Muzzleloader 1X vs All-Scope-Ban?

HORNhunter7 said:
I'm sure some people say that. However I'm also pretty sure that most of those same people came from the rifle hunting camp because they could draw a tag easier. They also understood with the current muzzleloader technology and good hunting skills they could still be very successful. Maybe even more so with longer and more timely seasons.

Now that all the bucks are being saved for the rifle hunters they are free to go back and hunt with a rifle. If they are die hard muzzleloader guys they can still use their muzzleloader in the rifle hunt. They just know it's gonna be harder to draw now and they want to keep the advantage of an easier to draw tag with basically what is becoming a single shot rifle. There lays the rub.

I'm with Blank. I like Idaho's rules and the new muzzy season here in Montana--- It's even more restrictive than that.

I don't know how Utah's Muzzy restrictions have evolved but if they started out like Idaho's and Montana's they should of held the line and this debate wouldn't even be happening
Click to expand...
I am all for cutting back tech on all three weapon types.
How is Montana’s new muzzy season more restrictive than Utahs?
If it means people are going to bail from muzzy season to long ranger season sign me up for the Montana type restrictions!
 
Betterluckythangood said:
Ya, it would be a real tragedy for a rifle hunter to have to get within 300, 400, or 500 yards.

A muzzy hunter to get within 150 or so, and a bow hunter, around 60.

Good lord, grown men in tears everywhere.

My Friends, for ye are my friends, if we would simply ban rangefinders the pain would be spread equally.

I wish that was my idea but it was tossed out by a prominent member of this community.
Click to expand...

Rangefinders aren't the issue. They've been used for decades, way before muzzleloaders were capable out 600 yds.
 
roadrunner said:
Rangefinders aren't the issue. They've been used for decades, way before muzzleloaders were capable out 600 yds.
Click to expand...
Your typical hunter did not carry a rangefinder around ten or twenty years ago. I am arguing this from the general to the particulate not the particulate to the general.

I am going to end my crusade for banning them for now since there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for it and it is off topic. Also I searched and it has been discussed at length previously before I joined this site. Thank you for your interest on this matter.
 
MrShane said:
I am all for cutting back tech on all three weapon types.
How is Montana’s new muzzy season more restrictive than Utahs?
If it means people are going to bail from muzzy season to long ranger season sign me up for the Montana type restrictions
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you already know Montana's muzzy restrictions. If so you already know it's a new season as of last year and it's restrictions are on the equipment you can use if you want to participate in it. I wasn't in favor of it as I think Montana's seasons are to long in the first place. I'd prefer the chance of harvesting a trophy class animal. That's why I apply every year in Utah.

Montana has obviously chosen time in the field/mountains over chances of taking a trophy class animal. With a few exceptions you'd be hard pressed to kill a trophy caliber animal of any species in Montana especially here in the West side of the state.

Utah has chosen to offer an opportunity for taking a trophy animal in pretty much any of their limited draw units-- especially elk.
If that's how UDOW chooses to manage their Big Game it comes at the costs of shorter seasons, restricting equipment, or both.

These two states are polar opposites when it comes to managing Big Game.

If hunting here is your forte I suggest you sign yourself up for Montana type hunting restrictions and buy a license next year. 50/50 odds for a tag is far better than the best limited draw unit in Utah!! If you don't draw your pretty much guaranteed to draw the following year. You can enjoy 6 weeks of archery hunting, 6 weeks of rifle hunting and now the new 9 day muzzy season. You just can't bring your CVA Paramount along for the hunt.
 
I forgot one thing. Even with the Muzzleloader equipment restrictions here in Montana none of the draw units that are considered quality units for elk and deer are open for Muzzleloader season.
 
slamdunk said:
Those of you who are arguing to keep high power scopes on, explain why.

Is it a need or a want?

You need it, why?

You want it, why?

If you don't believe it changes the effectiveness of your muzzleloader, please explain.

I will show and share your comments next week at our meeting.

DM me if you'd rather not post publicly.
Click to expand...
I do have scopes on some of my muzzleloaders but I personally liked the hunt better before scopes or at least 4 power for old my old eyes but
We can make do with out them
 
elkassassin said:
So Hossy?

You're OK With 6 Power Scopes On SmokePoles?
Click to expand...

Yup.

If they are primitive scopes, sure.

There was a time when we talked about "primitive weapons"

Now "primitive" is an inline shooting 209, with a 6x 18.

I started when it was Thompson ,495gr slugs, pistol powder, open sights, and
Nov.

I promise, #11 and loose pyrodex, with fiber optics,won't kill you.

A few bucks might walk, which, I've been told, grows herds
 
elkassassin said:
So?

What's Up With That?
Click to expand...
Well this is my best guess. The Muzzie season is Dec 9th through Dec 17. Some mule deer and elk will be on the winter ranges then where access is easier. Maybe even around housing developments in some prime draw units. If you have a doe or cow elk tag and didn't fill it during the rifle or archery season you can still fill one of those. Montana is not a choose your weapon state so you can hunt all three seasons. This is only the second year of a Muzzie season here so we'll see where it goes. I do believe this is leading us towards mandatory choose your weapon in the near future though.
 
How many of you that want to keep the 4Xwhatever power scopes did not hunt with a Muzeloader before they made a 4Xwhatever power scopes legal.
The only reason we are using 4Xwhatever power scopes today is because the DWR had changed the rule and made them legal.
Before they made 4Xwhatever scopes legal odds of drawing a muzzleloader tag was much better.
I would like them odds back (probably won't happen).
Yes I am selfish
 
Hey notdon?

You're Wrong Again!

I've Been Shooting SmokePoles Since Before I Could Buy a Big Game Tag!

4X Huh?

That'd Be on The Lower End of What Most Guys are Using Today on Their SmokePoles!

They Giveth!

But Now You Wanna Taketh!










notdonhunting said:
How many of you that want to keep the 4Xwhatever power scopes did not hunt with a Muzeloader before they made a 4Xwhatever power scopes legal.
The only reason we are using 4Xwhatever power scopes today is because the DWR had changed the rule and made them legal.
Before they made 4Xwhatever scopes legal odds of drawing a muzzleloader tag was much better.
I would like them odds back (probably won't happen).
Yes I am selfish
Click to expand...
 
HORNhunter7 said:
I'm guessing you already know Montana's muzzy restrictions. If so you already know it's a new season as of last year and it's restrictions are on the equipment you can use if you want to participate in it. I wasn't in favor of it as I think Montana's seasons are to long in the first place. I'd prefer the chance of harvesting a trophy class animal. That's why I apply every year in Utah.

Montana has obviously chosen time in the field/mountains over chances of taking a trophy class animal. With a few exceptions you'd be hard pressed to kill a trophy caliber animal of any species in Montana especially here in the West side of the state.

Utah has chosen to offer an opportunity for taking a trophy animal in pretty much any of their limited draw units-- especially elk.
If that's how UDOW chooses to manage their Big Game it comes at the costs of shorter seasons, restricting equipment, or both.

These two states are polar opposites when it comes to managing Big Game.

If hunting here is your forte I suggest you sign yourself up for Montana type hunting restrictions and buy a license next year. 50/50 odds for a tag is far better than the best limited draw unit in Utah!! If you don't draw your pretty much guaranteed to draw the following year. You can enjoy 6 weeks of archery hunting, 6 weeks of rifle hunting and now the new 9 day muzzy season. You just can't bring your CVA Paramount along for the hunt.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the restrictions, but would love to know.
No open ignition, loose powder only type restrictions?
No scopes?
 
Hunters fighting for less hunting rights and privileges... We should be asking for more, not settling for less. Let alone making a fuss over scoped muzzleloaders.
 
MrShane said:
I don’t know the restrictions, but would love to know.
No open ignition, loose powder only type restrictions?
No scopes?
Click to expand...
Word for word out of the 2023 Montana FWP Hunting Regs.

Muzzleloader Heritage Hunting season lawful weapons. 87-1-304(9)

Plain lead projectiles and a muzzleloading rifle that is charged with loose black powder, loose pyrodex, or an equivalent loose black powder substitute, and ignited by a flintlock, wheel lock, matchlock, or percussion mechanism using a percussion or musket cap. The muzzleloading rifle must be a minimum of .45 caliber and may not have more than 2 barrels. Additionally, 87-6-401(1), a hunter may not use a muzzleloading rifle that requires insertion of a cap or primer into the open breech of a barrel, is capable of being loaded from the breech, or is mounted with an optical magnification device. Use of prepared paper or metallic cartridges, sabots, gas checks, or other similar power and range- enchancing manufactured loads that enclose the projectile from the rifling or bore of the firearm is also prohibited.

I'm sure you'll understand these rulings far better than me as at this time my knowledge of muzzleloaders is very limited.
I've never owned one or even shot one----- yet!
 
GunCarver said:
Slam,

I will say this, I will always take a 4X over a 1X or open sights. There is no doubt about that. However, in my worthless opinion, I do think muzzleloaders are receiving a disproportionate level of scrutiny compared to centerfire rifles. I understand that rifles are "meant" to be long range, but the definition of long range has evolved so much in the past 10-15 years. Long Range for my dad was 300 yards. Now a 600 yard shot is a layup for any low-mid grade rifle with a $200 turreted scope, and 1100+ is becoming increasingly common, and more and more people are adopting it. I'm surprised that the committee is willing to let it go so unchecked compared to muzzies.

I also realize that muzzleloaders in the traditional form were never meant to be long range, but Utah is an inline state. Yes, we could have chosen years ago to be a flintlock state, but keep in mind that that would merely drive more hunters towards rifle hunts, and the point creep log jam would only Increase in magnitude. We would all be waiting 7-8 years between rifle tags. Our muzzleloader regs as they are now help to spread the numbers more evenly.

Do I need a 9X scope to make a 100 - 200 yard shot? No, not technically, but there is an aim-small-miss-small principle to consider as well. I can make that shot with open sights, but I can make it with better precision with a magnifying scope.

Feel free to share these thoughts with the committee.
Click to expand...
Great insights, thank you.

The turrets have been discussed by the committee and was shot down fairly quickly as every variable scope has the ability to twist up and down, the difference is raised and exposed capabilities or not.
I've used a Leopold non turreted scope that way in the past, they are easily accessed and can be dialed up with a coin from your pocket.
We decided to stop the use of automated ranging and bullet path compensation and also the emerging "nano"technologies and infrared already in use by military.

I am not the bad guy here, I promise.
My stance is trying to save and compromise some things already in use, but squash some pretty wild emerging technologies that are already being developed.

I am not a fan of 1x, but will happily go back to it if it becomes the rule.
 
I’m keeping my same stance with just going back to the old regulations before they made magnified scopes legal. Open sights, peep sights, or 1x scopes all legal and each worked for old eyes or young eyes but offered little to no advantage in regard to the distance you could shoot accurately between the different setups. I hated when they made the change and figured that it would mess something up and here we are. Simple fix… just copy and paste the old regulations into the new regulations. It is hard to shoot something at 600 yards if you can’t see it through your sight options no matter what super long range muzzleloader you buy, or range finders, powder substitutes, ignition systems, high BC bullets etc. It level the playing field with one change and that change would not be needed if the old WB chair would have had any clue about muzzleloaders and would have left the old regulations alone. I started muzzleloader hunting in Utah with a Iron sight side lock, then inline with 1x scope, then better inline with magnified scope and I can tell you for sure which offers me the greatest advantages over the animals I pursue, not even a comparison. I filled tags in every era but there is no comparison on which method makes it easier. If people are real with themselves they could come to the same conclusion pretty easily. The muzzleloader hunt is my favorite hunt and it will continue to be my favorite no matter which way they go. I am not a fan of a 4x scope as a compromise because you can still shoot a long ways with that set up. Just my thoughts.

Happy hunting and have fun.
 
Last edited:
notdonhunting said:
How many of you that want to keep the 4Xwhatever power scopes did not hunt with a Muzeloader before they made a 4Xwhatever power scopes legal.
The only reason we are using 4Xwhatever power scopes today is because the DWR had changed the rule and made them legal.
Before they made 4Xwhatever scopes legal odds of drawing a muzzleloader tag was much better.
I would like them odds back (probably won't happen).
Yes I am selfish
Click to expand...
The change was approved by the wildlife board, when John Bair was the speaker. His words were, " why not just allow whatever scope on a muzzleloader." Something like that is what I remember. He more or less talked the board into approving any power scopes on muzzleloaders. Lots of guys Happy, Lots of guys not happy, with that change. I liked the old rule myself.
 
roadrunner said:
The argument though is there will be more hunting opportunity once the scope goes away.
Click to expand...
And that's a foolish argument based on the assumption that it will reduce the success rate which is a foolish assumption that hunters will not change their current hunting methods to compensate for the loss or scopes.

So, tell me what you'll change if/when this rule goes through? Hunt from a blind or treestand"? Get new glasses? Learn how to get closer? Wear different Camo? Skip lunch in camp and stay out in the field all day? Carry a pee bottle? Hunt more days? Hunt with a buddy/spotter? Get a new muzzleloader? Use cover scent? Hunt waterholes? More scouting? Hand-held rangefinder? Change barrel sights? Find an area closer to home in order to hunt after work/school? Have set-ups on the edge of meadows or on well used trails? Different ammo/powder? Special listening devices?

You may not change anything the first time around, but you'll learn from your mistakes quick enough and make any changes you need to avoid those mistakes in the future. And, thus, the success rates will come back to normal or even be higher! That's reality, not the fairytale result that's being promoted.
 
Last edited:
So many comments above speak about "everyone going to give some, not some give all"

From all the evidence in their posts I get what generation they belong to. With that said...... do they remember how long deer season was in the era by chance? It was a heck of a lot longer than it is now.

What happened to the super generous season we once had. Well...... we had archers say it was unfair to them and we carved them out their own special season to appease them. Then the muzzle loaders wanted their own season because they were short range hunters as well so we gave them their own season as well.

Through the years they gradually decreased the rifle season. They actually had it down to 5 days if I remember correctly and no other "special seasons"were cut.

In my opinion, the general season hunters have given plenty. They should have put the axe down on muzzle loaders when the inline was released and never got to where we are today.

Nobody is taking your scopes as I have been assured you will still be allowed to use them during the general season, without restrictions, where they belong. If you want to hunt with a modern weapon they have a season for you so get out there and get after it ! You Just can't participate in the special season. Sorry they are taking away your scopes but muzzy hunters are awesome and they will adapt by refining their hunting skills to get within 300 yards of their target.

If the restrictions are so bad, get on your orange and participate with the thousands who partake in the general season. Trust me, most will get back in their camo and take the 6x20 scope of their muzzle loader.

Besides that, with your $2000 all matching camo set, you should be able to get close enough to pet them.
 
The biggest joke of all of this is the committee (Slam) has rationalized that rifles have always been long range weapons "so they are off the table to restrict" what kind of stupid logic is that? ? I could get on board if rifles were the first weapon to be restricted. They went after archery first, now muzzy, but rifles "nah they are good shooting 1000's of yards, they are designed for long range" the regulation book has become thicker and denser than Sammy's skull.
 
hogg_65 said:
The change was approved by the wildlife board, when John Bair was the speaker. His words were, " why not just allow whatever scope on a muzzleloader." Something like that is what I remember. He more or less talked the board into approving any power scopes on muzzleloaders. Lots of guys Happy, Lots of guys not happy, with that change. I liked the old rule myself.
Click to expand...
FWIW now, Troy Justensen has exactly the opposite stance, he would like to see variable scopes on muzzy's removed.
 
Bigwiffy said:
The biggest joke of all of this is the committee (Slam) has rationalized that rifles have always been long range weapons "so they are off the table to restrict" what kind of stupid logic is that? ? I could get on board if rifles were the first weapon to be restricted. They went after archery first, now muzzy, but rifles "nah they are good shooting 1000's of yards, they are designed for long range" the regulation book has become thicker and denser than Sammy's skull.
Click to expand...
Lmao....you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Rifles were the FIRST restriction recommended and it was passed.

Stop crying, you get to keep your Slider on your bow so you can reach 50 yards.

Follow along Wiffle.......
 
Last edited:
HORNhunter7 said:
Word for word out of the 2023 Montana FWP Hunting Regs.

Muzzleloader Heritage Hunting season lawful weapons. 87-1-304(9)

Plain lead projectiles and a muzzleloading rifle that is charged with loose black powder, loose pyrodex, or an equivalent loose black powder substitute, and ignited by a flintlock, wheel lock, matchlock, or percussion mechanism using a percussion or musket cap. The muzzleloading rifle must be a minimum of .45 caliber and may not have more than 2 barrels. Additionally, 87-6-401(1), a hunter may not use a muzzleloading rifle that requires insertion of a cap or primer into the open breech of a barrel, is capable of being loaded from the breech, or is mounted with an optical magnification device. Use of prepared paper or metallic cartridges, sabots, gas checks, or other similar power and range- enchancing manufactured loads that enclose the projectile from the rifling or bore of the firearm is also prohibited.

I'm sure you'll understand these rulings far better than me as at this time my knowledge of muzzleloaders is very limited.
I've never owned one or even shot one----- yet!
Click to expand...
That is an awesome set of rules!
I wish Utah would adopt the same for any muzzleloader used on any big game hunt.
Thank you for the info.
 
slamdunk said:
Lmao....you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Rifles were the FIRST restriction recommended and it was passed.

Stop crying, you get to keep your Slider on your bow so you can reach 50 yards.

Follow along Wiffle.......
Click to expand...
Only in your hollow mind were they "restricted". You get to keep your scoped Lapua that can shoot out to 2000 yards, now you just can't "range them and eliminate them!" But you can still range them dial your turret, zoom your 40x scope in and shoot them. Nice restriction Slammy!
 
MrShane said:
That is an awesome set of rules!
I wish Utah would adopt the same for any muzzleloader used on any big game hunt.
Thank you for the info.
Click to expand...
Your welcome for the info. If you really feel that way about more muzzy restrictions in Utah speak up about it. The guy to talk to appears to be Slamdunk and he gave you a thumbs up on your post. See if there's enough muzzie guys that feel the same way and speak your mind. You'll get hammered by some for sure but you might be surprised what you could accomplish.

Looking on as a N.R. I don't feel I have the right to poke my head in Utah's hunting business to far but having spent several hundreds of dollars earning bonus points by never drawing a tag , I have a little.

This is how I see it in Utah for Muzzleloader hunters. If some pretty serious restrictions aren't made sometime you'll end up going the way modern rifle did. Losing about 50% of your time in seasons for limited entry elk hunts. Utah has already mentioned looking down the road at possible seasons for more primitive hunting weapons via longbows, recurves and even more primitive muzzle loaders. If they do this some of the time for those season is apt to come from shortening some other user groups seasons. Just my 2 cents.
 
IMO "Tech Restrictions" is all about the money...App, License, and Permit fees fund the division. They cant reduce tags based on harvest because they will lose money. Therefore they have to reduce harvest so they can pimp out OUR wildlife somewhat "sustainably".

Utah Wildlife Board approves increases in hunting, fishing license and permit fees due to rising costs; Utah Legislature to vote on them next

The Utah Wildlife Board approved a fee increase for hunting and fishing licenses and permits — for both residents and non-residents — in an effort to keep up with increased rising costs of operation, and also approved a few additional items during the public meeting on Thursday, Aug. 25.
wildlife.utah.gov wildlife.utah.gov

I believe If it was completely up to the division and people were dumb enough to go along with it, they would prefer you to keep paying them money and not harvest an animal. I'm probably being a little dramatic but I think there is some truth to what I am saying.

I am not trying to throw too much shade at the division because I know there are some great folks there but I'm not a "big government guy" and would like the division to be small and more accountable with the money we already give them. If you had to give them a performance review based on our deer herds I would say they enough dinero $$$.
 
HORNhunter7 said:
Your welcome for the info. If you really feel that way about more muzzy restrictions in Utah speak up about it. The guy to talk to appears to be Slamdunk and he gave you a thumbs up on your post. See if there's enough muzzie guys that feel the same way and speak your mind. You'll get hammered by some for sure but you might be surprised what you could accomplish.

Looking on as a N.R. I don't feel I have the right to poke my head in Utah's hunting business to far but having spent several hundreds of dollars earning bonus points by never drawing a tag , I have a little.

This is how I see it in Utah for Muzzleloader hunters. If some pretty serious restrictions aren't made sometime you'll end up going the way modern rifle did. Losing about 50% of your time in seasons for limited entry elk hunts. Utah has already mentioned looking down the road at possible seasons for more primitive hunting weapons via longbows, recurves and even more primitive muzzle loaders. If they do this some of the time for those season is apt to come from shortening some other user groups seasons. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Slam knows my position.
He also knows I want to see equitable restrictions to the long ranger and archery clans.
 
Troy Justensen Needs To Go Back To Managing Cattle Instead Of Managing SFW'$ Money!

Not Being Rude!

Just Seeing If He's PEAYING Attention Here!:D



slamdunk said:
FWIW now, Troy Justensen has exactly the opposite stance, he would like to see variable scopes on muzzy's removed.
Click to expand...
 
slamdunk said:
I understand your points, but a rifle has always been a LR weapon whereas the muzzleloader has integrated into one because there has been no limitations to technology on them.
It's not about saving deer, it's about letting technology get away from us before we have lost all sense of ethics in all three weapons.

CF scope technology has been addressed.
Click to expand...
No, a rifle has not always been a long range weapon! 30/30s. That is just your biased opinion
 
elkassassin said:
Troy Justensen Needs To Go Back To Managing Cattle Instead Of Managing SFW'$ Money!

Not Being Rude!

Just Seeing If He's PEAYING Attention Here!:D
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to work as hard pimping wildlife and makes a helluva lot more money. Not many cows being ran on his new Sweetwater CWMU
 
elkassassin said:
Hey notdon?

You're Wrong Again!

I've Been Shooting SmokePoles Since Before I Could Buy a Big Game Tag!

4X Huh?

That'd Be on The Lower End of What Most Guys are Using Today on Their SmokePoles!

They Giveth!

But Now You Wanna Taketh!
Click to expand...


Remedying a mistake
 
hossblur said:
This type, yes. Using the same shitty glass and tech as they did in the 1800's, why not?

I'll go back to patch and ball if I can have my Nov season back.
Click to expand...
Now that is a restriction with a compromise I could live with!! Wishful thinking, but I would give just about anything to have that November Muzzy season back!!!
 
scopenstalk said:
Did I miss something. All I saw was the garmin sight was **** canned……… I’m not being a troll just making sure I didn’t miss something
Click to expand...
Bait, trail cams, AR 301, statewide archery, archery elk season dates I can go on if you would like?
 
elkfromabove said:
And that's a foolish argument based on the assumption that it will reduce the success rate which is a foolish assumption that hunters will not change their current hunting methods to compensate for the loss or scopes.

So, tell me what you'll change if/when this rule goes through? Hunt from a blind or treestand"? Get new glasses? Learn how to get closer? Wear different Camo? Skip lunch in camp and stay out in the field all day? Carry a pee bottle? Hunt more days? Hunt with a buddy/spotter? Get a new muzzleloader? Use cover scent? Hunt waterholes? More scouting? Hand-held rangefinder? Change barrel sights? Find an area closer to home in order to hunt after work/school? Have set-ups on the edge of meadows or on well used trails? Different ammo/powder? Special listening devices?

You may not change anything the first time around, but you'll learn from your mistakes quick enough and make any changes you need to avoid those mistakes in the future. And, thus, the success rates will come back to normal or even be higher! That's reality, not the fairytale result that's being promoted.
Click to expand...

It's not my argument or reason. Just a reason that's been and is being used...
 
scopenstalk said:
So talking outside the tech discussion. Fair enough.
Click to expand...
Even with the tech archery is still a sub 100 yard weapon for 99% of guys. You may have a few that can shoot farther but even then you are taking a risk.

Here's an idea for all you people wanting to reduce harvest, let's go majority archery. Screw this 60R-20M-20A. Let's go 70A-20M-10R. What do you all say, more liberal season and less harvest.

I'm all for getting ahead of the curve on the new tech coming out, but the stuff that's been around for 10+ years is not "emerging" tech. I think they are getting a little in the weeds with the tech committee and it's becoming a way for people to discriminate against the thing they don't like. Hell just look at this thread as evidence.

They don't need to reinvent the wheel, just protect us from future advancements.
 
One More Thing To Think About!

They Think By Taking SmokePole Scopes They Can Lower Success Rates!

Nobody Has Proved That SmokePole Kill Rates Went Up When Scopes Went Un-Limited!

Hunters Are Claiming LESS WOUNDED Animals With Current Scopes!

Other Hunters Are Saying If We Go Backwards The Wound Rate Will Go Up!

Here's The Thing To THINK About:

In Their Eyes They Are Thinking Success Will Be Less!

Un-Proven Again!

But What Comes With Them Thinking Success Rates Will Be Lower Is The Sale/Issuing of More Tags!

I Just Don't Think We Need To Hunt This Deer Herd Any Harder By Issuing More Permits!

Like I've Said a Million Times!

I'm Willing To GIVE As Long As Everybody is Willing To GIVE & It's An Equal TAKE Across The Board On All Weaponry!
 
elkassassin said:
One More Thing To Think About!

They Think By Taking SmokePole Scopes They Can Lower Success Rates!

Nobody Has Proved That SmokePole Kill Rates Went Up When Scopes Went Un-Limited!

Hunters Are Claiming LESS WOUNDED Animals With Current Scopes!

Other Hunters Are Saying If We Go Backwards The Wound Rate Will Go Up!

Here's The Thing To THINK About:

In Their Eyes They Are Thinking Success Will Be Less!

Un-Proven Again!

But What Comes With Them Thinking Success Rates Will Be Lower Is The Sale/Issuing of More Tags!

I Just Don't Think We Need To Hunt This Deer Herd Any Harder By Issuing More Permits!

Like I've Said a Million Times!

I'm Willing To GIVE As Long As Everybody is Willing To GIVE & It's An Equal TAKE Across The Board On All Weaponry!
Click to expand...
Again, this hasn't got anything to do with reducing success rates, we've already gone through that data that only shows a slight uptick.

If we continue to allow "single shot rifles" that load from the muzzle to continue on the long range path, your odds of even drawing a muzzleloader permit will continue dwindling if in the future everyone has a 500 yard rifle.
This is where "opportunity" comes from, not saving deer.

The Wounding animals argument is laughable, it gets argued on both ends.

Guys complaining about wounded animals by Long range centerfire rifles, yet they say wound rates go down with those same scope setups on a muzzleloader.

The arguments fit personal agendas.

Look, I am just on this committee and I keep you all informed on what the future holds whether I am on it or not.
I am not the boogeyman trying to take away your gadgets, that comes from a lot higher group than this committee.
The changes and restrictions are coming regardless, we are just a group presenting as many variables as possible for suggestions to the boogeyman.
 
Blank said:
I like Idaho's rules. Simple enough to follow, and self-restricting. Push all the RUM's, Paramounts, Gunwerks etc. and super scopes into the Any Legal Weapon pool, and forget about it.
Click to expand...
And while we are it, put compound bows back in the any weapon pool
 
slamdunk said:
Again, this hasn't got anything to do with reducing success rates, we've already gone through that data that only shows a slight uptick.

If we continue to allow "single shot rifles" that load from the muzzle to continue on the long range path, your odds of even drawing a muzzleloader permit will continue dwindling if in the future everyone has a 500 yard rifle.
This is where "opportunity" comes from, not saving deer.

The Wounding animals argument is laughable, it gets argued on both ends.

Guys complaining about wounded animals by Long range centerfire rifles, yet they say wound rates go down with those same scope setups on a muzzleloader.

The arguments fit personal agendas.

Look, I am just on this committee and I keep you all informed on what the future holds whether I am on it or not.
I am not the boogeyman trying to take away your gadgets, that comes from a lot higher group than this committee.
The changes and restrictions are coming regardless, we are just a group presenting as many variables as possible for suggestions to the boogeyman.
Click to expand...
Slam, appreciate the work you put in but I still don't agree. The argument of when is enough enough doesn't fly with me. Technology is why we have the rifles we have. I have read where you state that a muzzleloader is not a long range weapon nor was it intended. I differ, the longer range it provided was exactly why it was produced. To hear people argue about Hawkens didn't have a scope well no **** sherlock but I guarantee if the technology was there for it at the time they would have. Similarly the compound bow has doubled the effective range of a longbow yet no interest in limiting? I could state the same thing for a compound bow.

In the end there will be something limited because we cant just do nothing after all its for the kids (oops sorry was thinking it was election time). So while I disagree, I also understand that something will be done and will live with it, but damn sure don't understand why. But again thanks for getting involved we may be on opposite sides of the debate today but probably on the same side of one or two in the future.
 
340Wby said:
You knew what I was alluding to. There was never a need to break out archery only OIL....put them back in the any weapon pool and use a muzzy or bow if you want.
Click to expand...
Let's make more of them archery only, increase tags, lower success rates, get more people through the OIL line. Pick up a bow 340 you might like it!
 
Here's What's Gonna Happen:

They're Gonna HASH & THRASH On SmokePole Scopes Until They Get Some Tinker Toy Change Made!

As In Maybe Take Em Down to 4X!

It'll Be Put on an 5 to 8 Year Study To See What Happens!

ABSO-F'N-LUTELY Nothing Gets Any Better!

And 5+ Years Shot In The Ass!

Again!
 
340Wby said:
You knew what I was alluding to. There was never a need to break out archery only OIL....put them back in the any weapon pool and use a muzzy or bow if you want.
Click to expand...

If UT didn't have its head so far up its ass, there wouldn't be a rifle hunt in September anyway...
 
elkassassin said:
Here's What's Gonna Happen:

They're Gonna HASH & THRASH On SmokePole Scopes Until They Get Some Tinker Toy Change Made!

As In Maybe Take Em Down to 4X!

It'll Be Put on an 5 to 8 Year Study To See What Happens!

ABSO-F'N-LUTELY Nothing Gets Any Better!

And 5+ Years Shot In The Ass!

Again!
Click to expand...
If you enjoy the somewhat solitude of the muzzleloader hunt, you might want to help keeping it what it "was".
 
I hope they don’t go away from scopes. My eyes are getting older and the scopes really help.

My general questions for the board would be,

1. What is the objective for this proposal?
2. What factual data shows that this proposal will have the desired effect.
3. How does this impact the hunting population?
4. Are there alternative resolutions to reach the desired effect?
5. Is the juice worth the squeeze?

I will openly admit that scopes on muzzleloader make me more accurate. If his is about success, then the harvest rates before magnified scopes should show a marked increase after the scopes. Who is pushing this. Is this the muzzleloader hunters asking for the restrictions or the perceived benefits from rifle hunters and archers? What are he anticipated impacts on draw results and hunting public.

I have always believed, rather than piss a moan, We should try and offer real alternatives. I have several muzzleloaders, from .40 caliber to .50 caliber. The ballistics of a .50 caliber muzzleloader limit the distance substantially more than a .45/.40. As an alternative to banning magnified scopes, how about limiting muzzleloader hunts in Utah to .50 caliber rifles. It’s not a perfect solution but will definitely decrease the range.

What about allowing magnified scopes on LE hunts. As we all know, these are becoming more and more OIILtype hunts. There would probably be significantly less heart ache if the LE hunts were left alone?

I have been hunting a long time. There are so many things that make us more successful now than before, range finders, better binoculars, better ballistic information, better clothes, quads/SBS etc. To me, picking one thing out of all these seems arbitrary and will result in further alienating the public from the wildlife board process.

Some people will celebrate the proposed change but many will not like it and could be pushed to archery and rifle. I believe there should be some real studies to help direct this review.

I am now a NR but will probably retire back in UT. I will play by whatever rules are in place but the removing the magnified scopes feel arbitrary and a knee jerk response to perceived problems. I would like to see the board explain the problem, show data to support the change, consider alternatives then move. This feels like they are making a move to possibly help a perceived problem and appease other groups.

Now I am off my soap box…Good luck this season.
 
slamdunk said:
Wiffy needs all this fancy electronic BS on his stick flipper, trail cams and bait piles to make a 50 yard shot, but criticizes the turret guys.....blows my freaking mind!
Click to expand...
Not even in the same universe as your Lapua, stupid argument. I don't shoot a slider, in fact picked up a recurve a few years back. Only killed bears over bait, and don't even have a camera out this year.

It's ok Slam, I know it was tough putting your bow in its case because you weren't efficient with it. Your argument here makes you look naive to the reality of bowhunting.
 
Utah400Elk said:
I hope they don’t go away from scopes. My eyes are getting older and the scopes really help.

My general questions for the board would be,

1. What is the objective for this proposal?
2. What factual data shows that this proposal will have the desired effect.
3. How does this impact the hunting population?
4. Are there alternative resolutions to reach the desired effect?
5. Is the juice worth the squeeze?

I will openly admit that scopes on muzzleloader make me more accurate. If his is about success, then the harvest rates before magnified scopes should show a marked increase after the scopes. Who is pushing this. Is this the muzzleloader hunters asking for the restrictions or the perceived benefits from rifle hunters and archers? What are he anticipated impacts on draw results and hunting public.

I have always believed, rather than piss a moan, We should try and offer real alternatives. I have several muzzleloaders, from .40 caliber to .50 caliber. The ballistics of a .50 caliber muzzleloader limit the distance substantially more than a .45/.40. As an alternative to banning magnified scopes, how about limiting muzzleloader hunts in Utah to .50 caliber rifles. It’s not a perfect solution but will definitely decrease the range.

What about allowing magnified scopes on LE hunts. As we all know, these are becoming more and more OIILtype hunts. There would probably be significantly less heart ache if the LE hunts were left alone?

I have been hunting a long time. There are so many things that make us more successful now than before, range finders, better binoculars, better ballistic information, better clothes, quads/SBS etc. To me, picking one thing out of all these seems arbitrary and will result in further alienating the public from the wildlife board process.

Some people will celebrate the proposed change but many will not like it and could be pushed to archery and rifle. I believe there should be some real studies to help direct this review.

I am now a NR but will probably retire back in UT. I will play by whatever rules are in place but the removing the magnified scopes feel arbitrary and a knee jerk response to perceived problems. I would like to see the board explain the problem, show data to support the change, consider alternatives then move. This feels like they are making a move to possibly help a perceived problem and appease other groups.

Now I am off my soap box…Good luck this season.
Click to expand...
If the change HAS to happen, I would much prefer the change to affect optics than other options such as ignition type or caliber. As long as at least a 1X scope is allowed, then everyone for the most part can still use their current equipment. Most of us probably already have a 1X scope lying around. On the flip side, if you start messing with calibers or ignition system or iron-sights only, then you have a crap-ton of people who either have to go buy new guns, new stocks in some cases, or at least have guns tapped for front sights. It becomes a costly change statewide. Like many others, I like my mag scope, but I really don't like the thought of being left with a paperweight rifle that I won't be able to sell to any hunter within 1000 miles.

Slam,
I also hope you will point this out to the committee.
 
Last edited:
I don’t have a single x scope. I will go back to Williams peep sight. I agree that I hope they don’t remove the magnified scopes or maybe just from general season and not muck with LE? Either way, good luck this season.
 
I don’t really agree with scopes and LR muzzleloaders. To me it’s been turned into a single shot rifle hunt and introduced a demographic of hunters that wouldn’t be out there otherwise.
I’ll stick with my open sights and I can still kill an elk when I want but what really cracks me up is guys dropping 2K plus into a muzzy setup to kill a spike.
 
Betterluckythangood said:
I only read the first fifty replies but no one mentioned that on a 1x scope you can hold the crosshairs over the target without totally covering it with the front sight. That is the advantage. I haven’t used peep sights so don’t know about them
Click to expand...
When the 1x scopes were the law the crosshairs were thick enough to completely cover a bull elk at 400 yards. Front open sights are worse-even running the williams crosshair peeps.

I’m not in favor of removing variable power scopes. Variable will allow more magnification so you’re not shooting a branch antlered animal on a spike unit. Removing variables will result in wasted animals. Hunters will still hold over animals and take long shots and that’s not going to stop.

Interesting to think that the logic to “have”variable power scopes isn’t being talked about. That’s why variables were allowed.

I’m willing to give if that’s what it takes. If slams compromise of having a 4X scope is what we have to live with -then I’ll live with it.
Accuracy with open sights for most hunters is 6-8” groups at 100 yards. I shoot a lot at a local range and see this often. The shooter might put 3 rounds in a 3” spot and cover up the rest of the target holes and call it good to go.
Do you think that will stop that hunter from trying longer shots ? Or shooting the wrong animal because 2 animals swapped positions ?

I believe a 4X scope can bring accuracy at 100 yards to a 2-3” group for a hunter and that can balance out the need for accuracy but keep the muzzleloader out of the long range game.

Just to be clear -I’m NOT in favor of removing variable power scopes on muzzleloaders. Just willing to compromise. Please share why you believe scopes should be allowed and ask slam to take that to the tech committee.
 
As someone who had a variable power scope (3x9) in 2020 and now 2023 with open sight due to new state regs, I am just as capable at 225 yards today as then.

My scope was not a quick dial turret scope, so accuracy relied on zero and BDC marks, so my range was still limited to about the same.

Unless you shoot beyond 250 yds, an open sight like the Williams Western is adequate.

This doesn't mean that it's less difficult to bullseye a pie plate at 200 yds...
 
Bigwiffy said:
Not even in the same universe as your Lapua, stupid argument. I don't shoot a slider, in fact picked up a recurve a few years back. Only killed bears over bait, and don't even have a camera out this year.

It's ok Slam, I know it was tough putting your bow in its case because you weren't efficient with it. Your argument here makes you look naive to the reality of bowhunting.
Click to expand...
No, what looks naive is you.
A guy constantly trying to make everyone believe I am a long range killer and part of a bigger problem just because I happen own a Lapua (that hasn't killed an animal over 100 yards). ?

Would you like me to take a picture of it's current unscoped state and back in a box so I could use that scope on a new rifle with less than even half the capabilities?

You won't be happy until your hunt shares or exceeds the rifle hunt success rates, that's what is mind boggling.

You choose the most challenging weapon but would proudly use heat sinking or laser guided arrows over genetically altered hybrid apples to make your kill and call yourself a true archer.
You want zero restrictions and actually invite future technology to compensate for your lack of true skill.

There, how's that, I am talking to you with your same 14 year old tic tac manorism.

In all seriousness and immaturity aside, good on you for picking up a recurve and further volunteering reduction in your weapon of choice, that is commendable and I hope success finds you.
 
Ballistic said:
When the 1x scopes were the law the crosshairs were thick enough to completely cover a bull elk at 400 yards. Front open sights are worse-even running the williams crosshair peeps.

I’m not in favor of removing variable power scopes. Variable will allow more magnification so you’re not shooting a branch antlered animal on a spike unit. Removing variables will result in wasted animals. Hunters will still hold over animals and take long shots and that’s not going to stop.

Do you think that will stop that hunter from trying longer shots ? Or shooting the wrong animal because 2 animals swapped positions ?





You are correct and this can be said for all three weapons.
Restrict all we want, but holdover will never go away.
Click to expand...
 
Let’s put this to an open vote to all hunters and let majority decide? If the Majority don’t want scopes I’m ok with that but if they do that’s good too,
 
I've Already Voted Many Times!

Go Ahead & TAKE!

But TAKE Equally From All 3 Weapon Types!

I'm Willing To GIVE!

But We ALL Need To GIVE on all 3!

Are We trying To Help The Deer Herd Or Not For GAWDS Sakes?



quest said:
Let’s put this to an open vote to all hunters and let majority decide? If the Majority don’t want scopes I’m ok with that but if they do that’s good too,
Click to expand...
 
slamdunk said:
No, what looks naive is you.
A guy constantly trying to make everyone believe I am a long range killer and part of a bigger problem just because I happen own a Lapua (that hasn't killed an animal over 100 yards). ?

Would you like me to take a picture of it's current unscoped state and back in a box so I could use that scope on a new rifle with less than even half the capabilities?

You won't be happy until your hunt shares or exceeds the rifle hunt success rates, that's what is mind boggling.

You choose the most challenging weapon but would proudly use heat sinking or laser guided arrows over genetically altered hybrid apples to make your kill and call yourself a true archer.
You want zero restrictions and actually invite future technology to compensate for your lack of true skill.

There, how's that, I am talking to you with your same 14 year old tic tac manorism.

In all seriousness and immaturity aside, good on you for picking up a recurve and further volunteering reduction in your weapon of choice, that is commendable and I hope success finds you.
Click to expand...
Haha now your max kill on your Lapua is under 100 yards??? Make up your mind on how far you have killed with from one post to the next. Keep up with your own BS.

Archery will NEVER have the same success rates as a rifle I'm dumbfounded that has to be spelled out, that's why I choose a bow it's for the challenge it's "designed" to be a low success rate weapon. Just like your Lapua is "designed" to be a long range HIGH success rate weapon as you've told us many times. The rifle "restrictions" are laughable and that's why you are catching some flack.

You may not be the problem Slam, but your personal bias and opinion is part of the problem along with everybody else's on the tech committee. It's personal agendas, politics, and opinion on whats best for ALL of us that bothers me. Appreciate you coming here and taking the heat and at least letting us share our opinions with a member of the tech committee though, good on ya!
 
Bigwiffy said:
Haha now your max kill on your Lapua is under 100 yards??? Make up your mind on how far you have killed with from one post to the next. Keep up with your own BS.

Archery will NEVER have the same success rates as a rifle I'm dumbfounded that has to be spelled out, that's why I choose a bow it's for the challenge it's "designed" to be a low success rate weapon. Just like your Lapua is "designed" to be a long range HIGH success rate weapon as you've told us many times. The rifle "restrictions" are laughable and that's why you are catching some flack.

You may not be the problem Slam, but your personal bias and opinion is part of the problem along with everybody else's on the tech committee. It's personal agendas, politics, and opinion on whats best for ALL of us that bothers me. Appreciate you coming here and taking the heat and at least letting us share our opinions with a member of the tech committee though, good on ya!
Click to expand...
Follow along wiffy, I've told you numerous times I've killed 3....THREE....ONE, TWO, THREE....UNO, DOS, TRES animals with my devilish beastly lapua, all under 100 yards.
Get over yourself.....
 
Bigwiffy said:
Haha now your max kill on your Lapua is under 100 yards??? Make up your mind on how far you have killed with from one post to the next. Keep up with your own BS.

Archery will NEVER have the same success rates as a rifle I'm dumbfounded that has to be spelled out, that's why I choose a bow it's for the challenge it's "designed" to be a low success rate weapon. Just like your Lapua is "designed" to be a long range HIGH success rate weapon as you've told us many times. The rifle "restrictions" are laughable and that's why you are catching some flack.

You may not be the problem Slam, but your personal bias and opinion is part of the problem along with everybody else's on the tech committee. It's personal agendas, politics, and opinion on whats best for ALL of us that bothers me. Appreciate you coming here and taking the heat and at least letting us share our opinions with a member of the tech committee though, good on ya!
Click to expand...
So you having stated the Archery tackle is low success, rifles by "design" long range, why did you leave out a muzzleloader description?
Perhaps because you along with everyone else knows it has evolved the most out of the three but you can't admit it has gone from a 100 yard weapon to 500+ with ease?

News flash.....a 300 Winchester Magnum was introduced waaaaaay back in 1963, before your mother dropped you on your head.
It was just as capable of 1000 yards then as it is today.

We cannot say the same about the muzzleloaders evolutionary trend.......not even a tiny bit.
 
roadrunner said:
As someone who had a variable power scope (3x9) in 2020 and now 2023 with open sight due to new state regs, I am just as capable at 225 yards today as then.

My scope was not a quick dial turret scope, so accuracy relied on zero and BDC marks, so my range was still limited to about the same.

Unless you shoot beyond 250 yds, an open sight like the Williams Western is adequate.

This doesn't mean that it's less difficult to bullseye a pie plate at 200 yds...
Click to expand...
Spot on, with my 1x scope I have a 100 yard group that is just over a half inch hanging on my wall. 250 yards gets tough with 1x scopes, peep sights, and open sights for most shooters no matter all the other variables.

Slam just go back to the old regulations before they changed to legalizing magnified scopes and be done with all this mess they created by their naïve decision making.

Thank you for your efforts and have fun.
 
Last edited:
Soooo this 413 yard "heart stopper" you mentioned was with your muzzy? You expect us to believe you would limit yourself with your Lapua if you are killing at 413 yards with your muzzy??? Get outta here! Or maybe this was with your Lapua and you can't keep up with what you've spewed?
Screenshot_20230722_130930_Chrome.jpg
 
Slam,
Please also add open ignition only and loose powder only to the muzzy regs.
I shoot the TC Encore system and will gladly give it up in exchange to be able to buy a muzzleloader Deer tag every year!
 
twopointdn said:
Spot on, with my 1x scope I have a 100 yard group that is just over a half inch hanging on my wall. 250 yards gets tough with 1x scopes, peep sights, and open sights for most shooters no matter all the other variables.

Slam just go back to the old regulations before they changed to legalizing magnified scopes and be done with all this mess they created by their naïve decision making.

Thank you for your efforts and have fun.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right, something that numerous people aren't understanding.

It's not the actual gun that has inspired all these better powders, higher BC projectiles, fancy twisted longer barrels and high dollar price tags.....the allowance of high power scopes have caused that.
Restricting the optics renders all the crazy components useless.
 
Bigwiffy said:
Soooo this 413 yard "heart stopper" you mentioned was with your muzzy? You expect us to believe you would limit yourself with your Lapua if you are killing at 413 yards with your muzzy??? Get outta here! Or maybe this was with your Lapua and you can't keep up with what you've spewed? View attachment 115705
Click to expand...
Ummmmmm.......that wasn't my Lapua, i have more than one centerfire ?
Your lack of comprehensive skills must be painful.

Having said that, the fact that you obviously think a muzzleloader can't make a 400 yard shot really does admit your lack of knowledge about today's standard ML rifle capabilities, therefore you shouldn't even be commenting on them.

So, after clearing up your ASSumption, 400 yards can easily be done with a straight 6 on a little 270.
 
Last edited:
MrShane said:
Slam,
Please also add open ignition only and loose powder only to the muzzy regs.
I shoot the TC Encore system and will gladly give it up in exchange to be able to buy a muzzleloader Deer tag every year!
Click to expand...
Good for you Mr. Shane !! -- Maybe you can get some " Brothers of the Muzzy" that feel the same way and will share their thoughts to Slam, other committee members, and most importantly the UDOW people that pull the most weight in these matters.
 
MrShane said:
Slam,
Please also add open ignition only and loose powder only to the muzzy regs.
I shoot the TC Encore system and will gladly give it up in exchange to be able to buy a muzzleloader Deer tag every year!
Click to expand...
I do like where you are going, but this was already discussed by the committee and would fall under the descriptions for "Traditional" or "Primitive" for use on the restricted weapons hunts like the HAMS and any future restricted weapons hunts that may arise.
 
I’d hunt with a stick bow, flint lock, spear, you name it, if I could just buy a deer tag every year and stop having to dick with the draw and finagle other states pain in the ass draw systems just to be chasing a mule deer somewhere every year.
 
slamdunk said:
Ummmmmm.......that wasn't my Lapua, i have more than one centerfire ?
Your lack of comprehensive skills must be painful.

Having said that, the fact that you obviously think a muzzleloader can't make a 400 yard shot really does admit your lack of knowledge about today's standard ML rifle capabilities, therefore you shouldn't even be commenting on them.

So, after clearing up your ASSumption, 400 yards can easily be done with a straight 6 on a little 270.
Click to expand...
So why not limit rifles to a straight 6x???? Is being able to easily shoot a bull in September at 400+ yards not enough? My stance has always been limit the most effective weapon first since we went down this ban happy BS road. You honestly think that the rifle restriction that was passed is going to limit any rifle guy? What is the logic behind not limiting rifle guys more? I'm genuinely curious how that conversation went and how the logic was twisted to keep rifles with 0 restrictions other than the Eliminator type scopes?
 
For all the guys that think restricting muzzleloaders will make it so you can get a tag every year in your desired area you are smoking Crack, gonna start calling you Hunter.

For those that want an "opportunity" to have a deer tag every year "somewhere", you just ain't trying hard enough. There are hunts to be had every year.

I'm not enjoying this new trend of "take from this group or that group because I don't like the way they hunt" its a slippery slope and you MF'ers have fallen head first into it.

None of this will be beneficial to game management, or application management as people will adjust to whatever is put on place. You people want to hunt more, and more often there is only one way to make that happen and that is to increase the supply. The demand is not going anywhere.

Again, I fully support getting out in front of the new emerging tech that is getting kinda crazy, but it's starting to go to far.

And I still find it immensely hypocritical to say you are trying to limit tech but not address long range rifles in any significant way. If you want to limit a muzzys scope there is no reason you can't limit a rifle scope as well beyond the electronic elements. Fact of the matter is a muzzleloader is loaded from the muzzle, who cares of its a "single shot rifle" that's basically what they have always been, a less effective rifle, they still are.
 
Last edited:
Hey JakeH!

I Need To Settle Your Nerves Just A Little!

It's Opportunity!:D

And You're Starting To Use The F-Word Kinda Like Me!:D

You Know I'm RAZZIN Ya Bud!
 
Bigwiffy said:
So why not limit rifles to a straight 6x???? Is being able to easily shoot a bull in September at 400+ yards not enough? My stance has always been limit the most effective weapon first since we went down this ban happy BS road. You honestly think that the rifle restriction that was passed is going to limit any rifle guy? What is the logic behind not limiting rifle guys more? I'm genuinely curious how that conversation went and how the logic was twisted to keep rifles with 0 restrictions other than the Eliminator type scopes?
Click to expand...
You continue missing the point by a freaking mile.
No one is trying to save deer with these restrictions......it's getting old trying to explain this over and over and over.

The purpose of this appointed committee is to tame technology, period.

Your archery equipment hasn't been crippled by banning electronics and neither has the centerfire rifles by banning electronics.

Your bow still shoots as far as it did 10 years ago, just as centerfire rifles do.
Those two weapons are both the short and long respectfully.

It's the muzzleloader that continues to evolve because of high power scopes.
That hunt was never intended to be what it is becoming.

Even you I believe once stated a bow will never shoot over 100 yards accurately and consistently, simply because of natural elements like wind.
No gadget will help an arrow find it's way to long range and never will. There are far too many natura variables.

Magnum cartridge rifles were designed to shoot longer distances and have been around since the H&H magnums were introduced in 1912.

Do you know what a "top of the line" muzzleloader looked like in even 1980?
It was a Hawkin style with open sights.
What do our muzzleloaders look like today?
Go look at the Gunwerks website for starters and come back try convincing the hunting world these types of muzzleloaders won't be widespread in our future if we don't apply the brakes right now.
The scope is what is causing the advancements in the rifles themselves along with the components.

For the last time........NO ONES END GOAL IS SAVING BUCKS.
 
roadrunner said:
In Utah?
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm not going to spoon feed people but there is opportunity for a tag every year, might not be your preferred area, and you will sacrifice your chance to build points for your preferred place, but if you are willing to go anywhere, and use a bow or muzzleloader there is tags you can get every year as a resident. I've not looked at Nonresident options, but I would bet those are available too.
 

Similar threads

Blank
Which Red Dot for Utah???
Replies
9
Views
561
elkassassin
elkassassin
Land Hunter
San Juan deer - Muzzy or Rifle
Replies
15
Views
2k
scfam
scfam
N
What would you do ???
Replies
46
Views
3k
notrace
N

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

scouting pic.jpg
98760681-F676-412B-B45A-9F6AB7C86B94.png
5D20BDC0-0AD4-4F93-B459-F9D241801E87.jpeg
IMG_2261.JPG
Big Typical
Near 200" Trophy Buck
Imported Photos 00070.jpg
1704251219504.jpeg
Imported Photos 00071.jpg
Bull Elk.jpg
PXL_20201118_223431438.jpg
24E7F2DF-7AD5-4627-A528-457825762D12.jpeg
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom