Tech #3 Data

[Elkslayer2015]

Wow you guys are unbelievable.
Say we did nothing did a survey for the next 3 years.

It’s pretty dam obvious that people will lie just to keep them.

I don’t need any data at this point. It is obvious technology has gotten out of hand.

 

[Elkslayer2015]

Can you supply us with data that show they are. Also please supply the data that shows if a few do get past the muzzleloader hunt because of your change how many of those will survive the rifle hunt.

Can you supply us data that there not. Yeah I didn’t think so.

 

[curlycoyote]

Can you supply us data that there not. Yeah I didn’t think so.

Can you supply us data that they are. Yeah I didn't think so. LMAO
And yes there has already been data put on these threads that show there was really no increase in harvest after the scope regs. were changed.

 

[slamdunk]

Can you supply us with data that show they are. Also please supply the data that shows if a few do get past the muzzleloader hunt because of your change how many of those will survive the rifle hunt.

Refer to post #8

 

[slamdunk]

What was the selection process to be appointed to this committee?

I cannot quote their exact process, but all committees are derived from a vast array of people with varying backgrounds from biologists, law enforcement, outfitters, special interest, all the way to average hunters, including lawyers for legality codes.

 

[Elkslayer2015]

Can you supply us data that they are. Yeah I didn't think so. LMAO
And yes there has already been data put on these threads that show there was really no increase in harvest after the scope regs. were changed.

I don’t need to supply anything to anyone on here.Do you realize that data is not actual data.

In order to get accurate data on harvest success you have to get it from all tag holders. So nobody knows not even the DWR.
But at this point and after what I have seen.
The DWR is finding out very quick that technology is getting out of hand because if it wasn’t then people wouldn’t be defending it so hard.

 

[twopointdn]

Just wondering what you and the committee said about all the money and time folks put in when the scopes became legal. I can guarantee you that no one thought that some committee would come along and change it back. I have a hunch it went something like tuff sh** it was their choice.

Do you think a 4x, 6x or even a 3X9 scope a new technology?

After watching the WB meeting at the time when they made the changes to allow variable power scopes on muzzleloader, I left my 1x scope on for a few years as a form of personal protest. Right after the change to allow variable power scopes a friend of mine built a custom muzzleloader with a capability of 1000 yards accuracy which validated to me the naïve comments of the WB chair at the time of passing the motion to allow variable power scopes on muzzleloaders. It did not matter what I thought of the WB’s decision that was backed by nothing let alone data to support what they did then. There was no need to change then and now everyone wants data to support going back to what it once was. When I removed my 1x scope I put it in a special place because I knew this day would come. They crossed a line they should not have then and the dust never settled so now they are dealing with it. I like being within a range that the animal I am pursuing still has some of their natural defenses to win the challenges of hunting them, beyond that it is just shooting targets to me, no different than paper or steel. I have hunted animals and I have shot targets (animals) and I have my preference of what I prefer. That is just my thoughts and everyone has their thoughts as well which makes issues like this complicated. Whatever way they go with this, life goes on for me and everyone else just like last time they changed what was allowed during the muzzleloader season.

 

[slamdunk]

After watching the WB meeting at the time when they made the changes to allow variable power scopes on muzzleloader, I left my 1x scope on for a few years as a form of personal protest. Right after the change to allow variable power scopes a friend of mine built a custom muzzleloader with a capability of 1000 yards accuracy which validated to me the naïve comments of the WB chair at the time of passing the motion to allow variable power scopes on muzzleloaders. It did not matter what I thought of the WB’s decision that was backed by nothing let alone data to support what they did then. There was no need to change then and now everyone wants data to support going back to what it once was. When I removed my 1x scope I put it in a special place because I knew this day would come. They crossed a line they should not have then and the dust never settled so now they are dealing with it. I like being within a range that the animal I am pursuing still has some of their natural defenses to win the challenges of hunting them, beyond that it is just shooting targets to me, no different than paper or steel. I have hunted animals and I have shot targets (animals) and I have my preference of what I prefer. That is just my thoughts and everyone has their thoughts as well which makes issues like this complicated. Whatever way they go with this, life goes on for me and everyone else just like last time they changed what was allowed during the muzzleloader season.

Excellent post, thank you.

 

[curlycoyote]

I don’t need to supply anything to anyone on here.Do you realize that data is not actual data.

In order to get accurate data on harvest success you have to get it from all tag holders. So nobody knows not even the DWR.
But at this point and after what I have seen.
The DWR is finding out very quick that technology is getting out of hand because if it wasn’t then people wouldn’t be defending it so hard.

You don't need to but you want others to supply it. That's rich. You are entitled to your opinion right or wrong I will respect that. Folks my be defending it because they believe that it will not make a difference. Again same as you they/we are entitled to our opinion right or wrong. I believe at first folks thought the change was about number of bucks not getting killed but it became apparent that it was about BIG bucks not getting killed. Again I have asked and it has not be answered if a few do get through how many of them will survive the rifle hunt. What is the net gain.

Slam had already made up his mind and probably the committee had also when these threads were started. Every time someone posted in favor of removing them he gave a thumbs up or said great post. Ever time someone thought different he answered with a question or disagreement. Not sure why any of us were asked our opinion. That is why we seen three different threads, he was just trying to get support for his vote. It is what it is. I am done with this because it does no good, they are going to recommend to take them away so we will see what happens. It will be interesting to see if they do a survey and over 50% say leave it alone if they will change it anyway. Hope you have a great season this fall.

Twopointdn I read your post before I posted this. It is my opinion that 99.99% did not see the reverse. Good for you but you still changed. If they change it then I will deal with it and go on. Like I said above it did not take long for Slam to give you a thumbs up and that's ok we know what he wants I just don't know why he asked anyone their opinion in the first place, no one was going to change his mind. Hope you and slam have great seasons also. I am done.

 

[slamdunk]

@curlycoyote
My opinion on muzzleloader scopes hasn't changed since the inception of the current allowance, I didn't want to see it change the way the muzzleloading hunt was originally meant for...."a primitive type weapon with very limited killing range" and fewer hunters afield.
Technology has turned it into an early season single shot rifle hunt.

There is one reason and one reason only for a variable scope on any weapon......longer accuracy.

I can assure you there are committee members who wanted scopes completely removed, but the compromised vote was 1x.

You are correct in my "great post" comments, feel free to say I am guilty of promoting my stance on that particular change, I appreciate others who also understand the proposal for the betterment of the bigger picture overall.

You have several opportunities to dispute it with RAC's and to the WB going forward.

 

[curlycoyote]

@curlycoyote
My opinion on muzzleloader scopes hasn't changed since the inception of the current allowance, I didn't want to see it change the way the muzzleloading hunt was originally meant for...."a primitive type weapon with very limited killing range" and fewer hunters afield.
Technology has turned it into an early season single shot rifle hunt.

There is one reason and one reason only for a variable scope on any weapon......longer accuracy.

I can assure you there are committee members who wanted scopes completely removed, but the compromised vote was 1x.

You are correct in my "great post" comments, feel free to say I am guilty of promoting my stance on that particular change, I appreciate others who also understand the proposal for the betterment of the bigger picture overall.

You have several opportunities to dispute it with RAC's and to the WB going forward.

I respect that and thanks for your honest answer. If it changes back it will not be the end of my world. Have a great season.

 

[slamdunk]

I respect that and thanks for your honest answer. If it changes back it will not be the end of my world. Have a great season.

Thank you kind Sir, and good luck to your season as well.

 

[slamdunk]

One thing that some people aren't understanding when I say, and the mission statement may not be saying more clearly, is that "increased opportunity" doesn't mean these changes will immediately put more hunters in the field, it's for future outlooks.

As many pointed out about the data not showing increased success, we certainly can't be presumptuous and assume success will drop by 10% and therefore increase tag numbers by 10%.

 

[roadrunner]

I cannot quote their exact process, but all committees are derived from a vast array of people with varying backgrounds from biologists, law enforcement, outfitters, special interest, all the way to average hunters, including lawyers for legality codes.

How did a youth get selected? It certainly can't just be a random draw.

 

[Sparks Shooter]

How about we do away with the 'general' muzzleloader season and give the deer a break between Archery and Rifle. Take the Muzzy tags and give 50% back to the general archery pool and add 10% to the LE late muzzy hunts on general units. Change the rule on all muzzy hunts to require loose powder, open sights, and conical bullets only....a true 'primitive' hunt.

This is coming from a guy that hunts muzzy the majority of the time in Utah. I do it for opportunity but I've never believed that it was anything more than a long-range single shot rifle hunt. Even with open sights, my muzzy is really deadly out to 200 yards, has 100% ignition, is made of weather-resistant modern material, and can be shot over a dozen times without needing cleaning. It is every bit as effective as a single-shot 45-70.

Back to my original point. I think giving the deer a break would be much more effective than focusing solely on equipment restrictions. Plus, I think the REAL muzzy guys should get a chance to pack their old-school front-stuffers around making smoke and missing deer.------SS

 

[slamdunk]

How did a youth get selected? It certainly can't just be a random draw.

I don't personally know him or how he was selected.

 

[roadrunner]

I don't personally know him or how he was selected.

Seems odd that the majority of the people on this committee are like-minded.

Maybe it's more convenient...

 

[340Wby]

Excellent post, thank you.

Only because he agree’s with your opinion. On this board alone there is more opposition in removing scopes than there is in support. How many folks actually have these super muzzleloaders being discussed? Really, how many tags are given to muzzleloader hunters? Far less than any of the other methods so what is going to change other than a few folks thumping chests about how relevant and righteous they are because they changed something they didn’t believe in.

Nobody is saying you can’t put a 1x scope on your muzzy, nobody is saying you can use lead balls instead of conicals, nobody is saying you can’t save or go into debt to purchase one of these super muzzy’s— what gives you the right to restrict others who are legally pursuing thier passion because your opinion is different?

Did you tell your other committee members how unethical they were in taking those 500 yard shots? So many things wrong with the recommendations—— still haven’t pointed to the benefits, what does it reap? And again I’m not a muzzy hunter. I do firmly believe that if technology is restricted in one method there should be restrictions on all- see how that goes......

 

[slamdunk]

Only because he agree’s with your opinion. On this board alone there is more opposition in removing scopes than there is in support. How many folks actually have these super muzzleloaders being discussed? Really, how many tags are given to muzzleloader hunters? Far less than any of the other methods so what is going to change other than a few folks thumping chests about how relevant and righteous they are because they changed something they didn’t believe in.

Nobody is saying you can’t put a 1x scope on your muzzy, nobody is saying you can use lead balls instead of conicals, nobody is saying you can’t save or go into debt to purchase one of these super muzzy’s— what gives you the right to restrict others who are legally pursuing thier passion because your opinion is different?

Did you tell your other committee members how unethical they were in taking those 500 yard shots? So many things wrong with the recommendations—— still haven’t pointed to the benefits, what does it reap? And again I’m not a muzzy hunter. I do firmly believe that if technology is restricted in one method there should be restrictions on all- see how that goes......

All weapons are being discussed, that has been very clear in all 4 threads.

 

[slamdunk]

Seems odd that the majority of the people on this committee are like-minded.

Maybe it's more convenient...

They most certainly aren't......

 

[roadrunner]

They most certainly aren't......

Yet they all agree on the removal of magnifying scopes...

 

[slamdunk]

Yet they all agree on the removal of magnifying scopes...

Contact the WB members and or attend a RAC for your recommendations.

 

[roadrunner]

Contact the WB members and or attend a RAC for your recommendations.

I've contacted a committee member with a recommendation. You and a fixed 3x scope.

 

[slamdunk]

I've contacted a committee member with a recommendation. You and a fixed 3x scope.

I passed on the concerns that 1x actually reduces normal eyesight and there was agreance, but also agreance that anything else available on the market increased power.

 

[roadrunner]

I passed on the concerns that 1x actually reduces normal eyesight and there was agreance, but also agreance that anything else available on the market increased power.

That was a dodging response if I ever heard one...

 

[JakeH]

I passed on the concerns that 1x actually reduces normal eyesight and there was agreance, but also agreance that anything else available on the market increased power.

There are a lot of 1-4x scopes with 20mm lenses on the market, this to me would have been an actual compromise.

I have been in favor of the removal of scopes recently, but one thing that bothers me and has caused me to change my position a little is the data you presented that showed absolutely no change in success rate since scopes we're allowed.

You can call out the data's accuracy all you want but you can't really refute it as it is all we have.

To be fair, going back to the 1x is not a compromise, you can't go back to how it used to be and just because there was a few people on the committee that wanted no scope at all call it a compromise to go back to what it used to be.

A true compromise would have been to allow some magnification but limited it to a certain magnification, and like I said there is actually a large and growing market of low power scopes that are really designed for AR applications that could support that kind of compromise.

That's just my opinion.

 

[elkassassin]

And If We Go With A Maximum of 4X Power on a SmokePole!

Rifle Scopes Need To Be A Maximum of 6X Power!

No Turrets That Stand 1-1/2" Above The Scope!

Archery/Bows a Maximum of 175 fps!

No Sliders!

That Oughta Piss The Pope Off!

 

[roadrunner]

And If We Go With A Maximum of 4X Power on a SmokePole!

Rifle Scopes Need To Be A Maximum of 6X Power!

No Turrets That Stand 1-1/2" Above The Scope!

Archery/Bows a Maximum of 175 fps!

No Sliders!

That Oughta Piss The Pope Off!

You'd almost think that the "decision makers" have stock in all the companies that will now ramp up production for 1X scopes...

 

[slamdunk]

There are a lot of 1-4x scopes with 20mm lenses on the market, this to me would have been an actual compromise.

I have been in favor of the removal of scopes recently, but one thing that bothers me and has caused me to change my position a little is the data you presented that showed absolutely no change in success rate since scopes we're allowed.

You can call out the data's accuracy all you want but you can't really refute it as it is all we have.

To be fair, going back to the 1x is not a compromise, you can't go back to how it used to be and just because there was a few people on the committee that wanted no scope at all call it a compromise to go back to what it used to be.

A true compromise would have been to allow some magnification but limited it to a certain magnification, and like I said there is actually a large and growing market of low power scopes that are really designed for AR applications that could support that kind of compromise.

That's just my opinion.

Great post Jake and I like your thought process on this.

In all fairness, it was talked about very shortly but didn't catch much steam.

For the sake of this argument, I am going to start another thread on Muzzleloaders in specific and try to better explain why this is even being discussed at a committee level to begin with.

I know I'll get the same backlash, but I will do my best.

 

[elkassassin]

Hey rr!

Everything Will Be Fine For a While!

I Have Several I Could Sell!

Alot Of People I Guess Think They're Giving You Some Kind Of Special With a F'N 1X Scope!

You'd almost think that the "decision makers" have stock in all the companies that will now ramp up production for 1X scopes...

 

[Muley-Man]

Im for variable power scopes. My reasons are with my experience of muzzleloader hunting..1 my eye site isn’t the greatest and a scope aids me in making my shot affective and accurate.
2 tag #s allocated are so small compared to rifle hunts and hunters carrying a gun that is capable of shooting over 350 yrds accurately with enough energy is a very small percentage still at this day and age. I have used many muzzleloaders one being the famed Remington uml. Then upgraded to a custom gun from a well know Gun maker only because the accuracy greater and more forgiving.
3 most hunters who have spent the money on these custom guns are not out to kill whatever they can get a shot at. They want to seal the deal on a mature buck when that chance happens. This day and age that don’t come along that often. And most of these hunters respect the animal enough they aren’t gonna take a long shot they know could potentially wound the animal or miss and blow them out of a area. Me personally that is why I went custom have had it for 5 years and have only killed one deer at 220 yrds. Had plenty of opportunity on decent bucks but chose to pass for bigger.
4 why are we talking about something that will do next to nothing for herd. We have 2 rifle hunts one that starts right after the muzzleloader hunt closes on a lot of units why are we not talking about this hunt? That’s 14 days of rifle hunting. Why are we not talking about possibly a shorter archery hunt rather than damn near 30 days. To me they’re are things a lot deeper than this topic.
I agree something has to be done with our deer herds but personally believe road kill, poaching, why are we chaining every peice of land we can get a dozer on. Habitat, encroachment into winter grounds. We need areas for them to get water. Why are we fighting each other when we should be coming together. Maybe they’re are wins for everybody on this subject like maybe limit the range the scope can be magnified to. Like the old 3-9 or 4x. It seems like a double edge sword we go open sites or1x and people take shots to 300 yrds at something cuz we all know when that moment comes and buck fever kicks in we are gonna try at times and potentially wounding and some will move on to the next animal cuz they have a unnotched tag or a sufficient scope to make a 300 yrd shot effectively and not have so many animals potentially wounded.

 

[roadrunner]

Im for variable power scopes. My reasons are with my experience of muzzleloader hunting..1 my eye site isn’t the greatest and a scope aids me in making my shot affective and accurate.

I was told to take up another form of hunting, just like the bowhunter that can no longer draw a bow...

 

[Muley-Man]

I was told to take up another form of hunting, just like the bowhunter that can no longer draw a bow...

No they’re is the ability with a doctors note for a crossbow…I see lots of hunters that are “physically immobile” and some that truly are we don’t limit them from hunting out of a vehicle and sure isn’t right to tell them to take up a different form of hunting.All I’m saying is we should have a win win or a will to compromise.

 

[roadrunner]

No they’re is the ability with a doctors note for a crossbow…I see lots of hunters that are “physically immobile” and some that truly are we don’t limit them from hunting out of a vehicle and sure isn’t right to tell them to take up a different form of hunting.All I’m saying is we should have a win win or a will to compromise.

I was told by the father of these threads that a bowhunter would have to take up a different form if they could no longer draw a bow. Just like if (we) can't see at distance like we could a decade or two ago with open sights, we'd have to take up cheater hunting...

 

[Muley-Man]

I was told by the father of these threads that a bowhunter would have to take up a different form if they could no longer draw a bow. Just like if (we) can't see at distance like we could a decade or two ago with open sights, we'd have to take up cheater hunting...

Father of these threads? yea he has his opinion but I don’t agree