Muzzle Loader Scope Voting Poll

[elkassassin]

Magic Wand Huh?

That's About What'd It Take To Fix This Fiasco!

 

[mevertsen]

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

I have.

And I have yet to see you offer a solution.

 

[roadrunner]

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.....

Not really. Most of all those components were in use before scopes became a big thing. It wasn't until low error margin repeatability was realized that better scopes were "needed".

 

[MrShane]

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.

AND the ignition system.

 

[Vanilla]

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

Anyone that has knows there is ZERO chance you answer his question.

But it’s always fun watching you squirm.

 

[Vanilla]

I have.

And I have yet to see you offer a solution.

Good luck! The only thing he ever proposes is tag cuts. Because that’s different from the other tag cuts that have worked so well…

 

[elkassassin]

Your Bitching About The Tag Cuts!

GOOD GAWD A Mighty!

I Mentioned Cutting A Few Tags On The Henry Mountains!

THE KING Got His Feathers Ruffled!

THE KING Has Never Answered My Question,Never!

Little Did I Know The UDWR Had Already Cut Tags on The Henries!

I've Asked Many Times But He Won't F'N Answer!

I'm Asking One More Time Niller?

Are You As F'N PISSED At The UDWR For Cutting Tags As You Are At Me For Mentioning Cutting A Few Tags?

He won't F'N Answer It!

Good luck! The only thing he ever proposes is tag cuts. Because that’s different from the other tag cuts that have worked so well…

 

[elkassassin]

I Proposed It One Time & The UDWR Had Already Done It!

GEEZUS!

 

[slamdunk]

Not really. Most of all those components were in use before scopes became a big thing. It wasn't until low error margin repeatability was realized that better scopes were "needed".

I am also referring to "emerging" components that are being introduced to meet the fastest growing firearm demands of the modern day muzzleloader.
Such as Federals "Firestick" and Traditions "Nitro Fire" and Remingtons "RUM" just for starters and not to mention the custom gun builders popping up with futuristic ignition systems, longer barrels and deeper stronger chambers for higher payloads to push the new higher BC projectiles.

Again, minimizing a shooters sight ability severely cripples the components.

 

[elkassassin]

In The KINGS Head:

The DWR Just Cut 10 Tags On The Henry Mountains!

THE SKY IS FALLING!

THE SKY IS FALLING!

THE SKY IS FALLING!

HOLY SSHHITT!

WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO NOW?

 

[Vanilla]

WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO NOW?

Take away your muzzy scope?

 

[elkassassin]

Yup!

That'll Fix EVERY-F'N-THING Now Won't It?

Take away your muzzy scope?

 

[slamdunk]

Yup!

That'll Fix EVERY-F'N-THING Now Won't It?

It shouldn't affect you, you don't take long shots at game.

If it goes back to 1x, you've already been there and dealt with it just fine and accepted it as is.

And if it goes totally scopeless, you've been there as well and loved that hunt.

I'll gladly settle on my scopeless inline Knight over my old Hawkin, feel fuzzy about it and enjoy my better odds at drawing every year after all the scopies return to the rifle hunt ?

 

[JakeH]

I'll gladly settle on my scopeless inline Knight over my old Hawkin, feel fuzzy about it and enjoy my better odds at drawing every year after all the scopies return to the rifle hunt ?

And there it is, the true reason most people that are in favor of removing scopes are pushing it so hard, they think it will give them an advantage.

Personally I doubt it will have much effect, but maybe. It's just funny that is not the reason any of you give for the push.

 

[middlefork]

I'll gladly settle on my scopeless inline Knight over my old Hawkin, feel fuzzy about it and enjoy my better odds at drawing every year after all the scopies return to the rifle hunt ?

And there you go. The real reason for the push.
If anybody thinks it is about something else they are sadly mistaken,

 

[slamdunk]

And there it is, the true reason most people that are in favor of removing scopes are pushing it so hard, they think it will give them an advantage.

Personally I doubt it will have much effect, but maybe. It's just funny that is not the reason any of you give for the push.

That's why people switched Jake, I have numerous friends and acquaintances that say exactly that, including committee members.

Removing variable power scopes has nothing to do with bettering odds, that's simply a residual side effect that WILL happen, wanna bet?

It's got everything to do with taming a weapon that was once a 200 yard hunt.

 

[elkassassin]

Well PUNK!

No Matter Which Battle Plan They Go With I've Got A Gun That Should Work!

I'm Kinda Worried About Not Being Able To See The Front Sight On My Old HAWKENS Though!

It shouldn't affect you, you don't take long shots at game.

If it goes back to 1x, you've already been there and dealt with it just fine and accepted it as is.

And if it goes totally scopeless, you've been there as well and loved that hunt.

I'll gladly settle on my scopeless inline Knight over my old Hawkin, feel fuzzy about it and enjoy my better odds at drawing every year after all the scopies return to the rifle hunt ?

 

[slamdunk]

And there you go. The real reason for the push.
If anybody thinks it is about something else they are sadly mistaken,

Just as I stated to Jake, people will switch hunts if they lose their scopes......the "need to be successful" guys anyway.

That's not the reason the WB is asking for changes, C'mon man..........?

 

[slamdunk]

Well PUNK!

No Matter Which Battle Plan They Go With I've Got A Gun That Should Work!

I'm Kinda Worried About Not Being Able To See The Front Sight On My Old HAWKENS Though!

I wear glasses to see through my rifle scopes, no reason I'd expect anything different trying to see the end of my inline ?

 

[slamdunk]

And there you go. The real reason for the push.
If anybody thinks it is about something else they are sadly mistaken,

@JakeH and middlefork.

My statement was from ME, one person on a 10 person committee and also ONE of only 3 muzzleloader hunters on it.
My personal draw odds are not the voice nor the concern of the committee or the WB......you're giving me waaaaaay too much importance of laughable measure!

If you guys want to use my personal comment about a possible upside to a hunt that I already annually hunt, then I will just realize you really don't have an argument to begin with.

 

[elkassassin]

It shouldn't affect you, you don't take long shots at game.

If it goes back to 1x, you've already been there and dealt with it just fine and accepted it as is.

Hey PUNK!

I Don't Think I Ever Accepted That POJ 1x Scope!

And if it goes totally scopeless, you've been there as well and loved that hunt.

I'll gladly settle on my scopeless inline Knight over my old Hawkin, feel fuzzy about it and enjoy my better odds at drawing every year after all the scopies return to the rifle hunt ?

 

[JakeH]

@JakeH and middlefork.

My statement was from ME, one person on a 10 person committee and also ONE of only 3 muzzleloader hunters on it.
My personal draw odds are not the voice nor the concern of the committee or the WB......you're giving me waaaaaay too much importance of laughable measure!

If you guys want to use my personal comment about a possible upside to a hunt that I already annually hunt, then I will just realize you really don't have an argument to begin with.

It's not just you Slam, the point has been brought up by many in these posts. But it coming from you has more weight, you can gloss over it all you want but it's still one of the major reasons for the push especially from the "guys that hunt it anyway" crowd.

You said there was 1 vote against in the committee was the no vote one of the muzzleloader guys? And what was their reasoning for objecting? Just curious.

 

[slamdunk]

Hey PUNK!

I Don't Think I Ever Accepted That POJ 1x Scope!

I disliked mine as well, things were further away but I liked the little red dot ?

 

[slamdunk]

It's not just you Slam, the point has been brought up by many in these posts. But it coming from you has more weight, you can gloss over it all you want but it's still one of the major reasons for the push especially from the "guys that hunt it anyway" crowd.

You said there was 1 vote against in the committee was the no vote one of the muzzleloader guys? And what was their reasoning for objecting? Just curious.

He was on the fence (but not opposed) until additional data was shown from other surrounding states.

He also makes his living off of social media for being a "successful" hunter.
Videos don't sell well when there is no happy ending.

He also made it very clear to the committee that his muzzleloader is by far the most accurate and lethal weapon he owns and would use it on the rifle hunt over any centerfire without question.

 

[elkassassin]

The Little Red Dot That Covers The Whole Deer Up at 100 Yards!

I disliked mine as well, things were further away but I liked the little red dot ?

 

[JakeH]

He was on the fence (but not opposed) until additional data was shown from other surrounding states.

He also makes his living off of social media for being a "successful" hunter.
Videos don't sell well when there is no happy ending.

He also made it very clear to the committee that his muzzleloader is by far the most accurate and lethal weapon he owns and would use it on the rifle hunt over any centerfire without question.

I find that very hard to believe but to each there own. Sounds more like a personal preference to me.

Sounds like the committee has it's mind made up, hopefullythey dont go scorched earth and completely remove scopes, I still feel a 4x option is a good compromise, but if the majority on the committee want to completely remove them, then the old rules are still better than completely removing scopes. Maybe that is the compromise.

I presented my views, thats all I can do.

 

[elkassassin]

He was on the fence (but not opposed) until additional data was shown from other surrounding states.

He also makes his living off of social media for being a "successful" hunter.
Videos don't sell well when there is no happy ending.

He also made it very clear to the committee that his muzzleloader is by far the most accurate and lethal weapon he owns and would use it on the rifle hunt over any centerfire without question.

But!

But!

If He Had As Much Invested In a Long Ranger Comparably As In:

Un-Limited Money in To The Long Ranger!

It Would Kick The SmokePoles Ass!

Just Because His SmokePole Will OutShoot His Rifles That Don't Impress Me Much!

 

[slamdunk]

But!

But!

If He Had As Much Invested In a Long Ranger Comparably As In:

Un-Limited Money in To The Long Ranger!

It Would Kick The SmokePoles Ass!

Just Because His SmokePole Will OutShoot His Rifles That Don't Impress Me Much!

I agree......but I also know this guy has more guns than you and I combined.....it's his livelihood.

 

[elkassassin]

There's Lots Of Guys With More Guns Than Me!

But It Sounds Like He's Picked One Weapon Type To Take It To The Most Extremes!

Probably Boasting 1400 Yard Chip Shots With His SmokePole!

I agree......but I also know this guy has more guns than you and I combined.....it's his livelihood.

 

[slamdunk]

I find that very hard to believe but to each there own. Sounds more like a personal preference to me.

Sounds like the committee has it's mind made up, hopefullythey dont go scorched earth and completely remove scopes, I still feel a 4x option is a good compromise, but if the majority on the committee want to completely remove them, then the old rules are still better than completely removing scopes. Maybe that is the compromise.

I presented my views, thats all I can do.

And I appreciate those views from you with respect.

I can assure you, inlines aren't going anywhere, that hasn't even been questioned other than HAMS and Primitive hunts.

I cannot tell you what will happen with scopes in the end.

What I can tell you is the committee voted 9-1 that there should be some kind of scope restrictions for muzzleloaders.

What those restrictions will be I cannot tell you yet because we're not at that point till after the public survey, but will be done by the November RACS..

The other thing I can tell you is the committee only gives recommendations, not rules.

The WB makes the rules when they slam the gavel on the desktop.

 

[Vanilla]

There's Lots Of Guys With More Guns Than Me!

It really doesn’t take many guns to not hunt. You’re good to go!

 

[roadrunner]

I am also referring to "emerging" components that are being introduced to meet the fastest growing firearm demands of the modern day muzzleloader.
Such as Federals "Firestick" and Traditions "Nitro Fire" and Remingtons "RUM" just for starters and not to mention the custom gun builders popping up with futuristic ignition systems, longer barrels and deeper stronger chambers for higher payloads to push the new higher BC projectiles.

Again, minimizing a shooters sight ability severely cripples the components.

It does, to around 250 yds. In a lot of states, breech loading "muzzleloaders" are already illegal to use on a muzzleloader hunt.

 

[roadrunner]

And there it is, the true reason most people that are in favor of removing scopes are pushing it so hard, they think it will give them an advantage.

Personally I doubt it will have much effect, but maybe. It's just funny that is not the reason any of you give for the push.

Seeing this in realtime, this year, as we speak with hunts that last year allowed a variable power scope now can only have open sights that are or were more available than before.

There is a certain group of people that will not hunt with a muzzleloader anymore because of this and a certain group that will adjust.

 

[Ballistic]

He was on the fence (but not opposed) until additional data was shown from other surrounding states.

He also makes his living off of social media for being a "successful" hunter.
Videos don't sell well when there is no happy ending.

He also made it very clear to the committee that his muzzleloader is by far the most accurate and lethal weapon he owns and would use it on the rifle hunt over any centerfire without question.

Simple answer.
If he believes his muzzy is more accurate and lethal -He can use it on an “any legal weapon” hunt now. Legal centerfire/muzzy/archery can be used.

BUTT
Remind him of 1 important detail that he will not like - and i promise it will bite him in his BUTT and bold statement.

When the scope is removed - if he decides to use his amazing and totally awesome bad A muzzy (with a scope on it on an any legal weapon hunt) - it will be illegal to use.

That statement of his that made him feel warm/fuzzy/tingly -will have a bitter taste-when the game warden takes his “Precious” most bestest there ever was muzzy that can outshoot any weapon on the planet.
Ooh -Tiny tears of sadness…….

 

[slamdunk]

Simple answer.
If he believes his muzzy is more accurate and lethal -He can use it on an “any legal weapon” hunt now. Legal centerfire/muzzy/archery can be used.

BUTT
Remind him of 1 important detail that he will not like - and i promise it will bite him in his BUTT and bold statement.

When the scope is removed - if he decides to use his amazing and totally awesome bad A muzzy (with a scope on it on an any legal weapon hunt) - it will be illegal to use.

That statement of his that made him feel warm/fuzzy/tingly -will have a bitter taste-when the game warden takes his “Precious” most bestest there ever was muzzy that can outshoot any weapon on the planet.
Ooh -Tiny tears of sadness…….

Oh he knows all that and is why he's on the fence.
He hunts the muzzleloader season to be successful and make video content, period.

 

[elkassassin]

That All THE KING Has?

WEAK!

It really doesn’t take many guns to not hunt. You’re good to go!

 

[scopenstalk]

I guess the caveat is the dude said it’s the most accurate weapon he owns. Maybe he just owns a **** rifle ?????So maybe I’m off base……. That said, it’s hard to take someone seriously who is saying they would choose their smoke pole over “any” center fire rifle for the any weapon hunt. Anyone with just a little bit of experience shooting both style weapons would have their bull **** meter pegged hearing that statement.

 

[Ballistic]

I guess the caveat is the dude said it’s the most accurate weapon he owns. Maybe he just owns a **** rifle ?????So maybe I’m off base……. That said, it’s hard to take someone seriously who is saying they would choose their smoke pole over “any” center fire rifle for the any weapon hunt. Anyone with just a little bit of experience shooting both style weapons would have their bull **** meter pegged hearing that statement.

Here’s the problem with this statement by this guy. And please correct me if I’m wrong. You have a committee of 10 on the tech committee. 3 of the 10 represent hunters. The other 7 are of diverse groups that may or may not know the details of hunting. That’s a hell of a sales pitch to those 7 to sway the votes.
Slam said 9-1 to have restrictions and slam makes it 2 of 3 to sway the outcome. Slams comments of the long range muzzleloaders with the Gunwerks 700 plus yard kill and the 1100 plus yard deer kill and the 3200 fps blackpowder muzzle loader especially are incorrect. Slam -they don’t shoot 3200 fps but I’m sure you sold that to the committee as well. But slam sold the BS because he really watches social media to get his info and doesn’t have the facts.

Hey Slam !
Calling you and your BS committee member out on your propaganda. Been trying to get someone to prove your claims.
PM me and let’s see if you can prove what you’re saying. I’ll film it and post it but it’s probably too late. You’ve already sold it and are going after more with your .40 cal statements to justify your BS scope restrictions.

 

[Hawkeye]

Please vote to ban all scopes on muzzleloaders. Thank you for your service, Slammy!

Hawkeye

 

[elkassassin]

And When The Vote Comes Around For Rifles!

BAN Every F'N 300 On Earth!

Please vote to ban all scopes on muzzleloaders. Thank you for your service, Slammy!

Hawkeye

 

[roadrunner]

And When The Vote Comes Around For Rifles!

BAN Every F'N 300 On Earth!

But at least we get to still use them everywhere else.

Kinda sucks to be a crusader

 

[scopenstalk]

And When The Vote Comes Around For Rifles!

BAN Every F'N 300 On Earth!

cmon bess you know the 6.5 hipster kills more deer than the 300s do now

 

[elkassassin]

Ya!

But That Ain't What hawky Packs!

cmon bess you know the 6.5 hipster kills more deer than the 300s do now

 

[Vitalwave]

He was on the fence (but not opposed) until additional data was shown from other surrounding states.

He also makes his living off of social media for being a "successful" hunter.
Videos don't sell well when there is no happy ending.

He also made it very clear to the committee that his muzzleloader is by far the most accurate and lethal weapon he owns and would use it on the rifle hunt over any centerfire without question.

Sounds like we have some real interesting folks on the committee..

I have a question for you @slamdunk... If I understand it right the Tech Committee makes recommendations to the WB. Can the Wildlife Board still do what they want or do you think they are going to follow what the Tech Committee decides? For example, if you guys decided no further changes were needed unanimously, would they stop making changing our do you think they would still try and change some things?

Do you know if there is a lot of pressure coming from other places? Like for example on the trail cam deal there was that legislator guy that was getting all involved in it for some reason?

I guess I'm just trying to understand where the root of all the recent changes have came from?

 

[notdonhunting]

And there it is, the true reason most people that are in favor of removing scopes are pushing it so hard, they think it will give them an advantage.

Personally, I doubt it will have much effect, but maybe. It's just funny that is not the reason any of you give for the push.

I stated that exact reason on the Muzy 1 vs all scope ban thread, as my main purpose of limiting the scopes. I admitted I am selfish.
I do believe many guys "might not be on this thread" but one of the many other threads on this subject, have stated that they would love to see muzzleloaders be limited to the old Hawkins, believing it would improve their odds of drawing out.

 

[slamdunk]

Sounds like we have some real interesting folks on the committee..

I have a question for you @slamdunk... If I understand it right the Tech Committee makes recommendations to the WB. Can the Wildlife Board still do what they want or do you think they are going to follow what the Tech Committee decides? For example, if you guys decided no further changes were needed unanimously, would they stop making changing our do you think they would still try and change some things?

Do you know if there is a lot of pressure coming from other places? Like for example on the trail cam deal there was that legislator guy that was getting all involved in it for some reason?

I guess I'm just trying to understand where the root of all the recent changes have came from?

Yes, WB has last call, but they are who asked for this committee to be assembled.

 

[elkfromabove]

Yes, WB has last call, but they are who asked for this committee to be assembled.

And are they the ones who also chose the committee members? Or, how did that work? Can you tell us who's on it and who they represent? I think we should know who is making those recommendations for HUNTERS!

 

[Hawkeye]

Ya!

But That Ain't What hawky Packs!

Elkster, I own several rifles, and I also bowhunt and muzzleloader hunt. The WB has already made changes to rifle and archery rules that impact me. If they make additional changes that limit technology, so be it. Whatever the rules are, I will still get out and hunt!

Hawkeye

 

[elkassassin]

Yes hawky!

But It Comes With a Little TUDE!

YANKING Your SIG Off of Your 300 Must Of Hurt A Little?

Ever Since Then You've Said:

BAN ALL SCOPES On Muzzleloaders!

Now I Realize Alot Of That Is Directed At Me!

I Also Haven Other Weaponry I Hunt With Just Like You!

None Of It Is High Tech Like Your SIG!

I Got My HAWKENS Out Last Night Just To Admire It!

If I Could Go Back In Time I'd Go Back To The HAWKENS Days in a Heartbeat!

Somebody Saying You're Going Back To The HAWKENS Doesn't Bring Back What I Was Seeing & Hunting In That ERA & It Never Will!

Elkster, I own several rifles, and I also bowhunt and muzzleloader hunt. The WB has already made changes to rifle and archery rules that impact me. If they make additional changes that limit technology, so be it. Whatever the rules are, I will still get out and hunt!

Hawkeye

 

[roadrunner]

Somebody Saying You're Going Back To The HAWKENS Doesn't Bring Back What I Was Seeing & Hunting In That ERA & It Never Will!

This statement sums it up. Hunting over the next few years will never be what it once was.

If you go back in time 30 years for weapon ability (and availability) it is necessary to completely restructure the hunts.

All rifle hunts have to be the last hunts of the year...

 

[slamdunk]

And are they the ones who also chose the committee members? Or, how did that work? Can you tell us who's on it and who they represent? I think we should know who is making those recommendations for HUNTERS!

Capital letters makes me think you are assuming the committee members are not "hunters", but that's my interpretation right or wrong.

Of course the entire committee are compromised of 100% hunters.

It starts with a couple of DNR employees of different roles, then they reach out to various people of vast entities to put together a committee with varying insights, interests and backgrounds.

I won't state actual names for obvious reasons but we have two field officers (game wardens), a WB member, social media hunting influencer, members of other committees, former president of a major archery manufacturer, two special interest people and one guy who isn't involved in anything, just a simple "public at large".

All committees are compromised of varying backgrounds and entities to gain more broad perspectives.

 

[elkassassin]

I've Seen Greenies/Environmentalists on the RAC's!

I Hope The Committee Hasn't Stooped That LOW?

 

[Betterluckythangood]

Thank you Wildlife Board and Tech Committee for addressing these issues!

 

[slamdunk]

I've Seen Greenies/Environmentalists on the RAC's!

I Hope The Committee Hasn't Stooped That LOW?

Absolutely not

 

[ORIONTHEHUNTER]

That's why people switched Jake, I have numerous friends and acquaintances that say exactly that, including committee members.

Removing variable power scopes has nothing to do with bettering odds, that's simply a residual side effect that WILL happen, wanna bet?

It's got everything to do with taming a weapon that was once a 200 yard hunt.

I'll take that bet. New Mexico's odds didn't change from removing scopes from muzzleloaders this year

 

[Betterluckythangood]

If and when the so called restrictions go back into effect. The pendulum will have swung back in favor of the rifle hunter in my opinion.

In order to level the playing field, I submit that laser and electronic rangefinders should not be allowed on all big game rifle hunts only, in Utah.

I look forward to having long range holes shot into this idea but, please don’t give me the argument “ I need my laser to make a clean, ethical kill at 937 yards” or something similar.

 

[elkfromabove]

Capital letters makes me think you are assuming the committee members are not "hunters", but that's my interpretation right or wrong.

Of course the entire committee are compromised of 100% hunters.

It starts with a couple of DNR employees of different roles, then they reach out to various people of vast entities to put together a committee with varying insights, interests and backgrounds.

I won't state actual names for obvious reasons but we have two field officers (game wardens), a WB member, social media hunting influencer, members of other committees, former president of a major archery manufacturer, two special interest people and one guy who isn't involved in anything, just a simple "public at large".

All committees are compromised of varying backgrounds and entities to gain more broad perspectives.

The reason I capped HUNTERS is because I was on the 2014 Mule Deer Planning Committee and we had non-hunters on that committee who didn't support most hunting rules that would increase opportunity and success rates. But that was acceptable because we were also talking about habitat, survival rates, mortalities other than hunting, DWR surveys, DWR/BYU/USU studies, etc.

But your committee is limited to dealing with technologies associated with hunting and a non-hunter wouldn't have enough experience to make credible decisions about technologies that affect killing a big game animal. It's like trying to tell a blind person what color is. I'm glad they all are hunters!

Thanks for the info on the members and we're happy that we have at least one contact who's willing to tell us what's happening. Thanks!

 

[roadrunner]

If and when the so called restrictions go back into effect. The pendulum will have swung back in favor of the rifle hunter in my opinion.

In order to level the playing field, I submit that laser and electronic rangefinders should not be allowed on all big game rifle hunts only, in Utah.

I look forward to having long range holes shot into this idea but, please don’t give me the argument “ I need my laser to make a clean, ethical kill at 937 yards” or something similar.

I need my laser to make a clean ethical kill at 396 yds because my rifle is zeroed at 300 yds and need to know if I should aim at the top of the back, just below, or a few inches high to make sure I don't hit it too low in the front shoulder or brisket.

I need my BDC laser to shoot at a nice little 3x4 buck up above me on the side of a ridge because line of sight shows it to be 325 yds, but we all know it's closer because of inclination and my rifles is zeroed at 200 yds. I need to know if it's within an ethical range to make sure I can make a clean and quick kill shot.

Sorry, no long range holes...

 

[slamdunk]

The reason I capped HUNTERS is because I was on the 2014 Mule Deer Planning Committee and we had non-hunters on that committee who didn't support most hunting rules that would increase opportunity and success rates. But that was acceptable because we were also talking about habitat, survival rates, mortalities other than hunting, DWR surveys, DWR/BYU/USU studies, etc.

But your committee is limited to dealing with technologies associated with hunting and a non-hunter wouldn't have enough experience to make credible decisions about technologies that affect killing a big game animal. It's like trying to tell a blind person what color is. I'm glad they all are hunters!

Thanks for the info on the members and we're happy that we have at least one contact who's willing to tell us what's happening. Thanks!

I would love to be a part of the mule deer working group at some point.

Thank you kind Sir!?

 

[slamdunk]

If and when the so called restrictions go back into effect. The pendulum will have swung back in favor of the rifle hunter in my opinion.

In order to level the playing field, I submit that laser and electronic rangefinders should not be allowed on all big game rifle hunts only, in Utah.

I look forward to having long range holes shot into this idea but, please don’t give me the argument “ I need my laser to make a clean, ethical kill at 937 yards” or something similar.

Rifles hunters have always had the upper hand and always will, it's just simply the nature of the weapon.

No one is trying harder to level a playing field than the emerging technology manufacturering companies.
They build it, we buy it to increase our chances of being successful.

 

[lif]

A lot of talk about making ethical shots and kills Thanks to Technology. I wonder how our fathers and grand fathers ever did it without technology. They must have been some unethical sons-a-bitches. ?

 

[FixedBlade]

A lot of talk about making ethical shots and kills Thanks to Technology. I wonder how our fathers and grand fathers ever did it without technology. They must have been some unethical sons-a-bitches. ?

Man I've heard some storied from my 84 yr old grandpa, that very well might be true ?

 

[Airborne]

A lot of talk about making ethical shots and kills Thanks to Technology. I wonder how our fathers and grand fathers ever did it without technology. They must have been some unethical sons-a-bitches. ?

I think they stalked in closer

 

[elkantlers]

I think they stalked in closer

There was 3X the critters back then. You remember, The good old days before SFW, MDF and commitees.

 

[elkassassin]

Back Then Camp Meat Was Priority # 1!

Priority #2 Was The Wives Out Hunting Their Husbands & Filling Their Tags Before Any Of The Men Filled Their Tags!

 

[Betterluckythangood]

I need my laser to make a clean ethical kill at 396 yds because my rifle is zeroed at 300 yds and need to know if I should aim at the top of the back, just below, or a few inches high to make sure I don't hit it too low in the front shoulder or brisket.

I need my BDC laser to shoot at a nice little 3x4 buck up above me on the side of a ridge because line of sight shows it to be 325 yds, but we all know it's closer because of inclination and my rifles is zeroed at 200 yds. I need to know if it's within an ethical range to make sure I can make a clean and quick kill shot.

Sorry, no long range holes...

Why can’t you use mil or moa or some other method or get within 300?

 

[slamdunk]

There was 3X the critters back then. You remember, The good old days before SFW, MDF and commitees.

Correct......we didn't need them then because there were a half million deer, much less elk, far less high speed cars on the roads, far less urban sprawl......I could keep going but it's not necessary.

Thank goodness we've got at least the one special interest group and various committees or you probably wouldn't have any deer to hunt at all.

 

[Airborne]

Back Then Camp Meat Was Priority # 1!

Priority #2 Was The Wives Out Hunting Their Husbands & Filling Their Tags Before Any Of The Men Filled Their Tags!

I thought Priority #1 was getting drunk with the buddies? That hasn't changed in a lot deer camps!

 

[Betterluckythangood]

Elkster, you should be the first guy to back me on this since you are always whining about Hawkey’s 300 and sharing the pain.

I don’t Think I would want to be in a foxhole with you lol

 

[elkantlers]

Correct......we didn't need them then because there were a half million deer, much less elk, far less high speed cars on the roads, far less urban sprawl......I could keep going but it's not necessary.

Thank goodness we've got at least the one special interest group and various committees or you probably wouldn't have any deer to hunt at all.

If we had a couple more "special interest groups" there wouldn't be any public tags left for the knuckleheads.

 

[elkassassin]

Some Can't Handle The Truth!

If You Wanna Call It Whining!

Get After It!

The Guys That Didn't Say Anything About Losing Their Scopes Just Sat Back & Watched!

Then They Took Your Improved Ignition Source!

Them Same Guys Sat Back & Watched!

Then They Took Improved Powders!

Them Same Guys Sat Back & Watched!

Then They Took The Better Bullets!

Them Same Guys Sat Back & Watched!

Then They Took The Inlines!

Them Same Guys Finally WHINED!

But It Was Too F'N Late!

Elkster, you should be the first guy to back me on this since you are always whining about Hawkey’s 300 and sharing the pain.

I don’t Think I would want to be in a foxhole with you lol

 

[Betterluckythangood]

After the magnified scopes are removed and laser rangefinders are not allowed on all big game rifle hunts only, in Utah, there will be no need to retroactively restrict anything.

The tech committee can then happily just focus on new and evolving technology.

 

[elkassassin]

Anybody know rather You Can Get a Peri-Scope For a 1X Scope?

 

[elkassassin]

I Did Find One Advantage with a 1X Scope!

I Can See The Front Sight With It!

 

[roadrunner]

Why can’t you use mil or moa or some other method or get within 300?

Because I don't want to, besides, that would mean buying new scopes.

Point is, they can take away laser range finders, people will always be able to range...

 

[elkfromabove]

I think they stalked in closer

There wasn't a lot of stalking (or scouting) because there weren't that many trophy hunters looking for a specific deer like there is now. Instead of moving, most of the hunters I knew (including me) just picked a rock, log, stump or grassy spot on the hillside of a small canyon or on the edge of a meadow before daylight and waited for the deer to do the moving. And they generally took the first legal buck that came by. About noon or so, they would do a deer drive down the canyon with some of them and the kids in camp pushing the deer for the hunters on the hillside. In either case, the shots were usually less than 200 yards. Nowadays, that kind of hunting is considered unethical and is frowned upon.

 

[wweaver79]

I voted 4x. I use a 2 x7 now but would be ok going to 4x or 1-4x. Not as many choices for fixed 2.5 scopes, but lots of 1-4 and 4x out there. I can shoot as far as I feel confident at cleanly killing an elk with a 4x with the energy drop off past 200 yards.

 

[roadrunner]

There was 3X the critters back then. You remember, The good old days before SFW, MDF and commitees.

They didn't have bright eyed little boys with flatbrims and mullets back then trying to give someone some jollies by posting big antlers either.

 

[Vitalwave]

Just as I stated to Jake, people will switch hunts if they lose their scopes......the "need to be successful" guys anyway.

That's not the reason the WB is asking for changes, C'mon man..........?

I'm curious why being successful is a bad thing? Feels like an oxymoron that we buy a tag to harvest an animal yet the expectation is to be unsuccessful? This is another problem I have with the current "movement". It's like some hunters are trying to stereotype themselves as the equivalent of Catch and Release - Hunter (AKA not harvest)...

Everyone hunts for different reasons but I don't like how some hunters act superior because they don't choose to harvest. Im sure our wildlife agency would love this... just think of all the money they could make selling tags if everyone had this mentality...

 

[elkfromabove]

Rifles hunters have always had the upper hand and always will, it's just simply the nature of the weapon.

I hope you'll remember this statement when we get to archery tech. I know I will!

 

[Bigwiffy]

Sounds like we have some real interesting folks on the committee..

I have a question for you @slamdunk... If I understand it right the Tech Committee makes recommendations to the WB. Can the Wildlife Board still do what they want or do you think they are going to follow what the Tech Committee decides? For example, if you guys decided no further changes were needed unanimously, would they stop making changing our do you think they would still try and change some things?

Do you know if there is a lot of pressure coming from other places? Like for example on the trail cam deal there was that legislator guy that was getting all involved in it for some reason?

I guess I'm just trying to understand where the root of all the recent changes have came from

Sneider no doubt had his personal reasons and agenda on the trail cam ban.

 

[Ballistic]

I hope you'll remember this statement when we get to archery tech. I know I will!

Don’t you worry about a thing !
An archery post from you tube of an amazing shot on a deer at 200 yards will be posted by Slam and the tech committee.
I already posted a 330 meter world record archery shot -maybe he can use that to limit archery tech next.
It’s not what I’ll want -but get ready-it’s coming. Not realistic but it will sell.

 

[slamdunk]

I'm curious why being successful is a bad thing? Feels like an oxymoron that we buy a tag to harvest an animal yet the expectation is to be unsuccessful? This is another problem I have with the current "movement". It's like some hunters are trying to stereotype themselves as the equivalent of Catch and Release - Hunter (AKA not harvest)...

Everyone hunts for different reasons but I don't like how some hunters act superior because they don't choose to harvest. Im sure our wildlife agency would love this... just think of all the money they could make selling tags if everyone had this mentality...

I'll try to explain the motive behind this proposal.

It is not based off of success rates, it is based off of watching a particular "limited" weapon by nature become unlimited.

This weapon is being hit the hardest because it has evolved

I hope you'll remember this statement when we get to archery tech. I know I will!

No need to "remember".
Archery is done, over, finished, already been addressed, passed and into affect ?‍

 

[slamdunk]

I hope you'll remember this statement when we get to archery tech. I know I will!

No need to "remember".
Archery is done, over, finished, already been addressed, passed and into affect ?‍

 

[elkfromabove]

No need to "remember".
Archery is done, over, finished, already been addressed, passed and into affect ?‍

Thanks!

 

[hossblur]

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

“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”.
[/QUOTE]

Manti is adding 235 homes north of the temple. Ephraim has expanded subdivisions into the foothills. Fairview the same, then added "ranches" above that. Nephi has greatly expanded. So has Richfield, Cedar, and St George is now the fastest growing city in the west.

Us "urbanites" like me that grew up in a 1200 person town in the late 70's, that now houses 30,000, are MUCH more aware than some dude thinking it won't happen in his neighborhood or area.

It's always been the huge Blindspot in you and Muleys population number diatribes. You don't grow population on Kentucky blue grass and concrete. And, for every bush or guzzler a project creates, in your neck of the woods, they plow it under and completely drain to keep the Chinese and Saudis supplied with hay.

 

[hossblur]

Further, explain how the DWR "manages" I-15, I-89, I-84, US6, Us40. How does the DWR "manage" the Arapeen trail?

Does the DWR "manage" the birth control aisle for my native Utah neighbors with 6 kids and 50 grandkids?

When you were involved did you ever address not having huge families because they would require places to live, roads to drive?

I've hunted the exact same places my entire life. It was chained in the 80's, it's now being shredded. It's been 5 day hunted, unit restricted, weapon choiced, spike elk hunted, LE hunted, tag restricted, coyote bountied, grazed, rotated, drought strike, covered in snow in July, saved by $fw, beetle killed.

And yet, the deer population has followed the same trends as every other population, in every other unit, in every other state.

Deer managers need to burn the history books, and shun the finger waging from old timers who fumbled their way, without any thing other than unforseen luck, into a bubble of deer explosion.

No one managed for deer in the "golden age". They managed for sheep, then cows. And they killed everything with teeth or claws to do so.

But the same old timers, who criticize constantly and pretend they are the wizards of smart, will show up to the family reunion to see the 50 grandkids and 75 great grandkids, and it doesn't ever register the biggest issue in deer management, their lineage

 

[Elkslayer2015]

I'm curious why being successful is a bad thing?

You can be successful without the gadgets.

2021 there was 3,760 deer harvested 11,098 hunters afield

2020 there was 3,697 deer harvested 12,803 hunters afield

2019 there was 3,617 deer harvested 13,840 hunters afield

2018 there was 5,199 deer harvested 14,134 hunters afield

2017 there was 4,648 deer harvested 14,218 hunters afield

2016 there was 5,629 deer harvested 13,873 hunters afield

2015 there was 4,734 deer harvested 14,561 hunters afield

2014 there was 4,093 deer harvested 13,502 hunters afield

2013 there was 4,159 deer harvested 13,578 hunters afield

There is absolutely nothing wrong with going back to the way it was. We all know you have to hunt a little harder and close the distance a little more.

 

[Vanilla]

Slow clap…Hoss! Slow clap.

 

[dwil311]

I'm so tired of the it isnt fair guys banning everything. We will find ourselves banned out of a past time if we keep banning every stupid annoyance. horses are annoying and unfair. ATVs are annoying and unfair. Anything other than what I like is annoying and unfair. Which is annoying and unfair to you. So if all ban everything that annoys us and feels unfair we deserve to get smacked upside the head when we realize we sold liberty for the sake of getting rid of annoyance. If you want to cherish and love liberty you have to be willing to deal with the annoyances of others. If not then keep asking big brother to do more and more and more. And to those suggesting well we gotta have regulations...no reasonable person is saying we don't. But every impotent little Napoleon on here whining about trail cameras and scopes on muzzleloaders isn't asking for reasonable regulations. They are asking for an arbitrary preference against their pet peeves not realizing how absurdly tyrannical they are being.

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 co

 

[Ballistic]

I'm so tired of the it isnt fair guys banning everything. We will find ourselves banned out of a past time if we keep banning every stupid annoyance. horses are annoying and unfair. ATVs are annoying and unfair. Anything other than what I like is annoying and unfair. Which is annoying and unfair to you. So if all ban everything that annoys us and feels unfair we deserve to get smacked upside the head when we realize we sold liberty for the sake of getting rid of annoyance. If you want to cherish and love liberty you have to be willing to deal with the annoyances of others. If not then keep asking big brother to do more and more and more. And to those suggesting well we gotta have regulations...no reasonable person is saying we don't. But every impotent little Napoleon on here whining about trail cameras and scopes on muzzleloaders isn't asking for reasonable regulations. They are asking for an arbitrary preference against their pet peeves not realizing how absurdly tyrannical they are being.

You -Deserve a standing ovation !
The HOA (tech committee) mentality will give the supporters exactly what they deserve. They just don’t know it yet.

 

[roadrunner]

The only ones to use bans and mandates are the ones who think they have to be in control...

 

[LIK2HNT]

Have only skimmed through this argument!!
Being 60 and wearing glasses the last few years has really put a dampener on my archery and open site rifle/Muzzy shooting.
The 3X or 4X scope sounds like a good compromise, but not sure how well it will work out. Even in the 90’s I saw MANY hunters with 3-9x scopes on there muzzys. Most said nobody checks them and they rarely saw a warden. Due to this I think it boils down to all or nothing.
Heck, some states have traditional Muzzy seasons with round ball only. Others like Idaho have no scope and open ignition. California (though most you don’t care) has no scopes allowed.

 

[elkassassin]

Hey Hossy?

Looks Like You Had Some MUD DRYING TIME?

Further, explain how the DWR "manages" I-15, I-89, I-84, US6, Us40. How does the DWR "manage" the Arapeen trail?

Does the DWR "manage" the birth control aisle for my native Utah neighbors with 6 kids and 50 grandkids?

When you were involved did you ever address not having huge families because they would require places to live, roads to drive?

I've hunted the exact same places my entire life. It was chained in the 80's, it's now being shredded. It's been 5 day hunted, unit restricted, weapon choiced, spike elk hunted, LE hunted, tag restricted, coyote bountied, grazed, rotated, drought strike, covered in snow in July, saved by $fw, beetle killed.

And yet, the deer population has followed the same trends as every other population, in every other unit, in every other state.

Deer managers need to burn the history books, and shun the finger waging from old timers who fumbled their way, without any thing other than unforseen luck, into a bubble of deer explosion.

No one managed for deer in the "golden age". They managed for sheep, then cows. And they killed everything with teeth or claws to do so.

But the same old timers, who criticize constantly and pretend they are the wizards of smart, will show up to the family reunion to see the 50 grandkids and 75 great grandkids, and it doesn't ever register the biggest issue in deer management, their lineage

 

[dwil311]

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.

Hitting a target is not the same as killing a living animal. Yes scopes do help us hit targets better. But they don't statistically improve the kill rate because taking a life is not the same as shooting some tin. It will always cause a different rate of outcomes than simply shooting an inanimate object. Heart rates change, pulses in the fingers change, breathing changes all of these changes and ones ability to regulate them effect the outcome. Turns out most people don't have a great capacity for regulating them just because they have fancy tech.

 

[dwil311]

Elkster, I own several rifles, and I also bowhunt and muzzleloader hunt. The WB has already made changes to rifle and archery rules that impact me. If they make additional changes that limit technology, so be it. Whatever the rules are, I will still get out and hunt!

Hawkeye

No you won't if they keep picking off all the things that annoy people....trail cams down, muzzy scopes going down...horses ATVs weapons of any kind annoy some outdoorsman somewhere... allowing every yahoo to ban what annoys him will end with none of us hunting and everyone pissed that someone else wanted to do it different.

 

[elkassassin]

You Read Post # 296 hawky?

 

[dwil311]

You need a new option...let tech do what tech will do and let hunters hunt. This stupidity over it's unfair is way too similar to the anti hunter antics and dividing hunters left and right over stupid lines that have no real meaning or value. The biggest disadvantage to animals is snow. Make it illegal to hunt in snow if you're going to be about unfair advantages. Every snow storm harvest rates jump higher than any tech advancement.

 

[roadrunner]

You need a new option...let tech do what tech will do and let hunters hunt. This stupidity over it's unfair is way too similar to the anti hunter antics and dividing hunters left and right over stupid lines that have no real meaning or value. The biggest disadvantage to animals is snow. Make it illegal to hunt in snow if you're going to be about unfair advantages. Every snow storm harvest rates jump higher than any tech advancement.

You can still hunt in snow, just limit it. A lot. Like only a 5 day hunt instead of 30 or 45 days...

 

[dwil311]

You can still hunt in snow, just limit it. A lot. Like only a 5 day hunt instead of 30 or 45 days...

It is all just absurd. If we ban all the things that make it too easy we find ourselves without vehicles or horses and without anything beyond a spear