Utah Muzzy Scope Controversy

slamdunk

Moderator
Messages
10,389
I know we are all getting burned out on this muzzleloader scope proposal, so this is my final attempt to help explain why the WB summoned a committee for current and emerging technology in the first place.
This thread is about muzzleloaders and that specific hunting season only.

When it was suggested by the RAC in approximately 2014 to allow variable scopes on muzzleloaders through increased public support, there was also heavy push back against it as it could change the dynamics of the hunt, and here we are.

When the data was presented in the second meeting showing only slight spikes in success rates for 2 years, then appearing to settle back to where it was in the 1x days, "Quality" quickly became the critical point over success rates.


let's all be honest here.
People aren't spending $1000 on rifle set ups because they are killing yearling bucks at 100 or even 200 yards, that can be easily done with open sights on an inline rifle.
How many of us old timers remember the backlash in 1985 when inlines hit the market?
I certainly do.
Again, here we are.

"Ethics and Fair Chase"
It's not all about what we currently have in today's world, it's about what will the muzzleloader season look like in 2030 if we don't draw a line on emerging technology.
"Emerging" being the key word.


During the muzzleloader hunt, a weapon and hunt that was originally intended for short to medium ranges.
Is 500 yards still within the realm of fair chase for this specific hunt type?
Is 300?

Look at these examples below and read their selling points to us as consumers.
Screenshot_20220717-152751_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20220717-152713_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20220717-152732_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20220717-152833_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20220717-153926_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20220717-154938_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20220717-155022_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20220717-154439_Chrome.jpg

"200 yards......that description was back in 2014 before we were allowed variables.

"3.5 million model 700's have been sold."
Why so many?

Gunwerks has a 500 yard rifle now that guys are using effectively at double that distance.
Yes it's out of 90% of our price ranges, but so was an 80" TV not long ago.
The more quality goes down, the faster technology develops gadgets for us to still be successful.
"Emerging".

The purpose of the WB's want for a technology committee isn't just about today, it's about our futures.
As I mentioned in another thread, we've already got nanotechnology glass that allows us to see through fog and smoke.
Are we still going to find 500 yard muzzleloader kills through fog ethical and fair chase?
Those terms are already controversial enough.

Hunters evolve, animals do not have that luxury.
Our sport is already under attack from anti-hunting groups, ridiculous technology definitely doesn't help our cause.

And no, the intent of this proposal isn't to flood the hills with thousands of other hunters, that's an absolute absurd conclusion.
How many muzzleloader hunters have we acquired since variable scopes were allowed?
A LOT!!
Why??

In closing.
What is the single most important tool on a muzzleloader that makes all the other components effective and will also keep technology emerging?
The optic.
Limit that one piece, and a muzzleloader remains a medium range weapon for a medium range weapon hunt.

Screenshot_20220717-155229_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
Change the narrative to fit the agenda… nobody knows if quality bucks only were killed…they have no survey’s to prove that.., It’s pretty convenient to say that when at the same time they were claiming huge increases in deer numbers, when they were actually tanking…
I don’t care if they take away scopes in fact please do, but they damn well better take things across the board archery and rifle…
#1 limited entry rifle elk out of the rut..,
 
And no, the intent of this proposal isn't to flood the hills with thousands of other hunters, that's an absolute absurd conclusion.

"Limit success for increased opportunity"

Define increased opportunity. Eliminating the few that have gone all out on sniper smoke poles will hardly make a dent in your decreased success rate. They'll either go elsewhere, or settle for a lesser animal.
 
"Limit success for increased opportunity"

Define increased opportunity. Eliminating the few that have gone all out on sniper smoke poles will hardly make a dent in your decreased success rate. They'll either go elsewhere, or settle for a lesser animal.
There is more to increased opportunity than additional tags.

We've already invited hundreds of hunters on every unit by allowing variable power scopes because it undoubtedly makes that hunt more appealing than it used to be.

Success rates are also complicated by actual hunter numbers.
50 deer killed by 100 hunters is 50%, just as 100 deer killed by 200 hunters.
Obviously a hypothetical example just to simplify.
 
Do not try to appease the anti-hunter in your argument of ethical or Fair Chase. They will never be happy with hunting.

Don't think that just because someone has a 1 X scope they won't try lobbing a 500 yard shot with a muzzleloader. And then don't be surprised if wounding rates go up and 1 shot kill harvests go down.

Leave the scopes on the muzzleloaders. Leave they technology in the hunt. Just because I have these tools and aids, doesn't mean I'm going to be any more successful.

My experience is most big bucks rub their velvet before the muzzleloader hunt and get into the thicker quakies during the muzzleloader hunt anyway.

I guess I'm frustrated with all of the purists out there that criticize one technology while utilizing the heck out of another.
 
Do not try to appease the anti-hunter in your argument of ethical or Fair Chase. They will never be happy with hunting.

Don't think that just because someone has a 1 X scope they won't try lobbing a 500 yard shot with a muzzleloader. And then don't be surprised if wounding rates go up and 1 shot kill harvests go down.

Leave the scopes on the muzzleloaders. Leave they technology in the hunt. Just because I have these tools and aids, doesn't mean I'm going to be any more successful.

My experience is most big bucks rub their velvet before the muzzleloader hunt and get into the thicker quakies during the muzzleloader hunt anyway.

I guess I'm frustrated with all of the purists out there that criticize one technology while utilizing the heck out of another.
Great comments for the RAC and WB, you won't be alone.
 
There is more to increased opportunity than additional tags.

We've already invited hundreds of hunters on every unit by allowing variable power scopes because it undoubtedly makes that hunt more appealing than it used to be.

Success rates are also complicated by actual hunter numbers.
50 deer killed by 100 hunters is 50%, just as 100 deer killed by 200 hunters.
Obviously a hypothetical example just to simplify.

Then why use limiting success and increase opportunity together?

If you want to kill 50 bucks, you can either do it with 50 tags using super-duper smokepoles with a 100% success rate, or, 100 tags using 1X scoped Average Joe setups with a 50% success rate. You decrease success rate by increasing opportunity to hunt to achieve the management quota.

A hypothetical example just to simplify the definition...
 
Full bore lead conical would limit the range too. Too bad that old technology is not very health friendly. So much for technology.
 
When I Was Younger & Got My First Decent Rifle I Though I Was Perty Bad Thinking I Was Capable of 300-350 Yard Shots!

And Now Here We Are with Rifles:

1009 Yard Shot From a Guy That Had Probably Never Fired The Gun Until This 1009 Yard Shot!

(((Maybe He Fired it a Time Or Two I Don't Know?)))

He Did Admit He Is Not a Hunter!

If This Guy Can Make a 1009 Yard Shot!

Guys That Practice Alot Can & Will Shoot Further With Their Long Rangers!

Looked Like The 2nd Shot Hit The Bull in The Back Leg Somewhere!

 
There is more to increased opportunity than additional tags.

We've already invited hundreds of hunters on every unit by allowing variable power scopes because it undoubtedly makes that hunt more appealing than it used to be.

Success rates are also complicated by actual hunter numbers.
50 deer killed by 100 hunters is 50%, just as 100 deer killed by 200 hunters.
Obviously a hypothetical example just to simplify.
Sorry slam but no matter how many you invite there will only be as many hunters in the field as there are permits. You might have more wanting to hunt with a muzzleloader but only those with a permit will be able to do so. And that being said there will be less muzzleloader hunters this year than last year because permit numbers were decreased. The magnification of a scope on a muzzleloader has nothing to do with the number of hunters. And you have said yourself this change is not to be able to add more hunters. Maybe you are talking about the number of folks trying for the muzzleloader tags which decreases your chances of getting one. I that what this is all about?
 
Last edited:
4x is the best compromise.
OK for old eyes and doesn't help at 500yds.

I know if they go back to 1x, i will kill a buck very year. Right now I am probably every 3 or 4 years. I will make sure the rifle guys have 1 less to shoot.
 
When I Was Younger & Got My First Decent Rifle I Though I Was Perty Bad Thinking I Was Capable of 300-350 Yard Shots!

And Now Here We Are with Rifles:

1009 Yard Shot From a Guy That Had Probably Never Fired The Gun Until This 1009 Yard Shot!

(((Maybe He Fired it a Time Or Two I Don't Know?)))

He Did Admit He Is Not a Hunter!

If This Guy Can Make a 1009 Yard Shot!

Guys That Practice Alot Can & Will Shoot Further With Their Long Rangers!

Looked Like The 2nd Shot Hit The Bull in The Back Leg Somewhere!

Everything that’s wrong in hunting in one YouTube video… 17+/- guides and “Willie can I have one more bullet just in case” but at least Jimmy was in good hands as long as he keeps “hitting him”
 
We Are All Guilty of Some Sort Of TECHNOLOGY/GADGETRY!

Some way More Than Others!

But Some Think The SmokePole Scope is The Straw That Broke The Camels Back I Guess?

It En-tales Way More Than That!

Anybody Willing To Give Up Their SWARO Spotters & Bino's?

BE GAWD-DAMNED Smart On What You Wish For/Ban!
 
Slam, 300 or 500 yards is the same with either a muzzy or rifle. 300 yards is 300 yards. No matter the gun type. So 300 or 500 yards with a muzzy should be no more or less of a fair chase issue than the same distance with a rifle.
I agree 100%, but you have missed the point made several times about "as per individual weapon"

The same dispute can be made about a 150 yard archery kill versus a muzzleloader.
150 is 150, but the difference is archery season and archery equipment were never intended to be a 100+ yard hunt.

You limit the one item that changes the weapons abilities and it becomes tamed.
 
I agree 100%, but you have missed the point made several times about "as per individual weapon"

The same dispute can be made about a 150 yard archery kill versus a muzzleloader.
150 is 150, but the difference is archery season and archery equipment were never intended to be a 100+ yard hunt.

You limit the one item that changes the weapons abilities and it becomes tamed.
I believe your the one missing the point being made. There's not a bow out there that has the energy and velocity of a muzzy at 150 yards but there are several rifles out there that actually have less or about the same energy and velocity than a muzzy at 300 yards but they are allowed and never questioned as being a fair chase issue.
 
Last edited:
Go thumb through the muzzleloader forum and look at hundreds of posts and threads about stretching mz's out past 300 yards and then try to convince us that there isn't a high enough percentage of "long range" muzzleloader people out there to propose a limit on optics to tame these rifles, mine included.
 
I know we are all getting burned out on this muzzleloader scope proposal, so this is my final attempt to help explain why the WB summoned a committee for current and emerging technology in the first place.
This thread is about muzzleloaders and that specific hunting season only.

When it was suggested by the RAC in approximately 2014 to allow variable scopes on muzzleloaders through increased public support, there was also heavy push back against it as it could change the dynamics of the hunt, and here we are.

When the data was presented in the second meeting showing only slight spikes in success rates for 2 years, then appearing to settle back to where it was in the 1x days, "Quality" quickly became the critical point over success rates.


let's all be honest here.
People aren't spending $1000 on rifle set ups because they are killing yearling bucks at 100 or even 200 yards, that can be easily done with open sights on an inline rifle.
How many of us old timers remember the backlash in 1985 when inlines hit the market?
I certainly do.
Again, here we are.

"Ethics and Fair Chase"
It's not all about what we currently have in today's world, it's about what will the muzzleloader season look like in 2030 if we don't draw a line on emerging technology.
"Emerging" being the key word.


During the muzzleloader hunt, a weapon and hunt that was originally intended for short to medium ranges.
Is 500 yards still within the realm of fair chase for this specific hunt type?
Is 300?

Look at these examples below and read their selling points to us as consumers. View attachment 81328
View attachment 81326View attachment 81327
View attachment 81329
View attachment 81330View attachment 81332View attachment 81333
View attachment 81331
"200 yards......that description was back in 2014 before we were allowed variables.

"3.5 million model 700's have been sold."
Why so many?

Gunwerks has a 500 yard rifle now that guys are using effectively at double that distance.
Yes it's out of 90% of our price ranges, but so was an 80" TV not long ago.
The more quality goes down, the faster technology develops gadgets for us to still be successful.
"Emerging".

The purpose of the WB's want for a technology committee isn't just about today, it's about our futures.
As I mentioned in another thread, we've already got nanotechnology glass that allows us to see through fog and smoke.
Are we still going to find 500 yard muzzleloader kills through fog ethical and fair chase?
Those terms are already controversial enough.

Hunters evolve, animals do not have that luxury.
Our sport is already under attack from anti-hunting groups, ridiculous technology definitely doesn't help our cause.

And no, the intent of this proposal isn't to flood the hills with thousands of other hunters, that's an absolute absurd conclusion.
How many muzzleloader hunters have we acquired since variable scopes were allowed?
A LOT!!
Why??

In closing.
What is the single most important tool on a muzzleloader that makes all the other components effective and will also keep technology emerging?
The optic.
Limit that one piece, and a muzzleloader remains a medium range weapon for a medium range weapon hunt.

View attachment 81334
Wait a sec, am I picking up a subtle hint now that only muzzy’s will be tempered back?
You have said in quite a few of your posts tech would be cut back on all three weapon types?
 
I believe your the one missing the point being made. There's not a bow out there that has the energy and velocity of a muzzy at 150 yards but there are several rifles out there that actually have less energy and velocity than a muzzy at 300 yards but they are allowed and never questioned as being a fair chase issue.
The argument of the cutting ability of an broadhead versus impact of a bullet was settled ions ago.
Two completely different beasts.
 
I don't have a problem with slowing down future technology but am apposed to taking a step backwards on what we have right now being used by your average joe. I'd rather see a ban on blackhorn 209 or equivalent and any non sabbot bullets less than 50 cal. and only fixed ramrods (no folding ramrods) That would reduce most of your long range muzzy hunters.
 
I don't have a problem with slowing down future technology but am apposed to taking a step backwards on what we have right now being used by your average joe. I'd rather see a ban on blackhorn 209 or equivalent and any non sabbot bullets less than 50 cal. and only fixed ramrods (no folding ramrods) That would reduce most of your long range muzzy hunters.
All those things were brought up, I swear on my life.
I personally brought up various components because there are other states who limit those.

What killed it was law enforcement having the ability to see what powder is inside your barrel underneath the bullet, nor does every officer have extensive enough knowledge about all the various muzzleloader components available.

The scope is easy to identify and enforce, that's what it boiled down to.
 
Great comments for the RAC and WB, you won't be alone.
I saw how well the messages from the public, outfitters and hunting enthusiasts were received regarding the trailcam laws. They subverted the RAC and WB process and then glossed over it with a public meeting to let some people vent. Seems like these technology haters have a pre-determined agenda that they just need to officially go through the process before they can implement and pass their laws and rules. Seems like we don't just need to voice our opinions, but we need to be on these boards and flip this agenda on it's ear.
 
You don’t need a fancy muzzleloader that is marketing a magical 300 yard muzzleloader to make a 300 yard or 400 yard shot if you have the right scope on your muzzleloader. I have a plain Jan CVA Accura V2 (my Winchester Apex was the same as well) that will do it all day long for guns that cost me under $300 at the time I purchased them. Windy days are more difficult with the lower BC bullets I use. These guns are amazing to say the least after you have the right load developed. The change in my same muzzleloaders/same load that was 200 yard capable with my 1x scope are now 300+ yard capable because of my variable scope with a CDS dial. I’m still for going back to the same regulation as before the change to allowing variable scopes on muzzleloaders. I see others points on that other weapons should be tamed as well and not just pick on muzzleloaders. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
 
You don’t need a fancy muzzleloader that is marketing a magical 300 yard muzzleloader to make a 300 yard or 400 yard shot if you have the right scope on your muzzleloader. I have a plain Jan CVA Accura V2 (my Winchester Apex was the same as well) that will do it all day long for guns that cost me under $300 at the time I purchased them. Windy days are more difficult with the lower BC bullets I use. These guns are amazing to say the least after you have the right load developed. The change in my same muzzleloaders/same load that was 200 yard capable with my 1x scope are now 300+ yard capable because of my variable scope with a CDS dial. I’m still for going back to the same regulation as before the change to allowing variable scopes on muzzleloaders. I see others points on that other weapons should be tamed as well and not just pick on muzzleloaders. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
We already know how this plays out; stop being so naive. Slam has already come out of the closet and announced that no changes will be made to archery; scopes will be removed from muzzleloaders and range finding scopes on rifles. That’s it folks; muzzy hunters have been thrown under the bus.
 
Oh dear God.......
Why such a response to an honest question?
I can go back to many of your posts saying that cuts to tech would take place equally among all three weapon types, is that no longer true?
I not only supported that but also championed you and your efforts.
So, do you have an answer for us please?
 
These threads have been a huge waste of time. The committee will recommend to the WB whatever they see fit. Public input will not be considered just like when trail cams were banned. No matter the opposition; Slam has already made up his mind and will not be swayed in any other direction other than his opinion.
 
We already know how this plays out; stop being so naive. Slam has already come out of the closet and announced that no changes will be made to archery; scopes will be removed from muzzleloaders and range finding scopes on rifles. That’s it folks; muzzy hunters have been thrown under the bus.
It's obvious you aren't following along in 5 threads now.

And speaking of "knee jerk reaction and emotion based decisions"......
 
These threads have been a huge waste of time. The committee will recommend to the WB whatever they see fit. Public input will not be considered just like when trail cams were banned. No matter the opposition; Slam has already made up his mind and will not be swayed in any other direction other than his opinion.
Another emotionally based false statement.

You obviously don't know how a committee process works, let alone this entire system before it becomes law and code.

I am not the deciding vote, my single raised hand means exactly 1 vote either way.

These proposals are simply that, a "proposal" summoned by the WB and aren't even remotely close to becoming a set in stone legal change.

You don't even know what I personally voiced to the group and points that I brought up that just might have saved archers from shooting long bows, muzzleloaders from going flintlock or rifles being limited to lever action.

Your saying this committee is basing changes off emotion and reaction, but in reality it's your assumptions that point clearly to those.
 
Another emotionally based false statement.

You obviously don't know how a committee process works, let alone this entire system before it becomes law and code.

I am not the deciding vote, my single raised hand means exactly 1 vote either way.

These proposals are simply that, a "proposal" summoned by the WB and aren't even remotely close to becoming a set in stone legal change.

You don't even know what I personally voiced to the group and points that I brought up that just might have saved archers from shooting long bows, muzzleloaders from going flintlock or rifles being limited to lever action.

Your saying this committee is basing changes off emotion and reaction, but in reality it's your assumptions that point clearly to those.
So you’re saying that the WB will not heed to the committee’s recommendations? I understand how this process works; and at the end of all this nonsense the WB will do exactly what they want. You can’t honestly tell me that you’re only one hand or voice in all this. You’re opinion’s and beliefs are exactly what the Board will adhere to.
 
I probably missed this somewhere in the million posts…. What’s the objective of addressing technology?

Limit harvest, to provide more opportunity? This makes most sense to me, as long as there’s actual data to back it up.

Fair chase? Ehhhh, I have to agree scoped Muzzy’s are as “Fair” as a scoped rifle.


I am one that’s super happy to see the baiting go away. Undignified, unnecessary and flirting seriously with the line of fair chase IMO.
 
So you’re saying that the WB will not heed to the committee’s recommendations? I understand how this process works; and at the end of all this nonsense the WB will do exactly what they want. You can’t honestly tell me that you’re only one hand or voice in all this. You’re opinion’s and beliefs are exactly what the Board will adhere to.
I was referring to me as an individual.
The WB doesn't adhere to what "Slamdunk" says.
 
I have muzzleloader hunted for over 40 years. For the past 20 years in Utah that is what I hunt with unless I draw a limited tag, which is few and far between.

I enjoy the time of the year, the challenge of the weapon and the state the bucks are in at that time of the year and avoid the orange pumpkin patch hunt.

Tech does need to be addressed or it will just continue. However, most are hunting for the big bucks, but for some of those spending the big dollars on custom muzzleloader rifles and scopes it comes down to ego and not their skills. Some want to shoot at extreme ranges to get the blue ribbon and the bragging rights. If it comes down to the last few days I believe that there is that group that will shoot any buck to be able to state that they bagged their buck at 300-1000 yards.

Like stated before, if the rifle tech is not addressed, what mature bucks make it through the archery and muzzleloader hunts have a real disadvantage when they are being taken at 1000+ yards by shooter (NOT HUNTERS) that the animals are not even aware are around.
 
I have muzzleloader hunted for over 40 years. For the past 20 years in Utah that is what I hunt with unless I draw a limited tag, which is few and far between.

I enjoy the time of the year, the challenge of the weapon and the state the bucks are in at that time of the year and avoid the orange pumpkin patch hunt.

Tech does need to be addressed or it will just continue. However, most are hunting for the big bucks, but for some of those spending the big dollars on custom muzzleloader rifles and scopes it comes down to ego and not their skills. Some want to shoot at extreme ranges to get the blue ribbon and the bragging rights. If it comes down to the last few days I believe that there is that group that will shoot any buck to be able to state that they bagged their buck at 300-1000 yards.

Like stated before, if the rifle tech is not addressed, what mature bucks make it through the archery and muzzleloader hunts have a real disadvantage when they are being taken at 1000+ yards by shooter (NOT HUNTERS) that the animals are not even aware are around.
This state has always catered to the rifle hunters. I'm open to change, but archery has already been hammered, muzzy sounds like it's coming. Rifle.......is the cash cow
 
I believe to be fair for each weapon type we should remove scopes, sights and pins. The Indians never had sight pins, early, early rifles didn’t have sights. This would limit each weapon equally, reduce harvest and increase opportunities.
 
I believe to be fair for each weapon type we should remove scopes, sights and pins. The Indians never had sight pins, early, early rifles didn’t have sights. This would limit each weapon equally, reduce harvest and increase opportunities.
And then we can go back to being able to hunt all three weapons type each year.
 
I have read several of the different threads on this subject. Seems like to me if we want more mature deer wouldn’t the 1st step be to do away with the dedicated Hunter program? I personally don’t know any dedicated hunters that will shoot young deer.
 
I have a muzzle loader and use it. And I have had it for about 20 years. I mostly bow hunt, but have rifle hunted more that last 10 years, since my kids can hunt.

With that said, I have been turned off to muzzy's since last fall. I was out with my oldest son on the hunt looking for a buck we had seen that was pretty nice....... very nice! At 1st light I ran into a friend helping a friend for elk. I told them I had seen a few good ones and they asked for help. So it was now an elk hunt and maybe a deer if we were lucky. Long story, we found 3 great bulls and 1 tank bull. As we worked down the ridge to get a better look and to call them out of the trees, the hunters set up at 400 yards. I said we need to cut that in half. He said that he can shoot up to 700 yards with his set up. The bulls came out (not the big one), but the other nice 320 bulls. He took the shot at 400 yards and drilled it in his head. I felt like that was a rifle hunt, not a muzzy hunt. I am against that. that is my feelings and thoughts.

You want to hunt long range muzzy, do it during the rifle hunt. Maybe split the muzzy tags to 2 types. open sight vs sights. apply for one of the other. one is in your traditional time, sighted tag is in the rifle hunt time. Problem solved.
 
I have a muzzle loader and use it. And I have had it for about 20 years. I mostly bow hunt, but have rifle hunted more that last 10 years, since my kids can hunt.

With that said, I have been turned off to muzzy's since last fall. I was out with my oldest son on the hunt looking for a buck we had seen that was pretty nice....... very nice! At 1st light I ran into a friend helping a friend for elk. I told them I had seen a few good ones and they asked for help. So it was now an elk hunt and maybe a deer if we were lucky. Long story, we found 3 great bulls and 1 tank bull. As we worked down the ridge to get a better look and to call them out of the trees, the hunters set up at 400 yards. I said we need to cut that in half. He said that he can shoot up to 700 yards with his set up. The bulls came out (not the big one), but the other nice 320 bulls. He took the shot at 400 yards and drilled it in his head. I felt like that was a rifle hunt, not a muzzy hunt. I am against that. that is my feelings and thoughts.

You want to hunt long range muzzy, do it during the rifle hunt. Maybe split the muzzy tags to 2 types. open sight vs sights. apply for one of the other. one is in your traditional time, sighted tag is in the rifle hunt time. Problem solved.
We do have HAMS hunts for traditional muzzleloaders, but that's simply a scopeless rifle of any style.

I would love to see some units go "traditional only" for deer.

That is for another committee to hash out though.
 
Slam, I know what the HAMS hunt is, and what it is for, but I feel like this is part of the problem. We have hunts for the deer and others, from Aug until Feb. And multiple hunts for deer. Lets narrow those down to the 3 hunts. HAMS should be the regular muzzy hunt. And if they want to do LR muzzy hunt, have that be part of the rifle season dates. Hell, some of the muzzy guys shoot at deer further than I have ever thought about. My furthest kill shot is under 300 yards on all my deer.

honestly, I feel like there needs to be a hard line, and not everybody will be happy. I get it. I have a rifle (Browning A-bolt, 300 win mag, 2 of them) that shoot out to 1000 yards. I have a bow and I shoot regular with it out to 130 yards. My point is, something I like and enjoy will change, and I will be ok with it. Same with cameras, I am ok with it. I will change and adapt to whatever is done. But I feel tech is going way to far and has an impact on our herds and trophy quality. I will use and do whatever the law/rules allows.
 
Great thread in the general forum talking about long range impacting quality regardless of data on successrates....heavy agreance.
 
I'm all about keeping technology in check. My biggest beef with this is it seems like we just barely voted to put variable scopes on muzzy's. Lets not kid ourselves and make the muzzy the scapegoat. I hunted in the 80's and 90's and remember how far we shot with our bows and rifles also. Technology has changed everything! If you honestly want to address this, you can easily change all three hunts to dial it back some. It seems that the bone to pick is only with the muzzy hunters.
 
I'm all about keeping technology in check. My biggest beef with this is it seems like we just barely voted to put variable scopes on muzzy's. Lets not kid ourselves and make the muzzy the scapegoat. I hunted in the 80's and 90's and remember how far we shot with our bows and rifles also. Technology has changed everything! If you honestly want to address this, you can easily change all three hunts to dial it back some. It seems that the bone to pick is only with the muzzy hunters.
No....these 5 threads clearly talk about the technologies emerging on all three weapons and where lines can be drawn.

Muzzleloaders are just being discussed the most because it seems to have upset more of those hunters than the proposed removal of electronics on archery equipment.
The archers are relatively quiet.

Rifles are currently being discussed.

All three will see regulations proposals, whether or not they stick is up to the WB.
 
My guess is the muzzle loader guys realized how much easier it was to be able to see where your shot was going. Given the opportunity for a variable scope a lot of them adopted them. It has already been noted that open and 1X scopes are a hinderance for accurate aiming for a lot of people. Enforcement of scopes is the easy way out.

I don't see much of a run to electronics in archery sights so not likely to see the pushback at this stage,

As for rifle again scopes are easy. 3-9 or maybe 3-12 max. Easily verified. Another lazy way to enforce.

I have yet to see anything presented to limit rifle hunters except electronic scopes.
60-20-20 permit splits would indicate that rifle hunters are a large percentage of hunters eliminating older age class bucks.
 
My guess is the muzzle loader guys realized how much easier it was to be able to see where your shot was going. Given the opportunity for a variable scope a lot of them adopted them. It has already been noted that open and 1X scopes are a hinderance for accurate aiming for a lot of people. Enforcement of scopes is the easy way out.

I don't see much of a run to electronics in archery sights so not likely to see the pushback at this stage,

As for rifle again scopes are easy. 3-9 or maybe 3-12 max. Easily verified. Another lazy way to enforce.

I have yet to see anything presented to limit rifle hunters except electronic scopes.
60-20-20 permit splits would indicate that rifle hunters are a large percentage of hunters eliminating older age class bucks.
#1 Limit technology on all 3
#2 Dramatically reduce rifle permits
#3 Increase archery and muzzleloader opportunities
 
I know we are all getting burned out on this muzzleloader scope proposal, so this is my final attempt to help explain why the WB summoned a committee for current and emerging technology in the first place.
I gave the reason in Tech #1.
It's because Heaton got all Butt Hurt when his Cameras were taken away. He literally had a temper tantrum right there for everyone to see. He basically said if we're going to take away cameras, we're going to go after everything else too.
 
I gave the reason in Tech #1.
It's because Heaton got all Butt Hurt when his Cameras were taken away. He literally had a temper tantrum right there for everyone to see. He basically said if we're going to take away cameras, we're going to go after everything else too.
You are right, he was pizzed, but he is one voice, one vote.
It doesn't boil down to what he wants, otherwise he'd still have his cameras watching apples.
 
You are right, he was pizzed, but he is one voice, one vote.
It doesn't boil down to what he wants, otherwise he'd still have his cameras watching apples.
Yes, But he is the one that got the DWR look at all the other goodies out there.
 
I think if they decide to restrict it should be done on one or two units and see how it goes. Mandatory harvest. Interview the hunters to see what this satisfaction level is after the hunt. If people love it and have a blast on that unit that’s restricted then more and more people will apply for that hunt. If it sucks then it won’t have the point creep as high as other units without the restrictions and hunter satisfaction will be low.

You know, there is a reason why people spend their hard earned money on gadgets and weapons upgrades… THEY WANT TO SUCCEED. I’d take a wild guess that hunts with high success rates also have a high Hunter satisfaction rating. So with that being said, are we just trying to dilute hunting because we are afraid to manage using tags?
 
I think if they decide to restrict it should be done on one or two units and see how it goes. Mandatory harvest. Interview the hunters to see what this satisfaction level is after the hunt. If people love it and have a blast on that unit that’s restricted then more and more people will apply for that hunt. If it sucks then it won’t have the point creep as high as other units without the restrictions and hunter satisfaction will be low.

You know, there is a reason why people spend their hard earned money on gadgets and weapons upgrades… THEY WANT TO SUCCEED. I’d take a wild guess that hunts with high success rates also have a high Hunter satisfaction rating. So with that being said, are we just trying to dilute hunting because we are afraid to manage using tags?
Yep, I've stated this many times.
"The more quality continues to decline, the more technology develops way to make you successful".
Compounds the problem.
 
I know we are all getting burned out on this muzzleloader scope proposal, so this is my final attempt to help explain why the WB summoned a committee for current and emerging technology in the first place.
This thread is about muzzleloaders and that specific hunting season only.

When it was suggested by the RAC in approximately 2014 to allow variable scopes on muzzleloaders through increased public support, there was also heavy push back against it as it could change the dynamics of the hunt, and here we are.

When the data was presented in the second meeting showing only slight spikes in success rates for 2 years, then appearing to settle back to where it was in the 1x days, "Quality" quickly became the critical point over success rates.


let's all be honest here.
People aren't spending $1000 on rifle set ups because they are killing yearling bucks at 100 or even 200 yards, that can be easily done with open sights on an inline rifle.
How many of us old timers remember the backlash in 1985 when inlines hit the market?
I certainly do.
Again, here we are.

"Ethics and Fair Chase"
It's not all about what we currently have in today's world, it's about what will the muzzleloader season look like in 2030 if we don't draw a line on emerging technology.
"Emerging" being the key word.


During the muzzleloader hunt, a weapon and hunt that was originally intended for short to medium ranges.
Is 500 yards still within the realm of fair chase for this specific hunt type?
Is 300?

Look at these examples below and read their selling points to us as consumers. View attachment 81328
View attachment 81326View attachment 81327
View attachment 81329
View attachment 81330View attachment 81332View attachment 81333
View attachment 81331
"200 yards......that description was back in 2014 before we were allowed variables.

"3.5 million model 700's have been sold."
Why so many?

Gunwerks has a 500 yard rifle now that guys are using effectively at double that distance.
Yes it's out of 90% of our price ranges, but so was an 80" TV not long ago.
The more quality goes down, the faster technology develops gadgets for us to still be successful.
"Emerging".

The purpose of the WB's want for a technology committee isn't just about today, it's about our futures.
As I mentioned in another thread, we've already got nanotechnology glass that allows us to see through fog and smoke.
Are we still going to find 500 yard muzzleloader kills through fog ethical and fair chase?
Those terms are already controversial enough.

Hunters evolve, animals do not have that luxury.
Our sport is already under attack from anti-hunting groups, ridiculous technology definitely doesn't help our cause.

And no, the intent of this proposal isn't to flood the hills with thousands of other hunters, that's an absolute absurd conclusion.
How many muzzleloader hunters have we acquired since variable scopes were allowed?
A LOT!!
Why??

In closing.
What is the single most important tool on a muzzleloader that makes all the other components effective and will also keep technology emerging?
The optic.
Limit that one piece, and a muzzleloader remains a medium range weapon for a medium range weapon hunt.

View attachment 81334
Doug, you and I usually agree on everything but this I have to disagree with, and there are a lot of guys on here and other places who shoot 500 plus yards with open sites with their muzzleloaders. Sliding open peep sights are a very common site in states that don’t allow optics. Here is just one article telling you what to do… https://www.gohunt.com/read/skills/extending-the-range-on-your-open-sight-muzzleloader

New Mexico is a prime example of allowing scopes, yet somehow their herds aren't getting shot out and quality is just as good as ours… heck their elk herd is even bigger then ours and keeps growing.

The biggest most effective tool we have during the muzzleloader hunt are the dates! You have elk being stupid with love, and deer still transitioning from open faces to dark timber. Changes the dates and success drops!
 
Doug, you and I usually agree on everything but this I have to disagree with, and there are a lot of guys on here and other places who shoot 500 plus yards with open sites with their muzzleloaders. Sliding open peep sights are a very common site in states that don’t allow optics. Here is just one article telling you what to do… https://www.gohunt.com/read/skills/extending-the-range-on-your-open-sight-muzzleloader

New Mexico is a prime example of allowing scopes, yet somehow their herds aren't getting shot out and quality is just as good as ours… heck their elk herd is even bigger then ours and keeps growing.

The biggest most effective tool we have during the muzzleloader hunt are the dates! You have elk being stupid with love, and deer still transitioning from open faces to dark timber. Changes the dates and success drops!
Now they will try and ban sliding peep sights. Thanks a lot fireman!?
 
Doug, you and I usually agree on everything but this I have to disagree with, and there are a lot of guys on here and other places who shoot 500 plus yards with open sites with their muzzleloaders. Sliding open peep sights are a very common site in states that don’t allow optics. Here is just one article telling you what to do… https://www.gohunt.com/read/skills/extending-the-range-on-your-open-sight-muzzleloader

New Mexico is a prime example of allowing scopes, yet somehow their herds aren't getting shot out and quality is just as good as ours… heck their elk herd is even bigger then ours and keeps growing.

The biggest most effective tool we have during the muzzleloader hunt are the dates! You have elk being stupid with love, and deer still transitioning from open faces to dark timber. Changes the dates and success drops!
Don't get too excited just yet....?
Screenshot_20220721-060658_Chrome.jpg
 
Don't get too excited just yet....?
View attachment 81650

That's because y'all started this mess...
 
I agree with you 100% We have caused this mess. We all want the latest and greatest technology to be more Successful. Couldn't Agree with you more.

Scopes were never an issue before. Now suddenly they are, all at the same time UT went on this self righteous war path.
 
Scopes were never an issue before.
How do you know they were never an issue?
Now suddenly they are, all at the same time UT went on this self righteous war path.
Blame Utah all you want. But there is other states that already have restrictions on Muzzleloaders.
If you don't like it then switch states pretty simple.

I guess we will be seeing you and everyone else at all the RAC meeting and the wildlife board meeting. Make sure you bring your data to back up your claim.
 
Last edited:
How do you know they were never an issue?

Blame Utah all you want. But there is other states that already have restrictions on Muzzleloaders.
If you don't like it then switch states pretty simple.

I guess we will be seeing you and everyone else at all the RAC meeting and the wildlife board meeting. Make sure you bring your data to back up your claim.
I believe RR is a NM guy. I’d back him and say that’s my impression as well. New Mexico ain’t Utah, mostly because it’s not full of Utah’ns.

I grew up there, and I’ve hunted Utah a little. Apples and Bowling balls……
 
“Technologies that impact harvest success”
That’s what started what everyone is talking about. And this started last year. This isn’t just about long range muzzleloaders. It deals with rangefinders/dial up scopes/ballistic solutions on center fire rifles/single pin sliders on archery equipment/trail cameras and much much more. Moves were made to restrict trail cams from last years meetings and more will be coming. Much of it has already been passed and approved and we will likely see it coming out slowly over the next year for “public sentiment/comment”
Much of what has been posted will end up in an ethics argument. For some shooting at long ranges is very unethical and others will argue that short range hunters can’t hit their target. When variable power scopes were legalized in Utah a few years back - it was argued that more animals would be humanly harvested and less would be wounded. And now the DWR wants scopes removed because success rates went through the roof on limited entry elk units with muzzleloaders.
Let’s talk about the HAMS hunt now. A pistol with a barrel no longer than 15” can be used.(An encore barreled 6.5 creedmore is an example) A muzzleloader ( .45 cal paramount as an example) can be used. With the proper adjustable peep sights that can be found -either one of the above can be shot with accuracy easily at 500 yards and with practice much further. How many hunters with the above weapons would take that long shot on a HAMS hunt ? And how many without any practice would take a long shot? And how many older hunters are there with old eyes that can even see through the peep sight -that’s me and I can’t so the HAMS hunt is only for guys with excellent vision. This could go on forever with debates on several sides. I’ve seen guys with X works rifles shooting across big canyons at elk that don’t have the experience or the ethics to do it. I’ve also seen some hunters that can do it better at long range than most can at short range.
I’m closing -Old eyes need a scope but they don’t need a drone (emerging technology) to do thier hunting for them. The line has to be drawn somewhere- but taking optics off muzzleloaders isn’t the answer. Limit tag numbers and or change dates if success rates are too high.
 
Slam, have you guys submitted your recommendations about Muzzy regs to the WB already or is this something that will be submitted all at once?
 
Slam, have you guys submitted your recommendations about Muzzy regs to the WB already or is this something that will be submitted all at once?
Not yet, we've still got a few more meetings to go before we wrap up.

If you've got any input, I'm all ears. You can either post it or message me, either one.

I had some great conversations while at the RMEF event this weekend.
Heavy support on ditching variable scopes, but 1x is like looking through binoculars backwards.......I couldn't agree more.
 
Not yet, we've still got a few more meetings to go before we wrap up.

If you've got any input, I'm all ears. You can either post it or message me, either one.

I had some great conversations while at the RMEF event this weekend.
Heavy support on ditching variable scopes, but 1x is like looking through binoculars backwards.......I couldn't agree more.
Slam, don't act like there hasn't been a ton of push back the other way as well.

originally I agreed with removing them, but if the data you posted in another thread is accurate taking scopes will do nothing to further the stated agenda of the group, success rates were not effected by them allowing scopes. There is no reason to do away with it if the data doesn't support it. I don't care how many people have killed a deer from further then someone else deems fit, that really shouldn't matter if the overall success is not changed.

If they really want to lower success rates the only thing... and I mean the only thing is to take tags away from rifle and give them to the lower success rate weapons like archery and muzzleloader to a lesser extent.

And as I stated before, going back to 1x is not a compromise, like you originally stated, a true compromise would be to allow some magnification but not leave it wide open. There are lots of 1-4x scopes on the market that would fit as a true compromise. I suggest if you guys do anything with the scopes it is to move for that.
 
Slam, don't act like there hasn't been a ton of push back the other way as well.

originally I agreed with removing them, but if the data you posted in another thread is accurate taking scopes will do nothing to further the stated agenda of the group, success rates were not effected by them allowing scopes. There is no reason to do away with it if the data doesn't support it. I don't care how many people have killed a deer from further then someone else deems fit, that really shouldn't matter if the overall success is not changed.

If they really want to lower success rates the only thing... and I mean the only thing is to take tags away from rifle and give them to the lower success rate weapons like archery and muzzleloader to a lesser extent.

And as I stated before, going back to 1x is not a compromise, like you originally stated, a true compromise would be to allow some magnification but not leave it wide open. There are lots of 1-4x scopes on the market that would fit as a true compromise. I suggest if you guys do anything with the scopes it is to move for that.
I am all for a 4x Jake, but again this is a majority vote.
Also keep in mind the WB is only asking for proposals, the committee vote isn't the new rule, law or code.

There's a long way to go on this thing.
 
I am all for a 4x Jake, but again this is a majority vote.
Also keep in mind the WB is only asking for proposals, the committee vote isn't the new rule, law or code.

There's a long way to go on this thing.
Yeah I know all you guys are doing is suggestions for the WB, And I am glad you have come on here and been so open about the process. That is a big help in keeping people aware of what is coming down the pike so they are not blind sided by it in the future. But there are still a lot of people that don't know anything about what is being discussed.
 
Slam, don't act like there hasn't been a ton of push back the other way as well.

originally I agreed with removing them, but if the data you posted in another thread is accurate taking scopes will do nothing to further the stated agenda of the group, success rates were not effected by them allowing scopes. There is no reason to do away with it if the data doesn't support it. I don't care how many people have killed a deer from further then someone else deems fit, that really shouldn't matter if the overall success is not changed.

If they really want to lower success rates the only thing... and I mean the only thing is to take tags away from rifle and give them to the lower success rate weapons like archery and muzzleloader to a lesser extent.

And as I stated before, going back to 1x is not a compromise, like you originally stated, a true compromise would be to allow some magnification but not leave it wide open. There are lots of 1-4x scopes on the market that would fit as a true compromise. I suggest if you guys do anything with the scopes it is to move for that.
This data controversy riddles me.
When the biologists provide data on deer numbers per unit, this MM crowd immediately throws it out the window and challenges it with personal views and observations.

Here the data was shown and it miraculously becomes gospel.

The biologists use models on their counts. They count animals in certain areas and divide those by square miles or acres and come up with their models.
We all know it's flawed and not actual, so we find it easy to strongly disagree.

In this case, a committee is comprised of approximately 15 individuals.
5 of which are avid muzzleloader hunters.
3 of those 5 described to the committee their own personal kills of 500+ yards and one over 1000 with a Gunwerks rifle.
This is a "model" of its own making, is it not?

Would those 3 who killed at 500+ filled their tags either way whether it was 500 or 100?
Probably yes, so the data wouldn't move because a filled tag is a filled tag.

As for "quality" in this scenario, would the 3, 500+ yard "trophy" bucks been killed had those rifles not been scoped with high powered optics?
Absolutely not, but there is no available data showing our ability to cherry pick quality.

Why has the trophy quality tanked on the Henry’s yet the overall deer numbers and buck to do radios are good?
Because we've allowed it to be cherry picked.
Way too many tags versus quality bucks.

Data doesn't tell the whole story.
We all know there's not 20k deer on the Beaver unit ?
 
Last edited:
This data controversy riddles me.
When the biologists provide data on deer numbers per unit, this MM crowd immediately throws it out the window and challenges it with personal views and observations.

Here the data was shown and it miraculously becomes gospel.

The biologists use models on their counts. They count animals in certain areas and divide those by square miles or acres and come up with their models.
We all know it's flawed and not actual, so we find it easy to strongly disagree.

In this case, a committee is comprised of approximately 15 individuals.
5 of which are avid muzzleloader hunters.
3 of those 5 described to the committee their own personal kills of 500+ yards and one over 1000 with a Gunwerks rifle.
This is a "model" of its own making, is it not?

Would those 3 who killed at 500+ filled their tags either way whether it was 500 or 100?
Probably yes, so the data wouldn't move because a filled tag is a filled tag.

As for "quality" in this scenario, would the 3, 500÷ yard "trophy" bucks been killed had those rifles not been scoped with high powered optics?
Absolutely not, but there is no available data showing our ability to cherry pick quality.

Why has the trophy quality tanked on the Henry’s yet the overall deer numbers and buck to do radios are good?
Because we've allowed it to be cherry picked.
Way too many tags versus quality bucks.

Data doesn't tell the whole story.
We all know there's not 20k deer on the Beaver unit ?
Don't lump me in with the data is flawed crowd, While I think it could be better I am not of the mindset that it is without merit.

To me you are generalizing a very very difficult issue, one that I feel is mostly out of ours or the DWR's control. I see lots of people point out how it was just a few years ago the DWR was touting how we had some of the best herds every, and while I didn't necessarily agree with that claim, I 100% definitely seen an increase in numbers and quality in the years leading up to that year. Then what happened? We had several extremely dry years. Why is that important? I fully believe that is the biggest problem our deer have faced in the last few years, I think the doe's are aborting fawns, or there body conditions have been so poor they was not able to nurse them fully and lots and lots of fawns died, that compared with everything else that has been killing them and the overall herd heath and quality has severely diminished.

To me it is plain and simple, this is part of an on going cycle, deer herds fluctuate and I honestly feel the DWR are for the most part trying there best to do the right thing. There are several studies going right now that I feel will help prove this. They are already saying that this past winter had the fattest doe's they have ever tested since they have been doing that kind of testing. Why is that? We had a very wet fall, The mountain was greener in October then it was in June, You watch next year the herd numbers will be higher then last years. And if things keep going like they have been we are looking good this year as well, at least in my part of the state (NE), I cant speak for everywhere.

Will taking scopes off muzzleloaders fix the poor quality we are seeing??? No, that's just crazy to think. You bring up the Henrys, that unit is managed for extreme quality, if they are having issues keeping the quality up I would say there are bigger issues as they give out very few tags. I read somewhere else that the overall heard on the hennery's has dropped by a significant percentage over the last few years, in fact I believe it was in one of the DWR proposals but I'm not 100% sure of that. To me that is the cause for the drop in quality. There simply just has not been enough new deer coming up to replace what is being taken out, and considering they do not do any doe hunts on the unit that is alarming, that tells you right there that there is a bigger overall problem. It has nothing to do with scopes on muzzys.

If the data you presented had showed even a moderate increase in success % I would be right there with you saying lets take it back to how it was, I fully expected there to be a higher success rate and argued for scopes to be removed just a couple months ago.

But it is very clear that archery and muzzleloaders are not the driver of the downfall of game, I wont even go as far to say that rifles are, but if you are going to do anything to decrease success rate the only one that you could advocate changing is rifles.

I do agree we need to get ahead of the upcoming tech that is in the works and fully agree with making some rules that will keep it out of the field during hunting season.

In the end it does not matter how far the deer was killed if it was going to be killed anyway, and the data that has been presented suggests just that, you can claim it helps to cherry pick the quality, but you haven't presented anything to show that other then an example of 3 trophy deer hunters that wouldn't have shot it unless it was a trophy in the first place, How many of those 3 were in the dedicated hunter program? Chances are they would have had opportunity to kill the same buck during rifle had they not killed during muzzy. I will go out on a limb here an say at least 2 of the 3 are in the dedicated program unless they was hunting on LE unit.
 
This data controversy riddles me.
When the biologists provide data on deer numbers per unit, this MM crowd immediately throws it out the window and challenges it with personal views and observations.

Here the data was shown and it miraculously becomes gospel.

The biologists use models on their counts. They count animals in certain areas and divide those by square miles or acres and come up with their models.
We all know it's flawed and not actual, so we find it easy to strongly disagree.

In this case, a committee is comprised of approximately 15 individuals.
5 of which are avid muzzleloader hunters.
3 of those 5 described to the committee their own personal kills of 500+ yards and one over 1000 with a Gunwerks rifle.
This is a "model" of its own making, is it not?

Would those 3 who killed at 500+ filled their tags either way whether it was 500 or 100?
Probably yes, so the data wouldn't move because a filled tag is a filled tag.

As for "quality" in this scenario, would the 3, 500÷ yard "trophy" bucks been killed had those rifles not been scoped with high powered optics?
Absolutely not, but there is no available data showing our ability to cherry pick quality.

Why has the trophy quality tanked on the Henry’s yet the overall deer numbers and buck to do radios are good?
Because we've allowed it to be cherry picked.
Way too many tags versus quality bucks.

Data doesn't tell the whole story.
We all know there's not 20k deer on the Beaver unit ?
The two examples of data that you can't figure out are gathered in two different ways and you know it. Deer counts use fly overs and a model to determine it is not a one for one count, you know how they work. The data on success with a muzzleloader is a call to someone and they are asked did you kill a deer...yes.... ok did you use a muzzleloader...yes... no guessing exactly what they said is put into the data. Please don't say they could lie so the data is useless.

So 2/3rds of those making this decision do not even hunt with a muzzleloader and are making this change for the rest of us. ?? WOW just WOW?. And no you can't say that those 3 bucks ABSOLUTELY would not have been killed without the scopes. How would you every know that? your opinion ONLY. I say they absolutely would have been killed. See how easy that is.

And you still asking for input is not being honest. You and this committee have made up your minds. Again the true reason comes out that it is not about saving any deer (which it should be) its all about quality for you. Is that the same for the rest of the committee? I will ask again how many quality bucks will survive with the change and how many of those will survive the rifle hunt?
I also have asked this several times but you will not answer so I will try one more time. What did you and this so called committee say about all the money and time folks have put into their scopes? Was it a tuff stuff their choice.?

Holly SH!! ONLY 5 of 15 people even hunt with a muzzleloader making such a BIG change of the rest of us. Still shaking my head on that one. Do any of these other 10 people even hunt? Wait let me guess they are rifle hunters and that is why muzzleloaders are being addressed and the rifles are being left basically alone. Makes sense now!!!!!!!!!!

So if you don't believe the data that is there now showing the scopes made no difference in the harvest how will you show changing them helped not only with number of deer but how are you going to show that more of your quality (BIG) bucks survived?

And I agree with Jake the decrease of the deer the last few years has to do with the dry years we have had. Removing these scopes will have nothing to do with the herds increasing when we start getting improved weather. But I would be willing to bet this committee will claim just that.
 
The two examples of data that you can't figure out are gathered in two different ways and you know it. Deer counts use fly overs and a model to determine it is not a one for one count, you know how they work. The data on success with a muzzleloader is a call to someone and they are asked did you kill a deer...yes.... ok did you use a muzzleloader...yes... no guessing exactly what they said is put into the data. Please don't say they could lie so the data is useless.

So 2/3rds of those making this decision do not even hunt with a muzzleloader and are making this change for the rest of us. ?? WOW just WOW?. And no you can't say that those 3 bucks ABSOLUTELY would not have been killed without the scopes. How would you every know that? your opinion ONLY. I say they absolutely would have been killed. See how easy that is.

And you still asking for input is not being honest. You and this committee have made up your minds. Again the true reason comes out that it is not about saving any deer (which it should be) its all about quality for you. Is that the same for the rest of the committee? I will ask again how many quality bucks will survive with the change and how many of those will survive the rifle hunt?
I also have asked this several times but you will not answer so I will try one more time. What did you and this so called committee say about all the money and time folks have put into their scopes? Was it a tuff stuff their choice.?

Holly SH!! ONLY 5 of 15 people even hunt with a muzzleloader making such a BIG change of the rest of us. Still shaking my head on that one. Do any of these other 10 people even hunt? Wait let me guess they are rifle hunters and that is why muzzleloaders are being addressed and the rifles are being left basically alone. Makes sense now!!!!!!!!!!

So if you don't believe the data that is there now showing the scopes made no difference in the harvest how will you show changing them helped not only with number of deer but how are you going to show that more of your quality (BIG) bucks survived?

And I agree with Jake the decrease of the deer the last few years has to do with the dry years we have had. Removing these scopes will have nothing to do with the herds increasing when we start getting improved weather. But I would be willing to bet this committee will claim just that.
You probably should take a little time and go back through all these threads so you can follow along more accurately, starting with the last post you dissected to fit your narrative.
 
You probably should take a little time and go back through all these threads so you can follow along more accurately, starting with the last post you dissected to fit your narrative.
I have read every one of them. Sorry my post did not fit your narrative and get a thumbs up. You haven't answered the questions all along don't know why I thought this time would be any different. The only reason there is "all these threads" is because you were looking to try and justify your vote on this. Period.

Only want to hear one side. I hope the WB is more open minded. And yes I will let them know how I fell about this useless change.

edit was for something I said because of the response to my post and should not have so I taken it out.
 
Last edited:
Don't lump me in with the data is flawed crowd, While I think it could be better I am not of the mindset that it is without merit.

To me you are generalizing a very very difficult issue, one that I feel is mostly out of ours or the DWR's control. I see lots of people point out how it was just a few years ago the DWR was touting how we had some of the best herds every, and while I didn't necessarily agree with that claim, I 100% definitely seen an increase in numbers and quality in the years leading up to that year. Then what happened? We had several extremely dry years. Why is that important? I fully believe that is the biggest problem our deer have faced in the last few years, I think the doe's are aborting fawns, or there body conditions have been so poor they was not able to nurse them fully and lots and lots of fawns died, that compared with everything else that has been killing them and the overall herd heath and quality has severely diminished.

To me it is plain and simple, this is part of an on going cycle, deer herds fluctuate and I honestly feel the DWR are for the most part trying there best to do the right thing. There are several studies going right now that I feel will help prove this. They are already saying that this past winter had the fattest doe's they have ever tested since they have been doing that kind of testing. Why is that? We had a very wet fall, The mountain was greener in October then it was in June, You watch next year the herd numbers will be higher then last years. And if things keep going like they have been we are looking good this year as well, at least in my part of the state (NE), I cant speak for everywhere.

Will taking scopes off muzzleloaders fix the poor quality we are seeing??? No, that's just crazy to think. You bring up the Henrys, that unit is managed for extreme quality, if they are having issues keeping the quality up I would say there are bigger issues as they give out very few tags. I read somewhere else that the overall heard on the hennery's has dropped by a significant percentage over the last few years, in fact I believe it was in one of the DWR proposals but I'm not 100% sure of that. To me that is the cause for the drop in quality. There simply just has not been enough new deer coming up to replace what is being taken out, and considering they do not do any doe hunts on the unit that is alarming, that tells you right there that there is a bigger overall problem. It has nothing to do with scopes on muzzys.

If the data you presented had showed even a moderate increase in success % I would be right there with you saying lets take it back to how it was, I fully expected there to be a higher success rate and argued for scopes to be removed just a couple months ago.

But it is very clear that archery and muzzleloaders are not the driver of the downfall of game, I wont even go as far to say that rifles are, but if you are going to do anything to decrease success rate the only one that you could advocate changing is rifles.

I do agree we need to get ahead of the upcoming tech that is in the works and fully agree with making some rules that will keep it out of the field during hunting season.

In the end it does not matter how far the deer was killed if it was going to be killed anyway, and the data that has been presented suggests just that, you can claim it helps to cherry pick the quality, but you haven't presented anything to show that other then an example of 3 trophy deer hunters that wouldn't have shot it unless it was a trophy in the first place, How many of those 3 were in the dedicated hunter program? Chances are they would have had opportunity to kill the same buck during rifle had they not killed during muzzy. I will go out on a limb here an say at least 2 of the 3 are in the dedicated program unless they was hunting on LE unit.
I respect you and your views Jake, thank you.

These tech proposals aren't meant to be the fix all tool to rebuild our engine, they are a couple tools inside a massive rolling tool chest used to "help" rebuild our wildlife engine.

It doesn't need to be stated again, but doe's create more deer, not bucks.
I believe you are correct that drought is the number 1 killer of our deer herds in general, then predators followed by highway mortality.

These tech proposals are not meant to rebuild our herds, it's been stated numerous times throughout multiple threads.

Here's my take based off all the countless hours I have spent on this forum with these threads.
There is enough solid agreement a line needs to be drawn in the sand in both current and emerging technology we haven't even seen yet.
It may seem there is overwhelming pushback on these Utah forum threads because it is focused on us, but let's all see the other threads in General forums from hunters in surrounding states. Its like reading two completely separate forum sites.
Also, I am seeing that the ones pushing back so hard aren't willing to change what they are currently doing yet want the Division to miraculously rebuild our herd numbers and quality without affecting how we continue taking game.

These comments aren't directed at you Jake, they are in general.
I know you are a concerned sportsman's and are willing to do your part when and where you can.
 
Last edited:
I did some research last night. This is muzzleloader.

In 2013
Permits issued was 15,694
Hunter afield was. 13,578
With 30.7% success

In 2014
Permits issued was 15,825
Hunter afield was. 13,502
With 31.1% success

In 2015
Permits issued was 16,149
Hunter afield was. 13,873
With 34.5% success

In 2016
Permits issued was 16,941
Hunter afield was. 14,561
With 39.3 % success

In 2017
Permits issued was 16,279
Hunter afield was. 14,218
With 33.5% success

In 2018
Permits issued was. 16,734
Hunter afield was. 14,134
With 37.5% success

In 2019
Permits issued was. 16,342
Hunter’s afield was. 13,840
With 27% success

In 2020
Permits issued was 14,712
Hunter’s afield was. 12,801
With 30.1. % success.

There is no data on 2021 but we all know there was less tags that year as well.

But it pretty obvious that there was a spike in success in 2016. This is when scopes where allowed.
 
The mindset of the "won't fix herds guys" is entirely the wrong mindset.

In times of plenty, you can up the tech to increase the take, because there is more animals.

But when the inverse is true, you can't keep hitting them as hard.

For the younger crowd. We had a November muzzleloader season. But even with side hammer, pre pyrodex and sabot guns, we were hitti g the deer, generally the top end, too hard. So the season went to Sept. The world didn't end. More people muzzy hunt now than then.

And yes. If we decide to go to sticks and rocks, I'll buy a tag every year. So that stupid argument is just that.

If you need/want a rifle that shoots 500 yards, there is a Any Weapon season. You can load up your extreme range Rem, put a scope on it, and enjoy yourself.

Utah should simply follow surrounding states regs. Makes it worthwhile for manufacturers. Makes it easier to cross borders, and won't hurt the herds at all.

That's the mindset that we need.

Will it hurt the herds? Losing scopes won't. And I doubt highly any muzzy hunter will quit, because there ain't scopes.
 
If they change , at least leave the 1X in play.


Why?

In all honesty.


Father time grabs us all.

I shoot a 65' bow.

I can see where that will drop down. If I can't pull a bow, then I quit, I relish the time I had, and move on.

If you can't see open sights, with fiber optics, perhaps it's time to move to any weapon.

After 32 years of sheetrocking, my back, shoulders and knees aren't going to allow for backpack hunts into wilderness areas. That's life. I don't go demanding we cut a road in, so I can drive in. I simply say hunt out of the RV, and am thankful for every minute I get to do so.

At some point, I'll be a100% road hunter. And I'll be blessed for that time.

That's life.
 
If they change , at least leave the 1X in play.
Have you tried Multi focal contact lenses?

(Not bifocal.)

When my vision started getting worse about 15 years ago I tried wearing glasses but didn’t like the feel while hunting and glassing. My eye doctor suggested Multi focal contact lenses They work great and I’ve been wearing them ever since.
I can shoot a bow just fine with them.
Shooting a rifle with open sites wearing Multi focal contact lenses is better than shooting with a
1x scope. I tried it.
Open sites with Multi focal contact lenses is better.
They can be a bit of a pain to put on in the dark in hunting camp but with practice I got used to it.
Beats the heck out of wearing glasses while hunting.
 
Slam,
In your post on 7/7, you said all types of weaponry will have tech cuts.
Maybe losing scopes on muzzleloaders would be an easier pill to swallow if you would please elaborate on the tech cuts to the archery and rifle regulations?

D2089FC8-EBE3-4BA9-82A7-C69B5C4148E3.jpeg
 
Have you tried Multi focal contact lenses?

(Not bifocal.)

When my vision started getting worse about 15 years ago I tried wearing glasses but didn’t like the feel while hunting and glassing. My eye doctor suggested Multi focal contact lenses They work great and I’ve been wearing them ever since.
I can shoot a bow just fine with them.
Shooting a rifle with open sites wearing Multi focal contact lenses is better than shooting with a
1x scope. I tried it.
Open sites with Multi focal contact lenses is better.
They can be a bit of a pain to put on in the dark in hunting camp but with practice I got used to it.
Beats the heck out of wearing glasses while hunting.
Isn't that a technical advance?
No corrective lenses. That will improve quality.
 
@MrShane
I have posted several times throughout these threads about all 3 weapon proposals, but it keeps getting drowned out.
The fact that the muzzleloader scope proposal continues to overshadow everything else says a lot about their purpose and value to being successful.
If data didn't show much of an Increase in success, why is the argument so strong to keep them?
I haven't had a single archer complain about losing his Garmin sight yet.

Archery Proposal-
No electronics on the bow
(no automatic ranging capabilities)

Muzzleloader Proposal-
1x scope w/reticle or red dot

Rifle Proposal-
No electronics on or inside the scope except for illuminated reticles. This is is still pending as we address the wording on the reticles as in needs to coincide with a 1x muzzleloader red dot.
(no automatic ranging capabilities)

None of these are drastic changes.
They are focused on the future of emerging technologies being developed resulting in more affordable and more widely used in the field.

If any of these proposals inhibit success as a hunter, golfing might be a better past time.
 
Have you tried Multi focal contact lenses?

(Not bifocal.)

When my vision started getting worse about 15 years ago I tried wearing glasses but didn’t like the feel while hunting and glassing. My eye doctor suggested Multi focal contact lenses They work great and I’ve been wearing them ever since.
I can shoot a bow just fine with them.
Shooting a rifle with open sites wearing Multi focal contact lenses is better than shooting with a
1x scope. I tried it.
Open sites with Multi focal contact lenses is better.
They can be a bit of a pain to put on in the dark in hunting camp but with practice I got used to it.
Beats the heck out of wearing glasses while hunting.
We need to ban multi focal contacts! Sound like you have a big advantage over someone who chooses not to wear contacts and you'll be killing more than your fair share.
 
The mindset of the "won't fix herds guys" is entirely the wrong mindset.

In times of plenty, you can up the tech to increase the take, because there is more animals.

But when the inverse is true, you can't keep hitting them as hard.

For the younger crowd. We had a November muzzleloader season. But even with side hammer, pre pyrodex and sabot guns, we were hitti g the deer, generally the top end, too hard. So the season went to Sept. The world didn't end. More people muzzy hunt now than then.

And yes. If we decide to go to sticks and rocks, I'll buy a tag every year. So that stupid argument is just that.

If you need/want a rifle that shoots 500 yards, there is a Any Weapon season. You can load up your extreme range Rem, put a scope on it, and enjoy yourself.

Utah should simply follow surrounding states regs. Makes it worthwhile for manufacturers. Makes it easier to cross borders, and won't hurt the herds at all.

That's the mindset that we need.

Will it hurt the herds? Losing scopes won't. And I doubt highly any muzzy hunter will quit, because there ain't scopes.
Which surrounding states? Funny you guys that keep saying this only cherry pick the states that suit your need.
 
Which surrounding states? Funny you guys that keep saying this only cherry pick the states that suit your need.
The committee chairmen had every surrounding states rules, regs and harvest data presented for us to use as a guide in coming up with proposals.
We didn't go anywhere near as deep with regulations as some states who don't let you use components like pelletized powders, 209 primers, sabots, or absolutely no scope at all.
 
I wish there was an offering of fixed 3x.
If there is, I haven't seen it.
Not a big enough market for low power or no power scopes unless it like an Eotech style for AR15's.
 
The committee chairmen had every surrounding states rules, regs and harvest data presented for us to use as a guide in coming up with proposals.
We didn't go anywhere near as deep with regulations as some states who don't let you use components like pelletized powders, 209 primers, sabots, or absolutely no scope at all.


Kinda sad.

Up to me


Wood stocks, side hammer, #11caps, no sabots, no pellets, open sights.

Otherwise we are using single shot rifles.

And YES, I own a lot better "muzzy" than that.


Again. If you want to hunt rifle season, do it.

Biggest mistake DWR made was going away from "primitive"
 
Kinda sad.

Up to me


Wood stocks, side hammer, #11caps, no sabots, no pellets, open sights.

Otherwise we are using single shot rifles.

And YES, I own a lot better "muzzy" than that.


Again. If you want to hunt rifle season, do it.

Biggest mistake DWR made was going away from "primitive"
Even the committee struggled defining "primitive" for the HAMS hunts muzzleloader, and we settled on simply no scope.
 
Bearpaw Outfitters

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

Wild West Outfitters

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

J & J Outfitters

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

Shane Scott Outfitting

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

Utah Big Game Outfitters

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

Apex Outfitters

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

Urge 2 Hunt

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

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

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

Lickity Split Outfitters

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

Back
Top Bottom