NE RAC

[hossblur]

Tell ya what Hossy
I’ll take the CVA with no scope and modify it with my choice of open sights. I need it for about a month.
You can keep the scoped accura and practice to get ready.
You and I will meet up for a fun shoot and see what happens.

Damnit Hossy !
I can’t see through the peeps anymore. Ya think I’ll get a scope exception ?

On second thought.

Let's bet pink slips.

I'll modify as well, and just the scope, cuz as we've been told, scopes ain't a big deal

Army finally picks an optic for Next Generation Squad Weapon

An estimated 250,000 optics will be delivered over the next decade to close combat troops.

www.armytimes.com

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

Tell ya what Hossy
I’ll take the CVA with no scope and modify it with my choice of open sights. I need it for about a month.
You can keep the scoped accura and practice to get ready.
You and I will meet up for a fun shoot and see what happens.

Damnit Hossy !
I can’t see through the peeps anymore. Ya think I’ll get a scope exception ?

Isn’t that one of the reasons for you guys wanting to keep scopes.Many people have poor eyesight.
Holy hell you guys make up your mind. If you think you can out shoot him with open sights. Than the eye sight excuse can not be used anymore.

 

[hossblur]

Isn’t that one of the reasons for you guys wanting to keep scopes.Many people have poor eyesight.
Holy hell you guys make up your mind. If you think you can out shoot him with open sights. Than the eye sight excuse can not be used anymore.

Ballistic will find some super high end, super rare, known to very few open sight and claim that will be on ever muzzy.

 

[middlefork]

Na. Let's do what 99% of dudes will do. Buy a gun off the shelf and use it. We don't make public policy based off exceptions.

This is exactly what is happening. Making public policy off of exceptions.
I really don't care what happens I'll adapt but if you really think you can game innovation to preserve some utopia you are going to be severely disappointed.
When killing bucks is a limiting factor in herd health I will be more than happy to listen.
So far the message I'm getting is how can I get a tag ahead of someone else.
Show me just one time when restrictions have offered more tags.

 

[slamdunk]

Ballistic will find some super high end, super rare, known to very few open sight and claim that will be on ever muzzy.

There's already some mighty fancy advanced peeps out there built by people (one who even reads these but doesn't openly comment) who knew this battle was coming and that they would lose eventually.

 

[elkantlers]

To be fair I can still shoot 400 yards with the four power

So can I, doesn't mean I can hit anything.

I would challenge you to shoot your muzzleloader at 400yds with a 4 power scope. I bet you couldn't get a 16", 5 shot group, which is 4x MOA.

 

[hossblur]

This is exactly what is happening. Making public policy off of exceptions.
I really don't care what happens I'll adapt but if you really think you can game innovation to preserve some utopia you are going to be severely disappointed.
When killing bucks is a limiting factor in herd health I will be more than happy to listen.
So far the message I'm getting is how can I get a tag ahead of someone else.
Show me just one time when restrictions have offered more tags.

If you don't think innovation is detrimental your insane.

I just posted the military new scope.

Read that.

Over/under on time before it turns up on a rifle or muzzy

 

[lif]

Would anyone be fighting to put scopes on muzzys if it never was legal to begin with?

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

I would challenge you to shoot your muzzleloader at 400yds with a 4 power scope. I bet you couldn't get a 16", 5 shot group, which is 4x MOA.

Don’t worry ballistic can do it with open sights.

 

[Ballistic]

This is great information, thank you.
If he did mention his advanced shooting abilities to the committee at some point, I definitely missed it.
Does it change my mind about the proposal or even my proposal of 4x maximum?
No, because I am open minded enough and educated in my own shooting abilities to know that anyone can learn to shoot LR if they apply themselves.
Our technology today makes it easier than even 5 years ago.

A simple hand held affordable Sig rangefinder can tell anyone with a click of a button how many MOA to twist a turret if your dope is uploaded.

Do we really "want" this relatively simple technology in a weapon that originally wasn't reliable after 200 yards?
That same technology can be applied to a muzzleloader BECAUSE of the scope.

It literally blows my mind that people are arguing that scopes haven't improved their own personal abilities and success.

My MarkV 300 Weatherby that was developed during WW2 in 1944 hasn't changed.
It could shoot LR clear back then, but my 100 yard open sight Hawkin muzzleloader evolved into an inline topped with a scope easily capable of 400 yards.

But we are only "picking on muzzleloaders" for some strange reason"?
SMH.......

Slam
You and I will continue to disagree on the scope removal issue. We are both set in our ways. I think we could mostly agree on this or am I wrong ?

The Kevin Norman testimony is truly disturbing. I don’t even know how to process it fully.
Why would one of the best shooters in the west not divulge his status as such ?

This isn’t an issue with you Slam and I believe you know it isn’t.

Kevin is like the leader of a sniper team that turned his back on them. The best shooters in this nation will never make statements of easy shots at 1100 yards -especially with a muzzleloader. And act like an average Joe making it sound easy.

Im really tired of this debate -honestly.
But Kevin needs to come clean and be honest. It’s not helping me try to understand the tech committees role as a positive one. A lot of the committees work is positive and good.
Will continue to try and process this.

 

[slamdunk]

If you don't think innovation is detrimental your insane.

I just posted the military new scope.

Read that.

Over/under on time before it turns up on a rifle or muzzy

In all fairness, that optic would be illegal starting this year.......you can thank the technology committee for that.....you're welcome

 

[Ballistic]

Don’t worry ballistic can do it with open sights.

Elk
Reread my post -I said I couldn’t …..

 

[middlefork]

If you don't think innovation is detrimental your insane.

I just posted the military new scope.

Read that.

Over/under on time before it turns up on a rifle or muzzy

Already prohibited.
Sleep well tonight,

 

[slamdunk]

Slam
You and I will continue to disagree on the scope removal issue. We are both set in our ways. I think we could mostly agree on this or am I wrong ?

The Kevin Norman testimony is truly disturbing. I don’t even know how to process it fully.
Why would one of the best shooters in the west not divulge his status as such ?

This isn’t an issue with you Slam and I believe you know it isn’t.

Kevin is like the leader of a sniper team that turned his back on them. The best shooters in this nation will never make statements of easy shots at 1100 yards -especially with a muzzleloader. And act like an average Joe making it sound easy.

Im really tired of this debate -honestly.
But Kevin needs to come clean and be honest. It’s not helping me try to understand the tech committees role as a positive one. A lot of the committees work is positive and good.
Will continue to try and process this.

Fair enough, I can agree with most things here you're saying.

And I don't take anything you say personally, I promise and I know you are genuinely a good dude.

This topic has controlled my life since last January.
It hasn't left my brain, my mouth or my finger since meeting #1.

I have been honest, open and informative with not only this forum but with friends, family and my constituents.

I'm not always right and I know I am argumentative, but I am that way because I am passionate about things I assign my precious time towards.

When I accepted the seat on this committee, I knew I had a purpose and an obligation to the position and to the entire process.

During this process, I have maintained my integrity and honesty, even knowing I was ultimately going to have to surrender my 12x scope in the end.
The integrity comes from thinking more about the sport I cherish versus the smell of deer blood on my hands.
That's what I signed up for, and that is where I stand.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

Elk
Reread my post -I said I couldn’t …..

Sorry my eyes are bad.
I’m going to need a scope so I can read better.
Then I will just put it on my inline rifle so I can go shoot an animal at 500 yards.

 

[Deerlove]

Don’t worry ballistic can do it with open sights.

Yes but your eyes can't

 

[JakeH]

You are missing the entire point Jake.
I can't figure out if you're not "really" understanding or just in complete denial that muzzleloader technology has completely changed the dynamics of that hunt.

Not in denial, I just don't care. Especially if it doesn't have a biological impact. The dynamics of every hunt has changed immensely even in the last 20 years for all of them, hell there are way more things outside of the weapons used that have completely changed the dynamics of every hunt.

The way we hunt bucks has very little impact on the herd, as long as there isn't to many bucks being killed. I've been extremely consistent on that point across lots of different posts Slam, I know you have seen that.

It's been asked a dozen times but I will ask you again.
Do you feel your scoped inline makes you a more effective "killer" than open sights or even 1x?
I can say without a five second thought that my scoped inline makes me a better killer, absolutely without question.
Your reply better be "yes" for obvious reasons.

I already answered this, a couple times, of course it does, I dont think its as overwhelming as you guys seem to think, but it definitely extends the range, but again if there is no biological reason for it then why do it?

Your argument today that you would have killed a deer regardless because of the type of tag and time you had?
That wasn't the point at all, it was a smoke screen.

Actually that was exactly the point, he said the data does support the proposal and I wouldn't have been successful without my scope, I conceded that I probably wouldn't have killed that buck that night, but I still would have killed a deer if not that same deer. So the harvest statistics still wouldn't have changed. And besides I'm one guy, there are a million different scenarios that do or could play out each year. The numbers are the numbers, and as long as they don't have better numbers to support your sides claims then it's not a valid argument, I'm not making up the harvest % data, I'm using all we have to go off of. It was not a smoke screen, I was addressing a very specific point he made.

The perfect example I believe @hossblur mentioned was that they moved the muzzleloader hunt out of November.
Why?

Because it was starting to have a biological impact on the deer population to have the hunt in the Rut. It's really that simple.

Effectiveness of the modern day inlines, and that was decades ago.
Can we even fathom success rates right now in 2023 on a November rut hunt?

Yep, go look at the late season muzzleloader odds, should give you a general idea, and no I in no way support going back to that as a general hunt, even with the new "primitive" weapon definitions. Hoss wants his old hunt back, well it's never going to happen, I could see the current LE late hunt moving to a primitive weapon hunt, hell I would probably even support that, but I would not support a late general muzzleloader hunt.

Hell look at Colorado they run 3 seperate rifle season all through the rut, if you really wanted to figure this out, you are more than welcome to dig through that data.

You would be lucky to even be able to draw a tag every 5+ years even on a poor unit like Wasatch West.

It should be a LE hunt, so that sounds about right.

You think I don't see both sides, honestly in my eyes most of the support for this has come from other muzzleloader hunters that think it's going to get them more tags, I've seen you make this same argument in one of the previous dozen threads about this. And it might for a bit, but people will adjust and do what they got to do and eventually it will even back out again.

My main points through all of this:
1. It's unpopular
2. There is no biological reason for it.
3. It's extremely divisive and toxic, and is only going to spread more of this kind of toxicity in the future.

This will not end with muzzleloaders, be careful what you wish for guys.

 

[twopointdn]

What about the general season muzzle elk hunt?

Run it the same way for the general November muzzleloader elk hunt.

If I was king for a day I would switch the general rifle elk hunt to the muzzleloader hunt and the open sight muzzleloader hunters would have the first week and the scoped muzzleloader guys would have the second week of the October hunt. The rifle guys would have the November hunt with the 15,000 tag allocation and the muzzleloader hunter would have 6000 allocated to them, 3000 for each hunt. Youth would still be unlimited and tag sale revenues would be about a mirror image of tag sales this year. Anything can be done to get this right but Utah has a hard time not catering to the rifle hunters. There is no sense at all in sticking the general muzzleloader elk hunt after the general rifle elk hunt and deer hunt. The weapon structure for elk should be the same structure as Utah has for deer. Archers first, muzzleloaders second and rifles last regarding season structure. The most proficient weapon should have the most difficult season dates period.

 

[Simpleton]

Again, no dog in the fight personally, but I think the whole proposal missed the boat. Since the WB approved scopes on muzzleloaders, what tech has changed? The tech in scopes hasn't changed much, if at all. The advances have been in ignition systems. The best I can tell from the RAC discussions and comments by committee members on this board, the goal was to limit the weapon's range. If that is the goal, the cleanest answer is limiting the ignition systems and/or placing parameters on calibers/projectiles. Then you could still let someone use a scope if they want to or need to. Pulling a scope doesn't limit the weapon's ability, only the shooter's (and we all know this won't stop many from shooting even if they aren't sure it is a high percentage shot for their abilities). If the changes would limit the weapon's effective range, then a hunter could have any optic on the muzzleloader they want and it wouldn't matter. Same concept as hunts back east that require a straight wall cartridge, they limit the weapon, not what's on top of it. Notice that all the comments refer to ballistics or modern inlines etc.

The statistics from the DWR, harvest data, and the public input sure seems to favor leaving it alone, but multiple RACs still approved the proposal. My biggest frustration listening to all of the RAC meetings is the barrage of cliches and claims that aren't backed by data, but rather by emotion. With the lack of data supporting removal of scopes, I would side with the heavy majority of public opinion and say leave the scopes. Someone else hunting with a scoped, modern inline has ZERO effect on my experience while muzzleloading without a scope.

 

[slamdunk]

Again, no dog in the fight personally, but I think the whole proposal missed the boat. Since the WB approved scopes on muzzleloaders, what tech has changed? The tech in scopes hasn't changed much, if at all. The advances have been in ignition systems. The best I can tell from the RAC discussions and comments by committee members on this board, the goal was to limit the weapon's range. If that is the goal, the cleanest answer is limiting the ignition systems and/or placing parameters on calibers/projectiles. Then you could still let someone use a scope if they want to or need to. Pulling a scope doesn't limit the weapon's ability, only the shooter's (and we all know this won't stop many from shooting even if they aren't sure it is a high percentage shot for their abilities). If the changes would limit the weapon's effective range, then a hunter could have any optic on the muzzleloader they want and it wouldn't matter. Same concept as hunts back east that require a straight wall cartridge, they limit the weapon, not what's on top of it. Notice that all the comments refer to ballistics or modern inlines etc.

The statistics from the DWR, harvest data, and the public input sure seems to favor leaving it alone, but multiple RACs still approved the proposal. My biggest frustration listening to all of the RAC meetings is the barrage of cliches and claims that aren't backed by data, but rather by emotion. With the lack of data supporting removal of scopes, I would side with the heavy majority of public opinion and say leave the scopes. Someone else hunting with a scoped, modern inline has ZERO effect on my experience while muzzleloading without a scope.

Great comments.

Trust me when I say this.
Limiting the weapon itself was discussed heavily.
We looked at how some states limit components before we discussed the optics.

But in the end, it was a unanimous conclusion that the scope is the reason for all emerging technologies in components, because without an ability to see farther, there would be no need to reach farther.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

Run it the same way for the general November muzzleloader elk hunt.

If I was king for a day I would switch the general rifle elk hunt to the muzzleloader hunt and the open sight muzzleloader hunters would have the first week and the scoped muzzleloader guys would have the second week of the October hunt. The rifle guys would have the November hunt with the 15,000 tag allocation and the muzzleloader hunter would have 6000 allocated to them, 3000 for each hunt. Youth would still be unlimited and tag sale revenues would be about a mirror image of tag sales this year. Anything can be done to get this right but Utah has a hard time not catering to the rifle hunters. There is no sense at all in sticking the general muzzleloader elk hunt after the general rifle elk hunt and deer hunt. The weapon structure for elk should be the same structure as Utah has for deer. Archers first, muzzleloaders second and rifles last regarding season structure. The most proficient weapon should have the most difficult season dates period.

I have been asking this for year I totally stand behind this.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

But in the end, it was a unanimous conclusion that the scope is the reason for all emerging technologies in components, because without an ability to see farther, there would be no need to reach farther.

Absolutely! Everyone that is a hunter knows this.

 

[twopointdn]

To be fair I can still shoot 400 yards with the four power

You are exactly right. 4x is to much power if they are trying to reduce 400+ yard shots. 1x is the compromise to works which means the old regulations are back. Works for me.

 

[Elkslayer2015]

Run it the same way for the general November muzzleloader elk hunt.

If I was king for a day I would switch the general rifle elk hunt to the muzzleloader hunt and the open sight muzzleloader hunters would have the first week and the scoped muzzleloader guys would have the second week of the October hunt. The rifle guys would have the November hunt with the 15,000 tag allocation and the muzzleloader hunter would have 6000 allocated to them, 3000 for each hunt. Youth would still be unlimited and tag sale revenues would be about a mirror image of tag sales this year. Anything can be done to get this right but Utah has a hard time not catering to the rifle hunters. There is no sense at all in sticking the general muzzleloader elk hunt after the general rifle elk hunt and deer hunt. The weapon structure for elk should be the same structure as Utah has for deer. Archers first, muzzleloaders second and rifles last regarding season structure. The most proficient weapon should have the most difficult season dates period.

I have never understood why Muzzleloader elk is after all the rifle hunts. I also never understood why the archery hunt doesn't run threw September either.
I think your on to something here. If they restrict Muzzey's then yes it needs to be where the first rifle hunt is, both GS Elk and LE Elk. I don't agree on two Muzzy hunts though. The rifle hunt needs to be two hunts on GS Elk.
That's just my thoughts

 

[Ballistic]

On second thought.

Let's bet pink slips.

I'll modify as well, and just the scope, cuz as we've been told, scopes ain't a big deal

Army finally picks an optic for Next Generation Squad Weapon

An estimated 250,000 optics will be delivered over the next decade to close combat troops.

www.armytimes.com

Good scope article Hossy !
I have supported the electronics ban in scopes that the tech committee proposed since day 1

That was a good decision and I hope it’s permanent.

 

[Ballistic]

Sorry my eyes are bad.
I’m going to need a scope so I can read better.
Then I will just put it on my inline rifle so I can go shoot an animal at 500 yards.

Elk
You’re in the same boat as I am - just don’t know it yet (your eyes).
It’s going to be frustrating to see through those peeps and find your target…..

 

[slamdunk]

Good scope article Hossy !
I have supported the electronics ban in scopes that the tech committee proposed since day 1

That was a good decision and I hope it’s permanent.

I'll do my best to make sure it sticks.

On a side note, there will be two people appointed to attend the Shot Show every year going forward to keep eyes on emerging technologies hitting the markets.

 

[Ballistic]

I have a couple questions for the muzzy hunters:

1. Why do you want a scope on your muzzle loader?

2. What in your opinion is the agenda, or true reason, of the DWR to take the scopes off?

I’m not being a smart ass here. I genuinely would love to hear honest answers to these questions. I see a lot of mud throwing in this discussion, but not a lot of answers to these particular questions.

This is a late reply -but here it is
1-My eyes are older and it’s really difficult to see through open sights

2-The agenda to remove scopes is fueled by special interest groups that do not represent the muzzleloader industry and in my opinion -the vast majority of hunters that have purchased muzzleloaders that did not come with open sights. If you read the mission statement of the tech committee it becomes more clear. The firearms and archery industry is mentioned 3 times. SFW is also mentioned. It’s not coincidence that ( no minimum length restrictions on arrows anymore) was snuck into the muzzy scope removal video by the DWR.

Creating more opportunity is a good thing - but it’s clear the muzzleloader is on the chopping block vs archery and rifle.

 

[elkantlers]

I'll do my best to make sure it sticks.

On a side note, there will be two people appointed to attend the Shot Show every year going forward to keep eyes on emerging technologies hitting the markets.

Sign me up.

 

[hossblur]

In all fairness, that optic would be illegal starting this year.......you can thank the technology committee for that.....you're welcome

So your saying the tech committee did something to limit rifles and not bows?

We demand total equality across all 3 weapons

 

[hossblur]

This is a late reply -but here it is
1-My eyes are older and it’s really difficult to see through open sights

2-The agenda to remove scopes is fueled by special interest groups that do not represent the muzzleloader industry and in my opinion -the vast majority of hunters that have purchased muzzleloaders that did not come with open sights. If you read the mission statement of the tech committee it becomes more clear. The firearms and archery industry is mentioned 3 times. SFW is also mentioned. It’s not coincidence that ( no minimum length restrictions on arrows anymore) was snuck into the muzzy scope removal video by the DWR.

Creating more opportunity is a good thing - but it’s clear the muzzleloader is on the chopping block vs archery and rifle.

My shoulders are getting older so can we support more let off? I'd like to shoot 90lb bows

 

[FixedBlade]

Great comments.

Trust me when I say this.
Limiting the weapon itself was discussed heavily.
We looked at how some states limit components before we discussed the optics.

But in the end, it was a unanimous conclusion that the scope is the reason for all emerging technologies in components, because without an ability to see farther, there would be no need to reach farther.

I have never hunted with a muzz, actually waiting for this decision before sighting it in with or without scope. Picked up an older used CVA from a buddy and threw a 3x9 on top before hearing this was up for a possible change. I want to change from archery deer to muzz as my heart just isn't there for archery deer like it is archery elk. I figured with my shooting ability even with a scope, 200 is likely max range, still want to get as close as possible which is how I feel with every weapon type.

I've been very neutral in this debate and honestly don't care either way it gets decided. But this line ^^^^ from Slam may have just sealed the deal for me. Take em off. Back to 1x or open sight. Anyone who says the envelope won't continue to be pushed doesn't know human nature very well.

**Also if the restriction passes I agree the seasons should be restructured to archery then muzz then rifle for deer and elk.

 

[quest]

So are they going to issue more tags if this no-scopes pass for the muzzleloader season?

 

[Betterluckythangood]

This is a late reply -but here it is
1-My eyes are older and it’s really difficult to see through open sights

2-The agenda to remove scopes is fueled by special interest groups that do not represent the muzzleloader industry and in my opinion -the vast majority of hunters that have purchased muzzleloaders that did not come with open sights. If you read the mission statement of the tech committee it becomes more clear. The firearms and archery industry is mentioned 3 times. SFW is also mentioned. It’s not coincidence that ( no minimum length restrictions on arrows anymore) was snuck into the muzzy scope removal video by the DWR.

Creating more opportunity is a good thing - but it’s clear the muzzleloader is on the chopping block vs archery and rifle.

“Creating more opportunity is a good thing - but it’s clear the muzzleloader is on the chopping block vs archery and rifle.”

So what you are saying Is that rangefinders should be banned to even the playing field, correct?

 

[quest]

Who are these people who want us to go back to the 30/30 open site and white shirt?

 

[MrShane]

They could split the muzzleloader hunt like they have done with some of the rifle deer units. They do a early and late general rifle deer hunt on some units with the same total tag quotas per unit with allocated percentages for each hunt. It was an effort to reduce crowding on the units during the hunt. They could do a similar model for the muzzleloader hunts but instead of a focus on reducing over crowding they would be focusing on social issues of pleasing both groups. It would look like this. The current general muzzleloader deer tag allocation are 20%. The season dates stay the same time of year, starting at the end of September. 10% of the tags go to the open sight muzzleloader season and that season would start on Wednesday and end on Sunday. 10% of the tags go to the scoped muzzleloader hunt and their season starts on Monday and ends on Thursday. The DWR could make it equal day for day and add the Friday on to the scoped muzzleloader hunt since there are no hunts on that Friday. Best of both worlds for both groups and the DWR losses nothing and likely lowers success rate slight over the 20% of tag holders. Muzzleloader hunters enter the drew as they please and hunt the way they like. Trying to get a November hunt back will never fly for the open sight muzzleloader hunters with 10% of the general deer tag allocations. Keeping it at the end of September is the only chance this idea works. If not this, I am hoping the WB goes back to the pre 2015 regulations so people that have guns that can’t put open sights on them can still have a scope and use their muzzleloaders. Law enforcement was able to check for compliance before with the old regulations and they can do it again. The “it’s to hard to enforce and verify” argument is a weak argument at best. I am definitely not in support of leaving it as is with regard to the long range muzzleloader model we are trending towards. Just my thoughts.

twopointdn for President!

 

[MrShane]

I have a couple questions for the muzzy hunters:

1. Why do you want a scope on your muzzle loader?

2. What in your opinion is the agenda, or true reason, of the DWR to take the scopes off?

I’m not being a smart ass here. I genuinely would love to hear honest answers to these questions. I see a lot of mud throwing in this discussion, but not a lot of answers to these particular questions.

1. I don’t want a scope, closed ignition, 209 primers, sabots, etc on my muzzy as long as it is across the board.
I want more opportunities to hunt but using a less effective weapon.
Not unlike the Wasatch Extended Area season for archers.

2. To save upper class bucks from being killed by muzzys, to stockpile those bucks to be killed by ALW guys 30 days later.

 

[MrShane]

This is exactly what is happening. Making public policy off of exceptions.
I really don't care what happens I'll adapt but if you really think you can game innovation to preserve some utopia you are going to be severely disappointed.
When killing bucks is a limiting factor in herd health I will be more than happy to listen.
So far the message I'm getting is how can I get a tag ahead of someone else.
Show me just one time when restrictions have offered more tags.

Rifles were restricted off the Wasatch Front, creating a 3 month long hunting opportunity for hundreds of hunters on an easy to draw tag.

 

[OpeningDay]

I know I'm off my Rocker in this type of thinking, but the bottom line with these restrictions for all weapons is to restrict the range in which people are shooting. Make it illegal to shoot past whatever range you see fit. (Per Weapon). There just may be enough honest, law abiding hunters to have an affect. Probably not, but maybe....

 

[roadrunner]

We looked at how some states limit components before we discussed the optics.

Keep an eye on NM next spring when the harvest data is released.

Some key points speaking to this:

* NM removed scopes from muzzleloaders last year making this year the first effective year without.

* The winter in the north half of the state wasn't necessarily as harsh as northern UT, southwest WY, or northwest CO. This means the nose count of deer and antelope weren't negatively affected.

* Harvest reporting has been mandatory for several years. The data presented is about as real as it can get.

* The 2024 Tech and Hunting Recommendations presentation relative to scopes on muzzleloaders takes into accout success rates (time 6:50) and what other states are doing (time 8:32).

The success rates are not compiled from mandatory reporting, only those surveyed (and was a questioned asked of the hunter if they used a scope). NM has had a no scope rule for this season only so far. Data and practices from other states does matter...

I have already compiled the harvest data for deer and antelope in NM for the last 4 or 5 years of published data available on the webpage waiting to populate the 2023 harvest results because I'm curious as I've watched UT debate this topic.

The data over the last few years is relatively flat with only slight changes overall by a few percentage points.

The results from this year will be the telling factor of whether or not scopes made a difference.

As an FYI, I removed my scope for obvious reasons and didn't put it back on for my muzzy antelope hunt in UT. Had I used a scope, I would've likely filled my tag sooner than I did.

 

[middlefork]

Rifles were restricted off the Wasatch Front, creating a 3 month long hunting opportunity for hundreds of hunters on an easy to draw tag.

Not exactly a easy to draw tag. You have to draw another unit to be able to hunt it and there are no archery deer tags that are not over applied for any more.

It doesn't create more opportunity for other hunters to hunt rather an additional hunt for those that are successful in drawing a tag in the normal draw.

Otherwise it would be it's own separate unit with unlimited tags available.

And as far as I'm aware rifles are not restricted on the entire area the extended archery hunt covers during the respective weapons hunts.

 

[MrShane]

Not exactly a easy to draw tag. You have to draw another unit to be able to hunt it and there are no archery deer tags that are not over applied for any more.

It doesn't create more opportunity for other hunters to hunt rather an additional hunt for those that are successful in drawing a tag in the normal draw.

Otherwise it would be it's own separate unit with unlimited tags available.

And as far as I'm aware rifles are not restricted on the entire area the extended archery hunt covers during the respective weapons hunts.

You are correct, rifles are only restricted to certain areas and not banned from the entire area.

 

[Ballistic]

“Creating more opportunity is a good thing - but it’s clear the muzzleloader is on the chopping block vs archery and rifle.”

So what you are saying Is that rangefinders should be banned to even the playing field, correct?

I don’t have the solution for taking everything back a few steps. But rifles and archery could be taken back a few as well. I have all 3 weapon types. Everything I own is high tech except my outdated 5 year old bow that only shoots 280 fps. My old round wheel only shot 230 fps and it took several elk from tree stands. 60 yards was a long shot.
Rifles without turrets on scopes were 300 yard weapons and sometimes further.

The rangefinder is tech that all 3 weapons use now and arguably for good and not so good reasons. Good because you could say that’s too far to shoot. Bad because it probably is too far too shoot and it’s still attempted.

 

[slamdunk]

I don’t have the solution for taking everything back a few steps. But rifles and archery could be taken back a few as well. I have all 3 weapon types. Everything I own is high tech except my outdated 5 year old bow that only shoots 280 fps. My old round wheel only shot 230 fps and it took several elk from tree stands. 60 yards was a long shot.
Rifles without turrets on scopes were 300 yard weapons and sometimes further.

The rangefinder is tech that all 3 weapons use now and arguably for good and not so good reasons. Good because you could say that’s too far to shoot. Bad because it probably is too far too shoot and it’s still attempted.

Having stated that, let's talk about today's rifles.
What really has changed other than the electronics inside a scope?
All scopes have elevation and windage capabilities, always have.
Like I mentioned in another post, my 300 Weatherby was introduced back in 1944 and still shot 3400fps back then, just as it does today.

This is a serious question as it may be discussed by the tech committee in the future.

Let's hear some thoughts.
Maybe even start a new thread?

 

[gundog2]

Having stated that, let's talk about today's rifles.
What really has changed other than the electronics inside a scope?
All scopes have elevation and windage capabilities, always have.
Like I mentioned in another post, my 300 Weatherby was introduced back in 1944 and still shot 3400fps back then, just as it does today.

This is a serious question as it may be discussed by the tech committee in the future.

Let's hear some thoughts.
Maybe even start a new thread?

The game changer has been rangefinders, but I don’t think this is something that can be regulated. However, rangefinders aren’t really a big deal, for guns, unless you have a scope.

 

[Ballistic]

Ballistic will find some super high end, super rare, known to very few open sight and claim that will be on ever muzzy.

Hossy
It won’t do me any good. I won’t be able to see it. Maybe when I had 20/10 vision years ago -that’s gone forever now…….

But those fancy open sights are there if you look hard enough.

 

[Betterluckythangood]

Having stated that, let's talk about today's rifles.
What really has changed other than the electronics inside a scope?
All scopes have elevation and windage capabilities, always have.
Like I mentioned in another post, my 300 Weatherby was introduced back in 1944 and still shot 3400fps back then, just as it does today.

This is a serious question as it may be discussed by the tech committee in the future.

Let's hear some thoughts.
Maybe even start a new thread?

The technology demon needs to have its head cut off.

The way to do this is to get rid of rangefinders and everyone knows it but doesn’t dare even think it, let alone say it or support it. I get it.

I just upgraded last year to a rangefinder/bino combo and LOVE IT!!! The improved clarity of the glass alone almost makes it worth the $1,300. If someone can afford $500, $1,300, 3k or more on one they can afford to sell it at a loss to someone in another state or use it on varmints, predators or the golf course.

There would be no need to worry about magnified scopes on muzzleloaders. Put a 50x on your muzzy or rifle, no problem, shoot away at 500, 1200, or three miles, no complaints here.

I don’t expect the tech committee or the WB to dare address this because of the blowback for obvious reasons. (Special interests) of which there are many.

Who loses if this were were to happen?

Certainly not opportunity or our precious big game herds.

I sincerely hope the legislature steps in and does this like they did with the trail cams.

I will post my address soon so you can all come over with pitchforks

 

[Ballistic]

Having stated that, let's talk about today's rifles.
What really has changed other than the electronics inside a scope?
All scopes have elevation and windage capabilities, always have.
Like I mentioned in another post, my 300 Weatherby was introduced back in 1944 and still shot 3400fps back then, just as it does today.

This is a serious question as it may be discussed by the tech committee in the future.

Let's hear some thoughts.
Maybe even start a new thread?

So scopes have advanced a lot.
Although they have mostly (early years) always had internal dials they were capped. Sure you could take the caps off and dial with a dime or a penny. The inherent problem with the older pre 2000 scopes was tracking reliability. Most of us shooters would turn those dials and tap the scope lightly to settle the crosshairs. Even the scopes at 2010 had issues similar and many of us comp shooters were sending the leupolds and others back for repairs. Lots of scopes would turn 3/4” instead of 1/4” and were difficult to zero. Once you zeroed you didn’t want to mess with the dials at all. The huskemah scopes of 2015 still had instructions to turn past the intended moa dial and then come back for reliability in tracking.
Since 2020 almost all the brands track true - even the cheaper Chinese Arken scopes- and I own a few of them.

So yes -Another thread could be created.
Todays scope without electronics is much better than the scope of 10 years ago. JMO

 

[twopointdn]

Having stated that, let's talk about today's rifles.
What really has changed other than the electronics inside a scope?
All scopes have elevation and windage capabilities, always have.
Like I mentioned in another post, my 300 Weatherby was introduced back in 1944 and still shot 3400fps back then, just as it does today.

This is a serious question as it may be discussed by the tech committee in the future.

Let's hear some thoughts.
Maybe even start a new thread?

This is a good place to put the fix 4x scopes so rifles can still have a magnified scope which is likely more than the muzzleloaders will end up with if they go back to open sight or 1x scopes. Get the rifles tamed back to under 500 yards. This change would create a good balance between each weapon type if all the restrictions are in place. A proficient hunters with each weapon could be able to take game with a bow at 80 yards, a muzzleloader at 175 yards and a rifle at 400 yards. Seen reasonably to me and it gives the animals the ability to use their sense in each hunting season. Sure their will be some that will become more proficient than others with each restricted weapon type and be able to stretch the distance I listed even further but at some point with each restriction you can only shoot at something you can see in your sight picture. At that point you have to get closer if you are going to pull the trigger. That cannot be said right now with 24x or 32x magnified scopes on rifles. I could put my life saving down that this will never happen but if the goal of the Tech committee is to create fair restrictions for all weapon types then this would work. We live in a world that is not fair so I have gotten used to certain groups getting more and others get less. Such is life and if you can’t handle it then it is going to be a miserable life full of disappointment. Fun debate.

 

[roadrunner]

I don’t expect the tech committee or the WB to dare address this because of the blowback for obvious reasons. (Special interests) of which there are many.

But you know people will get over it and continue to hunt anyway regardless of the blowback.

 

[hossblur]

Hossy
It won’t do me any good. I won’t be able to see it. Maybe when I had 20/10 vision years ago -that’s gone forever now…….

But those fancy open sights are there if you look hard enough.

Utards will always utard

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

So I thought about all of this and what would be a compromise. From what I’ve been told you can still shoot out to 500 with a 4x so if we want it fair across the board here’s my solution right or wrong.

Muzzleloader and rifles can only have a 4x power scope. That takes care of that issue.

Then we address archery. No sliders period you only can have a 5 pin sight. Yes I know you can stack pins and get more range out of them.
But as of right now archery is the lowest success.

Just my thoughts.

 

[hossblur]

So I thought about all of this and what would be a compromise. From what I’ve been told you can still shoot out to 500 with a 4x so if we want it fair across the board here’s my solution right or wrong.

Muzzleloader and rifles can only have a 4x power scope. That takes care of that issue.

Then we address archery. No sliders period you only can have a 5 pin sight. Yes I know you can stack pins and get more range out of them.
But as of right now archery is the lowest success.

Just my thoughts.

Why the 4x?

If we believe scopes, especially on muzzies, change the hunt into something it wasn't created to be, then be done with scopes.

Otherwise allow them.


Rifles will be MUCH harder. We may just have to shorten to very small seasons for rifles. 3-5 days? Or maybe M-F, no weekend?

Archery odds are low enough, I'm not sure you need do anything other than electric sights.

Incentivize folks to move from rifle to lesser odds hunts, should be the goal, not making things "even".

 

[bucks]

What a bunch of BS!


Go to 30-30 open sites
Recurve bows
Hawken cap and ball.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

Why the 4x?

If we believe scopes, especially on muzzies, change the hunt into something it wasn't created to be, then be done with scopes.

Otherwise allow them.


Rifles will be MUCH harder. We may just have to shorten to very small seasons for rifles. 3-5 days? Or maybe M-F, no weekend?

Archery odds are low enough, I'm not sure you need do anything other than electric sights.

Incentivize folks to move from rifle to lesser odds hunts, should be the goal, not making things "even".

I just want to see everyone reaction. Hoss you know where I stand on this.
I’m 100% behind removing scopes off of muzzleloaders.
The big Change has already happened with the muzzleloader
We have went from smooth bore trad, to in lines and that wasn’t enough, so now we allowed scopes and the gun makers and manufacturers saw that and took it to a whole different level.

 

[hossblur]

I'm just flabbergasted by all the "quality" dudes who squeal about any attempt to get there short of cutting tags.

Dudes cannot do math. I keep reading " I'd be ok only hunting deer every 3 or 4 years".

We are there now. Are they ok hunting deer once a decade to keep their optics and rifles?

We aren't doing this to make huge herd increases. This is for the quality dudes, and yet, those same dudes, scream the loudest.

We aren't doing this for fairness, equity, investment protection, or whatever.

You want more bigger deer more smaller deer have to make it, more bigger deer have to get through to get very big.

Do you truly seek to hunt big deer? Or do you truly seek to shoot guns? Or do you just want to *****?

 

[lif]

Something to think about is the original intent of all 3 weapons and their seasons. Rifle season has always been the base hunting season for decades. In the 1960s,and before that, almost nobody cared about shooting a bow or a muzzleloader to hunt big game. And yes, they had scopes on rifles.

When archery and muzzle loader hunts were introduced, the intent was to offer a lesser/primitive style weapon, with more advantageous season dates.


Since those times we have made ridiculous scopes that have dramatically increased effective range with a rifle. We have inlined muzzys and put scopes on them to dramatically increase their effective range. We have developed and redeveloped compound bows to the point of dramatic increases on effective range.

These are the “Captain Obvious “ facts. If you are in denial of these base facts in this discussion then you are talking with your head stuck in a dark stinky place.

 

[hossblur]

Something to think about is the original intent of all 3 weapons and their seasons. Rifle season has always been the base hunting season for decades. In the 1960s,and before that, almost nobody cared about shooting a bow or a muzzleloader to hunt big game. And yes, they had scopes on rifles.

When archery and muzzle loader hunts were introduced, the intent was to offer a lesser/primitive style weapon, with more advantageous season dates.


Since those times we have made ridiculous scopes that have dramatically increased effective range with a rifle. We have inlined muzzys and put scopes on them to dramatically increase their effective range. We have developed and redeveloped compound bows to the point of dramatic increases on effective range.

These are the “Captain Obvious “ facts. If you are in denial of these base facts in this discussion then you are talking with your head stuck in a dark stinky place.

Compound bows for the vast majority are well inside 100 yards.

I'd argue well inside 75 yrds.

My 06' hasn't gained that much in range.

Muzzies, have had the biggest transformation without a doubt.

 

[slamdunk]

Something to think about is the original intent of all 3 weapons and their seasons. Rifle season has always been the base hunting season for decades. In the 1960s,and before that, almost nobody cared about shooting a bow or a muzzleloader to hunt big game. And yes, they had scopes on rifles.

When archery and muzzle loader hunts were introduced, the intent was to offer a lesser/primitive style weapon, with more advantageous season dates.


Since those times we have made ridiculous scopes that have dramatically increased effective range with a rifle. We have inlined muzzys and put scopes on them to dramatically increase their effective range. We have developed and redeveloped compound bows to the point of dramatic increases on effective range.

These are the “Captain Obvious “ facts. If you are in denial of these base facts in this discussion then you are talking with your head stuck in a dark stinky place.

Boom!!!

 

[Elkslayer2015]

• 1610: Marin le Bourgeoys develops the first flintlock, for King Louis XIII of France.
• 1700s: Martin Meylin of Pennsylvania makes long rifles, also known as Pennsylvania or Kentucky long rifles—the first firearms with rifling to stabilize projectiles and increase accuracy and range.
• 1807: Reverend Alexander Forsyth patents the first percussion ignition muzzleloader.
• 1808: Jean Samuel Pauly designs and patents an in-line action, in which the **** of the sidelock is replaced by a cylindrical hammer driven by a coil spring.
• 1814: English-born American artist Joshua Shaw refines the percussion cap design with a copper cup filled with fulminates.
• 1823: Jacob and Samuel Hawken design a muzzleloader that hunters of the day envy.
• 1853: Sir Joseph Whitworth develops a new elongated muzzleloader bullet in .451 caliber that’s three and a half times as long as it is wide, and weighs 520 grains. This could be considered the first attempt to create a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient.
• 1975: Pyrodex, one of the first reliable blackpowder substitutes, is introduced.
• 1985: The Knight MK-85 creates a wave of change in the muzzleloader industry.
• 1990: Del Ramsey creates Muzzleloading Magnum sabots, which enable the shooting of modern jacketed or lead pistol bullets in modern muzzleloaders.
• 2020: Federal Premium Ammunition launches the FireStick, a fully encapsulated propellant charge using Triple Eight powder, to be used in a Traditions NitroFire muzzleloader.

Wow! This is why I stand behind removing scopes. They just keep going.

 

[Ballistic]

Something to think about is the original intent of all 3 weapons and their seasons. Rifle season has always been the base hunting season for decades. In the 1960s,and before that, almost nobody cared about shooting a bow or a muzzleloader to hunt big game. And yes, they had scopes on rifles.

When archery and muzzle loader hunts were introduced, the intent was to offer a lesser/primitive style weapon, with more advantageous season dates.


Since those times we have made ridiculous scopes that have dramatically increased effective range with a rifle. We have inlined muzzys and put scopes on them to dramatically increase their effective range. We have developed and redeveloped compound bows to the point of dramatic increases on effective range.

These are the “Captain Obvious “ facts. If you are in denial of these base facts in this discussion then you are talking with your head stuck in a dark stinky place.

I am mostly in agreement with your post. Just want to add to it.
Centerfire rifles are built much better today than yesterday.
Example 300 Weatherby from 1944
Shoots super fast. Tolerances on the chamber design are really loose (purposely to keep the shooter that never cleans the gun safe) so it takes a lot of effort to get that design to drive tacks.
Barrels when bore scoped look like files.
VS
300 PRC of 2022
Not as fast but close (arguable) as the weatherby.
Chamber design is close to a bench-rest (very tight). Factory loads will drive tacks - not a lot of tweaking is needed. Barrels when bore scoped are much smoother vs the old barrels. Powders today are much better for both designs. Brass and primers are also much better but the weatherby brass is hard to find.

The above can be arguable overall because some of the barrel makers post WW2 made some amazing barrels. The chamber designs however are 10x better today than the early years.

Bows have also made huge leaps in tech.

Scopes can’t be denied. If the rifle or muzzy isn’t accurate the scope isn’t going to help hit the mark.
A muzzy will never be as accurate or precise as a rifle -never. Too many variables in a black powder loaded through the muzzle to be consistent like a rifle.
So the scope will always benefit the rifle more. This is a big reason I’m against scope removal on muzzleloaders
JMO
Good post on your end.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

• 1610: Marin le Bourgeoys develops the first flintlock, for King Louis XIII of France.
• 1700s: Martin Meylin of Pennsylvania makes long rifles, also known as Pennsylvania or Kentucky long rifles—the first firearms with rifling to stabilize projectiles and increase accuracy and range.
• 1807: Reverend Alexander Forsyth patents the first percussion ignition muzzleloader.
• 1808: Jean Samuel Pauly designs and patents an in-line action, in which the **** of the sidelock is replaced by a cylindrical hammer driven by a coil spring.
• 1814: English-born American artist Joshua Shaw refines the percussion cap design with a copper cup filled with fulminates.
• 1823: Jacob and Samuel Hawken design a muzzleloader that hunters of the day envy.
• 1853: Sir Joseph Whitworth develops a new elongated muzzleloader bullet in .451 caliber that’s three and a half times as long as it is wide, and weighs 520 grains. This could be considered the first attempt to create a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient.
• 1975: Pyrodex, one of the first reliable blackpowder substitutes, is introduced.
• 1985: The Knight MK-85 creates a wave of change in the muzzleloader industry.
• 1990: Del Ramsey creates Muzzleloading Magnum sabots, which enable the shooting of modern jacketed or lead pistol bullets in modern muzzleloaders.
• 2020: Federal Premium Ammunition launches the FireStick, a fully encapsulated propellant charge using Triple Eight powder, to be used in a Traditions NitroFire muzzleloader.

Wow! This is why I stand behind removing scopes. They just keep going.

Thank you
This is only a very small piece of the problem. Now add gun manufacturers and gun builders in the mix.
Looks like it has exploded more than I ever realized.
Did you see this Slam? I think the Board really needs to see this.

 

[Simpleton]

They aren't doing this for quality. Their own data says the change in harvest is negligible, so the idea that this will make more big bucks is a fallacy. Worse, it is repeated by many without any data to back that up. Making it an opinion, not a fact. They are doing this because of a few squeaky wheels. Look at the responses they received since the proposal and at the RACs. The Division contradicted themselves in the RAC meetings stating that this will allow for more opportunity. How can this be if their own data doesn't show harvest will change in a meaningful way?

The Tech Committee, by the DWR's own words was created "to determine which new technologies and weapons should be allowed for hunting in Utah."

Not fairness. Not quality. Not existing technology that has been around for years and has been through the process and approved. I don't believe that non-electronic scopes are "new technology" as this was addressed by the WB years ago, hence it can't be new. Maybe it depends on how they define new. It is setting a poor precedent to allow the TC to propose things that are outside their purview by the definition set at the creation of the committee. Personally, I don't like overreach. I don't like restrictions that aren't backed by sound data. And I don't like people pushing their own personal morals or ethics on others. The people who crack me up the most are the ones saying that they are against scopes, yet admit that they have them on their setups. If you are so against them, why do those individuals have to wait for the division to tell them they are illegal before they'll pull them?

I am glad that in about 6 days the WB will go one way or the other and this discussion will be over. No matter which way it goes, I'll be out there next fall with the same muzzleloader I've used for about 15 years. I just hope other guys can be out there legally hunting the way they want to too.

 

[Ballistic]

They aren't doing this for quality. Their own data says the change in harvest is negligible, so the idea that this will make more big bucks is a fallacy. Worse, it is repeated by many without any data to back that up. Making it an opinion, not a fact. They are doing this because of a few squeaky wheels. Look at the responses they received since the proposal and at the RACs. The Division contradicted themselves in the RAC meetings stating that this will allow for more opportunity. How can this be if their own data doesn't show harvest will change in a meaningful way?

The Tech Committee, by the DWR's own words was created "to determine which new technologies and weapons should be allowed for hunting in Utah."

Not fairness. Not quality. Not existing technology that has been around for years and has been through the process and approved. I don't believe that non-electronic scopes are "new technology" as this was addressed by the WB years ago, hence it can't be new. Maybe it depends on how they define new. It is setting a poor precedent to allow the TC to propose things that are outside their purview by the definition set at the creation of the committee. Personally, I don't like overreach. I don't like restrictions that aren't backed by sound data. And I don't like people pushing their own personal morals or ethics on others. The people who crack me up the most are the ones saying that they are against scopes, yet admit that they have them on their setups. If you are so against them, why do those individuals have to wait for the division to tell them they are illegal before they'll pull them?

I am glad that in about 6 days the WB will go one way or the other and this discussion will be over. No matter which way it goes, I'll be out there next fall with the same muzzleloader I've used for about 15 years. I just hope other guys can be out there legally hunting the way they want to too.

Very well said !
I believe the HAMS hunts were the previews and now the study areas like “Dutton” will set the agenda to push everything back. Rifles and bows are next with the “Dutton” study.
Unlimited sales on 2nd season any bulk units will put more hunters in the field (great for $$$) but the price to pay will be lower bull elk number's. This will create less opportunity for tags for today’s hunter - down the road. Those that support this change need to see where this is really going.

I 100% agree that scope removal on muzzleloaders was not about curbing future tech. Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[slamdunk]

"I 100% agree that scope removal on muzzleloaders was not about curbing future tech."

How in the world can you come up with this statement?
My mind is now officially blown.....

 

[hossblur]

They aren't doing this for quality. Their own data says the change in harvest is negligible, so the idea that this will make more big bucks is a fallacy. Worse, it is repeated by many without any data to back that up. Making it an opinion, not a fact. They are doing this because of a few squeaky wheels. Look at the responses they received since the proposal and at the RACs. The Division contradicted themselves in the RAC meetings stating that this will allow for more opportunity. How can this be if their own data doesn't show harvest will change in a meaningful way?

The Tech Committee, by the DWR's own words was created "to determine which new technologies and weapons should be allowed for hunting in Utah."

Not fairness. Not quality. Not existing technology that has been around for years and has been through the process and approved. I don't believe that non-electronic scopes are "new technology" as this was addressed by the WB years ago, hence it can't be new. Maybe it depends on how they define new. It is setting a poor precedent to allow the TC to propose things that are outside their purview by the definition set at the creation of the committee. Personally, I don't like overreach. I don't like restrictions that aren't backed by sound data. And I don't like people pushing their own personal morals or ethics on others. The people who crack me up the most are the ones saying that they are against scopes, yet admit that they have them on their setups. If you are so against them, why do those individuals have to wait for the division to tell them they are illegal before they'll pull them?

I am glad that in about 6 days the WB will go one way or the other and this discussion will be over. No matter which way it goes, I'll be out there next fall with the same muzzleloader I've used for about 15 years. I just hope other guys can be out there legally hunting the way they want to too.

What data are you pointing to? The wild ass guesses of success based on a handful of check stations and a few phone calls?

 

[hossblur]

"I 100% agree that scope removal on muzzleloaders was not about curbing future tech."

How in the world can you come up with this statement?
My mind is now officially blown.....

Logic and reason, has left the building

 

[Simpleton]

What data are you pointing to? The wild ass guesses of success based on a handful of check stations and a few phone calls?

The only data they have to go on. What data are you using when you say this is about saving more bucks? If you have some I'd love to see it.

 

[gundog2]

Something to think about is the original intent of all 3 weapons and their seasons. Rifle season has always been the base hunting season for decades. In the 1960s,and before that, almost nobody cared about shooting a bow or a muzzleloader to hunt big game. And yes, they had scopes on rifles.

When archery and muzzle loader hunts were introduced, the intent was to offer a lesser/primitive style weapon, with more advantageous season dates.


Since those times we have made ridiculous scopes that have dramatically increased effective range with a rifle. We have inlined muzzys and put scopes on them to dramatically increase their effective range. We have developed and redeveloped compound bows to the point of dramatic increases on effective range.

These are the “Captain Obvious “ facts. If you are in denial of these base facts in this discussion then you are talking with your head stuck in a dark stinky place.

^^^THIS^^^^
People need to recognize that the archery and muzzleloader hunts were implemented to create more opportunities and spread hunters out into different seasons. The dates of the archery and muzzleloader hunts provided some advantages over the rifle hunt, but these advantages would be offset by weapon limitations.

 

[slamdunk]

^^^THIS^^^^
People need to recognize that the archery and muzzleloader hunts were implemented to create more opportunities and spread hunters out into different seasons. The dates of the archery and muzzleloader hunts provided some advantages over the rifle hunt, but these advantages would be offset by weapon limitations.

Don't complicate things please, they are purposely try to not understand.

 

[Bigwiffy]

Moving from compounds to recurves is stupid on these "test" units. Remove sliders if you must, but going to stickbows is ridiculous. Also it's ridiculous that some think an 80+ yard shot is routine.

 

[gundog2]

Don't complicate things please, they are purposely try to not understand.

I get that

 

[hossblur]

The only data they have to go on. What data are you using when you say this is about saving more bucks? If you have some I'd love to see it.

None. My opinion is a few more bucks at the end of season could equal a couple next year.



I'm an opportunist. Like you said, I agree.

I'll use whatever they want, I just want the tag.

But the "data" that keeps getting talked about, is pretty poor data considering how few entries there are

 

[slamdunk]

Moving from compounds to recurves is stupid on these "test" units. Remove sliders if you must, but going to stickbows is ridiculous. Also it's ridiculous that some think an 80+ yard shot is routine.

I thought that very thing myself.
Archery is restricted enough by it's own nature.

 

[roadrunner]

The only data they have to go on. What data are you using when you say this is about saving more bucks? If you have some I'd love to see it.

Is the data used "clean" or "dirty"?

If the data being used is "dirty", it's not a good data set, the sample size is too small. It's also inconsistent because it doesn't take into account other vaiables.

For the data to be valid or "clean", the same hunters surveyed the year before scopes were allowed needed to be the same group of hunters the years after scopes were allowed.

It may also not take into account that before scopes, just any buck (even a "pisscutter") would do, but as scopes became more widely used, the dynamic shifted to more quality over quantity.

If UT is using "dirty" data to make a decision, the wrong decision is likely going to be made...

 

[Ballistic]

"I 100% agree that scope removal on muzzleloaders was not about curbing future tech."

How in the world can you come up with this statement?
My mind is now officially blown.....

Slam
Have variable power scopes been allowed on muzzleloaders in utah since 2016? That’s not future tech -been here for 8 years almost. 1x scopes many years before.

The future tech (electronics ban) great work - it really didn’t explode until recently.

I will respectively and nicely ask you to explain this……. I’m trying to find some middle ground.
Thank You.

 

[Airborne]

Moving from compounds to recurves is stupid on these "test" units. Remove sliders if you must, but going to stickbows is ridiculous. Also it's ridiculous that some think an 80+ yard shot is routine.

How bout no release aids, just fingers?

 

[Simpleton]

None. My opinion is a few more bucks at the end of season could equal a couple next year.



I'm an opportunist. Like you said, I agree.

I'll use whatever they want, I just want the tag.

But the "data" that keeps getting talked about, is pretty poor data considering how few entries there are

I agree the data isn't complete, but my opinion is that it is better than having none.

I am like you, an opportunist. I appreciate the response.

 

[hossblur]

I agree the data isn't complete, but my opinion is that it is better than having none.

I am like you, an opportunist. I appreciate the response.

I totally disagree.

Example.

I hunt Manti. There's traditionally a check station in Mona or Santaquin. One in Spanish fork canyon. So no deer is checked by anyone who lives in Sanpete county.l, most of Juab, Emery,. That's just north... not sure where the check is south.

So the locals, in that unit, contribute nothing to checks, so then it's up to random calls and hoping folks respond.

There's no age class data. No health data. No CWD data.

Bad data in, bad conclusions out.

 

[Simpleton]

I totally disagree.

Example.

I hunt Manti. There's traditionally a check station in Mona or Santaquin. One in Spanish fork canyon. So no deer is checked by anyone who lives in Sanpete county.l, most of Juab, Emery,. That's just north... not sure where the check is south.

So the locals, in that unit, contribute nothing to checks, so then it's up to random calls and hoping folks respond.

There's no age class data. No health data. No CWD data.

Bad data in, bad conclusions out.

Potentially. Just because the data is limited doesn't automatically make it incorrect. It could be, but the data they have is still data and has a better statistical probability of being reflective of the larger group than having zero data and guessing.

That's like saying because some people may not be truthful in their surveys/harvest reports that we shouldn't do them at all for fear of using "bad" data. We would be much better off using NO DATA. I'll take limited data over no data.

 

[JakeH]

Let's put it this way, the DWR'S Profesional statatition believes the data samples they have collected are large enough to extrapolate out to get conclusive data.

I will take that over your guys opinions on the subject.

Next year there will be 100% harvest surveys, push this decision out a year or two, to see if there is a significant change in the numbers. If there is, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion on this matter.

 

[elkassassin]

80 Yards Is NOT Routine!

When You Start Admitting To 100+ Yards CHIME Back In Wiff!

Moving from compounds to recurves is stupid on these "test" units. Remove sliders if you must, but going to stickbows is ridiculous. Also it's ridiculous that some think an 80+ yard shot is routine.

 

[elkassassin]

But?

How Many Of The Hossy's & The Niller's Are Gonna Fib A Little On Harvest Data In Hopes Of More Tags Being Issued For OPPOR-F'N-TUNISTS?

Pull Them Panties Up Tight Boys!

Let's put it this way, the DWR'S Profesional statatition believes the data samples they have collected are large enough to extrapolate out to get conclusive data.

I will take that over your guys opinions on the subject.

Next year there will be 100% harvest surveys, push this decision out a year or two, to see if there is a significant change in the numbers. If there is, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion on this matter.

 

[slamdunk]

I can assure you all this.....
Not a single person on the 12 member committee stood up and stated things in opposition like I am reading here on this forum.......not one.

 

[slamdunk]

Let's put it this way, the DWR'S Profesional statatition believes the data samples they have collected are large enough to extrapolate out to get conclusive data.

I will take that over your guys opinions on the subject.

Next year there will be 100% harvest surveys, push this decision out a year or two, to see if there is a significant change in the numbers. If there is, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion on this matter.

I respect that Jake, and I look forward to the new mandatory reporting and excited to see data either way it falls.

Having said that, this STILL IS NOT about harvest rates, it's about keeping the muzzleloader hunt somewhat where it was meant to be.

Please for the love of God, let's understand and comprehend this and get over the "data" comments as the main drive for this proposal!!!!

 

[roadrunner]

I respect that Jake, and I look forward to the new mandatory reporting and excited to see data either way it falls.

Having said that, this STILL IS NOT about harvest rates, it's about keeping the muzzleloader hunt somewhat where it was meant to be.

Please for the love of God, let's understand and comprehend this and get over the "data" comments as the main drive for this proposal!!!!

But the harvest data has been a talking point on the efficacy of scopes vs no scopes. If it were merely a matter of keeping a muzzleloader hunt in the true fashion of a muzzleloader hunt, the no scope rule would already decided and would be put into effect next year.

Let's put it this way, the DWR'S Profesional statatition believes the data samples they have collected are large enough to extrapolate out to get conclusive data.

I will take that over your guys opinions on the subject.

Next year there will be 100% harvest surveys, push this decision out a year or two, to see if there is a significant change in the numbers. If there is, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion on this matter.

The data set would only show days in the field and tags filled. Unless the question on scope use was asked, a data set can be as large as possible and still not conclusivly mean anything. There needed to be a control and the effects of the intervention, in this case, scope use. Without that it, the interpretation is speculative at best.

If the data used was adequate, then mandatory harvest going forward is meaningless in this regard and is only accurate to be used for population management purposes...

 

[slamdunk]

Slam
Have variable power scopes been allowed on muzzleloaders in utah since 2016? That’s not future tech -been here for 8 years almost. 1x scopes many years before.

The future tech (electronics ban) great work - it really didn’t explode until recently.

I will respectively and nicely ask you to explain this……. I’m trying to find some middle ground.
Thank You.

No, you are correct, scopes aren't "emerged technology.
But......without them, the "emerged technology is rendered completely useless, that's the point.

We discussed all the different components available today and what was available in 2016.
The law enforcement didn't want to tackle individual components like sabots, high BC projectiles, different powders or even ignition systems.
Restrictions in the optics was the low hanging fruit and the whole cause for the birth of today's components and what will be coming down the pipe to reach even farther.

Anyone who reads this simple one click find on the web and can still tell us with honesty and integrity that a scoped muzzleloader with today's technology isn't changing the way the muzzleloader season was intended to be, I'll eat your hats.

Custom Muzzleloader - Long Range Muzzleloader - Muzzle Loader: Ultimate Firearms

 

[elkassassin]

Can Somebody SPLAIN This?

When I Was Younger!

SABOT'S Were FLAT-ASS Outlawed!

Then Years Later It Was Fine & Legal To Use Them?

Just Wondering Who & How They Became Legal?

We Gonna Need A Committee On This?

 

[JakeH]

I respect that Jake, and I look forward to the new mandatory reporting and excited to see data either way it falls.

Having said that, this STILL IS NOT about harvest rates, it's about keeping the muzzleloader hunt somewhat where it was meant to be.

Please for the love of God, let's understand and comprehend this and get over the "data" comments as the main drive for this proposal!!!!

If it's not about harvest rates, or any other biological impact THEN WHY DO IT?????

I get the point you are trying to make, but why? So the old hats can "have it how it used to be" The DWR said this was about keeping it as a unique experience, in my mind it still is a very unique experience, and can be made even more unique if you want to limit yourself any way you choose by hunting the way you want to hunt.

This is totally about some people wanting to control how others hunt. Nothing more.

This is an social issue that is being driven by pure emotion, and not by data. I don't like changing things based off of people's emotions.

 

[JakeH]

@slamdunk

Slam, quick question, I'm sure you have told us in the past, but at the very beginning when you guys started talking about this, Did you take a vote on this, and what was the results of the vote?

 

[slamdunk]

If it's not about harvest rates, or any other biological impact THEN WHY DO IT?????

I get the point you are trying to make, but why? So the old hats can "have it how it used to be" The DWR said this was about keeping it as a unique experience, in my mind it still is a very unique experience, and can be made even more unique if you want to limit yourself any way you choose by hunting the way you want to hunt.

This is totally about some people wanting to control how others hunt. Nothing more.

This is an social issue that is being driven by pure emotion, and not by data. I don't like changing things based off of people's emotions.

Why are you personally against how someone regulates our or your hunting?
If there weren't regulations, where would be be?
It took us to thousands of trail cams, piles of apples, dozens of spotters surrounding animals, etc, etc.....where does it end Jake?

Is there something wrong with keeping a limited hunt limited?

Do we really expect to be successful on these limited or restricted hunts? a
Are we really that entitled especially these days when deer numbers are the lowest they've probably ever been?

 

[JakeH]

Why are you personally against how someone regulates our or your hunting?
If there weren't regulations, where would be be?
It took us to thousands of trail cams, piles of apples, dozens of spotters surrounding animals, etc, etc.....where does it end Jake?

Regulations are good when they are needed, but Regulations just to regulate because some people don't like the way some others are doing something is not OK in my book.

Is there something wrong with keeping a limited hunt limited?

It still is a limited hunt, just not as limited as some want it to be.

Do we really expect to be successful on these limited or restricted hunts? a
Are we really that entitled especially these days when deer numbers are the lowest they've probably ever been?

Entitled??? Is what is Entitled is pulling scopes from people because "your group" doesn't like it, especially if there is no biological impact because of it.

And come on Slam, you can't be on both sides of this coin, you just said in your last post this wasn't about saving deer, in fact you have said it probably 100 times.

Our problems with the deer herds HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A SCOPE ON A MUZZLELOADER! If we fix the real problems with our deer herds, then we wouldn't even be talking about this.

 

[falcon63]

Yes, you are correct.
I've really felt a lot more confident with mine sine I upgraded from a 1x red dot to a 4x12 tactical

There's a lot of ground that could be used in the scope world between a 1X and a 4 x 12 tactical. 4X, 6X, max. This would be an easier sell in my opinion and reasonable, since success rate data doesn't support a total ban. I can't remember exactly where I read it, but they are trying to establish low success rates so they can sell more tags ($$) and supposedly offer more opportunity. Offering a low success opportunity just doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Deerlove]

What data are you pointing to? The wild ass guesses of success based on a handful of check stations and a few phone calls?

If Scopes are removed quality won't go down? It's absurd

Why are you personally against how someone regulates our or your hunting?
If there weren't regulations, where would be be?
It took us to thousands of trail cams, piles of apples, dozens of spotters surrounding animals, etc, etc.....where does it end Jake?

Is there something wrong with keeping a limited hunt limited?

Do we really expect to be successful on these limited or restricted hunts? a
Are we really that entitled especially these days when deer numbers are the lowest they've probably ever been?

Can't argue with any of that slam how about we just keep them from General Muzzy elk hunt?

 

[MrShane]

But?

How Many Of The Hossy's & The Niller's Are Gonna Fib A Little On Harvest Data In Hopes Of More Tags Being Issued For OPPOR-F'N-TUNISTS?

Pull Them Panties Up Tight Boys!

No, you are correct, scopes aren't "emerged technology.
But......without them, the "emerged technology is rendered completely useless, that's the point.

We discussed all the different components available today and what was available in 2016.
The law enforcement didn't want to tackle individual components like sabots, high BC projectiles, different powders or even ignition systems.
Restrictions in the optics was the low hanging fruit and the whole cause for the birth of today's components and what will be coming down the pipe to reach even farther.

Anyone who reads this simple one click find on the web and can still tell us with honesty and integrity that a scoped muzzleloader with today's technology isn't changing the way the muzzleloader season was intended to be, I'll eat your hats.

Custom Muzzleloader - Long Range Muzzleloader - Muzzle Loader: Ultimate Firearms

Very sad that individual components were not discussed.
That is really what would have made the experience different.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

You know what.
They should have never ever allowed scopes period. You all know this you know what kind of hunt this supposed to be.

If the success rate went up only up 2.5%.

Then what the hell is the problem then. That means it won’t change much with them off either.
Really that’s your angle. sorry better come up with something better.

We all know dam good and well this is supposed to be a challenging hunt. If you want to use scopes then any weapon hunt is where you can use them.

Ballistic will say why in earth would you use one on an any weapon hunt.
Well simple. Look above look at all the push back. It shouldn’t be an issue.

But holy cow the board is reading every single one of these post. Yes I know they are.
If the comments are anything like the trail camera comments then sorry scopes are gone.

 

[MrShane]

You know what.
They should have never ever allowed scopes period. You all know this you know what kind of hunt this supposed to be.

If the success rate went up only up 2.5% then what the hell is the problem then that means it won’t change much with them off either.
Really that’s your angle. sorry better come up with something better.
We all know dam good and well this is supposed to be a challenging hunt. If you want to use scopes then any weapon hunt is where you can use them.

Ballistic will say why in earth would you use one on an any weapon hunt.
Well simple. Look above look at all the push back. It shouldn’t be an issue.

But holy cow the board is reading every single one of these post and I know they are If the comments are anything like the trail camera comments then sorry scopes are gone.

If the board is reading every one of these then here goes:
Dear Board,
Please, please, please just cut and paste Idaho’s muzzy regs in for Utah already and stop this madness.
The End.

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

If the board is reading every one of these then here goes:
Dear Board,
Please, please, please just cut and paste Idaho’s muzzy regs in for Utah already and stop this madness.
The End.

Right. Then they really would have something to complain about.

 

[elkassassin]

WE ARE ALL GUILTY OF TECHNOLOGY OF SOME SORT OR ANOTHER!

WE ARE ALL GUILTY!

I'M NOT AGAINST A TAKE!

BUT TAKE EQUALLY FROM EVERY F'N WEAPON TYPE!

I WOULDA USED THE WORD 'FAIR' BUT ONCE AGAIN PANTIES AROUND HERE GET WOUND TIGHT!

IF YOU'RE GONNA TAKE SMOKEPOLE SCOPES TAKE EM!

WHEN YOU DO,TAKE THE LONG RANGERS RIFLES AS WELL!

WHEN YOU DO, TAKE THE COMPOUNDS AWAY FROM STICKFLIPPERS!

IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA TAKE EQUALLY,DON'T TAKE AT ALL!

IT'LL TAKE A HELL OF ALOT MORE THAN BANNING SMOKEPOLE SCOPES TO IMPROVE THE DEER HERD!

 

[Elkrunning-Scared]

WE ARE ALL GUILTY OF TECHNOLOGY OF SOME SORT OR ANOTHER!

WE ARE ALL GUILTY!

I'M NOT AGAINST A TAKE!

BUT TAKE EQUALLY FROM EVERY F'N WEAPON TYPE!

I WOULDA USED THE WORD 'FAIR' BUT ONCE AGAIN PANTIES AROUND HERE GET WOUND TIGHT!

IF YOU'RE GONNA TAKE SMOKEPOLE SCOPES TAKE EM!

WHEN YOU DO,TAKE THE LONG RANGERS RIFLES AS WELL!

WHEN YOU DO, TAKE THE COMPOUNDS AWAY FROM STICKFLIPPERS!

IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA TAKE EQUALLY,DON'T TAKE AT ALL!

IT'LL TAKE A HELL OF ALOT MORE THAN BANNING SMOKEPOLE SCOPES TO IMPROVE THE DEER HERD!

Too be fair? They should of never allowed scopes on them and you know it.