@slamdunk what are the definitions you/they are using, or plan to use for each weapon type? What is primitive archery, what is current archery, and what do you classify as future archery technology? I appreciate the PM you sent as well.
You're welcome Wiff, any time.
I like this question as well in regards to defining weapons.
Honestly, I was expecting a very long bloody battle over trying to define primitive versus modern.
Just as I pointed out a few times already, I believe (based off this committees response) Utah will stay relatively relaxed on archery and muzzleloaders in comparison to our surrounding states.
Several archers gave opinions on the available add ons and their effectiveness to extend ranges of an arrows ability to humanely kill a big game animal.
It was collectively agreed and voted upon that an arrow is still fired from a bow on a string and archery equipment is still a "short range" weapon.
Nothing will ever make an arrow effectively and accurately reach 200 yards simply due to natural elements.
Yes there will always be hale mary idiots out there, but unlike a muzzleloader bullet, an arrow is still a short range projectile.
Having said that, the committee voted a proposal to leave archery equipment alone other than anything electronic that aids in the killing of a big game animal such as a Garmin style sight for the sake of keeping it somewhat "primitive".
Lighted knocks were left alone because they aid in recovery.
Mechanical broadheads were discussed, but also dismissed.
Muzzleloaders were obviously hit on very hard, as they are seeing the most advancements out of the three.
Surrounding states muzzleloader criteria were studied and considered.
The vast amount of components available, powders, bullets, primers, etc, etc were all looked at but determined it is the magnification on optics that are driving the abilities to go further out than what a muzzleloader was initially intended to do.
Therefore this committee voted a proposal to limit scopes back to 1x but leave components alone.
As for defining it as primitive or modern, the committee voted a proposal to have HAMS hunts "scope free" on muzzleloading rifles as to define it as "primitive".
Rifles and other technology will be discussed in our next meeting.
People wanting my personal stance on these?
The archery and the muzzleloaders went exactly how I felt about them, but I would have been happy with no scopes on muzzleloaders, but I also can choose open sights at will, obviously.
I personally feel it was a good compromise.
As for rifles, until someone changes my mind, rifles were designed and intended as a long range weapon.
What I do not like is electronics on and inside scopes that automatically tell you your ballistics and where to hold.
It is quickly becoming a "aim and kill" game that completely removes our shooting skills and knowledge of both weapon and ballistics and turns an average or even below average skilled shooter into a long range military sniper.
Maybe I'm just old school, but I like to range it, do a quick equation and use my time on the range to make my shot.
Let's be realistic here.
We cannot legally limit ranges in which a specific weapon can attempt a kill shot.
People are always going to "lob" whatever they are shooting, but we can get back to using our natural abilities and our weapons abilities without completely tossing ethics and fair chase out the window of each weapon and season.
