drop and a 5 mph crossbreeze from the right will make you miss by a foot low and left.

 

[elkantlers]

My aging eyes don't do opens sights very well anymore. That's why I am in favor of either leaving the rule alone or going to a maximum of 7x scopes on muzzleloaders. That way we could use a 2x7 or a straight 4x scope.

 

[Hunter21]

There is one reason and one reason only anyone would want a high power scope on a muzzleloader..... because it makes it easier to kill, period.

Exactly why I put a 4x12 tactical on my Knight.

I haven't ever needed it, but it's there if I ever do.

I agree it makes it easier to hit your target. I don’t think it necessarily increases the killing or success rate however. I say this because I believe a vast majority of the deer killed are yearlings or young bucks that are killed within a couple hundred yards of the road. These deer are getting killed regardless of a top of the line setup or a basic one. Scope or no scope. If they miss they just drive down the road a mile or two and shoot the next lititle buck. What I believe in the committee and wildlife boards eyes it does effect is the older age class bucks. The ”Money“ bucks!! I feel they think the Big Money animals are getting picked off by scoped muzzleloaders. Which may be the case! I believe this to be the reason for the philosophy change. I just don’t agree with it because we don’t manage general units for trophy class deer and I don’t see the reason to take scopes off thousands of general season hunters muzzleloaders to save big money bucks on limited entry units. If that is the reason for the philosophy change I feel they could just make those limited entry units scopeless. I may be way off on this but that’s just how I see it.

 

[Packout]

The wounding argument for scopes was just a façade to the reality. Instead of someone wounding at 120 yards they are wounding them at 320- per the first hand reports I have received over the past 8 years.

I threw a scope on my ML that first year. Why? Because they changed the rules and a scope made it easier to kill- which I did with an LE tag on a buck that lived in a hole which would have protected him from open sights or a 1x scope. 300 yards with a magnified scope ended up with picture time and a packout.

We want to keep scopes on MLs because it makes for easier kills- which is the exact reason why we should take them off.... A 4 or 7 power scope will still be an issue over time. Time to move back to pre 2016 regs. (and if not then keep it how it is)

 

[Ballistic]

There is one reason and one reason only anyone would want a high power scope on a muzzleloader..... because it makes it easier to kill, period.

Exactly why I put a 4x12 tactical on my Knight.

I haven't ever needed it, but it's there if I ever do.

DWR: What hunting equipment should/shouldn't be allowed in Utah?

The Division of Wildlife Resources released a survey and wants feedback on what hunting equipment should and shouldn't be allowed in Utah.

www.ksl.com

Is anyone asking the questions as to why 57% of hunters (77,000 polled with 19;000 responses) wanted to have scopes ?
As Slam has pointed out -it makes it easier to kill. Others have stated they can’t see very well without - my self included.

I remember the 1x power days. My eyes were better then.
But why did hunters want scopes that found magnify ? How many animals were wounded and wasted in those times ? Of course no-one will talk about tripod - the deer with the leg shot off. Just success.

Hunters are not going to stop lobbing bullets at extended ranges - it’s already too late.

As a hunter my end goal has always been to kill the animal. I understand this isn’t an easy topic. Remove the high power magnification if that’s what makes you feel better. But leave “something”for accuracy. Without that “something” will result in wasted and wounded animals. That something needs to be more than a 1x scope. 4X could bridge the gap.

 

[Keystone]

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]

Kind of a dumb way to measure success, UNLESS you gauge it against population growth and habitat loss.

50 years ago dudes killed good deer in Davis County. Now it grows houses. Same as your neck of the woods I'm betting.

That's always been the problem with the total population numbers as a benchmark.

Maximizing the population on habitat that cab support it is a good thing.

There are a lot more deer in my neighborhood then there were 20 years ago. Mostly because a few learned to live in town, than because my area has an expanding population, or at least one that matters in the grand scheme

 

[elkassassin]

When The WB Approved The UN-F'N-LIMITED Scopes On SmokePoles I Didn't Hear Very Many Guys Bittching About It!

Now Listen To Ya!

 

[slamdunk]

When The WB Approved The UN-F'N-LIMITED Scopes On SmokePoles I Didn't Hear Very Many Guys Bittching About It!

Now Listen To Ya!

I remember.....it was the same argument about wound/loss due to long range attempts, now it's the same argument for 1x ?

 

[2lumpy]

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.

Kind of a dumb way to measure success, UNLESS you gauge it against population growth and habitat loss.

50 years ago dudes killed good deer in Davis County. Now it grows houses. Same as your neck of the woods I'm betting.

That's always been the problem with the total population numbers as a benchmark.

Maximizing the population on habitat that cab support it is a good thing.

There are a lot more deer in my neighborhood then there were 20 years ago. Mostly because a few learned to live in town, than because my area has an expanding population, or at least one that matters in the grand scheme
[/QUOTE]

“50 years ago dudes killed good deer in Davis County. Now it grows houses. Same as your neck of the woods I'm betting.”

Who’s dumb. You see the State and the world from 1.1% of the land in Utah. The other 98.9 of the land is our neck of the woods, as you refer to it. It ain’t a lack of viable habitat and housing in 98.9% of the State.

Urbanites: Nine of 10 Utahns live on 1 percent of state's land

Nine of every 10 Utahns now live in urban areas and crowd together onto just 1.1 percen

archive.sltrib.com

You and too many other urbanites need to get out of town and have a look on what the habitat looks like on places like Fish Lake, Manti, Beaver, Pahvant, Panquitch, Oak Creek, Vernon, Monroe, Unitas, Blue Mts, La Sal, Boulder, Book Cliffs, check out the sage brush, juniper, aspen, spruce, etc etc etc rehabilitation work that’s been done in the same 50 years you’ve watched the houses grow in Davis County. Hence the term “unit management”……… yes, you’re right, our bureaucracy sees it the same as you…… “unit management” means, “manage all 30 units the if it were a single unit”.

 

[elkassassin]

The Wound/Lose Can Be Argued For Eternity!

Just Think!

If We Had Just Let The Technology Advance Just A Few More Years We'd Of All Been Using/Shooting Smart Guns With Smart Bullets,Bows With Smart Tips And Wounding A Hell of alot Less!

I remember.....it was the same argument about wound/loss due to long range attempts, now it's the same argument for 1x ?

 

[Themaddness]

They Boast This Kinda BS & The Next Thing You Know We've Got a Committee!

Chip Shot At 1200 Huh?

I get the video just for you. You will know the area being from the basin. May take me a couple months to talk the guy into though.

 

[Vanilla]

When The WB Approved The UN-F'N-LIMITED Scopes On SmokePoles I Didn't Hear Very Many Guys Bittching About It!

Now Listen To Ya!

You weren't paying attention then. It was very controversial at the time.

I think the more accurate statement from you would be "I Do Not Remember People Bittching About It!"

Your memory sucking is something I could easily believe!

 

[elkassassin]

WRONG Again Niller!

I Hate To Tell You,You Are WRONG!

But Not Are You Just A Little Bit WRONG!

You Are WRONG All The Way!

I Was In Dis-Belief When It Passed Niller!

But Then Again!

The WB That You Are So PROUD of FOOLED You Again!

You weren't paying attention then. It was very controversial at the time.

I think the more accurate statement from you would be "I Do Not Remember People Bittching About It!"

Your memory sucking is something I could easily believe!

 

[Vanilla]

I’m proud of the Wildlife Board?

That’s as accurate as saying muzzy scopes weren’t controversial!

Yep, your memory sucks.

 

[elkassassin]

You Know what I'M Sayin Niller!

There An Opening Yet?

I’m proud of the Wildlife Board?

That’s as accurate as saying muzzy scopes weren’t controversial!

Yep, your memory sucks.

 

[slamdunk]

Wiffy wanted to know what is for dinner tonight.

Mo Betta's ?

 

[elkassassin]

Did Ya Tell Him Fresh Dunfords?

Wiffy wanted to know what is for dinner tonight.

Mo Betta's ?

 

[Vanilla]

Wiffy wanted to know what is for dinner tonight.

Mo Betta's ?

What was the result of the discussion?

And did they let a non-committee member completely dominate and direct the meeting again?

(Sorry…that one still sticks in my craw!)

 

[scopenstalk]

You guys get chit figured out slammy?

 

[Deerlove]

Please just get me a three power that's all I'm asking for, old eyes.

 

[slamdunk]

What was the result of the discussion?

And did they let a non-committee member completely dominate and direct the meeting again?

(Sorry…that one still sticks in my craw!)

Nah, no non members there tonight at all.

The only real measure the committee voted on was "is there an agreement that some type of scope restriction should be placed on the general season and LE muzzleloading weapon?"
The vote was 9-1 in favor.

As to what those restrictions will consist of will be discussed on September 11th after a public survey will be implemented to capture at least 400 various hunters.

I will post the survey questions when it is completed.

 

[slamdunk]

Please just get me a three power that's all I'm asking for, old eyes.

It will be suggested by me personally, but in short discussion tonight, it didn't have much teeth.

 

[elkassassin]

Well!

If 3X Didn't Have Much Teeth?

Can You Suggest a 4X?

It will be suggested by me personally, but in short discussion tonight, it didn't have much teeth.

 

[elkassassin]

HELL SAKES!

If It Took This Long Just To Get A Vote On Rather Something Should Be Done or Not?

We Might Have A Couple More Years Of Use With Existing Equipment!

 

[slamdunk]

HELL SAKES!

If It Took This Long Just To Get A Vote On Rather Something Should Be Done or Not?

We Might Have A Couple More Years Of Use With Existing Equipment!

It's possible, but the WB is asking for our recommendations before the November RAC's.
I'm confident we'll have them something in September.

 

[Vanilla]

I do think there are restrictions that could be put in place that in effect take some people out of being able to participate in these hunts.

I’ll admit I voted for 4x max power in the poll above, mostly because I knew restrictions were coming but I think we ought to keep in mind that no scope or 1x not only restricts technology, but might restrict some hunters completely due to medical (eye) conditions.

It’s easy to say “Just pick up a rifle then,” but I think these decisions are more nuanced than that.

 

[elkfromabove]

The only real measure the committee voted on was "is there an agreement that some type of scope restriction should be placed on the general season and LE muzzleloading weapon?"
The vote was 9-1 in favor.

All or nothing! Surprise, surprise!!!!

 

[elkassassin]

Hey Niller!

A 1X Power Scope Will FRICK The Best DRAT Eye Up!

Evident ally You've Never Looked Through a POFT 1X Scope?

The Average DRAT Eye Is about 1.6X!

A 1X Scope is a DE-F'N-MAGNIFICATION!

I do think there are restrictions that could be put in place that in effect take some people out of being able to participate in these hunts.

I’ll admit I voted for 4x max power in the poll above, mostly because I knew restrictions were coming but I think we ought to keep in mind that no scope or 1x not only restricts technology, but might restrict some hunters completely due to medical (eye) conditions.

It’s easy to say “Just pick up a rifle then,” but I think these decisions are more nuanced than that.

 

[slamdunk]

Hey Niller!

A 1X Power Scope Will FRICK The Best DRAT Eye Up!

Evident ally You've Never Looked Through a POFT 1X Scope?

The Average DRAT Eye Is about 1.6X!

A 1X Scope is a DE-F'N-MAGNIFICATION!

Don't be surprised if it ends up "No Scopes Whatsoever" in the end.

 

[elkassassin]

If It Comes Down To a 1X POFT Then Make It NO SCOPES!

Don't be surprised if it ends up "No Scopes Whatsoever" in the end.

 

[slamdunk]

If It Comes Down To a 1X POFT Then Make It NO SCOPES!

If it ends up 1x, you can opt out and go peep or open at will.
A 1x only provides a crosshair.

 

[elkassassin]

Ya!

And A Loss of Real Yardage!

They're A Real F'N JOKE!

If it ends up 1x, you can opt out and go peep or open at will.
A 1x only provides a crosshair.

 

[slamdunk]

Ya!

And A Loss of Real Yardage!

They're A Real F'N JOKE!

I agree....

 

[Vanilla]

Hey Niller!

A 1X Power Scope Will FRICK The Best DRAT Eye Up!

Evident ally You've Never Looked Through a POFT 1X Scope?

The Average DRAT Eye Is about 1.6X!

A 1X Scope is a DE-F'N-MAGNIFICATION!

Evidentially you don’t know how to read!

 

[elkassassin]

I Know How To Read Just F'N Fine!

You Said: Might

HINT: It's Not Might!

JFP!

Evidentially you don’t know how to read!

 

[Vanilla]

The ENTIRE purpose of my post was to say open sights and 1x would really be problematic for some people. I guess Airborne was right that I’m better off writing something completely nonsensical to get some to comprehend.

Cut All F’N Tags. End Hunting Entirely. Protect All Cats.

Getting the picture now?

 

[Vitalwave]

This whole deal baffles me... It's incredibly frustrating the people making the rules have no concrete objectives/reasonings to restricting tech.

To me it's not even whether or not scopes on muzzleloaders should be okay. The fact that bugs me is a small group of people with a little bit of power are doing what they want without any real rhyme or reason. No data. No plan. No testing. Just doing what they want based on their personal preferences. Unfortunately the decision has been made likely months ago and the collecting of feedback is all for show.

I don't like the amount of changes over the last couple years and I don't understand who or what is driving it. What's next and where is all this going long term?

 

[slamdunk]

@Vitalwave
"I don't like the amount of changes over the last couple years and I don't understand who or what is driving it. What's next and where is all this going long term?"
[/QUOTE]


Read your own paragraph here again and try to comprehend how powerful it is.
You just summed it up without even realizing it.

 

[BillyBoB]

Again, my favorite argument: “It dosent increase our odds of getting a buck, but I’ll argue and fight to make sure I can use it.” ???

I’ll argue that a variable scope definitely doesn’t help MY odds but sure does help make ethical kills. ?
A variable scope doesn’t change the ballistics on the load I’ve set up for my muzzy. A variable scope doesn’t change the powder charge or ignition system in my muzzy. A variable scope doesn’t change my tactics or self control.

 

[BillyBoB]

There is one reason and one reason only anyone would want a high power scope on a muzzleloader..... because it makes it easier to kill, period.

Exactly why I put a 4x12 tactical on my Knight.

I haven't ever needed it, but it's there if I ever do.

Quite a naive statement to make. Especially after our exchange of messages.

 

[slamdunk]

Quite a naive statement to make. Especially after our exchange of messages.

I'm not intending to disrespect you, but this cannot be argued whether it's for longer range accuracy or poor eyesight.
Scopes make it easier for us to make our kills, that is exactly their purpose.

 

[slamdunk]

The muzzleloader hunt was put into play by requests years ago from a small group of hunters who wanted a hunt for their particular weapon choice that distinguished them from the other two and it was approved and put into place decades ago.

It was never intended to be even remotely close to what we have allowed it to become today, nor where it will be headed if we don't slow it down.

Today there are several types of individuals involved in this hunt for their own reasoning.
Some like the more challenging hunt, some like the time of year, some like the better draw odds and some like all the emerging technologies and the "opportunity to kill" a summer range buck with current weapons.

How many of you hunted prior to scopes and how many jumped ship from rifle hunts to the muzzleloader hunt after the 2015 variable power scope implementation?

 

[BillyBoB]

As a very picky, strict, selective hunter who has killed 2 deer in the last 15 years when I could have killed nearly every year, it’s easy to see that the intention and purpose of this possible rule change is to reduce success because the state can’t grow deer.
Now I’ve played my part as an ethical and selective hunter with great self control. I’m not successful the majority of the time because I choose to. My purpose to keep a magnifying scope on my muzzleloader is due to my aging eye sight. Not to better my chances or make me more successful. I hold a high regard to ethical shots because of the high respect I have for these animals.
Selective hunters always find themselves in different circumstances while hunting, that tests their abilities, goals and challenges. It’s literally a game between themselves and an animal. Sometimes even one specific animal on the mountain. No other animal will be sufficient. Significantly reducing their chances of success. Again, because they choose to.

I have concluded that I will change my hunting tactics based on the results if this rule change is made. My game will change. I will be defiant by simply not being selective anymore. Which will be counter intuitive to me, my goals, and what the state is trying to achieve. The result will be less bucks on the landscape cuz they will be eaten or in my freezer. I’ll notch every tag that i get! And more deer will be either be wounded or lost in the field. Because you can’t regulate ethics. I fully understand that my tactics represents a minority of hunters. Which is why we don’t have a voice and why we are so misunderstood.

This is the result of the state trying to regulate social aspects of hunting based on feel good regulations that close in the walls on hunters. While the hunters who use great self control, like myself, are just pushed to the side. While so many of you, base a conclusion and lump us altogether of why someone would want a magnified scope. Turning Hunter against hunter.
I’ve enjoyed the sport of hunting by being able to hunt differently than someone else. I get to set my own rules and goals within the bounds of the law and set my own challenges. While respecting that another hunter might want to hunt differently than myself. It’s literally what has kept me coming back year after year to hunt. But I can’t stop from feeling that because some hunters can’t regulate themselves and show self control, the DWR creates regulations that show that they don’t trust us either. It puts a bad taste in my mouth

 

[slamdunk]

@BillyBoB
I agree.
I haven't killed a muzzleloader buck since 2018, 2015 was the one prior.

People can't self regulate in anything, that's why there are bag limits set on game for example.

 

[BillyBoB]

I'm not intending to disrespect you, but this cannot be argued whether it's for longer range accuracy or poor eyesight.
Scopes make it easier for us to make our kills, that is exactly their purpose.

scopes make it easier to make proficient, ethical, killing shots. Nothing to argue. Poor eye sight shooting 1x or open sights isn’t a good combination for the hunted nor hunters who don’t know how to regulate themselves and can’t be trusted

 

[Elkslayer2015]

scopes make it easier to make proficient, ethical, killing shots. Nothing to argue. Poor eye sight shooting 1x or open sights isn’t a good combination for hunters who don’t know how to regulate themselves and can’t be trusted.

Scopes also give muzzy hunters the ability to shoot right at shooting light and also shoot right at dusk. Yes you are correct it does make it more proficient ,ethical, killing shots at further range as well.

scopes make it easier to make proficient, ethical, killing shots. Nothing to argue. Poor eye sight shooting 1x or open sights isn’t a good combination for hunters

You think where wounding less animals by allowing scopes? Show me the proof that we are wounding less and I will stand by you.

Poor eye sight is not a good thing (I know my eye sight is bad)because it does limit them to shoot at further ranges and sometimes at closer ranges. But isn't that what where trying to do here is limit that even for people with 20/20 vision.

 

[elkassassin]

Now You Really F'D Up Your Posting Ability!

I Never Said: Cut All F'N Tags!

I Mentioned Cutting A Few On The Henries & You've Been BUTT HURT Ever Since!

The DWR Cut A Few Tags Prior & Me Not Knowing It On The Henries Before I Mentioned it,ARE YOU AS F'N MAD AT THE UDWR AS YOU ARE AT ME?

Looks Like Killin Cats Is UN-Limited & Open Year Around!

How Many You Chalked Up There Niller?

The ENTIRE purpose of my post was to say open sights and 1x would really be problematic for some people. I guess Airborne was right that I’m better off writing something completely nonsensical to get some to comprehend.

Cut All F’N Tags. End Hunting Entirely. Protect All Cats.

Getting the picture now?

 

[BillyBoB]

Scopes also give muzzy hunters the ability to shoot right at shooting light and also shoot right at dusk. Yes you are correct it does make it more proficient ,ethical, killing shots at further range as well.

You think where wounding less animals by allowing scopes? Show me the proof that we are wounding less and I will stand by you.

Poor eye sight is not a good thing (I know my eye sight is bad)because it does limit them to shoot at further ranges and sometimes at closer ranges. But isn't that what where trying to do here is limit that even for people with 20/20 vision.

I don’t have proof that we were wounding more deer without magnified scopes. But it would be common sense to assume that if hunters can’t seem to have self control on ethics, more risky shots were taken with open sights or 1x scopes due to the natural ability of the eyes whether one has poorer vision or perfect vision. I do however have data that general season muzzy deer hunt success rates state wide in 2013,2014,2015 averaged 33.6%
With the implementation of variable scopes in 2016.
Success rates in 2017,2018,2019,2020,2021 averaged 35.08% showing a variable scope impact of a whopping 1.48% increase
But I guess emotionally as they say , 35% success rates is just “too easy to kill”

 

[elkassassin]

Ya!

There's No Way To Know What The Wound/Wounding Rate Is!

But I Can Damn Well Guarantee It To Be Way Less from 2016 To Present!

Maybe THE KING Can Jump In & Tell Me I Can't Prove It!

He's Right,I Can't!

But Common Sense Still Has A Use Or Does It?

I don’t have proof that we were wounding more deer without magnified scopes. But I do have data that general season muzzy deer hunt success rates state wide in 2013,2014,2015 averaged 33.6%
With the implementation of variable scopes in 2016.
Success rates in 2017,2018,2019,2020,2021 averaged 35.08% showing a variable scope impact of a whopping 1.48% increase
But I guess emotionally as they say , 35% success rates is just “too easy to kill”

 

[roadrunner]

Poor eye sight is not a good thing (I know my eye sight is bad)because it does limit them to shoot at further ranges and sometimes at closer ranges. But isn't that what where trying to do here is limit that even for people with 20/20 vision.

Yep. Even with 20/20 vision, natural or corrected, it is pretty much a max range open sight at 250 yds on a deer or antelope kill zone sized target.

I've limited myself to 225 for my upcoming hunt, open sight. If I just use the animal as a whole for the target and holdover with the BDC hashmark on its back, a 250 yd is likley doable. I'll try it at the range before I head out to see, haven't attempted it yet. I know I can hit an 8" pie plate at 225 consistently.

 

[BillyBoB]

The muzzleloader hunt was put into play by requests years ago from a small group of hunters who wanted a hunt for their particular weapon choice that distinguished them from the other two and it was approved and put into place decades ago.

It was never intended to be even remotely close to what we have allowed it to become today, nor where it will be headed if we don't slow it down.

Today there are several types of individuals involved in this hunt for their own reasoning.
Some like the more challenging hunt, some like the time of year, some like the better draw odds and some like all the emerging technologies and the "opportunity to kill" a summer range buck with current weapons.

How many of you hunted prior to scopes and how many jumped ship from rifle hunts to the muzzleloader hunt after the 2015 variable power scope implementation?

I’ve explained to you in messages why I prefer a muzzleloader hunt or why I took up muzzleloader hunting to begin with. There’s many reasons and you’ve listed some. Ironically, it has helped me see more deer yet fewer kills for me. I prefer the weather in September than October. I have many reasons why. Yes I hunted before variable scopes. Results are still the same.
We would rather regulate all because of a few. Literally a few. This is a social aspect. Because the data doesn’t align with your claim. If the argument is “where it’s headed” then take the time and be creative to make regulations that impact the few who use LR muzzleloaders.
Although currently, the success rates show that LR muzzys haven't impacted success in the field as of yet.
To be fair, implementing regulations on technology (that yes could get out of hand) has resulted to an attack on the one simple component (variable scope) that helps minimize wounding animals instead of putting limiting factors on the components that make a muzzy LR. Such as ignition systems, barrel length, powder charges, etc. It’s pure laziness! Your reasoning is that field agents have said that they don’t have the time nor manpower to check these components Bow hunters aren’t checked by fish and game to confirm their draw weight, Arrow weight, etc. So why set limitations on them if they can’t be checked? It’s a cop out! A pure lame excuse. They don’t have a problem making regulations on a lot of things that they can’t enforce. What’s stopping them now?
Now the state is excellent at creating new hunts. We all acknowledge and have witnessed the creativity and enthusiasm the state has in changing rules and crating new hunting opportunities. Great! In that process, they’ve created multiple primitive hunts. Great! If that hunt fits your style of hunting or tactics, self challenges, then go for it! But don’t condone regulations where laziness and poor excuses are given to try and validate a false claim.

 

[2lumpy]

If anyone cares……. there was a reason scopes were allowed on ML in Utah. It was for vision issues accounted with older hunters. Go back to the Wildlife Board minutes if you’d like to fact check it.

A gentleman and hunter, by the name of Jerry Mason was a Wildlife Board member in his mid 70s. His eye sight changed and he could not focus his eyes on three points at the same time, that is he couldn’t see the rear sight, the front sight and the target all at the same time.

Mason asked the Board to allow a 1power score to be attached to a ML so older hunters eye could focus on two points, the cross hairs and the target. In as much as there is no magnification with a 1 power. score, it offer no increased advantage to the hunter, so the Board approved it. Because the 1 powered scope was very frustrating to sight in and hold a dependable setting, many hunters disliked it and found it a nuance. As the technology for more accurate barrels for the muzzleloader was developed, and because “the scope” was already legal, but annoying, a new Board responded to arguments made by “new age” muzzleloader enthusiasts, to allow magnifying scopes, one of their argument was hunters were now attempting to kill animals at longer ranges and the potential for misplaced shoots was not in the best interest of the big game animals. Regardless of the validity of that part of the rational, in as much as a scope was already legal, the Board went ahead and approved the magnified scopes on ML.

I have always objected to modern muzzleloaders for hunting big game, even though I own one and hunt with it, it’s not what we intended when we advocated for a muzzleloader hunt back in the 1970’s. I would gladly go back to the original muzzleloading style rifle, if that was the current recommendation from the technology committee, However, to elkassassin’s point…….. if the Board is going to go back to earlier technologies on muzzleloaders, for whatever reasons they have, I believe the same logic should be applied to all weapons and not just the muzzleloader hunters.

Having said, that, I don’t expect that will be what happens because I believe the bureaucrats are cowards and won’t take the heat from the larger population of sportsmen.

 

[slamdunk]

The wound/loss argument is completely garbage.
Both sides claim it as their excuse to fight the opposite side of their agenda.

 

[BIGJOHNT]

Modern muzzleloaders aren't the same as the muzzle loaders of our fore fathers. If the want to do a primitive muzzle loader hunt I am fine with that. But putting more restriction on how things are today is getting a little old. Making more rules or laws are not going to bring up our deer numbers its a much bigger problem then that !

 

[roadrunner]

If anyone cares……. there was a reason scopes were allowed on ML in Utah. It was for vision issues accounted with older hunters. Go back to the Wildlife Board minutes if you’d like to fact check it.

A gentleman and hunter, by the name of Jerry Mason was a Wildlife Board member in his mid 70s. His eye sight changed and he could not focus his eyes on three points at the same time, that is he couldn’t see the rear sight, the front sight and the target all at the same time.

Mason asked the Board to allow a 1power score to be attached to a ML so older hunters eye could focus on two points, the cross hairs and the target. In as much as there is no magnification with a 1 power. score, it offer no increased advantage to the hunter, so the Board approved it. Because the 1 powered scope was very frustrating to sight in and hold a dependable setting, many hunters disliked it and found it a nuance. As the technology for more accurate barrels for the muzzleloader was developed, and because “the scope” was already legal, but annoying, a new Board responded to arguments made by “new age” muzzleloader enthusiasts, to allow magnifying scopes, one of their argument was hunters were now attempting to kill animals at longer ranges and the potential for misplaced shoots was not in the best interest of the big game animals. Regardless of the validity of that part of the rational, in as much as a scope was already legal, the Board went ahead and approved the magnified scopes on ML.

I have always objected to modern muzzleloaders for hunting big game, even though I own one and hunt with it, it’s not what we intended when we advocated for a muzzleloader hunt back in the 1970’s. I would gladly go back to the original muzzleloading style rifle, if that was the current recommendation from the technology committee, However, to elkassassin’s point…….. if the Board is going to go back to earlier technologies on muzzleloaders, for whatever reasons they have, I believe the same logic should be applied to all weapons and not just the muzzleloader hunters.

Having said, that, I don’t expect that will be what happens because I believe the bureaucrats are cowards and won’t take the heat from the larger population of sportsmen.

For the purposes of mere common sense, it makes zero sense to go all the way back to 1985 and limit it to what those muzzleloaders were like.

Few muzzleloader hunters today have those, and I question how many would take the time to buy one now just to hunt with a muzzleloader when many of those seasons are at the wrong time, pointedly, after the rifle (ALW) hunts.

Modern muzzleloaders are the toothpaste you can't put back in, but you can certainly place the cap on (remove scopes) to keep more from being squeezed out...

 

[2lumpy]

Modern muzzleloaders aren't the same as the muzzle loaders of our fore fathers. If the want to do a primitive muzzle loader hunt I am fine with that. But putting more restriction on how things are today is getting a little old. Making more rules or laws are not going to bring up our deer numbers its a much bigger problem then that !

I absolutely agree BigJ. Therein lays my constant pounding of the drum to close units, as needed, and and to work on as many of those multiple reasons for the declining population, during the closure period. A rotating unit closer combined with an aggressive rebuild of the unique needs of the unit, is the only viable solution there is.

We have learned absolutely nothing from the past.

 

[2lumpy]

For the purposes of mere common sense, it makes zero sense to go all the way back to 1985 and limit it to what those muzzleloaders were like.

Few muzzleloader hunters today have those, and I question how many would take the time to buy one now just to hunt with a muzzleloader when many of those seasons are at the wrong time, pointedly, after the rifle (ALW) hunts.

Modern muzzleloaders are the toothpaste you can't put back in, but you can certainly place the cap on (remove scopes) to keep more from being squeezed out...

I agree, you can’t put tooth past back in the tube……… but you can re-regulate, albeit it at the frustration and expense of hunters.

If the general population can do it with abortion (sorry to use a terrible comparison) you can do it with hunting weapons.

We just did it with baiting and trail cameras. It hasn’t gone down people’s throats easily but, choke or not…… it’s done.

 

[lif]

I’ll argue that a variable scope definitely doesn’t help MY odds but sure does help make ethical kills. ?
A variable scope doesn’t change the ballistics on the load I’ve set up for my muzzy. A variable scope doesn’t change the powder charge or ignition system in my muzzy. A variable scope doesn’t change my tactics or self control.

If you can’t kill ethically with an open sight muzzleloader you should stick to rifle hunting. Pretty simple. A shitty bow Hunter shouldn’t be allowed to use a cross bow because he can’t kill an animal ethically with a compound bow.

 

[roadrunner]

I agree, you can’t put tooth past back in the tube……… but you can re-regulate, albeit it at the frustration and expense of hunters.

If the general population can do it with abortion (sorry to use a terrible comparison) you can do it with hunting weapons.

We just did it with baiting and trail cameras. It hasn’t gone down people’s throats easily but, choke or not…… it’s done.

Except that with baiting and trail cams, nobody is out the additional expense.

Just wait for the uproar when people are told they have to go buy a percussion cap Hawkins and throw all their sabots away to continue muzzy hunting. It will pale the uproar of scope removal...

 

[Elkslayer2015]

The wound/loss argument is completely garbage.
Both sides claim it as their excuse to fight the opposite side of their agenda.

Slam
Exactly that’s why I said that in my last post.


That said I think there is enough push back on this just like the trail cameras committee or not the board will fix this now.
I went and looked threw a 4x scope with my old man eyes and I was really impressed that makes things much clearer and also still limits my range.

I’m going to change my vote.

I know it hasn’t been easy look at all the push back. Thanks Slam for all your guys hard work.

 

[slamdunk]

Has anyone bothered looking into these new LR 40 caliber rifles taking on the new craze because utah doesn't currently have restrictions?
40 cal has a higher BC than the 50 & 54's due to less drag.
They are charging the loads with 150gr in front of a 209 magnum and getting close to 2800 fps.
This is the payload a 308 and 30-06 delivers.

This isn't a future problem for a muzzleloader season on a weapon season that was created for lower success and better odds of drawing or "opportunity"??

We saw what happened with inlines when they came out, the same will happen with these as we phase out the old school 50's.

How do we curb the LR frenzy of muzzleloader rifles and components?

The scope, the one component that makes it all happen.

 

[BillyBoB]

If you can’t kill ethically with an open sight muzzleloader you should stick to rifle hunting. Pretty simple. A shitty bow Hunter shouldn’t be allowed to use a cross bow because he can’t kill an animal ethically with a compound bow.

Geezus nobody said that killing ethically with open sights or 1x isn’t possible. Are we gonna question your capabilities and what weapon type hunts you should stick to? There’s nothing wrong with hoping to keep a 3x9 on a muzzy to have confidence to kill a deer at 200 yards.
My diminished eye sight still affords me to drive without special restrictions. I feel
more confident taking a 200 yard shot with muzzy with a 3x9 than a 1x or open sights. I pray some could relate. Is that ok with you boss? Did I pass the test?
I’m not ok putting a few holes in a deer before it dies. Is that ok boss?

 

[lif]

Geezus nobody said that killing ethically with open sights or 1x isn’t possible. Are we gonna question your capabilities and what weapon type hunts you should stick to? There’s nothing wrong with hoping to keep a 3x9 on a muzzy to have confidence to kill a deer at 200 yards.
My diminished eye sight still affords me to drive without special restrictions. I feel
more confident taking a 200 yard shot with muzzy with a 3x9 than a 1x or open sights. I pray some could relate. Is that ok with you boss? Did I pass the test?
I’m not ok putting a few holes in a deer before it dies. Is that ok boss?

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying about how a variable scope helps your confidence. I think that is the essence of this entire discussion. Should that be allowed on a muzzleloader hunt that was initially intended to be a primitive weapon hunt. Which means the weapons used make it more difficult to harvest animals.

 

[Betterluckythangood]

As a very picky, strict, selective hunter who has killed 2 deer in the last 15 years when I could have killed nearly every year, it’s easy to see that the intention and purpose of this possible rule change is to reduce success because the state can’t grow deer.
Now I’ve played my part as an ethical and selective hunter with great self control. I’m not successful the majority of the time because I choose to. My purpose to keep a magnifying scope on my muzzleloader is due to my aging eye sight. Not to better my chances or make me more successful. I hold a high regard to ethical shots because of the high respect I have for these animals.
Selective hunters always find themselves in different circumstances while hunting, that tests their abilities, goals and challenges. It’s literally a game between themselves and an animal. Sometimes even one specific animal on the mountain. No other animal will be sufficient. Significantly reducing their chances of success. Again, because they choose to.

I have concluded that I will change my hunting tactics based on the results if this rule change is made. My game will change. I will be defiant by simply not being selective anymore. Which will be counter intuitive to me, my goals, and what the state is trying to achieve. The result will be less bucks on the landscape cuz they will be eaten or in my freezer. I’ll notch every tag that i get! And more deer will be either be wounded or lost in the field. Because you can’t regulate ethics. I fully understand that my tactics represents a minority of hunters. Which is why we don’t have a voice and why we are so misunderstood.

This is the result of the state trying to regulate social aspects of hunting based on feel good regulations that close in the walls on hunters. While the hunters who use great self control, like myself, are just pushed to the side. While so many of you, base a conclusion and lump us altogether of why someone would want a magnified scope. Turning Hunter against hunter.
I’ve enjoyed the sport of hunting by being able to hunt differently than someone else. I get to set my own rules and goals within the bounds of the law and set my own challenges. While respecting that another hunter might want to hunt differently than myself. It’s literally what has kept me coming back year after year to hunt. But I can’t stop from feeling that because some hunters can’t regulate themselves and show self control, the DWR creates regulations that show that they don’t trust us either. It puts a bad taste in my mouth

You are arguing your point from the particulate to the general and not the general to the particulate.

That is incorrect thinking.

 

[Hunter21]

Has anyone bothered looking into these new KR 40 caliber rifles taking on the new craze because utah doesn't currently have restrictions?
40 cal has a higher BC than the 50 & 54's due to less drag.
They are charging the loads with 150gr in front of a 209 magnum and getting close to 2800 fps.
This is the payload a 308 and 30-06 delivers.

This isn't a future problem for a muzzleloader season on a weapon season that was created for lower success and better odds of drawing or "opportunity"??

We saw what happened with inlines when they came out, the same will happen with these as we phase out the old school 50's.

How do we curb the LR frenzy of muzzleloader rifles and components?

The scope, the one component that makes it all happen.

Easy, outlaw the KR 40 caliber rifles before they become the new craze. This is exactly the reason the committee was put together in my opinion. To stay ahead of new and emerging technologies. I haven’t heard any pushback of people wanting to stay ahead of the technology craze. The pushback I see is from people not wanting to go backwards because we’re afraid of the future.

 

[elkantlers]

For me, the real question is why we are only taking significant equipment from the Muzzleloader hunters? Especially when this won't help grow more critters.
Electronics on rifle and archery does next to nothing. No real restrictions there.
When we have people shooting arrows further than I shoot my muzzleloader and nothing is said, and rifles that can shoot into the next county and nothing is said, I have a real problem with that.

 

[roadrunner]

Easy, outlaw the KR 40 caliber rifles before they become the new craze. This is exactly the reason the committee was put together in my opinion. To stay ahead of new and emerging technologies. I haven’t heard any pushback of people wanting to stay ahead of the technology craze. The pushback I see is from people not wanting to go backwards because we’re afraid of the future.

The new craze is still only as effective as the aged eyes behind it. Remove a magnifying scope and the hyped up rifle is now irrelevant for long range...

 

[roadrunner]

You are arguing your point from the particulate to the general and not the general to the particulate.

That is incorrect thinking.

Wrong. In this specific case of scopes vs open sights, the results are yet to be seen, therefore, the inductive reasoning creating a hypothesis is valid and will need to be backed up by evidence or results down the road.

Academic enough for ya??

 

[slamdunk]

Easy, outlaw the KR 40 caliber rifles before they become the new craze. This is exactly the reason the committee was put together in my opinion. To stay ahead of new and emerging technologies. I haven’t heard any pushback of people wanting to stay ahead of the technology craze. The pushback I see is from people not wanting to go backwards because we’re afraid of the future.

Untrue.....
The entire birth of this committee is for future.
Two people will be appointed each year to attend the Shot Show which is the very nest the eggs are hatched in.

This committee isn't going anywhere, we are here to stay.
We discussed this very thing last night.
It just feels like we are the "takeaway crew" because of this first year hits.
It will calm down going forward and we anticipate meeting once a year to discuss anything alarming coming down the pipeline.

 

[lif]

For me, the real question is why we are only taking significant equipment from the Muzzleloader hunters? Especially when this won't help grow more critters.
Electronics on rifle and archery does next to nothing. No real restrictions there.
When we have people shooting arrows further than I shoot my muzzleloader and nothing is said, and rifles that can shoot into the next county and nothing is said, I have a real problem with that.

I think you’re correct in your questioning. There should and likely will be changes to other weapons as well in the future. But, these issues have to be discussed one at a time. This thread was strictly about muzzy scopes.

 

[BillyBoB]

Has anyone bothered looking into these new KR 40 caliber rifles taking on the new craze because utah doesn't currently have restrictions?
40 cal has a higher BC than the 50 & 54's due to less drag.
They are charging the loads with 150gr in front of a 209 magnum and getting close to 2800 fps.
This is the payload a 308 and 30-06 delivers.

This isn't a future problem for a muzzleloader season on a weapon season that was created for lower success and better odds of drawing or "opportunity"??

We saw what happened with inlines when they came out, the same will happen with these as we phase out the old school 50's.

How do we curb the LR frenzy of muzzleloader rifles and components?

The scope, the one component that makes it all happen.

Chronographed my muzzy. 100 grains pushing a 250 sabot. 1680fps at the muzzle. Definitely a LR gun.
Simple- ban 40 cal muzzys
Simple- limit the powder charge to no more than 110, no bolt actions on muzzleloaders

You just want to simplify it by removing the scope. Utah is capable of doing better.
Way too many inconsistencies.
trail cameras….we can’t enforce it but let’s ban them.
Bows- let’s regulate draw weight. Can’t enforce
Cross bows- let’s regulate draw weight of 125 pounds, a positive mechanical safety, type of arrow, can’t enforce
Shotguns- let’s regulate they must be 20 gauge or larger and certain size ammo
Air guns- have to be pneumatic. Arrows or bolts have to be at least 16 inches long and shoot a minimal 400fps, a separate charging device, has to be at least 7/8 inch wide at the end of the expandable.
Handguns- deliver 500 foot pounds of energy at 100 yards.

We can have a laundry list (2 pages of guidebook) of restrictions on weapons to make them ethically capable to kill. But we can’t make restrictions to limit use? Because we can’t enforce it? Lol
Muzzleloader….Nah bruh just ban the scope. Field officers have no way of checking ?
The hypocrisy is insane

 

[Hunter21]

Untrue.....
The entire birth of this committee is for future.
Two people will be appointed each year to attend the Shot Show which is the very nest the eggs are hatched in.

This committee isn't going anywhere, we are here to stay.
We discussed this very thing last night.
It just feels like we are the "takeaway crew" because of this first year hits.
It will calm down going forward and we anticipate meeting once a year to discuss anything alarming coming down the pipeline.

I love the idea of staying ahead of the game and being proactive rather than reactive. I’m thankful there’s good folks like yourself out there willing to step up on all hunters behalf and try and make a difference. Thank You for that!!

 

[BillyBoB]

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying about how a variable scope helps your confidence. I think that is the essence of this entire discussion. Should that be allowed on a muzzleloader hunt that was initially intended to be a primitive weapon hunt. Which means the weapons used make it more difficult to harvest animals.

Good question! Everyone has their own definition of what defines primitive. Some think we need to go back to 1865 weapons. Some think we should use a stick or rock. I don’t know about you but 35% success rate for muzzy shows it’s difficult and on par with archery and rifle success rates. Or do we need a 90% unsuccessful rate. Cuz I know that’s what the state would like. Collect our money, have you burn your pile of points and eat tag soup for the next dumb ass to draw next year. Cuz that’s a solution to point creep without the take and bigger animals on the landscape. It’s a win win for the state. Meanwhile, we got 50-65% success rates for some GS rifles. But ban the muzzy scope. One thing at a time. That way everyone will slowly swallow the bullshit.

When I speak of confidence, I mean to put my sabot where I intend to shoot. Not confidence to be successful.

 

[Hunter21]

Untrue.....
The entire birth of this committee is for future.
Two people will be appointed each year to attend the Shot Show which is the very nest the eggs are hatched in.

This committee isn't going anywhere, we are here to stay.
We discussed this very thing last night.
It just feels like we are the "takeaway crew" because of this first year hits.
It will calm down going forward and we anticipate meeting once a year to discuss anything alarming coming down the pipeline.

Just curious what did I say that is Untrue?? Or is it just that my opinion is wrong??

 

[GunCarver]

Has anyone bothered looking into these new LR 40 caliber rifles taking on the new craze because utah doesn't currently have restrictions?
40 cal has a higher BC than the 50 & 54's due to less drag.
They are charging the loads with 150gr in front of a 209 magnum and getting close to 2800 fps.
This is the payload a 308 and 30-06 delivers.

This isn't a future problem for a muzzleloader season on a weapon season that was created for lower success and better odds of drawing or "opportunity"??

We saw what happened with inlines when they came out, the same will happen with these as we phase out the old school 50's.

How do we curb the LR frenzy of muzzleloader rifles and components?

The scope, the one component that makes it all happen.

Slam,

I pointed this out in the other thread that if the goal is to limit the effective range of a muzzleloader to 250 yards, then a 1x/open sights would be the way to do it (I agree with your statement). Whether you shoot a 40, 45, 50, 54, $10,000 custom or $200 from Walmart, it doesn't matter. Your max range is probably not going to exceed 250 yards (maybe 300 for Quigley, maybe 200 for others).

I'm not saying this is what I want, but it is by far the simplest way to limit the effective range of a gun without getting into the weeds on more specific regulations (exposed ignition, additional caliber restrictions, powder/bullet restrictions). For the most part it allows everyone to keep using the gun they have, even more so if at least a 1x scope is still allowed because then it is a simple scope-change without requiring drilling/tapping for peep sights.

The last thing I want to see is a whole bunch of additional restrictions that turns a bunch of our guns into paper weights. Paper weights that we all spent good money for because they were allowed at the time.

 

[BillyBoB]

Untrue.....
The entire birth of this committee is for future.
Two people will be appointed each year to attend the Shot Show which is the very nest the eggs are hatched in.

This committee isn't going anywhere, we are here to stay.
We discussed this very thing last night.
It just feels like we are the "takeaway crew" because of this first year hits.
It will calm down going forward and we anticipate meeting once a year to discuss anything alarming coming down the pipeline.

I don’t look at you as the takeaway crew. Definitely the inconsistency crew.
Sounds like you’ve found something coming down the pipeline that’s worrisome.

Nah, no non members there tonight at all.

The only real measure the committee voted on was "is there an agreement that some type of scope restriction should be placed on the general season and LE muzzleloading weapon?"
The vote was 9-1 in favor.

As to what those restrictions will consist of will be discussed on September 11th after a public survey will be implemented to capture at least 400 various hunters.

I will post the survey questions when it is completed.

I’m sure the survey wont be biased like the trail camera survey. Where opinions won’t be skewed at all to fit their agenda. (9k surveys sent out, 2300 responses and 57% of them [1311]don’t use cameras at all and only 8% [184] used transmitting cameras)
Then regardless to what the opinions are, do what they want anyways. (Ban ALL cameras on public land after season dates)
With a 4-3 split decision vote

 

[slamdunk]

I love the idea of staying ahead of the game and being proactive rather than reactive. I’m thankful there’s good folks like yourself out there willing to step up on all hunters behalf and try and make a difference. Thank You for that!!

Thank you.

I can honestly say that if you or anyone ever gets the opportunity to be on a committee, I highly recommend it.
This is my second, I sat on the original Shed Anlter Gathering committee.

You'll be both a hero and a villain, but it's an honor to hold a seat, a say and a vote.

The knowledge you gain from the vast array of members is as astounding as seeing and understanding all the different perspectives.

 

[elkassassin]

They'll YANK The SCOPES!

5 Years Down The Road They'll Still Be Blaming InLiners Why The Utah Deer Herd Still SUCKS!

Then They'll YANK Certain Powder Types From The SmokePolers!

10 Years Down The Road They'll Still Be Blaming InLiners Why The Utah Deer Herd Still SUCKS!

Then They'll YANK Certain Types Of Ignition Away!

15 Years Down The Road They'll Still Be Blaming InLiners Why The Utah Deer Herd Still SUCKS!

Then They'll YANK Your InLines Altogether!

20 Years Down The Road They'll Still Be Blaming InLiners Why The Utah Deer Herd Still SUCKS!

Ya That Fixed Everything Didn't It?

GAWD I Knew I Kept My HAWKENS For Some STUPID F'N Reason!

And In The Meantime there Will Be Very Little Done To Improve Deer Numbers!

But BY GAWD We Showed Them SmokePolers!

 

[mevertsen]

So what's your solution Bess?

How do we increase deer numbers?

 

[elkassassin]

Well!

Maybe Try Something Different Than What's Been Tried In The Last 50+ years!

You've Surely Seen HELL-F'N-RIGHT,Right?

Ya!

Nobody Likes That!

So what's your solution Bess?

How do we increase deer numbers?

 

[mevertsen]

Well!

Maybe Try Something Different Than What's Been Tried In The Last 50+ years!

You've Surely Seen HELL-F'N-RIGHT,Right?

Ya!

Nobody Likes That!

I'm only 40.

So offer a solution.

You say do something different, but you never define "different."

So they do something different by limiting tech, but you say that's wrong as well.

So what is your actual plan if you had the magic wand?

 

[elkassassin]

You've Never Heard Me Say It Was Wrong!

I Said For The Millionth F'N Time:

I'll GIVE!

I Use All 3 Weapon Types Some!

But When I Say Make It An Equal Take Across The Board Of Weaponry A Whole Bunch Of People Don't Like It!

And They Start BAWLING!

There's 50+ Reasons Why We're Here Dealing With a PISS POOR Deer Herd!

Most People Wanna Blame Just One Thing!

It's Not Just One Thing!

I'm only 40.

So offer a solution.

You say do something different, but you never define "different."

So they do something different by limiting tech, but you say that's wrong as well.

So what is your actual plan if you had the magic wand?

 

[slamdunk]

They'll YANK The SCOPES!

5 Years Down The Road They'll Still Be Blaming InLiners Why The Utah Deer Herd Still SUCKS!

Then They'll YANK Certain Powder Types From The SmokePolers!

10 Years Down The Road They'll Still Be Blaming InLiners Why The Utah Deer Herd Still SUCKS!

Then They'll YANK Certain Types Of Ignition Away!

15 Years Down The Road They'll Still Be Blaming InLiners Why The Utah Deer Herd Still SUCKS!

Then They'll YANK Your InLines Altogether!

20 Years Down The Road They'll Still Be Blaming InLiners Why The Utah Deer Herd Still SUCKS!

Ya That Fixed Everything Didn't It?

GAWD I Knew I Kept My HAWKENS For Some STUPID F'N Reason!

And In The Meantime there Will Be Very Little Done To Improve Deer Numbers!

But BY GAWD We Showed Them SmokePolers!

Nah......not what this is about.

 

[elkassassin]

So?

The Guns Didn't Evolve?

The Ignition Types Didn't Evolve?

The Powder Types Didn't Evolve?

The Bullets Didn't Evolve?

But Them Dreaded DAMN Scopes................................!

Nah......not what this is about.

 

[mevertsen]

You say there are 50 things wrong -

So name them - and how to fix each of them.

 

[elkassassin]

I Didn't Say 50!

I Said: 50+

You say there are 50 things wrong -

So name them - and how to fix each of them.

 

[mevertsen]

I Didn't Say 50!

I Said: 50+

Ok,

Name them.

And a solution for each.

You keep complaining about all the problems, but you never name them. Ever.

You also never offer solutions - Ever.

You just complain.

Identify a solution for each problem you see.

Everything you complain about and the deer herd, how to fix it and how to convince others to fix it as well.

Specifics - for each unit, every problem you believe exists.

You have the magic wand - you are king of Mule Deer in Utah, start from a clean slate.

 

[slamdunk]

So?

The Guns Didn't Evolve?

The Ignition Types Didn't Evolve?

The Powder Types Didn't Evolve?

The Bullets Didn't Evolve?

But Them Dreaded DAMN Scopes................................!

Yes, they ALL evolved because of the scope.

Would there be a need for "evolutionary" components if you couldn't see your bullseye at 400+ yards?
Nope.....

 

[elkassassin]

They Still Evolved!

And Not JUST For The MuzzleLoaders!

 

[elkassassin]

Evident ally You Haven't Been On Here Very Much in the Last 23-24 Years?

Ok,

Name them.

And a solution for each.

You keep complaining about all the problems, but you never name them. Ever.

You also never offer solutions - Ever.

You just complain.

Identify a solution for each problem you see.

Everything you complain about and the deer herd, how to fix it and how to convince others to fix it as well.

Specifics - for each unit, every problem you believe exists.

You have the magic wand - you are king of Mule Deer in Utah, start from a clean slate.